LEVERAGING COST IN LAND TITLING · Land titling provides an opportunity to address inequality in land ownership. However, the progress remains limited due to low awareness and patriarchy

LEVERAGING COST IN LAND TITLINGINSIGHTS FROM A REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER’S PRACTICES

V V

More than 80% of villages in Tanzania do not have land use plans largely because of relatively higher costs associated with undertaking the initiative. This situation limits titling, undermines tenure security and complicates conflict resolution. This research report presents findings on mechanisms for leveraging cost in land tilting as practiced by stakeholders. It shows a range of possibilities that can be explored in order to expand affordability, accelerate the titling pace and enhance sustainability of the initiative.

V V

3Leveraging Cost in Land Titling: Insights from a review of stakeholders’ practices

CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 9

1. INTRODUCTION 11

1.1 Overview of Land Titling in Tanzania 11

1.2 Research objectives 12

1.2.1 Specific objectives 13

1.3 Scope of the research 13

1.4 Methodology 13

1.5 Conceptual Framework 14

2. LEGAL REGIME GOVERNING LAND TITLING 16

2.1 Categories of land in Tanzania 16

2.1.1 General land 16

2.1.2 Village land 16

2.1.3 Reserved land 16

2.2 Management of village land 17

2.3 Village land use planning 17

2.4 Land use planning authorities and stakeholders 18

2.5 Common forms of land adjudication in Tanzania 18

2.6 Women’s tenure security and access to land 18

2.7 Registration of Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy 19

2.8 Mortgage of Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy 19

3. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 21

Oxfam’s land titling interventions 21

3.1. Goal for land tenure formalisation 21

3.2. Village land use planning process 21

V V

4 Leveraging Cost in Land Titling: Insights from a review of stakeholders’ practices

3.3 Village land adjudication 25

3.4 Number, type and duration for the preparation and issuance of CCROs 26

3.5 Mechanisms for leveraging cost 27

3.6 Sustainability aspects 30

3.7 Stakeholders in VLUP process 31

3.8 Comparing: Oxfam’s practice and that of other players 32

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35

4.1 Conclusion 35

4.2 Recommendations 35

BIBLIOGRAPHY 37

V V


This research is the outcome of joint efforts between Oxfam in Tanzania (‘Oxfam’) and the National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC). The report is based on research conducted between March 2017 and January 2018 to identify mechanisms for leveraging cost in rural land titling initiatives through a comprehensive review of practices used by selected stakeholders. The review focused on: 1) examining Oxfam’s land titling initiatives in Arusha, Manyara, Morogoro, Simiyu and Shinyanga regions; 2) a comparative review of practices of other selected actors; and 3) identifying mechanisms for leveraging costs based on opportunities in adjusting processes and practices. The proposed mechanisms for leveraging costs in land titling, as identified in this report, are meant to complement the Guidelines for Participatory Village Land Use Management issued by the National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC).

Land is a key source of livelihood for the majority of people living in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2011a), over 60% of the entire workforce in Sub-Saharan Africa is involved in agriculture. In Tanzania, agriculture employs more than 67% of the population and contributes approximately one third of national income (URT, 2016). However, over the past decade, pressure on land has increased due to rapid population growth, an influx of large scale land based investments, and poor land management. The consequences manifest in form of increased land-based conflicts and violations of rights in land ownership and tenure.

The increasing pressure over land ownership and control takes place in a context characterised by large chunks of untitled land, especially in rural areas. More than 60% of the land in Tanzania has not been surveyed. According to the National Land Use Planning Commission, “...only 1645 villages (13.1%) out of 12,545 villages in Tanzania have land use plans...” (NLUPC, 2015). This reality undermines tenure security, complicates conflict resolution and holds back the productive potential of rural land (Lawry et. al., 2014).

In the 1990s, Tanzania, like several other African countries, reformed its land policies and laws to simultaneously uphold customary land tenure and bring informal land relationships into a formal, standardised land administration system. As a result, the Land Policy (1995), The Land Act, No. 4 (1999) and The Village Land Act, No. 5 (1999), were enacted. The Land Act, in Section 4 (Cap 113), provides for three categories of land: village, general and reserved land. The Village Land Act, Section 14, 1(a), provides for a customary right of occupancy over rural land. This implies that individuals, households, and communities can formalise their ownership rights by receiving a Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy (CCRO). Despite these reforms, very little has been achieved, nearly two decades later.

The cost of land titling is one of the main reasons for slow progress in formalising land tenure rights. A recent study (Ali et. al., 2014) showed that “prices rather than other implementation failures or features of the titling regime are a key obstacle to broader inclusion in land registry and that some degree of pro-poor price discrimination is justified even from a narrow budgetary perspective.” The effect of this obstacle has been that “titled land remains the de facto preserve of wealthy households and within households, men.” The difference in access to title deeds emerges when the government, foreign donors (development partners), or Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) fund the initiative.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

V V


Due to high costs, the justification for land titling tends to focus more on its potential for improving access to finance and investment, and less about tenure security on its own. However, recent evidence indicates that a CCRO is not considered worthy collateral by traditional financial institutions and a rise in farmer pastoralist conflicts has raised the security profile of titles. The decline in development partners and government resources for funding tenure formalisation makes it important to devise mechanisms for leveraging costs to accelerate the land titling pace and close the gender and income gap that is reinforced by expensive processes.

Key Findings

Support for land titling

The study found that support for land titling among selected stakeholders is characterized by varying but closely related justifications. For Oxfam, the objective is to ensure that land tenure rights of marginalized groups in communities such as smallholders, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists are secure. The Land Rights Research and Resources Institute (HAKIARDHI) shares the same objective. The aim of the Land Tenure Support Programme (LTSP) is to ensure that all land across the country is surveyed, has a land use plan and is owned by people whose records are accessible. There is specific emphasis on addressing land related conflicts. The Property and Business Formalization Programme (MKURABITA) aim is to formalise property and business assets to facilitate access to finance.

Community support is based on the need to secure tenure rights, avoid conflict and facilitate conflict resolution and improve chances for accessing finance from formal institutions such as banks and microfinance. However, farmers in the study areas have been disappointed by difficulties in accessing finance especially from banks.

Variation in Costs of Village Land Use PlanningIn Morogoro and Arusha, preparation of a single VLUP ranged from TZS 7,000,000 – 12,000,000 million for a period of twelve (12) to twenty (20) days. In comparison, the cost for funding the same intervention in Shinyanga region was lower and costed TZS 3,250,000 for a period of seven (7) days. A cost comparison between Oxfam and other actors showed that Oxfam interventions in Shinyanga incurred the lowest cost of TZS 3,250,000 per VLUP with average costs in Morogoro and Arusha at TZS 9,000,000. LTSP costs for a single VLUP were estimated at TZS 8,000,000 while it costs TZS 8,000,000 (on average) in Haki Ardhi interventions. The (average) cost of a single VLUP in USAID`s Land Tenure Support project was TZS 3,936,210 ($ 1753).

In Shinyanga region, there was a cost sharing arrangement where Oxfam funded the cost of the VLUP (stage 1 – 4) while individuals and households raised resources for the survey and titles of their land. This stood out as an exception throughout the review. Resources for land titling, from development partners and government, continue to decline. As such, cost sharing is becoming increasingly important. Notably, most poor households struggled to raise the required resources. However, some

V V


of these households benefited from having their costs covered by the rest, especially in villages where response rate was high, for instance in Nyida (Shinyanga district).

Oxfam practice for undertaking land use planning initiatives varies significantly. While the organization trialed a more robust cost sharing in the lake zone (Shinyanga and Simiyu), interventions in Morogoro were characterized by a limited variant, which excluded citizens from monetary contribution. This has also been the case in CORDS interventions in Arusha, where priority has been to protect shared resources. Also, findings show that where the amount to be contributed is relatively low, and therefore affordable, the number of beneficiaries increases significantly. This was the case in Shinyanga where the lowest contribution amount (per acre) was TZS 15,000 and in Manyara where the lowest amount was TZS 100,000 per acre.

CCRO issuanceThere is significant variation in the issuance of CCROs in the study areas. In some instances, preparation and delivery took longer than expected. In Gongoni village, Kilosa district, CCROs were waiting for approval nearly a year after they were produced. The study found delay in approval as a common feature, especially at the village level, across the study areas. This raises serious concerns over the usefulness of CCROs, since tenure rights are not static; transactions (buying and selling), death and inheritance have implications on tenure rights and may even render CCROs obsolete.

Gender dimensionLand titling provides an opportunity to address inequality in land ownership. However, the progress remains limited due to low awareness and patriarchy tendencies. The findings show that, awareness creation, and cost incentives (reduction of contribution per a piece of land to be titled) in Shinyanga were key in encouraging households to opt for joint title deeds (co-ownership between husband and wife).

