- Email: [email protected]
Agricultural policy in Tanzania at the crossroads
Agricultural policy in Tanzania at the crossroads
Zebron Steven Gondwe
General rural development strategies for Tanzania were outlined in the 1962 TANU pamphlet and two policy documents of 1967; but Tanzania’s AGRIPOL is the first attempt to guide economic growth through agricultural development since independence in 1961. This article looks at the likely impact of the tenurial aspects of AGRIPOL on villages, and considers whether these developments can be compatible with the government’s aim of socialism and self reliance. Zebron Steven Gondwe is Assistant Lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of Dar-es-Salaam, PO Box 35093, Dar-esSalaam, Tanzania. This article is dedicated to Professor G.M. Fimbo, University of Salaam.
The agricultural policy (AGRIPOL) adopted by the government of Tanzania in March 1983, is the first comprehensive blueprint for agriculturally-led economic growth since independence in December 1961. Thus, AGRIPOL should be appraised in the context of the Arusha Declaration. The declaration, adopted on 5 February 1967, set forth in broad terms the ‘Chama cha Mapinduzi’ (CCM) party’s policy on socialism and self-reliance. Significantly, Tanzania’s constitution provides that CCM is the only political party and that all government agencies have to function under the auspices and supervision of the party. Central to this appraisal is the likely impact of the tenurial aspects of AGRIPOL on villages. In this context, three main issues call for consideration:
0 0 0
What developments, if any, will AGRIPOL have for rural Tanzanians? Will these developments fall foul of Tanzania’s post-Arusha Declaration principles on indigenous agriculture? More generally, what is the probable impact of measured economic liberalism, embodied in policies such as AGRIPOL, on backward agricultural systems such as Tanzania’s?
Original rural development
‘Julius K. Nyerere’s, ‘Ujamaa - the basis of African socialism’, in Ujamaa - Essays on Socialism, Oxford University Press, Dar-es-Salaam, 1974, pp 4-l 2.
0264-8377/86/01031-6
strategies
Logic demands an outline of the country’s pre-AGRIPOL agricultural direction. Agriculture has been, and remains, the mainstay of the economy in Tanzania. The undisputed harbinger of rural development strategies in the immediate post-independence period is a TANU pamphlet published in 1962 - a paper describing the basic attributes and attitudes of Tanzania’s socialism. ’ The Improvement Approach, the earliest developmental strategy, sought to improve agricultural methods without instituting any radical changes in traditional social and legal systems. But, unfortunately, few results were achieved before the system broke down. The Transformation Approach, unlike its predecessor, strove to transform traditional agriculture by organizing peasants in govern-
$03.00 0 1986 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
31
‘The two development strategies have received excellent treatment in R.W. James, Land Tenure and policy in Tanzania, East African Literature Bureau, Dar es Salaam, 1971, pp 23-26; and R.W. James and G.M. Fimbo, Customary Land Law of Tanzania - A Source Book, East African Literature Bureau, Dar es Salaam, 1973, pp 103-132. ‘Nyerere, op tit, Ref 1, pp 106144. 4James, op tit, Ref 2, p 26. Nyerere IS sufficiently explicit on what Ujamaa entails; see, for example, Nyerere, op tit, Ref 1, p 12 and pp 76-78. Evidently Ujamaa is not synonymous with Marxismexactly Leninism. Therefore, the term ‘socialism’ should be cautiously applied to the Tanzanian experience. 5James, op tit, Ref 2, p 30. Further enlightenment on this score may be gained from Direction 4 of Government Notice No 168 of 197.5 (now repealed). The Directions were made under The Vi//ages and Ujamaa Villages (Registration, Designation and Administrafion) Act, 7975, No 21 of 1975, now similarly repealed. The repealing legislation is the Local Government (District Authorities) Act, 1982, No 7 of 1982. ‘Nyerere, op cif, Ref 1, p 126. U, Direction 8(b) of Government Notice No 168 of 1975. 7See James and Fimbo, op tit, Ref 2, pp 128-l 29. ‘For administrative devices see James and Fimbo, op tit, Ref 2, p 125 et seq. Outstanding in regard to legislative devices was the RuralLands (Planning and Utilization) Act, 1973, No 14 of 1973; also, G.M. Fimbo, ‘Land, socialism and the law in Tanzania’, in G. Ruhumbika, ed, Towards Ujamaa, East African Lrterature Bureau, Dar es Salaam, 1974, pp 261264; and David Williams, ‘Law and socialist rural development’, in Eastern Africa Law Review, Vol 6, No 3, April 1973, pp 193198. The 1975 Act was repealed by section 195 of Act No 7 of 1982. See also note 5. ‘Direction 8 of Government Notice 168 of 1975, and direction 4 of Government Notice 168 of 1975. “Direction 4 of Government Notice 168 of 1975, cfsection 22(l) of Act 7 of 1982; and direction 16 of Government Notrce 168 of 1975, cf section 145 of Act 7 of 1982. “Actually a portion of paragraph 2 of Presidential Circular No 1 of 1969 reproduced in James and Fimbo, op tit, Ref 2, pp 125-l 32, (emphasis added). “Composition is shown in The Tanzanian National Agricultural Policy final Report, Printpak (T) Ltd. Dar es Salaam, 1982, pp iv-v. 130ther tasks assigned to the Task Force are detailed in DO xv-xvi of the Task Force Report. “Boldly stated at p 26 of the Task Force Report. Not surprisingly, AGRIPOL makes a similar assertion atp 10. 15Defined in section 2 of the Land Ordicontinued on page 33
32
mentally-supervised settlement schemes. predecessor in the realm of ‘has beens’.’