Mechanisms for leveraging cost The study documented a range of mechanisms for leveraging cost which include: a)reducing the number of redundant Participatory Village Land Use Management (PLUM) team members engaged in the village land use planning; b) ensuring that the process is undertaken only within official working hours so the PLUM team does not incur an extra-duty allowance, c) combining several preliminary steps, such as an awareness-raising campaign, mapping existing land use, collection of social economic data and land use proposal development, d) USAID`s Land Tenure Assistance project shows that printing CCROs in black ink (instead of colored), and using other “legal” papers instead of crested reduces costs.

V V


Recommendations

Introduce and encourage cost-sharing where economic status of the targeted community allows

The study findings show that cost-sharing enhances project ownership, reduces the burden borne by individual actors, and improves sustainability, from a cost and process point of view. In spite of these advantages, its implementation has to be informed by a careful economic assessment of the targeted group in order to ensure the rate set for contribution is affordable. The measures to assist those unable to afford must be put in place.

Encourage joint title-deeds/co-occupancy in land titling

Land titling offers an opportunity to address inequality of ownership between men and women. Findings show that awareness creation and cost incentives are effective in persuading spouses to opt for co-occupancy.

Balance budgetary investment in land titling with reasonable cost recovery measures

Investment in land titling has, mainly, been undertaken with funding from development partners. Investment from government sources has been limited partly due to poor results from existing cost recovery options. Balancing budgetary investment with efficient cost recovery mechanisms will contribute to achieving a sustainable land administration system.

V V


ADP Mbozi Actions for Development Programme, Mbozi

CCRO Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy

CEDESOTA Community Development and Social Transformation

CORDS Community Research and Development Services

CSOs Civil Society Organisations

DCs District Commissioners

DED District Executive Director

FGDs Focus Group Discussions

GoT Government of Tanzania

GPS Global Positioning System

HAKI ARDHI Land Rights Research and Resources Institute

LGA Local Government Authority

LTA Land Tenure Assistance project

LTSP Land Tenure Support Programme

MALF Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

MKURABITA Property and Business Formalization Programme

MLHHSD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlement Development

MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

MPLC Morogoro Paralegal Center

NGO Non-Government Organisations

NLUPC National Land Use Planning Commission

Oxfam Oxfam in Tanzania

PELUM Participatory Ecological Land Use Management

PLUM Participatory Land Use Management

REDESO Relief to Development Society

RUDI Rural Urban Development Initiatives

SHDEPHA+ Service Health and Development of People Living Positively with HIV/AIDS

SMD Survey and Mapping Division

TNRF Tanzania Natural Resources Forum

TZS Tanzanian Shilling

UCRT Ujamaa Community Resource Team

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

V V


VEO Village Executive Officer

VLA Village Land Act

VLUPC Village Land Use Planning Commission

WEO Ward Executive Officer

WOPATA Women Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania

The research was commissioned by Oxfam in Tanzania and undertaken by Shadrack Stephene Achilla and Gerald Mwakipesile, from the National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC). Additional research and editing was done by Dastan Kweka from Oxfam in Tanzania.

Oxfam is grateful to external anonymous reviewers for giving useful input. Sincere appreciation is extended to stakeholders for their support in undertaking this study

V V


1.1 Overview of Land Titling in TanzaniaLand is fundamental for socio-economic development, food security, and poverty reduction. It is of crucial importance to Sub-Saharan African economies and societies, where it contributes a major share of Gross Domestic Product (FAO, 2011). In Tanzania, land supports the livelihoods of more than 67% of the population (URT, 2016).

In recent years, land has become increasingly scarce due to pressure arising from factors such as demographic growth and the influx of large-scale, land based investments (see Jayne et al., 2015; van Gelder et al., 2011; Cotula et al., 2009). This pressure has led to an increase in competition for land between multiple users: farmers, herders, urban elites and foreign investors. The political and “socio-economic change has in many places eroded the customary rules and institutions that have traditionally administered access to land” (Ouma, 2015). As such, the need to codify tenure rights to mitigate the risk of conflicts and loss of land, especially for smallholder farmers, has become increasingly appreciated (FAO, 2002).

There have been changes in laws and policies in the global south since the 1990s in particular, aimed at formalising customary ownership rights, protecting women’s access to land, and bringing ‘informal land relationships’ into the formal, as well as seeking to improve land access, use, tenure security and administration. The programme to reform land administration systems and formalise customary land tenure in Tanzania stands out as a case (Fairley, 2012) and was, in part, informed by findings from the 1991 Presidential Commission on Land Matters (Olengurumwa, 2010), which recommended two forms of tenure rights: (1) the “granted rights of occupancy” for general land; and (2) “customary rights” for village land (Shivji, 1998). The Land Act, No. 4 (1999) and Village Land Act, No 5 (1999) codified such recommendations. Section 4 (CAP 113) of the Land Act established three categories of public land: general, village and reserved land, while Section 14, 1(a) (CAP 114) of the Village Land Act provided for customary right of occupancy in village land.

Success in the issuance of either title deeds or certificate of customary rights has remained low, nearly two decades after the reforms of the late 1990s. Reportedly, more than 80% of the rural land, where the majority of the population resides, has not been surveyed. According to the National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC, 2015), “only 1645 villages (13%) out of 12,545 villages have land use plans”. The consequences are seen in increased land related conflicts, multiplication of informal settlements, and sanitation issues, including outbreaks of communicable diseases (MLHHSD, 2015).

1. INTRODUCTION

V V


Figure 1: The state of rural land titling

Data source: Land Tenure Program Document

A key reason for the low success rate in land titling is the expensive process that excludes many low income families, especially in rural areas. A study by the Centre for Global Development (Ali et. al., 2014) noted “prices rather than other implementation failures or features of the titling regime are a key obstacle to broader inclusion in the land registry and that some degree of pro-poor price discrimination is justified even from a narrow budgetary perspective.” The majority of poor people in Tanzania (estimated at 12 million) live in rural areas, and are farmers (United Republic of Tanzania, 2016).

1.2 Research objectivesThe overall objective of the research study was to identify mechanisms for leveraging costs in land titling based on a comprehensive review of approaches used by selected stakeholders. The review focused primarily on examining Oxfam’s land titling approaches in Morogoro, Manyara, Simiyu and Shinyanga, and sought to contrast and compare them with approaches employed by other selected stakeholders.

1.2.1 Specific objectives

The specific objectives were to:

1. Critically review and document Oxfam’s varying approaches to land tenure formalisation in the lake zone (Shinyanga), northern zone (Arusha, Manyara) and in Morogoro,

2. Analyse the role and contribution of every key stakeholder and identify missing or redundant players,

3. Examine strengths and weaknesses of the approaches on the basis of the logic of their variations and

4. Examine the Oxfam approach by comparing and contrasting it with approaches of other players.

V V


1.3 Scope of the researchThe scope of this research was confined to a review of approaches to land titling in rural settings. The major focus was in areas where land formalisation involves preparation of Village Land Use Plans (VLUPs) and the issuance of a Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy (CCRO).

1.4 MethodologyThe study adopted a case study strategy and used a combination of techniques to capture stakeholders’ views, experiences and suggestions on land tenure formalisation processes in the selected areas. The research process started with a thorough review of relevant literature related but not limited to land titling, such as land policies and laws, land use planning guidelines, evaluation reports and key government programme reports. The objectives of the literature review were three-fold: a) refresh researchers understanding of land tenure formalisation especially across the country, b) examine the status and trends of land tenure formalisation and, c) Determine how the status and trends complement or constrain the ongoing efforts to expand formalisation efforts.

The researchers generated qualitative data from the field and made use of quantitative data obtained mainly from secondary sources. Purposeful sampling technique was used during the selection of sixty participants. Key informant interviews (KII) with government officials (land and agriculture officers, planners and representatives from Civil Society Organizations were organized in all study areas and were complemented by Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with community members, farmers and agro-pastoralists. The fieldwork was conducted for ten (10) days, in March 2017, followed by a validation meeting which was held in Morogoro from 12th -13th April 2017.1 Additional research was carried out in January 2018, and focused on addressing data gaps. Field work took place in study sites that had hosted previous Oxfam-funded, land titling interventions.2

Table 1: Study sites

No. Region District Village/s

1 Shinyanga Shinyanga Nyida

2 Simiyu Maswa Bukigi, Bukangilija

3 Manyara Hanang Dirma, Mreru

4 Morogoro Morogoro (rural), Kilosa Gombola, Mtamba

1 This was attended by representatives from CARE International Tanzania, National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Ministry ofAgriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries, Community Research and Development Services (CORDS), Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Tanzania, Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT), Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TNRF), Community Economic Development and Social Transformation(CEDESOTA) and Property and Business Formalization Programme (MKURABITA).

2 Oxfam works with local partners.

V V


1.5 Conceptual Framework Land titling refers to “a form of land reform in which private individuals and families are given formal property rights for land which they have previously occupied informally or used on the basis of customary land tenure” (Atuahene, 2006). Proponents of land titling argue that it increases the security of tenure and access to investment in land, reduces conflicts arising from land use needs, facilitates access to financial services and protects common areas from encroachment (see De Soto, 2000; MKURABITA, 2007; Pedersen, 2010; Abdulai and Domeher, 2012;Jacoby and Minten, 2007). Security of land tenure refers to the “certainty that a person’s land rights will be recognized by law and especially, by members of the society and protected when there are disputes or challenges to such rights” (Abdulai and Domeher; ibid; FAO, 2002). Tanzania has a leasehold system over land, which makes land acquisition involuntary (See the Land Acquisition Act (CAP 118) and International Finance Corporation, 2012). As such, title deeds offer limited protection for expropriation, though may be very helpful in seeking redress (Oxfam, 2017).

Land tenure formalisation programmes have been implemented in many developing economies as part of poverty alleviation efforts (Beyers et al., 2015; Narh,et al., 2017; Abdulai and Domeher, 2012). They involve making amendments to land rights administration, reforming institutional structures and experimenting with various ways individual and collective land rights can be registered. Such undertakings involve huge expenses, as evident in statistics indicating the huge monetary expenses incurred in implementing these policies and programmes (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2005; Toulmin, 2009; Griffith-Charles, 2004).

Often, land titling is unaffordable for low-income individuals and households as it costs “hundreds of thousands of shillings”, due to multiple fees, i.e. “application fees, technician fees for plot surveys, ‘facilitation’ costs to the village land committee and district land registrar, court registration fees, lawyers fees, and travel costs” (Stein, et. al., 2016). As a result, “titled land remains the de facto preserve of wealthy households and, within households, men” (Ali et al, 2014). Poor households benefit when either government or donors fund the initiative in full.3

Since land titling is, in general, capital-intensive, justifications for investment continue to lean towards the possibility to unlock access to credit once the land is surveyed and owners can prove their claim. Recent evidence indicates an “enormous divide between the promises of the promoters of CCROs and the reality.”4

Financial institutions, especially banks, do not consider CCROs as worthy collateral. However, the increase in land conflict, especially between farmers and pastoralists, has to some extent diluted the emphasis on access to credit and raised the importance of CCROs in dispute prevention and resolution.

3 MKURABITA is a good example of an initiative whereby donors contributed money to fund property formalisation, including land, to facilitate access to credit.

4 See Stein et al, 2016.

V V


This research study assesses approaches to land tenure formalisation based on the objective of the initiative as described by stakeholders, how practices, formal and informal, influence costs, and the sustainability of the initiative. The criteria for assessment was further broken down into seven elements namely: 1) Goal for land tenure formalisation (land titling); 2) Village Land Use Planning process and approaches;3) Village land adjudication and issuance of CCROs; 4) Number, type, and timeframe in preparing and issuing the CCROs; 5) Stakeholders’ involvement;6) Mechanisms for leveraging cost and;7) Sustainability aspects.

Diagrammatic Representation of the Conceptual Framework

V V


2.1 Categories of land in Tanzania

The entire territorial land is declared public land, vested in the President as a trustee for and on behalf of the citizens of Tanzania5. The Land Act, No. 4 (1999) stipulates under Section 4(4) that land in Tanzania is classified into three categories: general land, village land, and reserved land, as detailed below.

2.1.1 General land

The general land is defined under Section 2 of the Land Act as comprising all land that is neither village nor reserved land. It follows, therefore, that all the land in urban areas is general land. “Unused” village land is also defined as falling under the general land category (Kironde, 2009)6. The Land Act statutorily governs general land and falls under the control and jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Lands. The Commissioner normally delegates much of their administrative powers to Municipal and District Councils.

2.1.2 Village land

The Village Land Act, No. 5 (1999), Section 7, sub section 1(a–e), defines village land by listing different conditions for recognition. Section 7, sub-section 1 (a) defines a village “as land within the boundaries of a village registered,” in sub-section 1(b) land is designated as village land under the Land Tenure (Village Settlements) Act (1965). Village land comprises all land that is under the jurisdiction and management of a registered village. Tanzania has few urban areas and as such, a significant portion of its land is rural land, falling under the village land category.

2.1.3 Reserved land

Section 6 of the Land Act No. 4, 1999, defines reserved land as land set aside and governed for various purposes, including environmental protection, such as national parks, forest reserves, and wildlife reserves. Others include marine parks and areas intended and set aside for spatial planning and future infrastructure development (see Alden-Wily, 2003; Mpandikizi, 2009).

Despite the legal classification of land into the three categories described above, the President has powers to transfer or exchange land from one category to another if circumstances require7:

The President may, subject to the provisions of this part (Part III of the Act), by order published in the Gazette, transfer or exchange land from one category of land described in subsection (4) to another category of land so described (Land Act No. 4 of 1999 Section 4(7).

2. LEGAL REGIME GOVERNING LAND TITLING

5 See The Land Act, No 4 (1999), Section 4, sub-section 1 and 2.6 See Section 2 of The Land Act: Interpretations.7 See Section 4, sub-section 7 of The Land Act No 4 (1999).

V V


2.2 Management of village land

According to the Village Land Act (Section 7, sub-section 8), land management within the village is, in principle, the responsibility of the Village Council. The Village Land Council and Village Adjudication Committees are established by the Village Council and approved by the Village Assembly. However, the Village Council and the Village Adjudication Committees are autonomous, with their composition and quorums set out by provisions of the Village Land Act (see Sections 53 and 60).

Figure 2: Village land management in Tanzania8

2.3 Village land use planning

Land use planning in Tanzania is the process of “evaluating and proposing alternative uses of natural resources in order to improve the living conditions of the people” (NLUPC, 1998). The ever increasing pressure on land stemming from rapid population growth, the influx of large-scale, land-based investments and larger animal population, among other reasons, has resulted in tension and conflict, making land use planning imperative (MLHHS, 2015). The effects of that pressure include a growing number of conflicts between different land users, insecurity of tenure, poor development of land markets, degradation of soil and water resources and increasing migration of people and livestock (see Flintan, 2017; Mwambashi, 2015).

In principle, the land titling process, which ultimately leads to the issuance of CCROs, is preceded by village land use planning. The objectives of land use planning are provided for in Section 4 of the Land Use Planning Act, No.6 (2007), and include:

1. Empowering landholders and users to make better and more productive use of their land;

2. Promoting sustainable land use practices;

3. Ensuring security and equity in access to land resources;

4. Facilitating the establishment of a framework for the prevention of land use conflicts;

5. Ensuring the use of political and administrative structures and resources available at national, regional, district and village levels; and

V V


6. Providing a framework for the incorporation of such relevant principles contained in national and structural development policies as may be defined by the Government.

2.4 Land use planning authorities and stakeholders

Planning authorities, as per the Land Use Planning Act, include the Village Council, District Council, the National Land Use Commission, and any organ that the Minister may declare to be a planning authority or joint planning authority (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2007). Every Village Council is a planning authority in its respective area, while at national and zone level, the NLUPC is the responsible organisation for preparing a framework for land use plans. This is also the case for district authorities.

In all cases, stakeholder involvement is emphasised and considered a necessary instrument in land use planning. This is described in the National Land Policy (1995) (NLUPC, 1998) however, stakeholder involvement has cost implications and, for the purposes of leveraging costs, requires critical review.

National, Zonal, Regional and District land use plans are approved by the Minister responsible for land use planning, while the village land use plan must be approved by the Village Assembly. Reasons must be given where plans are not approved. The Village Council is the primary authority when it comes to preparation of land use plans.

2.5 Common forms of land adjudication in Tanzania

Adjudication is a “process through which existing rights in a particular land parcel are authoritatively ascertained” (Nyadimo, 2006). The approaches to the adjudication of land in Tanzania are set out in the Village Land Act, Section 48-59.

An approach to adjudication may be sporadic (spot) or systematic9. The sporadic approach involves discrete identification of the land boundaries and rights of an individual over a land parcel. Such identification may be voluntary or compulsory in nature. Several challenges are associated with this approach, such as relatively high registration costs per unit area, the long time to complete the registration process, and it rarely provides an overview of all existing rights. The Village Land Act, Section 49, provides for spot adjudication whenever a CCRO is applied for. When adjudication is systematic, all land parcels in a specific village area are adjudicated. In most cases, the systematic approach is recommended in areas where land related conflicts are common but it is expensive in nature because of the wider intervention area.