Regrettably,
it soon joined
its
Impact of the Arusha Declaration Two policy documents released by TANU in 1967 have had a profound impact on the politico-economy of Tanzania: the Arusha Declaration, and Socialism arId Rural De\~elopmet7t.3 James summarizes the principles that emerged from the two documents as: equality - individuals should not exploit one another; self reliance - people’s efforts should be the basis of development; and tljatnaa - development must be through ujamaa (family) villages, thereby reactivating the principles on which the traditional extended family was based.” It is the last of these principles that is of immediate relevance in this article. Two propositions emerged from these two documents. First. during the long trek towards socialism and self reliance, there would be a transition period during which some private initiative would be tolerable.’ Second, after the attainment of socialism, individuals would still be allowed a minimum scope for private initiative.” A feature common to the two documents is the absence of a statement on both the schedule for attaining ujamaa, and the duration of the transition period. Instead, a gradual three-phase transformation was advocated.’ An assortment of administrative and legislative devices were employed to bolster the programme; but of particular importance is the legislation: Villages and Ujamaa Villages (Registration, Designation and Administration) Act, 1975 (the Villages Act, 1975).” The Villages Act, 1975. gave legal expression to both the Policy of Ujr~m~~u and the transition period.” Transitory villages, known under the act as registered villages, would eventually be elevated to fully-fledged Ujarnua villages. “’ The policy has been summarized thus: All
Government
policies
and the activities
and decisions
of all Government
c~rlvat~tccgcs of living togrther rrr~tl rllorking tog&u for the good of all; they .sho~rldhe rtrlglcrl rrt discourriging thp c’orztirllrcltiorz of pri\wtc iizdi~kld fwming. ”
officials must therefore
be geared towards emphasizing
the
The message here is clear - lean hard on private individual This, ostensibly, was government policy until AGRIPOL.
farming.
Task Force A Task Force” was appointed in May 1982 to review critically recent trends in agricultural development and to recommend ways of improving flagging performance.13 The Task Force tendered its final report in April 1983. According to the Task Force Report there were four legally recognized tenures in existence: government leaseholds; rights of occupancies (sic); customary land tenure laws; and the collective tenure system. I4 However, it is not known where the Task Force observed the four tenure systems - since 1969, there has been only one tenure in Tanzania: the right of occupancy.” The occupation and use of land according to native law and custom constitute what are generally termed ‘deemed rights of occupancy’. ” Within surveyed areas, normally located in urban centres, land is
LAND USE POLICY
January
1986
usually held by way of express grants termed ‘granted rights of occupancy’. These ;lrc largely governed by statutory provisions.” Most landed interests in rural Tanzania fall under the category ‘deemed rights of occupany’. For sOme time the status of Innded interests in villages established by law has been a grey ;Ire:l, but ;ruthorities seem inclined towards the view that such interests are dso deemed rights of occupancy.‘s The Task Force also observed three forms of agricultural production:
continued from page 32 nance, Cap 113, to mean ‘a title to the use and occupation of land and includes a title of native or of a native community lawfully using or occupying land in accordance with native law and custom .’ The plural for right of occupancy is ‘rights of occupancy’ and not ‘rights of occupancres’. Rights of occupancy are held over Public Land. All the land in Tanzania is Public Land, its control and disposition being vested in the President by sections 5 and 6 of the Land Ordinance. See also James, op tit, Ref 2, Ch 4 and 5. 161n such cases there are no express grants of nghts of occupancy; they are simply deemed to be in existence. Such estates can be mortgaged, leased or transferred in accordance with native law and custom. ‘7Principally the Land Ordinance and the 7948, Government Land Regulations, Notice 232, 1948. Presently, such estates can be granted for a maxrmum of 99 years. The mortgage, lease and transfer thereof is largely regulated by statutory provisions, “More appropriately, they could be said to be a cross between traditional and statutory tenure. See also, James, op tit, Ref 2, p 241. lgDetailed at pp 24-5, Task Force Report. The homestead farm is roughly the equivalent of a kitchen garden (cf the two proposrtions in the text). *“Presumably, the primary collective endeavour in the transition phase. Cf the first of the two propositions in the text, and James, op tit, Ref 2, p 24. *‘Village Councils (village government) were previously established under section 5 of Act 21 of 1975. The current provision is section 25 of Act 7 of 1982. Presumably, on attainment of soctalism and self reliance, the collective farm shall be the principal form of agricultural production. Cf the second of the two propositions in the text.
0 0 0
The homestead farm. where the villager grows crops of his own choice and the produce belongs to the family. I” The block farm, in reality, ;I large tract of land subdivided into small lots which ilrc allocated to single families resident in the village.“’ The collective farm. ;I village government endeavour in which all irble-bodied residents are required to participate.”
In all three. land is under the control :rnd supervision of the village government, ie, the Village Council.” Under the Villages Act. 1975, a Village Council was allocated land by a District Development Council. The Village Council W;IS then bound to allocate each homestead ;I lot in the block furm and an acre for domestic (homestead farm inclusive) purposes.‘3 These forms of agriculturnl production portray both the transitory and final phases of the U~NIHNLIpolicy. They also give expression to the scale of private initiative that would be tolerable in either phase.“’ The Task Force’s findings on agricultural production paint a grim picture of the agricultural sector’s performance.25 Tables 1 and 2 testify that fact. Except for ;I brief upswing in the mi&lC)7Os, the tables depict ;I downhill trend for most food and cash crops. Local government has generally blamed this trend on weather conditions, particuliu-ly drought. The Task Force identified :I number of tenurial factors ;IS being contributory to the uns:rtisfactory state of agriculture in the villages:‘” 0 0 0
Issuing of short-term allotments which discourage long-term investment leding to bad husbandry and soil depletion. Unwillingness to exp:md crop acreage for fear of being identified as an opponent of collective farming. Lack of definition of the succession to the homestead allotment.