2.6 Women’s tenure security and access to land

While land is a critical resource for livelihood and survival, women, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, have often experienced problems in terms of access and control (Odgaard, 2010). Studies indicate

8 See Village Land Act No 4, Section 7.9 See Section 49, sub-section 1 – 7, of the Village Land Act

V V


that in rural areas, women play a significant role in the family, especially in food and agricultural production (FAO, 2011b). Despite the fact that women make up the majority of the workforce, their land sizes are on average 40% smaller and of lower quality in comparison to men (World Bank, 2015).In terms of land titling, costs prohibit women that own land from acquiring titles (Stein & Askew, 2009).

One of the fundamental principles of the Land Act and the Village Land Act is ensuring equal access to land by all Tanzanians. Section 20, sub-section 2 of the Village Land Act declares void all customs which deny lawful access and ownership, occupation or use of land to women, persons with a disability and children. Improving access of disadvantaged groups to land is a big step towards ensuring improved livelihood. Early legislation, for instance during colonialism, was biased against indigenous people, while later legislation was biased against women. The Ujamaa Villages Act No. 21 (1975) “provided allocation of land principally to the head of the household or family unit” (who were usually men) (Carpano, 2010).

2.7 Registration of Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy

The Village Land Act provides for the maintenance of a register of village land which shall be kept by the Village Executive Officer (VEO). This means that the VEO is the officer in charge of the village branch of the District Land Registry, and thus the Village Land Registry.

Some of the conditions associated with CCROs include payment of rent (and any costs as determined by the Village Council, e.g. charges, fees, taxes), maintaining land in good state, observing requirements pertaining to permission when required, complying with customary laws and by-laws, keeping boundary marks, and general proper management. Breach of any condition of the customary right of occupancy may call for several measures, including fines and temporary assignment of a right to another person. The law also allows the exercise of remedies available under customary law.

2.8 Mortgage of Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy

A right of occupancy, whether granted or customary can be mortgaged. In both cases -village and general land - the modalities of mortgaging land and managing mortgages are the same, save for sale and assignment of a mortgaged village land. Section 30 of the Village Land Act provides restrictions on the sale or assignment of a customary right of occupancy where it can only be sold or assigned to a person who is ordinarily resident in the village where the customary right of occupancy was granted unless the following has been observed:

1. The Village Council approves of the assignment;

2. There is an agreement prior to the assignment;

3. In event of termination of the agreement, the assignment shall be made to a citizen;

4. That person or the authorised representative of that group of persons make and sign a deposition that they will make that village their principal place of residence or work, or commence the

V V


construction of one or more houses to be a principal place of residence within six months of that deposition; or

5. That person or that group of persons make and sign a deposition that they will, within six months of the making of that deposition, commence the construction of some industrial, commercial, agricultural, mining, building, tourist or other development likely to provide benefit for community members or the village.

V V


Oxfam’s land titling interventions

3.1. Goal for land tenure formalisationThe main objective of land tenure formalisation across the three zones where Oxfam implements projects in Shinyanga, Manyara, and Morogoro was to enhance tenure rights for marginalised groups. However, in Shinyanga and Maswa districts, land titling was complemented by rice value chain project to improve productivity and livelihoods of smallholder farmers, particularly agro-pastoralists. While land grabbing is not a major threat in this area, other forms of land conflict are prevalent as seen in figure 2 below. There is high land ownership inequality between men and women due to strong patriarchy tendencies and low literacy rate. Polygamy is relatively common among the sukuma (Lawson et al, 2015), an aspect which maximizes chances of conflict over inheritance, while adult literacy rate are 53% in rural areas, and average literacy rate is 89% in urban areas (National Bureau of Statistics, 2012). Land titling, especially joint ownership/co-occupancy, is a key strategy in addressing inequality of ownership between women and men (Collin M, 2013).

In Manyara region, the goal was to secure land and other related resources such as water, for pastoralists and agro-pastoralists, and help reduce conflicts and facilitate their resolution. The region is characterized by high incidents of land use conflicts between multiple land users, and only trails Morogoro (Mwamfupe, 2015). The focus in Monduli district (Arusha), where CORDS implemented a project in 2016 with Oxfam support, was on “protecting shared resources” through supporting communities to undertake land use plans and obtain village certificates. The organization supported the communities to obtain CCROs by offering technical support through coordination of the process.

Government support for rural land use plan has gained momentum in recent years, especially in light of the increasing cases of land conflict, to the extent that a whole multi-year programme has been designed to expedite the process (LTSP, 2015).Figure 2 below illustrates the scale of land conflicts in the country.

3. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

V V


Figure 2: The Scale of Land Conflict in the Country

Data source: Budget speech by Minister, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlement Development. Visualization by Oxfam.

Rural support for land titling reflects the dynamics discussed in proceeding paragraphs. Excerpts from interviews, as shared below, point to serious concerns over conflict, either between farmers and pastoralist or intra-family conflict, especially about ownership, use and inheritance, and the need to formalize ownership rights.

“Land titling helps to prevent (ownership) conflict (especially) for us women, and men with multiple wives,” female rice farmer, Nyida.

“Land titling formalizes ownership.” “It mitigates conflict between farmers and pastoralists. Although this (type of conflict) has not become prominent (in our village), title deeds have helped to discourage trespassing. In the past, agro-pastoralists used to graze haphazardly,” male rice farmer, Nyida.

3.2. Village land use planning process

In undertaking the land titling exercise, Oxfam follows Guidelines for Participatory Village Land Use Planning, Administration and Management in Tanzania (2011), issued by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlement Development.10 Preparation of VLUP involves liaising with the District Council and Central Government departments, such as NLUPC and the Survey and Mapping Division (SMD), to make sure plans are prepared as per stipulated land use guidelines.

10 The guideline is currently under review. Findings from this report were shared with the review team as a way of giving input.

V V


The findings show that in areas where the District Commissioner’s (DCs) office has been involved, as the guideline (Part B) instructs, especially in the very initial stages of resource mobilisation and awareness creation, there has been significantly high community support, with the process described as inclusive and successful. A notable example of such involvement was reported in Shinyanga and Maswa districts where DCs are collaborating with partner organisations, Relief to Development Society (REDESO), Rural Urban Development Initiatives (RUDI) and Service Health and Development of People Living Positively with HIV/AIDS (SHDEPHA+). DCs political clout and institutional authority, in terms of oversight functions across the entire district, is useful for mobilisation and obtaining buy in from local authorities (ward and village level) and communities.

While guidelines for participatory VLUP are known by stakeholders (CSOs) and the Local Government Authorities (LGAs) featured in this study, especially land department officials, a shortage of resources has compelled them to be innovative and combine activities that match, to save both the time and financial resources required to complete the process.11

“The PLUM team is supposed to have nine people.12 But we reduced it by selecting five key persons. We thereafter, managed to prepare a village land use plan for TZS 3,300,000. Once you have prepared a land use plan, farm survey and issuing CCROs is easy. The land use plan is very expensive, that is why most district councils have failed to undertake it.” Land Officer, Maswa district.

In Shinyanga district, the PLUM team contained either five or six people, and team members had to play multiple roles. The town planner was also responsible for environmental aspects of the planning process.

There is variation across partner organizations in terms of both the timeframe and cost structure for facilitating VLUP processes in the visited areas as seen in Table 2. The costs of facilitating the preparation of a single VLUP in the regions of Morogoro and Manyara ranged from TZS 10,000,000 million to TZS 12,000,000 million for the period of 12 and 20 days, respectively. In comparison, costs for funding the same intervention in Shinyanga region were significantly lower: TZS 3,250,000 for a single VLUP for a period of seven (7) days. Several reasons were given to explain the latter scenario, including relatively fewer field days, ensuring that only the relevant PLUM team members take part in a specific activity, and restricting the exercise to official working hours to avoid paying extra-duty allowance. Another aspect that accounts for the difference is based on the mode of facilitation which is discussed at the end of this section.

11 Combined activities include awareness-raising campaigns and existing land use preparation, social economic data collection and land use proposal development.

12 Note that the guideline mentions members of PLUM team in Part B of the Guideline, page 24. The actual number may vary from 5 – 11.

V V


Table 2: Cost and timeframe for VLUP processes in the Oxfam programmes

SN Criteria Shinyanga region Manyara/Arusha region Morogoro region

1 Partner organisation involved

RUDI, SHDEPHA+ and REDESO

UCRT and CORDs MPLC and WOPATA

2 Cost for single VLUP (TZS) TZS 3,250,000 Ranges from TZS 20,000,000 – 33,000,00013

Ranges from TZS 7,008,000 to 12,460,000,

3 Number of days per

village

7 20 12

4 Stakeholders involvement in VLUP process

• District

Commissioner

• Selected PLUM team

• Village Council

• Selected VLUM

member

• Rural communities

• PLUM team

• Village Council


• VLUM member

• Central Government (SMD and NLUPC)

• Village Council


• VLUM member

Source: Fieldwork (March 2017).

In terms of the mode of facilitation, Oxfam approaches vary significantly. In the lake zone, Oxfam funds stage 1 – 4 in full and this includes: 1) Preparation, 2) Participatory rural appraisal for land use management, 3) Mapping existing village land uses and 4) Participatory village land-use planning.14 Stage five is funded in part, especially village land registry, while members of the community contribute funds to get their specific parcels of land surveyed and titled. The amount to be contributed varies, depending on the estimated costs of the exercise, number of contributors and the size of their farms (see table 2). The mode of facilitation in the lake zone is different from the practice in Morogoro and Manyara where Oxfam funded the titling exercise in full (stage 1 to 5). The study findings showed that, in the lake zone, the lowest contribution of community was TZS 15,000.

“In terms of the amount of contribution, we made it very clear in our bylaws, that the lowest amount should be TZS 15,000 per an acre. But the highest amount should not exceed TZS 500,000, regardless of how many acres a person owns.” Land officer, Maswa district.

13 Note that the focus in the Northern zone (Arusha and Manyara) is securing shared resources i.e. village certificates, grazing areas, water points while the issue of securing individual property is left to individuals themselves.

14 See the guideline for more details.

V V


A member of a rice farming scheme in Nyida Shinyanga district, noted;

“As they say, what is important is involvement. If someone has been involved, contribution doesn`t become a problem. Something that has encouraged us is that we contribute TZS 15,000, while Oxfam covers the rest. What else would someone want? This arrangement has persuaded many of us to contribute.”

According to the study findings while the lowest amount contributed by the community is TZS 15,000 per acre is affordable, farmers struggle to raise it during the dry season or before harvest hence timing is crucial. The recommended period is between April and August, which is the harvest season. The lessons learned from engagement with pastoralists show that dry seasons are not appropriate for land rights interventions due to involuntary migration in search of water and pasture.15

The contribution of TZS 15,000 remains unaffordable for the poor and households headed by women. The study findings show that where Oxfam has funded the VLUP, some of these households have received CCROs without having to pay. But not all the needy have benefited, given their large number.

“Not many female-headed households are able to afford the contribution. Some have asked for further reduction, at least TZS 10,000.” Female rice farmer, Nyida.

3.3 Village land adjudicationSpot adjudication was reported as the most common form of adjudication employed for village land across the study sites. It is a discrete identification of the land boundaries and rights of an individual over a land parcel (see Section 49 (1) of the Village Land Act, 1999). The approach is favoured over the systematic approach because of the higher cost associated with the latter, and because it allows recording and issuance of the CCROs to the targeted communities, and groups within it, rather than to the whole village.

In all study areas visited handheld GPS equipment was used to determine the land parcel’s boundary. These devices were operated by the PLUM team from the District Land Department. The application of handheld GPS has been contested in many tenure security interventions because it is accompanied by a certain degree of error that may not be acceptable in areas where there are land-related conflicts, especially over boundaries and land ownership (see Kamruzzaman et. al, 2014; Byamugisha, 2013).

15 CORDS field report for period ending November 2016.

V V


While access to handheld GPS instruments is relatively easy, both in terms of availability and cost, the study found that in some districts, partner organisations were struggling to acquire the instruments. In Morogoro, under the project implemented by Women Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania (WOPATA), GPS was hired for about TZS 700,000, which is equivalent to the cost of buying a new instrument16.Such actions increase the cost of preparing VLUP processes. Due to a lack of beacons17 to mark property or farm boundaries, concrete blocks were used. In Simiyu region, especially in Bukigi village, some farmers complained about lack of beacons in surveyed farms.

3.4 Number, type and duration for the preparation and issuance of CCROsThere is notable variation of the number of CCROs prepared and issued to communities across the study areas. In Morogoro region, a total of 245 CCROs were prepared by both WOPATA and MPLC in 2014/2015. In the lake zone (Shinyanga and Simiyu) 595 CCROs were prepared and issued to communities in 2017. In Manyara region, where the focus is on securing shared resources, 38 villages received VLUP. The emphasis in this part of the country has been put on land use plans (for villages, and CCROs for shared resources), which are key in averting conflict and facilitating their resolution, while securing individual property has been left to individuals.

“We normally don’t engage in supporting the individual (to obtain CCROs), (and) in case we do for women, we cover the whole process.” CSO representative, Arusha

Findings from the Shinyanga and Simiyu show that most individuals in villages are unable to contribute the full cost required to get their land titled. Researchers found that in some villages, land titling took longer than expected. The time taken in preparing CCROs (from initial consultation and resource mobilisation to issuance) raises serious concerns, because land ownership changes over time due to either sale, death of owner, sub-division (inheritance, for instance) and changes in administrative boundaries/status (declaration of planning areas). This means that, if it is not done within a reasonable period, CCROs may become obsolete even before they are issued to owners. The findings from Gongoni Village in Kilosa District show that about 140 CCROs were prepared in 2016 but had not yet been delivered to communities (in March 2017) because there was no qualified District Land Officer to sign such certificates and the certification seal was faulty. In Nyida village, beneficiaries pointed fingers at village authorities for unnecessary delays in approving CCROs.

16 The price of a new handheld GPS ranges from TZS 600,000 to 1 million.17 Beacons are a permanent mark placed in every corner of the land parcel to mark the boundary of the farm or a property.

V V


Table 1: Number of CCROs issued, type of ownership and cost

SN Aspect under con-sideration

Year Lake Zone Manyara region Morogoro

region

1 CCROs issued 2017 595 64 13918

2 Gender and social

dimensions N/A

Male 232 Male 0 Male 49

Female 123 Female 63 Female 22

3 Costs (TZS) TZS 15,000 per acre

TZS 100,000 per 0.1-5 acres

TZS 300,000 per 5-10 acres

TZS 200,000 per 11-15 acres

TZS 4,000

(per

beacon)

4 Remarks The cost is

affordable

for the

majority

The cost is relatively high, thus not

affordable by the

majority

Affordable

Source: Fieldwork (March 2017).

In terms of gender, the study shows that, except for Shinyanga region, the number of CCROs issued to women outnumber those issued to men (see Table 2 above). This is the case because all the costs associated with CCRO issuance in Manyara and Morogoro were covered by the programme (in full) and thus, funders had total discretionary powers to decide on priority groups. But as Table 2 shows, this practice is expensive, does not enhance ownership and is, generally unsustainable.

3.5 Mechanisms for leveraging costAs noted in preceding sections, land titling remains expensive and unaffordable to majority of the low-income earners in the country, majority of whom live in rural areas. As such, measures for leveraging cost are key to expanding affordability, which is a necessary aspect for reaching scale. Ayalew`s (2011) assessment of willingness to pay for a Certificate of Right of Occupancy in urban slums in Dar es Salaam found that residents, “even in low income areas” were “willing to pay up to TZS. 20,000 for a title.” However, the full cost recovery estimated at TZS 150,000 proposed by the Ministry of Lands, Human Settlement and Development would bar the majority from obtaining titles. This assessment indicates that, where there is interest, reasonable price variation can enhance willingness to pay, and increase the number of beneficiaries.

18 Facilitated by WOPATA in Gongoni village.

V V


This report defines mechanisms for leveraging cost as a range of measures employed by land titling stakeholders to cut costs and share the burden in such a way that it reduces the contribution made by each stakeholder. Oxfam introduced and started piloting cost sharing in the lake zone in 2014/2015, as a key mechanism for leveraging cost. It is an arrangement whereby Oxfam collaborates with government in funding stage 1 – 4 of the land use plan, administration and management, while stage five is co-funded between communities, Oxfam and government.

“Oxfam funding covered field visits, mobilization, engagement with the VLUM team, preparing a land use plan, which is based on a ten year projection, and a land use plan report. But, we performed other tasks on our own cost. For instance, printing (of CCROs) and preparation of drawings. Since we are experts in this area, we utilized our expertise.” Land officer, Maswa district

The findings, as highlighted in this report, show that in Shinyanga, individual members of the community had to contribute about TZS 15,000 per acre. The practice in Manyara is such that the focus is placed on facilitating title deeds to secure shared resources. As such, there is no direct financial investment in individual titles. But the existence of a land use plan enables citizens to raise funds and process CCROs. The findings show that, where citizens were able to raise funds, they contributed about TZS100,000 for 0.1 – 5 acres and TZS 300,000 for 5 – 10 acres (see table 2 above). The resulting effect was more titles in Shinyanga and relatively few in Manyara. This experience shows that some form of subsidy is needed to make and keep land titling affordable for the poor.