Table 1. Production estimates of food crops 1965166 - 1980/81 (tonnes x 1O3). Sorghum/ Maize 1965/66
503
1966167 1967168 1968/69 1969170 1970171 1971/72 1972173 1973174 1974175 1975176 1976177 i 977178 1978179 i 979180 i 9ao/ai
a80 750 770 730
a70 a50 980 750 750 a25 a97 968 1000 900 a00
Paddy
a4 140 114 131 144
192 202 178 193 141 157 180 203 260 250 180
Wheat
_ 43 43 40 41 60 77 67 49 32 46 58 35 38 30 na
Source: Task Force Report, p la9
LAND USE POLICY January
1986
Cassava
Pulses
389 344 374 372 413 367 409 423 280 440 390 390 410 380 169
145 174 172 159 180 183 224 193 ia2 iai 210 219 212 213 219
_ 3300 3500 3600 3500 3444 3209 3189 3388 3688 3800 3900 4000 4450 4550 4600
Sweet
millet
Potatoes
potatoes
24 35 46 62 74 67 120 165 101 a7 92 96 a5 a5 a4
237 254 253 238 248 229 234 296 302 320 330 335 330 330 332
_
Bananas and plantain _ 1345
a91 140 185 261 998 1206 1400 1440 1500 1540 I 580 1466 1492 _
Table 2. Production of major export crops 1965/66 - 1980/81. 65/66
66167
67/68
68169
69/70
70171
7ll72
72i73
73174
74175
75l76
76177
77l78
78l79
79/80
80/81
Coffee ProductIon (tonnes x iv)
520
Index”
111
40.5 86
51 5
46.1
110
99
49.7
46 7
46.7
52.4
47 5
42.3
521
54.2
48.7
116
104
111
106
102
3936
234.3
3691
369.8
278.6
3102
3341
85
94
56
88
66
74
79
100
112
102
91
381 7
4200
424.0
3591
100
86
101
Cotton Production (bales x 10’) Index”
368.5
4334
389.4
282.2
88
103
93
67
91
47 8
51 9
112
106
67.3 144
3240 77
Teab
Production (tonnes x 103) Indexa
7.2
6.8 74
78
8.0 87
8.5
88 96
92
92 100
11 6 126
13.3 145
12.3 134
139 151
13.0 141
152 165
185 201
173
17.5 190
188
164 178
Tobacco
Production (tonnes x 103) Indexa
14.2
17.9
61
97
93
100
109
106
153
118
149
4423
6692
4799
3758
2310
2731
4276
4016
3282
4741
3946
162
245
176
138
100
157
147
120
174
144
117.6 110
113.5 106
111.2 104
107.3 100
113.8 106
1254 117
145.1 135
1190 111
78
7.3
13.1
18.3
11.1
65
5.1
12.0
127
11.6
43
18.3
17.1
16.9
17.3
161
143
144
141
134
3332
2870
1600
1616
2002
122
105
59
59
73
571 53
41.4 39
50.9 47
153
Pyrethrum
Production (tonnes of dned flowers) Indexa
85
Cashewnuts
Production (tonnes x 103) Index"
83.3 78
84.3 79
837 78
976 91
684 64
.%a/ ProductIon (tonnes x 103)
218
225
220
197
209
202
181
157
155
Indexa
106
111
109
198
103
100
90
78
77
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
330 100
768 223
_
_
_
Cardomon
ProductIon (tonnes) Index? Cocoa Productjon (tonnes x 103)
_
_
_ _
_
_
_
_
05
120
114
105
92
81
86
59
56
52
46
40
43
759
596
433
404
332
278
_
230
181
131
122
101
84
138 68
0.6
06
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.9
_
1 0
Source: Task Force Report. p 191 Note: a 1970171
= 100: b
In calendar years.
%f, Direction 5 of Government Notice 168 of 1975 and paragraph 1.3.74, p 27 of Task Force Report. 23Direction 5(l) of Government Notice 168 of 1975. Following the repeal of Act 21 of 1975, under which Government Notice 168 of 1975 was made, the current position is far from clear. ‘%ee Nyerere, op tit, Ref 1, pp 121-127. 25Task Force Report, pp 21-22 and 2941. =/b/d, pp 25, 27-28. 27Simply because in the collective form private initiative is supposed to have atrophied. ‘8Personal commurxcation with a senior official in the Prime Minister’s office at Dodoma. The Task Force Report, in paragraph 1.2.39 at p 16, either overlooked the fact or considered it inslgnificant. See also section 145 of Act 7 of 1982. Cf, section 16 of Act 21 of 1975. zgAbdul Rahman Mohammed Babu, ‘From China with lessons for Africa’,, Africa Now, October 1984, pp 44-45 (emphasis added).
34
These constraints relate more to the homestead and block farm than the collective farm.” They also relate largely to the transition phase of the socialist policy. The Task Force Report does not contain a statement on the registration of Ujomuu villages. It transpires that Tanzania has yet to boast a single ujamaa village.‘s Consequently, the report was largely addressed to registered villages and related developments in the transition stage. Not surprisingly, therefore, the tenurial constraints which the report identified are concerned principally with the restoration of a climate conducive to private initiative. According to the Task Force, private initiative has a sizable role to play in the transition stage. One would have liked to have seen the Task Force assessment set within ;I broader context. Tanzania could possibly learn a great deal from the Chinese experience. In ;I recent article on post-Mao China. Professor Bahu rcmarkcd:
rwsons)
in practice
they will do everything
to a\oitl cloin:g their hot.“’
LAND USE POLICY
January
1986
It is on record that at some stage the government abandoned persuasion in favour of forcible resettlement of peasants in collective villages.“’ As a result, peasant activity appears to have receded to subsistence levels. The experience in Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka was similar.
Recommendations Most of the Task Force Detailed recommendations 0 0
0
30Williams, op tit, Ref 8, pp 193-198. 3’Recommendations are set forth in pp 109-l 11 of the Task Force Report. Regarding land tenure see paragraph 30(a) and (b), p 10 of AGRIPOL. 32During their Annual Conference held at Arusha, l-4 December 1983, the country’s senior land officers willingly accepted this task. 33James, op tit, Ref 2, pp 17-18, 93-95.