Other measures for leveraging cost included combining some VLUP activities which help in cutting down the duration,19 limiting redundancy in PLUM teams and ensuring deployment only when it is necessary and getting the team to work during work hours to avoid paying extra duty allowances. Experience from USAID`s Land Tenure Assistance (LTA) project shows that “batch processing” and reduction of “back and forth” between the village and the district land office for signatures have helped reduce costs per CCRO from “$35/parcel at the start of the activity to (less than) $10/parcel now.”20 However, close examination of the data reveals a strong correlation, in terms of rise and fall, between number of CCROs and costs. This points to the possibility for further cost reduction. The project did not have a cost-sharing arrangement. The USAID`s project annual report for 2017 notes that other practices that have had impact on cost reduction, and improved “sustainability” include printing CCROs in black ink, instead of colored, and using “legal paper” with the national logo, instead of crested papers.

“Cost sharing is not part of the process and this is not uncommon for first registration efforts.” Project personnel, USAID (Tanzania).

19 Community mobilization, existing land use appraisal.20 Responses obtained from emailed questions. Besides, the project progress report shows that the highest cost per CCRO was

$20.57, while the lowest was $5.12. These costs exclude “satellite imagery and LTA technical assistance”.

V V


MKURABITA`s experience shows that reduction of PLUM team members and engaging more ward level actors helps in cost reduction due to significant differences in entitlements for officials. This is due to the fact that per diems for the PLUM team are a key cost driver in land titling across districts. The intensive engagement of the ward level actors enables some PLUM officials to play supervisory functions, which are equally important in the success of the project. The strict delivery timelines are crucial in shortening the project duration and saving cost.

In Morogoro, WOPATA enlisted the help of four ordinary level school graduates (youth) who acted as para-surveyors in Kilosa district. These youth were trained, given equipment to do the work and a stipend to cover meals and transport. Working with students or recent graduates helps in cost reduction as they tend to be paid relatively lower rates. The initial idea was to let them gain the necessary experience and allow them to continue the work, even after the Oxfam funded project comes to an end.

The study findings show that there are challenges associated with local authorities when it comes to sharing costs. Land officers and planners raised concerns over difficulty in accessing adequate printing materials from the Commissioner for lands and noted that the costs have been increasing.

“The main challenge in this undertaking is financial resources. For instance, we have shortage of crested papers (on which certificates are printed), and the supply, usually one ream (upon request) from the Commissioner for lands is inadequate. If the government increases the supply, say in bulk from 20 to 50 reams our coverage will increase significantly.” Land officers and planners

“The local government agreed to provide some crested papers for printing CCROs. However, at the end, this did not succeed due to the bureaucracy associated with obtaining crested papers.” Project staff, WOPATA

Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have struggled in obtaining local government commitment. This has limited the potential for sharing cost, as the quotation below shows;

“When these initiatives are from the NGOs, the Local government authority behaves as if they have nothing to commit to make the intervention succeed. Others withheld technical support until they received allowances.” CSO staff

When it comes to cost sharing, community participation, and financial contribution depends on their understanding, and unreserved support. While public education and mobilization may help, addressing misconceptions is equally important. The respondents in Bugiki noted that some members of the community were suspicious and questioned the intention of the land titling interventions. Those who were suspicious were concerned that the ultimate objective was to make it possible for the government to impose taxes. These fears were reiterated in Nyida and may have negatively affected contributions.

V V


3.6 Sustainability aspectsVillage land use planning and the issuance of CCROs enhance tenure security, promotes gender equality and has the potential to contribute to improving the productivity of rural land. However, for such an initiative to be sustainable, four aspects of sustainability in rural areas should be considered: 1) cost recovery mechanisms (where the government or household spends); 2) measures for improvement of agricultural productivity; 3) ecosystem conservation and; 4) gender inclusiveness and social dimensions (see FAO, 1993; Lefroy et al., 2000; DeWit and Verheye, 2003; United Nations, 2007).

World Bank (2005) notes the need for land administration systems to “balance cost effective service provision and cost recovery mechanisms necessary to make the system sustainable.” Tanzania has a range of cost recovery mechanisms such as land rent (paid annually) and property tax (Kelly R, 2003), and charges on land transactions. However, collection capacity has been a challenge over the years due to poor coordination and political interference (Fjeldstad et al, 2017) and attempts to centralize the collection system have not always had the intended effect (ibid). When the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) announced centralization measures in 2016, there was a decline in property tax collection in 2016/2017.

Rural land is exempted from land rent and property tax. Instead, agriculture/crops serve as a source of rent for rural land (Kelly, op.cit). The village governments in different parts of the country have imposed some form of charges on transactions. The cost sharing in titling of rural land and reasonable cost recovery thereafter seems to offer the recommended balance, given that majority of inhabitants are low income earners.

The study shows that there is emphasis on gender inclusion across Oxfam land titling initiatives in all zones. Widows were exempted from contributing financially in the lake zone and they were a priority in Morogoro and Manyara. For couples, especially in the lake zone, joint title deeds were encouraged and ‘cost incentives’ such as reduction in the amount to be contributed by such households were offered. The issuance of joint title deeds requires significant work to change mindsets (Migiro, 2017). There has been limited progress on this aspect. The effect of joint titles in Oxfam projects remains largely unknown.

“We have received cases from women complaining about not being allowed to own land, even in families that own large farms. We spoke about it, and clarified that a woman has a right to own land as well. In some families, men understood and women received pieces of land.” Hamlet Chairperson, Bukigi, Simiyu

“There are many people who haven`t understood the meaning of joint title deeds. As a result, the response has been low.” Female rice farmer, Nyida.

“On this (joint title deeds) aspect, education is still needed.” Female farmer, Bukigi.

V V


In terms of improving agricultural productivity, Oxfam implements a wide range of agricultural (rice, sisal, milk) value chain interventions. These interventions contribute to stage six of the Land Use Planning, Administration and Management Guideline, especially the goals on facilitating and building the capacity of community members to plan and implement the selected land use management measures. Government investment in these initiatives, in terms of complementing the effort, remains limited.

3.7 Stakeholders in VLUP processTable 3 shows the main stakeholders in the areas of study where Oxfam has implemented land titling projects in collaboration with partners.

Table 3: Main stakeholders in VLUP and issuance of CCROs in study areas

No. Primary stakeholder Factors that need to be considered for successful VLUP and CCROs

1 Local communities/community members (including farmers, forest or land resource dependent communities and landowners).

• Awareness about land rights, basic legal provisions and land use planning regime in the country.

• Local community and government institutional support.

2 Land using firms (especially mining compa-nies and large scale agricultural investors).

• Availability of data on customary land ownership.

• Clear definition of rights and responsibil-ities with respect to compensation and community development in areas assigned to external investors.

3 Central Government, NLUPC and SMD (related ministries and agencies).

• Clear standards and procedures must be in place that take adequate account of community land use systems.

4 Local (district and village) government authorities and the Central Government department.

• Institutional mechanisms to guarantee transparent, participatory, fair and equita-ble distribution of funds and development support under public/private partnership agreements.

Source: Fieldwork study (March 2017).

Land Use Planning Guidelines call for the identification and participation of all stakeholders such as LGAs, communities, and institutions (see Table 3). While it is important to do so, being strategic and clear upfront about the stakeholders that will be involved is necessary for saving both time and money.

V V


3.8 Comparing: Oxfam’s practice and that of other playersOxfam practice across the three zones has not been uniform. While cost-sharing was piloted in the lake zone, the implementation of the land titling in Morogoro and Manyara relied on full funding from Oxfam. Haki Ardhi identifies and prioritizes special groups in the community such as women, the elderly and orphans and thus funds the titling of their land, in full. This is mainly the case because the number of parcels to be titled per village is limited by available resources.21

The comparison of various players’ practice is based on four major criteria, namely: 1) goal for tenure formalization, 2) average cost for single VLUP, 3) Form of land adjudication and, 4) Gender and social dimensions. Based on these criteria, four major players were identified: MKURABITA, the Land Tenure Support Programme (LTSP), Haki Ardhi and Oxfam (see Table 4).

21 Interview conducted in January 2018. The cost includes per diem, travel costs and meals for the PLUM team and village council members. It excludes ‘support preparation costs’ such as notebooks, pens, flip charts and necessary per diems.

V V


Table 4: Comparison: Oxfam and other actors3

No. Criteria/

indicator

Oxfam MKURABITA LTSP Haki Ardhi USAID/LTA

1 Goal for tenure formalization

Improve smallholders’ and pastoralists’ livelihoods through land tenure security.

Formalisation of property and business assets, and to empower property owners to access loans from financial institutions.

Land tenure formalization to facilitate conflict resolution and promote investment

Women land rights, climate change mitigation, conflict resolution

Clarify and document land rights, support land use planning efforts, and increase local understanding of land use and land rights.

2 Average cost for a single VLUP (TZS). TZS 3,000,00023

TZS

12,000,00024

TZS

8,800,000

million25

TZS

5,340,000

million*

USD 1753.88 (TZS

3, 936, 210)26

3 Form of land adjudication

Spot Systematic Systematic Spot Systematic

4 Gender and social dimensions

Considered Limited emphasis on gender

Limited emphasis on

gender

Considered No specific emphasis on gender

Examination of selected stakeholder`s goals (Table 4 above) for land tenure formalisation shows that the motives that drive these initiatives vary. While Oxfam`s overall goal is to improve livelihood for smallholder farmers and pastoralists, the government`s Land Tenure Support Programme focuses on facilitating conflict resolution, in the short term, and stimulating investment, in the medium and long term. While it is understandable that the resolution of conflict may ultimately contribute to improvement of livelihood, the route to achieving the goal for these two stakeholders is different.

Haki Ardhi`s overall objective is diverse, and includes addressing gender inequality in land ownership, climate change mitigation and facilitating conflict resolution. 27 MKURABITA`s main goal is to formalize property (and business) ownership in order to facilitate access to finance.

22 Details based on field work and review of budgets.23 Key cost elements are per diem, transport/fuel, logbooks, refreshments for Village Council Members and procurement of copies

of the Land Act.24 The cost is maximum.25 Interview with Coordinator, February 2018.26 Exchange rate of 2,245, as of Feb 14, 2017. Note $ 1753.88 is the “average cost”.27 Interview at Haki Ardhi in January 2017.

V V


In terms of form of adjudication, Oxfam and Haki Ardhi rely on spot adjudication, while MKURABITA and LTSP use systematic form of adjudication. It costs Oxfam and Haki Ardhi, an average of TZS 8,800,000 and TZS 6,200,000, respectively, to undertake a single Village Land Use Plan while MKURABITA spends TZS 12,000,000 and LTSP TZS 8,800,000. Systematic adjudication is made possible by major donors such as United Kingdom`s Department for International Development (DFID), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and Denmark`s Development Corporation (DANIDA).

V V


4.1 ConclusionThe key findings from this research have shown that, the cost of land titling, which is an important legal procedure in securing tenure rights, has been prohibitive and has slowed initiatives by multiple stakeholders. The lessons from land titling experiments in different parts of the country have revealed that it is possible to leverage costs through a careful combination of practices. These practices include reducing the district PLUM team, ensuring the technical team operates during working hours so as to avoid extra duty fees, high level buy in and involvement in community mobilization, and combining preliminary stages of the land use planning process.

The trend shows that resources for conducting land titling, from both government and foreign donors has decreased. As such, cost sharing is becoming increasingly important and evidence from the lake zone shows that it can work. However, the study shows that majority of female-headed and poor male-headed households struggled to raise the required contributions. In areas where there is a relatively high number of contributors, these groups could be covered since essential costs would borne by the majority.

It is important to note that, due to the high cost of conducting land use plans and issuing CCROs, sensitisation efforts from many actors lean towards the potential for using CCROs as collateral. Although current evidence shows that traditional financial institutions are hesitant to accept CCROs due to cost recovery risks, those encouraging smallholders to explore this option should do so with caution, taking into consideration the associated risk of loss of land, in case of repayment failure. The actors interested in land tenure formalization should go beyond land titling and invest in value chain development in order to improve productivity and incomes.

4.2 Recommendations

The government should balance budgetary investment in land titling with reasonable cost recovery measures

Investment in land titling has been mainly undertaken with funding from development partners. Investment from government sources has been limited, partly due to poor results from existing cost recovery options. Balancing budgetary investment with efficient cost recovery mechanisms will contribute to achieving a sustainable land administration system.

Stakeholders should encourage joint-title deeds/co-ownership in land titling initiatives

The study findings show that awareness creation and cost incentives are effective in getting households to opt for co-occupancy. Co-ownership is crucial in addressing inequality over land ownership and inheritance challenges that arise when a spouse dies.

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

V V


Introduce and encourage cost-sharing, where economic status of the targeted community permits

Cost sharing, as a mode of facilitation, enhances ownership and ensures the funding burden is shared across stakeholders. However, a community contribution aspect should be introduced where economic status of targeted communities allows. The cost variation can expand affordability, and increase the number of beneficiaries.

V V


Abdulai R and Domeher D, (2012) “Land registration, credit and agricultural investment in Africa”, Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 72, Iss: 1, page 87–103.

Alden-Wily, L (2003) Governance and Land Relations. A Review of Decentralization of Land Administration in Africa, Research Report, International Institute for Environment and Development, Accessed from:hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/iied_lt_wily.pdf

Ali D, Collin M, Deininger K, Dercon S, Sandefur J, Zeitlin A (2014) The Price of Em-powerment: Experimental Evidence on Land Titling in Tanzania, Working Paper 369, Centre for Global Development, page 1-34,

Accessed from:

https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/price-empowerment-land-titling-tanzania.pdf

Atuahene B (2006) “Land Titling: A Mode of Privatization with the Potential to Deepen Democracy”, 50 Saint Louis University Law Journal 76, Accessed from: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?Section=1028&context=fac_scho

Ayalew D, et al (2011) Land Titling in Urban Slums: The Demand Curve for Property Rights & the Price of Female Empowerment,

https://aae.wisc.edu/mwiedc/papers/2011/zeitlin_andrew_slums.pdf

Beyers C, and Fay, (2015)“After restitution: Community, litigation and governance in South African land reform.” African Affairs114, page 432–454.

Byamugisha F, (2013) Securing Africa’s Land for Shared Prosperity: A Program to Scale Up Reforms and Investments, Africa Development Forum Series, Washington, DC, Accessed from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/13837

Carpano F, (2010) Strengthening Women`s Access to Land: The Tanzanian Experience of the Sustainable Rangeland Management Project, International Fund for Agricultural Development,

Accessed from:

https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/7eb9e45c-b14b-458a-ad6b-52dea8f5bc43

Collin M (2013) Joint-titling of land and Housing: Examples, Causes and Consequences,

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a0240f0b652dd000504/Joint_titling.pdf

Cotula L., Vermeulen S., Leonard R and Keeley J (2009) Land Grab or Development Opportunity? Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals in Africa, IIED/FAO/IFAD, London/Rome.

De Soto H, (2000) The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Elsewhere, Basic Books, New York.

DeWit P and Verheye W (2003) Land Use Planning for Sustainable Development. In Land Cover and Land Use. UNESCO-EOLSS Publishers, Oxford.

Fairley E, (2012) Upholding Customary Land Rights Through Formalization:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

V V


Evidence from Tanzania’s Program of Land Reform, World Bank, Accessed from: http://www.landandpoverty.com/agenda/pdfs/paper/fairley_full_paper.pdf

FAO (n.d.) Labour, page18-31,

Accessed from http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490e01b.pdf

FAO (1993) FESLM: An international framework for evaluating sustainable land management, Rome. Accessed from http://www.faoswalim.org/resources/Land/FESLM.pdf.

FAO (2002)I, FAO Land Tenure Studies Series (3), Rome, Accessed from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4307e/y4307e00.htm

FAO (2011a) The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011: Closing the gender gap for development. Rome

FAO, (2011b) The Role of Women in Agriculture. Rome, Accessed from:www.fao.org/economic/esa.

Flintan F (2017) Joint village land use planning for the resolution of conflicts in Tanzania, Accessed from: http://ifad-un.blogspot.com/2017/02/joint-village-land-use-planning-for.html

Fjeldstad et al (2017) Taxing the Urban Boom in Tanzania: Central versus local government property tax collection, https://www.cmi.no/publications/6260-taxing-the-urban-boom-in-tanzania

Griffith-Charles, (2004) The Impact of Land Titling on Land Transaction Activity and Registration System Sustainability: A Case Study of St. Lucia, Dissertation, University of Florida, http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0006631/griffithcharles_c.pdf

International Finance Corporation (2012) Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement,

Accessed from:

http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/3d82c70049a79073b82cfaa8c6a8312a/PS5_English_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Jacobs S. (2002) “Land reform: Still a goal worth pursuing for rural women?”Journal of International Development 14, Wiley Inter Science.