LAND USE POLICY January
1986
recommendations are put forward
are echoed in AGRIPOL. regarding land tenure:”
Land allocations to Village Councils shall be for durations of not less than 999 years. Villages may then favour their members with inheritable leases for durations ranging between 33 years and 99 years: 0 Homestead farm: each homestead shall receive a long-term lease over part of village land, say for 33 years, the lease cannot be the subject of a sale, but the land so leased may be surrendered to the Village Council which would award compensation for improvements thereon. 0 Block farm: lots in this endeavour shall be for a sufficiently long period, and when no longer required. such lots should be surrendered to the Village Council for reallocation. After counselling villages, relevant public authorities should establish a tenurial framework into which can be slotted both contemporary farming techniques and the various traditional tenures currently in existence, ie a versatile tenure.
The Ministry of Lands has been given the responsibility for getting this tenurial scheme off the groundLJ2 At the time of writing, the Ministry was still working out a formula that would make the scheme viable. One problem is the curious concept of ‘versatile tenure’. There is really no call for the formulation of such a unique tenure. A granted right of occupancy - of the L~tzd Ordimt~ce fame - is as versatile as they come.j3 This tenure can cater for village requirements through the conditions of the grant, normally set forth in the certificate of occupancy. But, in that event, an amendment to accomodatc grants of rights of occupancy for 999 years, would be unavoidable. Leases extended to individual village members should give the parties (the Village Council and village members) an opportunity to reach consensus on agreeable terms - such terms being consistent with the conditions in the grant. Thus, AGRIPOL holds some promise for villagers: they should soon be able to boast new, inheritable, long-term leases over both their homestead and block farms. In principle, agriculture is perhaps the one area in which economic liberalism is least likely to be effective. Much as liberalism may work in the short-term, owing to its capacity to adjust for market fluctuations, it is inherently unsuitable for weak economies such as Tanzania’s, The constantly changing character of a liberal economy militates against long-term planning. Moreover, such economies tend towards monopolism, a development which disadvantages smallholders. An appropriate alternative could be a blend of planning at a general-policy level and the operation of market forces at the local level. China has allowed the market to function within these terms with some positive results. In such a system, central planning and market forces
35
cater for
long-term
strategy
which
to China.
and short-term
could
Possible
Mozambique
candidntes
doses,
immediate
to
bc capable
of
leaving
state
the
Tanzania
in Africx The
private
respectively.
political
are countries in
This
;rspirntions
is ;I
similx
such ;IS Ethiopiil.
need to give some initiative
of AGRIPOL.
thcsc
incentive.
albeit
countries
requires
both
new
especially
to
China
in
have hd
form
while
policy.‘J
In
this
remarks
heen of
both
h;~ve hccn
m:~n:agcd
Bahu
that
sonic
should
villagers
initiative
Tirnzania
structure
;lrc;ls
general
Professor
cncoura~cd
schcmc
among
on private
and
the socialist
in the rural
guide
socidism:”
Icaders
tenurial
initiative
restrictions
their
destroying the
leewily
some
sacrificing
‘Without
private
enough
Significantly.
without
the proposcd
reinvigorating
and China,
years,
with
attention. the tenor
lifted.
requirements
to societies
and Tanzania.
mexured From
:rppeal
built
private
that:
over
the
initiiltive.
,‘.“’
Conclusion Kegarding
land
long-term Yet
tenure,
inhcritablc
wh:lt
to the trirnsition
it really
T:mzania’s In
many
;I new
should
gaining
countries.
credence:
liberal
as
Chinese
Tourti’s
is :lhout Guintxt
There
to justify
;I conclusive countries
appro;lch
Even
so.
one
will
make socialism
cannot
illusory.
pre-indcpendcnce initiiitivu. promise
will
help
era have
mcciiums of some
;I positive ;IS
such
xtion:
positive of the
is ;I placeho
invcstmcnt
long-;rw:lited
even the USSR
of the
bipolar
lessons of
order.
whcthcr
is
of the
the
events irrep:ir-
A pr;lgm;ltic,
:lllowing
that much more
;I convcrgencc
and AGRIPOL. of
th:lt
for
is visibly
possible.
wondering
Ironically.
;I new
assessment
and self-reliance
l7erniancncy
and procr;istin~ition AGRIPOL
is now
I%iOs
may he pi-eni:ituru.
has been done to the orthodox
initiative
Through
of
Dcmocrittic strategy
initiated
of some
Although
that
for
philsc
New
of the
;Irc: some reports
the following
in developing
entirely
is largely
recognized
correct
to introduce
unfolding
middle-of-the-road
the
has rcccntly
cspericnce:
assertion
of the
experience
currently
not
lx
the
vill:lges.
to the trxnsition
being
Chinese
lrble damage
the
AGRIPOL
should
reminiscent
Mao
The
reforms.
trying
is
hy
M;ld:lgasc:lr
Sckou
economic
discreetly
for
AGRIPOL contribution
AGRIPOL
advocated
while
code,
deal to vill:rgcrs;
rcaw,aken
policy.
ways
developing
phase.
is - ;I technocrats’
soci:llist
Revolution
36
offers
advoc:ltcd
the new de:11 is not an act of ccluivoc:~tion.
addressed
34Ample testimony In paragraph 27, p IO of AGRIPOL. %o it appears In paragraph 2.0(a), p vii of the Task Force Report, and paragraph 6(a), p 2 of AGRIPOL. 36Babu, op tit, Ref 29, p 44. 37See, for example, Government Paper No 6, 1958, Government Printer, Dar Es Salaam, 1958, in particular the introduction and paragraphs 8,9 and 13. 0, paragraph 30(a) and (b), p 10 of AGRIPOL.
AGRIPOL leases
of
thcmcs
is disccrnihlc;
Innd
laced
rights.
impact
on
AGRIPOL.
;I fnr cry from
Ic)7Os. lIo\vevcr.
only
l’rom
sonic
if the
in particul:lr with
agricultural the
private elusive.
the
priv;ite
production.17
prcscnt
dec:~dc
holds
the ne~lr-Micawbcrisin time
will
tell
Lvhether
or ;I p;ln”cea.