Jacoby and Minten (2007) Is Land Titling in Sub-Saharan Africa Cost-Effective?

Evidence from Madagascar, World Bank, Accessed from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/246051468269975190/pdf/775510JRN020070LIC00Is0Land0Titling.pdf

Jayne TS et al (2015) Africa’s Changing Farmland Ownership: Causes and Consequences,

Accessed from:www.afdb.org/Africa’s_Changing_Farmland_Ownership.

V V


Kamruzzaman M et al. (2014) “Accuracy of Handheld GPS Comparing with Total sta-tion in Land Use Survey: A Case Study in RUET Campus”, International Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 7, Iss 1, Pp. 343-352, Accessed from:http://www.ijias.issr-journals.org/abstract.php?Section=IJIAS-14-180-02

Kelly R (2003) Property Rates in Tanzania,

Accessed from:

http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/June2003Seminar/Tanzania.pdf

Kironde JML (2006) Making Property Rights Work for the Poor in Tanzania: High Level Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, Working Paper for Tanzania,University College of Lands and Architectural Studies.

Kironde JML (2009) “Improving Land Sector Governance in Africa: The Case of Tanzania”, Paper prepared for the Workshop on Land Governance in support of the MDGs: Responding to New Challenges, Washington DC, 9-10 March

Lawry S et al, (2014) The Impact of Land Property Interventions on Investment and Agricultural Productivity in Developing Countries,

Accessed from:

https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/property-rights-interventions-investment-agriculture.html

Lawson D et al (2015) No Evidence that Polygymous Marriage is a harmful cultural practice in Northern Tanzania, http://www.pnas.org/content/112/45/13827.full

Lefroy, R et al (2000) Indicators for sustainable land management based on farmer surveys in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, Accessed from:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aef0/2a7ccfa08d12bef38bd77cc8fbd26788679c.pdf

Migiro K (2017) “Tanzanian Polygamist`s Puzzle: How to stop six wives warring over 500 acres”, Reuters, Accessed from:http://www.reuters.com/Section/us-tanzania-landrights-idUSKBN17R29Q

Ministry of Land, Housing and Human Settlement Development (2015) Programu ya Kupanga, Kupima na Kumilikisha Ardhi Nchini,

Accessed from:http://www.lands.go.tz/publications/13

MKURABITA (2007) Poor People`s Wealth: Tanzania`s Property and Business Formalization Programme, http://www.hakikazi.org/papers/english-mkurabita.pdf

Moyo S (2003) “The Land Question in Africa: Research Perspectives and Questions”, Conference Proceedings, Codesria Conferences on Land reform, the Agrarian Question and Nationalism in Gaborone, Botswana (18-19 October) and Dakar, Senegal (8-11 December).

V V


Mpandikizi KM (2009) Acquisition of Pastoral Lands For Reserve Areas in Tanzania the Case of Usangu Plain–Mbarali, Mbeya, Masters’ Thesis, Royal Institute of

Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.

Mwambashi E (2015) Assessing the Impact of Land Conflict between Farmers and Pastoralists in Tanzania: A Case of Ulanga District Council, Masters’ Thesis, Mzumbe University.

Mwamfumpe D (2015) Persistence of Farmer – Herder Conflicts in Tanzania, http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0215/ijsrp-p3862.pdf

Namkwahe J (2015) “Sh 2.3 Trillion required for land use planning”, The Citizen, 12 September.

Narh, P et. al. (2016) Land Sector Reforms in Ghana, Kenya and Vietnam: A Comparative Analysis of Their Effectiveness, MDPI, http://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/5/2/8

National Land Use Planning Commission (2011) “Part B: Application of Participatory Land Use Planning, Administration and Management”, Guidelines for Participatory Village Land Use Management in Tanzania, page 26–32.

Nyadimo E (2006) The Role of Private Sector in Land Adjudication in Kenya: A Suggested Approach, Conference Proceedings, Shaping the Change XXIII FIG Congress Munich, Germany, 8-13 October,

Accessed from:https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2006/papers/ts89/ts89_03_nyadimo_0640.pdf

Odgaard R (2010) “Scrambling for Land in Tanzania: Processes of Formalization and Legitimization of Land Rights”, The European Journal of Development Research, Routledge, London.

Olengurumwa O (2010) 1990s Tanzania Land Laws Reforms and its Impact on the Pastoral Land Tenure,

Accessed from:

https://tnrf.org/files/E-INFO_LHRC_New_Land_Laws_Paper_Pastoral_Week_2010.pdf

Ouma H (2015) Customary Land Ownership and Its Impact on Government Interventions: The Case of Peri-Urban Areas of Jig-Jiga Town. Masters’ Thesis,

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Oxfam in Tanzania (OiTZ) (2015) A Case Study of Maswa, Bukombe and Mbogwe, Food Security for Tanzania Farmers Project. Oxfam in Tanzania, Dar es Salaam.

Oxfam in Tanzania (OiTZ) (2017) Balancing Infrastructure Development and Community Livelihoods: Lessons from Mtwara–Dar es Salaam Natural Gas Pipeline, Oxfam in Tanzania, Dar es Salaam,

Accessed from:

http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/3d82c70049a79073b82cfaa8c6a8312a/PS5 English_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

V V


Pedersen RH (2010) Tanzania’s Land Law Reform; the Implementation Challenge, Working Paper, DIIS, Copenhagen.

Shivji I (1998) Not Yet Democracy: Reforming Land Tenure in Tanzania, HAKIARDHI, Accessed from:

http://www.hakiardhi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=Section&id=72:issa-shivji-1997-not-yet-democracy-reforming-land-tenure-in-tanzania-&catid=45:books&Itemid=78

Stein H, Maganga FP, Odgaard R, Askew K and Cunningham S (2016) “Customary Rights and the Allocation of Credit to Agriculture in Tanzania, The Journal of

Development Studies. page 1 – 9, DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2016.1146701

Stein H, Askew K (2009) Embedded Institutions and Rural Transformation in Tanzania: Privatizing Rural Property and Markets, http://policydialogue.org/files/events/SteinAskew-Rural_Land_and_Property_Rights_in_Tanzania.pdf, Initiative for Policy Dialogue (Columbia University), South Africa

Toulmin C (2009) Securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: the role of local institutions, Land Use Policy, Vol, 26, Iss, 1, page. 10 -19.

USAID (2017) Feed the Future Tanzania Land Tenure Assistance (LTA), October 2016 – September 2017 report. Obtained via email from project specialist.

United Nations (2007) Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, Accessed from:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf

United Republic of Tanzania (1998).Guidelines for Participatory Village Land Use Management in Tanzania. NLUPC, Dar es Salaam.

United Republic of Tanzania (1999b). The Village Land Act. Government Printer,Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

United Republic of Tanzania (2007) Land Use Planning Act, No.6, Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

United Republic of Tanzania (2007) Poor People’s Wealth: A Plain Language Information about MKURABITA, Dar es Salaam.

United Republic of Tanzania (2016) National Five Year Development Plan 2016/17–2020/21, Dar es Salaam.

Van Gelder JW, Bailis R and German L (2010) Global and Regional Trends and Scenarios in Bioenergy Trade and Investment: An analysis of Forest-Rich Countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa. CIFOR Bogor, Indonesia.

World Bank, UNWomen, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UNDP (2015),The Cost of the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity in Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda, Accessed from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated.pdf

V V


World Bank (2005) Agriculture Investment Sourcebook, Accessed from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/633761468328173582/pdf/343920PAPER0Ag101OFFICIAL0USE0ONLY1.pdf

Wrachien D and Van Lier H (2002) Land Use Planning: A Key to Sustainable Development, International Symposium Actual Tasks on Agricultural Engineering,Opatija, Croatia, 12-15 March.

V V


Oxfam Research Reports

Oxfam Research Reports are written to share research results, to contribute to public debate and to invite feedback on development and humanitarian policy and practice. They do not necessarily reflect Oxfam policy positions. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Oxfam.

For more information, or to comment on this report, email [[email protected]]

© Oxfam in Tanzania, March 2018

This publication is copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, permission must be secured and a fee may be charged. E-mail [email protected]

The information in this publication is correct at the time of going to press.

OXFAMOxfam is an international confederation of 20 organizations networked together in 90 countries, as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty.

Please write to any of the agencies for further information, or visit www.oxfam.org.

Oxfam I 2nd and 4th Floor, Central Technologies Building I Plot 96Light Industrial Area, Mikocheni (Near TBC)P.O. Box 10962, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

Documents

LEVERAGING COST IN LAND TITLING · Land titling provides an opportunity to address inequality in land ownership. However, the progress remains limited due to low awareness and patriarchy