LAND
USE
POLICY
January
1986
Zebron Steven Gondwe
General rural development strategies for Tanzania were outlined in the 1962 TANU pamphlet and two policy documents of 1967; but Tanzania’s AGRIPOL is the first attempt to guide economic growth through agricultural development since independence in 1961. This article looks at the likely impact of the tenurial aspects of AGRIPOL on villages, and considers whether these developments can be compatible with the government’s aim of socialism and self reliance. Zebron Steven Gondwe is Assistant Lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of Dar-es-Salaam, PO Box 35093, Dar-esSalaam, Tanzania. This article is dedicated to Professor G.M. Fimbo, University of Salaam.
The agricultural policy (AGRIPOL) adopted by the government of Tanzania in March 1983, is the first comprehensive blueprint for agriculturally-led economic growth since independence in December 1961. Thus, AGRIPOL should be appraised in the context of the Arusha Declaration. The declaration, adopted on 5 February 1967, set forth in broad terms the ‘Chama cha Mapinduzi’ (CCM) party’s policy on socialism and self-reliance. Significantly, Tanzania’s constitution provides that CCM is the only political party and that all government agencies have to function under the auspices and supervision of the party. Central to this appraisal is the likely impact of the tenurial aspects of AGRIPOL on villages. In this context, three main issues call for consideration:
0 0 0
What developments, if any, will AGRIPOL have for rural Tanzanians? Will these developments fall foul of Tanzania’s post-Arusha Declaration principles on indigenous agriculture? More generally, what is the probable impact of measured economic liberalism, embodied in policies such as AGRIPOL, on backward agricultural systems such as Tanzania’s?
Original rural development
‘Julius K. Nyerere’s, ‘Ujamaa - the basis of African socialism’, in Ujamaa - Essays on Socialism, Oxford University Press, Dar-es-Salaam, 1974, pp 4-l 2.
0264-8377/86/01031-6
strategies
Logic demands an outline of the country’s pre-AGRIPOL agricultural direction. Agriculture has been, and remains, the mainstay of the economy in Tanzania. The undisputed harbinger of rural development strategies in the immediate post-independence period is a TANU pamphlet published in 1962 - a paper describing the basic attributes and attitudes of Tanzania’s socialism. ’ The Improvement Approach, the earliest developmental strategy, sought to improve agricultural methods without instituting any radical changes in traditional social and legal systems. But, unfortunately, few results were achieved before the system broke down. The Transformation Approach, unlike its predecessor, strove to transform traditional agriculture by organizing peasants in govern-
$03.00 0 1986 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
31
‘The two development strategies have received excellent treatment in R.W. James, Land Tenure and policy in Tanzania, East African Literature Bureau, Dar es Salaam, 1971, pp 23-26; and R.W. James and G.M. Fimbo, Customary Land Law of Tanzania - A Source Book, East African Literature Bureau, Dar es Salaam, 1973, pp 103-132. ‘Nyerere, op tit, Ref 1, pp 106144. 4James, op tit, Ref 2, p 26. Nyerere IS sufficiently explicit on what Ujamaa entails; see, for example, Nyerere, op tit, Ref 1, p 12 and pp 76-78. Evidently Ujamaa is not synonymous with Marxismexactly Leninism. Therefore, the term ‘socialism’ should be cautiously applied to the Tanzanian experience. 5James, op tit, Ref 2, p 30. Further enlightenment on this score may be gained from Direction 4 of Government Notice No 168 of 197.5 (now repealed). The Directions were made under The Vi//ages and Ujamaa Villages (Registration, Designation and Administrafion) Act, 7975, No 21 of 1975, now similarly repealed. The repealing legislation is the Local Government (District Authorities) Act, 1982, No 7 of 1982. ‘Nyerere, op cif, Ref 1, p 126. U, Direction 8(b) of Government Notice No 168 of 1975. 7See James and Fimbo, op tit, Ref 2, pp 128-l 29. ‘For administrative devices see James and Fimbo, op tit, Ref 2, p 125 et seq. Outstanding in regard to legislative devices was the RuralLands (Planning and Utilization) Act, 1973, No 14 of 1973; also, G.M. Fimbo, ‘Land, socialism and the law in Tanzania’, in G. Ruhumbika, ed, Towards Ujamaa, East African Lrterature Bureau, Dar es Salaam, 1974, pp 261264; and David Williams, ‘Law and socialist rural development’, in Eastern Africa Law Review, Vol 6, No 3, April 1973, pp 193198. The 1975 Act was repealed by section 195 of Act No 7 of 1982. See also note 5. ‘Direction 8 of Government Notice 168 of 1975, and direction 4 of Government Notice 168 of 1975. “Direction 4 of Government Notice 168 of 1975, cfsection 22(l) of Act 7 of 1982; and direction 16 of Government Notrce 168 of 1975, cf section 145 of Act 7 of 1982. “Actually a portion of paragraph 2 of Presidential Circular No 1 of 1969 reproduced in James and Fimbo, op tit, Ref 2, pp 125-l 32, (emphasis added). “Composition is shown in The Tanzanian National Agricultural Policy final Report, Printpak (T) Ltd. Dar es Salaam, 1982, pp iv-v. 130ther tasks assigned to the Task Force are detailed in DO xv-xvi of the Task Force Report. “Boldly stated at p 26 of the Task Force Report. Not surprisingly, AGRIPOL makes a similar assertion atp 10. 15Defined in section 2 of the Land Ordicontinued on page 33
32
mentally-supervised settlement schemes. predecessor in the realm of ‘has beens’.’
Regrettably,
it soon joined
its
Impact of the Arusha Declaration Two policy documents released by TANU in 1967 have had a profound impact on the politico-economy of Tanzania: the Arusha Declaration, and Socialism arId Rural De\~elopmet7t.3 James summarizes the principles that emerged from the two documents as: equality - individuals should not exploit one another; self reliance - people’s efforts should be the basis of development; and tljatnaa - development must be through ujamaa (family) villages, thereby reactivating the principles on which the traditional extended family was based.” It is the last of these principles that is of immediate relevance in this article. Two propositions emerged from these two documents. First. during the long trek towards socialism and self reliance, there would be a transition period during which some private initiative would be tolerable.’ Second, after the attainment of socialism, individuals would still be allowed a minimum scope for private initiative.” A feature common to the two documents is the absence of a statement on both the schedule for attaining ujamaa, and the duration of the transition period. Instead, a gradual three-phase transformation was advocated.’ An assortment of administrative and legislative devices were employed to bolster the programme; but of particular importance is the legislation: Villages and Ujamaa Villages (Registration, Designation and Administration) Act, 1975 (the Villages Act, 1975).” The Villages Act, 1975. gave legal expression to both the Policy of Ujr~m~~u and the transition period.” Transitory villages, known under the act as registered villages, would eventually be elevated to fully-fledged Ujarnua villages. “’ The policy has been summarized thus: All
Government
policies
and the activities
and decisions
of all Government
c~rlvat~tccgcs of living togrther rrr~tl rllorking tog&u for the good of all; they .sho~rldhe rtrlglcrl rrt discourriging thp c’orztirllrcltiorz of pri\wtc iizdi~kld fwming. ”
officials must therefore
be geared towards emphasizing
the
The message here is clear - lean hard on private individual This, ostensibly, was government policy until AGRIPOL.
farming.
Task Force A Task Force” was appointed in May 1982 to review critically recent trends in agricultural development and to recommend ways of improving flagging performance.13 The Task Force tendered its final report in April 1983. According to the Task Force Report there were four legally recognized tenures in existence: government leaseholds; rights of occupancies (sic); customary land tenure laws; and the collective tenure system. I4 However, it is not known where the Task Force observed the four tenure systems - since 1969, there has been only one tenure in Tanzania: the right of occupancy.” The occupation and use of land according to native law and custom constitute what are generally termed ‘deemed rights of occupancy’. ” Within surveyed areas, normally located in urban centres, land is
LAND USE POLICY
January
1986
usually held by way of express grants termed ‘granted rights of occupancy’. These ;lrc largely governed by statutory provisions.” Most landed interests in rural Tanzania fall under the category ‘deemed rights of occupany’. For sOme time the status of Innded interests in villages established by law has been a grey ;Ire:l, but ;ruthorities seem inclined towards the view that such interests are dso deemed rights of occupancy.‘s The Task Force also observed three forms of agricultural production:
continued from page 32 nance, Cap 113, to mean ‘a title to the use and occupation of land and includes a title of native or of a native community lawfully using or occupying land in accordance with native law and custom .’ The plural for right of occupancy is ‘rights of occupancy’ and not ‘rights of occupancres’. Rights of occupancy are held over Public Land. All the land in Tanzania is Public Land, its control and disposition being vested in the President by sections 5 and 6 of the Land Ordinance. See also James, op tit, Ref 2, Ch 4 and 5. 161n such cases there are no express grants of nghts of occupancy; they are simply deemed to be in existence. Such estates can be mortgaged, leased or transferred in accordance with native law and custom. ‘7Principally the Land Ordinance and the 7948, Government Land Regulations, Notice 232, 1948. Presently, such estates can be granted for a maxrmum of 99 years. The mortgage, lease and transfer thereof is largely regulated by statutory provisions, “More appropriately, they could be said to be a cross between traditional and statutory tenure. See also, James, op tit, Ref 2, p 241. lgDetailed at pp 24-5, Task Force Report. The homestead farm is roughly the equivalent of a kitchen garden (cf the two proposrtions in the text). *“Presumably, the primary collective endeavour in the transition phase. Cf the first of the two propositions in the text, and James, op tit, Ref 2, p 24. *‘Village Councils (village government) were previously established under section 5 of Act 21 of 1975. The current provision is section 25 of Act 7 of 1982. Presumably, on attainment of soctalism and self reliance, the collective farm shall be the principal form of agricultural production. Cf the second of the two propositions in the text.
0 0 0
The homestead farm. where the villager grows crops of his own choice and the produce belongs to the family. I” The block farm, in reality, ;I large tract of land subdivided into small lots which ilrc allocated to single families resident in the village.“’ The collective farm. ;I village government endeavour in which all irble-bodied residents are required to participate.”
In all three. land is under the control :rnd supervision of the village government, ie, the Village Council.” Under the Villages Act. 1975, a Village Council was allocated land by a District Development Council. The Village Council W;IS then bound to allocate each homestead ;I lot in the block furm and an acre for domestic (homestead farm inclusive) purposes.‘3 These forms of agriculturnl production portray both the transitory and final phases of the U~NIHNLIpolicy. They also give expression to the scale of private initiative that would be tolerable in either phase.“’ The Task Force’s findings on agricultural production paint a grim picture of the agricultural sector’s performance.25 Tables 1 and 2 testify that fact. Except for ;I brief upswing in the mi&lC)7Os, the tables depict ;I downhill trend for most food and cash crops. Local government has generally blamed this trend on weather conditions, particuliu-ly drought. The Task Force identified :I number of tenurial factors ;IS being contributory to the uns:rtisfactory state of agriculture in the villages:‘” 0 0 0
Issuing of short-term allotments which discourage long-term investment leding to bad husbandry and soil depletion. Unwillingness to exp:md crop acreage for fear of being identified as an opponent of collective farming. Lack of definition of the succession to the homestead allotment.
Table 1. Production estimates of food crops 1965166 - 1980/81 (tonnes x 1O3). Sorghum/ Maize 1965/66
503
1966167 1967168 1968/69 1969170 1970171 1971/72 1972173 1973174 1974175 1975176 1976177 i 977178 1978179 i 979180 i 9ao/ai
a80 750 770 730
a70 a50 980 750 750 a25 a97 968 1000 900 a00
Paddy
a4 140 114 131 144
192 202 178 193 141 157 180 203 260 250 180
Wheat
_ 43 43 40 41 60 77 67 49 32 46 58 35 38 30 na
Source: Task Force Report, p la9
LAND USE POLICY January
1986
Cassava
Pulses
389 344 374 372 413 367 409 423 280 440 390 390 410 380 169
145 174 172 159 180 183 224 193 ia2 iai 210 219 212 213 219
_ 3300 3500 3600 3500 3444 3209 3189 3388 3688 3800 3900 4000 4450 4550 4600
Sweet
millet
Potatoes
potatoes
24 35 46 62 74 67 120 165 101 a7 92 96 a5 a5 a4
237 254 253 238 248 229 234 296 302 320 330 335 330 330 332
_
Bananas and plantain _ 1345
a91 140 185 261 998 1206 1400 1440 1500 1540 I 580 1466 1492 _
Table 2. Production of major export crops 1965/66 - 1980/81. 65/66
66167
67/68
68169
69/70
70171
7ll72
72i73
73174
74175
75l76
76177
77l78
78l79
79/80
80/81
Coffee ProductIon (tonnes x iv)
520
Index”
111
40.5 86
51 5
46.1
110
99
49.7
46 7
46.7
52.4
47 5
42.3
521
54.2
48.7
116
104
111
106
102
3936
234.3
3691
369.8
278.6
3102
3341
85
94
56
88
66
74
79
100
112
102
91
381 7
4200
424.0
3591
100
86
101
Cotton Production (bales x 10’) Index”
368.5
4334
389.4
282.2
88
103
93
67
91
47 8
51 9
112
106
67.3 144
3240 77
Teab
Production (tonnes x 103) Indexa
7.2
6.8 74
78
8.0 87
8.5
88 96
92
92 100
11 6 126
13.3 145
12.3 134
139 151
13.0 141
152 165
185 201
173
17.5 190
188
164 178
Tobacco
Production (tonnes x 103) Indexa
14.2
17.9
61
97
93
100
109
106
153
118
149
4423
6692
4799
3758
2310
2731
4276
4016
3282
4741
3946
162
245
176
138
100
157
147
120
174
144
117.6 110
113.5 106
111.2 104
107.3 100
113.8 106
1254 117
145.1 135
1190 111
78
7.3
13.1
18.3
11.1
65
5.1
12.0
127
11.6
43
18.3
17.1
16.9
17.3
161
143
144
141
134
3332
2870
1600
1616
2002
122
105
59
59
73
571 53
41.4 39
50.9 47
153
Pyrethrum
Production (tonnes of dned flowers) Indexa
85
Cashewnuts
Production (tonnes x 103) Index"
83.3 78
84.3 79
837 78
976 91
684 64
.%a/ ProductIon (tonnes x 103)
218
225
220
197
209
202
181
157
155
Indexa
106
111
109
198
103
100
90
78
77
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
330 100
768 223
_
_
_
Cardomon
ProductIon (tonnes) Index? Cocoa Productjon (tonnes x 103)
_
_
_ _
_
_
_
_
05
120
114
105
92
81
86
59
56
52
46
40
43
759
596
433
404
332
278
_
230
181
131
122
101
84
138 68
0.6
06
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.9
_
1 0
Source: Task Force Report. p 191 Note: a 1970171
= 100: b
In calendar years.
%f, Direction 5 of Government Notice 168 of 1975 and paragraph 1.3.74, p 27 of Task Force Report. 23Direction 5(l) of Government Notice 168 of 1975. Following the repeal of Act 21 of 1975, under which Government Notice 168 of 1975 was made, the current position is far from clear. ‘%ee Nyerere, op tit, Ref 1, pp 121-127. 25Task Force Report, pp 21-22 and 2941. =/b/d, pp 25, 27-28. 27Simply because in the collective form private initiative is supposed to have atrophied. ‘8Personal commurxcation with a senior official in the Prime Minister’s office at Dodoma. The Task Force Report, in paragraph 1.2.39 at p 16, either overlooked the fact or considered it inslgnificant. See also section 145 of Act 7 of 1982. Cf, section 16 of Act 21 of 1975. zgAbdul Rahman Mohammed Babu, ‘From China with lessons for Africa’,, Africa Now, October 1984, pp 44-45 (emphasis added).
34
These constraints relate more to the homestead and block farm than the collective farm.” They also relate largely to the transition phase of the socialist policy. The Task Force Report does not contain a statement on the registration of Ujomuu villages. It transpires that Tanzania has yet to boast a single ujamaa village.‘s Consequently, the report was largely addressed to registered villages and related developments in the transition stage. Not surprisingly, therefore, the tenurial constraints which the report identified are concerned principally with the restoration of a climate conducive to private initiative. According to the Task Force, private initiative has a sizable role to play in the transition stage. One would have liked to have seen the Task Force assessment set within ;I broader context. Tanzania could possibly learn a great deal from the Chinese experience. In ;I recent article on post-Mao China. Professor Bahu rcmarkcd:
rwsons)
in practice
they will do everything
to a\oitl cloin:g their hot.“’
LAND USE POLICY
January
1986
It is on record that at some stage the government abandoned persuasion in favour of forcible resettlement of peasants in collective villages.“’ As a result, peasant activity appears to have receded to subsistence levels. The experience in Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka was similar.
Recommendations Most of the Task Force Detailed recommendations 0 0
0
30Williams, op tit, Ref 8, pp 193-198. 3’Recommendations are set forth in pp 109-l 11 of the Task Force Report. Regarding land tenure see paragraph 30(a) and (b), p 10 of AGRIPOL. 32During their Annual Conference held at Arusha, l-4 December 1983, the country’s senior land officers willingly accepted this task. 33James, op tit, Ref 2, pp 17-18, 93-95.
LAND USE POLICY January
1986
recommendations are put forward
are echoed in AGRIPOL. regarding land tenure:”
Land allocations to Village Councils shall be for durations of not less than 999 years. Villages may then favour their members with inheritable leases for durations ranging between 33 years and 99 years: 0 Homestead farm: each homestead shall receive a long-term lease over part of village land, say for 33 years, the lease cannot be the subject of a sale, but the land so leased may be surrendered to the Village Council which would award compensation for improvements thereon. 0 Block farm: lots in this endeavour shall be for a sufficiently long period, and when no longer required. such lots should be surrendered to the Village Council for reallocation. After counselling villages, relevant public authorities should establish a tenurial framework into which can be slotted both contemporary farming techniques and the various traditional tenures currently in existence, ie a versatile tenure.
The Ministry of Lands has been given the responsibility for getting this tenurial scheme off the groundLJ2 At the time of writing, the Ministry was still working out a formula that would make the scheme viable. One problem is the curious concept of ‘versatile tenure’. There is really no call for the formulation of such a unique tenure. A granted right of occupancy - of the L~tzd Ordimt~ce fame - is as versatile as they come.j3 This tenure can cater for village requirements through the conditions of the grant, normally set forth in the certificate of occupancy. But, in that event, an amendment to accomodatc grants of rights of occupancy for 999 years, would be unavoidable. Leases extended to individual village members should give the parties (the Village Council and village members) an opportunity to reach consensus on agreeable terms - such terms being consistent with the conditions in the grant. Thus, AGRIPOL holds some promise for villagers: they should soon be able to boast new, inheritable, long-term leases over both their homestead and block farms. In principle, agriculture is perhaps the one area in which economic liberalism is least likely to be effective. Much as liberalism may work in the short-term, owing to its capacity to adjust for market fluctuations, it is inherently unsuitable for weak economies such as Tanzania’s, The constantly changing character of a liberal economy militates against long-term planning. Moreover, such economies tend towards monopolism, a development which disadvantages smallholders. An appropriate alternative could be a blend of planning at a general-policy level and the operation of market forces at the local level. China has allowed the market to function within these terms with some positive results. In such a system, central planning and market forces
35
cater for
long-term
strategy
which
to China.
and short-term
could
Possible
Mozambique
candidntes
doses,
immediate
to
bc capable
of
leaving
state
the
Tanzania
in Africx The
private
respectively.
political
are countries in
This
;rspirntions
is ;I
similx
such ;IS Ethiopiil.
need to give some initiative
of AGRIPOL.
thcsc
incentive.
albeit
countries
requires
both
new
especially
to
China
in
have hd
form
while
policy.‘J
In
this
remarks
heen of
both
h;~ve hccn
m:~n:agcd
Bahu
that
sonic
should
villagers
initiative
Tirnzania
structure
;lrc;ls
general
Professor
cncoura~cd
schcmc
among
on private
and
the socialist
in the rural
guide
socidism:”
Icaders
tenurial
initiative
restrictions
their
destroying the
leewily
some
sacrificing
‘Without
private
enough
Significantly.
without
the proposcd
reinvigorating
and China,
years,
with
attention. the tenor
lifted.
requirements
to societies
and Tanzania.
mexured From
:rppeal
built
private
that:
over
the
initiiltive.
,‘.“’
Conclusion Kegarding
land
long-term Yet
tenure,
inhcritablc
wh:lt
to the trirnsition
it really
T:mzania’s In
many
;I new
should
gaining
countries.
credence:
liberal
as
Chinese
Tourti’s
is :lhout Guintxt
There
to justify
;I conclusive countries
appro;lch
Even
so.
one
will
make socialism
cannot
illusory.
pre-indcpendcnce initiiitivu. promise
will
help
era have
mcciiums of some
;I positive ;IS
such
xtion:
positive of the
is ;I placeho
invcstmcnt
long-;rw:lited
even the USSR
of the
bipolar
lessons of
order.
whcthcr
is
of the
the
events irrep:ir-
A pr;lgm;ltic,
:lllowing
that much more
;I convcrgencc
and AGRIPOL. of
th:lt
for
is visibly
possible.
wondering
Ironically.
;I new
assessment
and self-reliance
l7erniancncy
and procr;istin~ition AGRIPOL
is now
I%iOs
may he pi-eni:ituru.
has been done to the orthodox
initiative
Through
of
Dcmocrittic strategy
initiated
of some
Although
that
for
philsc
New
of the
;Irc: some reports
the following
in developing
entirely
is largely
recognized
correct
to introduce
unfolding
middle-of-the-road
the
has rcccntly
cspericnce:
assertion
of the
experience
currently
not
lx
the
vill:lges.
to the trxnsition
being
Chinese
lrble damage
the
AGRIPOL
should
reminiscent
Mao
The
reforms.
trying
is
hy
M;ld:lgasc:lr
Sckou
economic
discreetly
for
AGRIPOL contribution
AGRIPOL
advocated
while
code,
deal to vill:rgcrs;
rcaw,aken
policy.
ways
developing
phase.
is - ;I technocrats’
soci:llist
Revolution
36
offers
advoc:ltcd
the new de:11 is not an act of ccluivoc:~tion.
addressed
34Ample testimony In paragraph 27, p IO of AGRIPOL. %o it appears In paragraph 2.0(a), p vii of the Task Force Report, and paragraph 6(a), p 2 of AGRIPOL. 36Babu, op tit, Ref 29, p 44. 37See, for example, Government Paper No 6, 1958, Government Printer, Dar Es Salaam, 1958, in particular the introduction and paragraphs 8,9 and 13. 0, paragraph 30(a) and (b), p 10 of AGRIPOL.
AGRIPOL leases
of
thcmcs
is disccrnihlc;
Innd
laced
rights.
impact
on
AGRIPOL.
;I fnr cry from
Ic)7Os. lIo\vevcr.
only
l’rom
sonic
if the
in particul:lr with
agricultural the
private elusive.
the
priv;ite
production.17
prcscnt
dec:~dc
holds
the ne~lr-Micawbcrisin time
will
tell
Lvhether
or ;I p;ln”cea.
LAND
USE
POLICY
January
1986