Exclusive Inquiry: From Boost to Bust

7/29/2019 Exclusive Inquiry: From Boost to Bust

1/8

NATION on Sundayseptember 8 2013

NATION ON SUNDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2013

An analysisof the

KudziguliraMalo

householdresettlementprogramme.


2/8


The latest IntegratedHousehold Survey (IHS)shows that poverty in

the country remains deep,severe and widespread despiteseveral concerted efforts toaddress it. The 2012 IHS isquite damning. The incidenceof headcount poverty hasmarginally declined from 52.3to 50.7 percent between 2000and 2012 while during the

same period the proportion ofthe ultra-poor has increasedfrom 22 to 25 percent.

These are the people whoactually struggle for dailysubsistence. They often do notknow where their next meal isgoing to come. They survive,so to speak, by the Godsgrace.

This is surely a cause forconcern since it appears that

a wide range of alternativeshave been tried to deal withthe question of poverty in thecountry. I strongly feel thatthere could be one criticallyimportant missing link in theefforts to fight rural poverty inthe country. The question ofland in this country remainsunsettled to create solidconditions for sustainablestructural transformation that

could have a significant denton the breadth and depth ofpoverty in the country.

The concern is that effortsmeant to address the landquestion in the countryare characterised by somelegislative impasse at thetime when ordinary men andwomen out there continue tolose their land either to localelites or foreign investors.

This can only worsen thepoverty situation in thecountry.

Studies have consistentlyshown that Malawis ruralpoverty is directly correlatedwith peoples access to land.The single most importantconclusion of these studies isthat the majority of Malawiansare poor because they lackaccess to adequate land,

generally acknowledged asthe key productive resource.On average, every Malawiancultivates 0.22 hectares. Theaverage for poor householdsis 0.16 hectares while fornon-poor households is 0.28hectares.

What can we learn from CBRLDP?

Blessings Chinsinga,Development expert

exClusive

inquiry page 3

photograph:KondwaniKamiya

la

The pro-democracy

activistsactually

promised to

undertakesweeping landreforms onceushered into

power.

Accessing water is a big problem for resettled communities

special essay

It is estimatedthat one in everythree smallholderfarmers cultivatebetween 0.5and 1 hectaresof land. In fact,recent projectionsestimate thatper capita landownership in

Malawi hasplummeted toas low as 0.4hectares.

And findingsfrom an October2008 study carriedout to assess thepolitical economyof the CommunityBased Rural Land ReformProgramme (CBRLDP) raises

some interesting insights thatmay be useful in informingthe land reform debates andstrategies moving forward.The point is that unless theland question is addressedonce and for all, Malawi willnot experience the desired

agrariantransformationthat the countryso desires toaccord millionsof Malawiansdecent anddignifiedlivelihoods.

It isimportant to

note that thequestion of landreform was oneof the flagshipsof the strugglefor democracyin the early1990s. Thepro-democracyactivists actually

promised to undertakesweeping land reforms once

ushered into power that wouldensure equitable ownership ofthis very important productiveresource, which potentiallyholds the key to sustainablepoverty reduction andprosperity for all.

While the question of land

reform was firmly placed onthe governments agendaimmediately after the May1994 founding democraticelections, very little hasbeen achieved to date. Aland policy concluded inJuly 2002 still remains indraft form, the supportivelegislative framework for thepolicy is yet to be worked out

and stakeholders, notablytraditional leaders, are stillcontesting some of the keyprovisions of the land policy.

The CBRLDP stands outas a major initiative that hasbeen undertaken to addressthe question of land sincethe 1967 land reforms. Invernacular, this initiative ispopularly referred to as theKudzigulira Malo programme.

The CBRLDP is a WorldBank sponsored initiativebeing implemented on a pilotbasis in Thyolo and Mulanje,designated mainly as sendingdistricts, and Machingaand Mangochi, designatedmainly as receiving districts.

The main objective of theCBRLDP is to increase theincomes of about 15 000poor rural families in the fourpilot districts by providingland to the landless and theland poor. The CBRLDP waslaunched in 2004.

Under the programme,each beneficiary receives auniform grant of US$ 1 050

for land administration andfarm development, with30 percent devoted to landacquisition, 10 percent tocover settlement costs and60 percent meant for farmdevelopment. This grant isprovided in the first year ofresettlement and householdshave to find their ownresources in subsequent yearsfor developing the land.

While the CBRLDP hasenhanced access to land byfarmers with little or noland and bolstered theirproductivity, it has also


3/8

NATION on Sundayseptember 8 2013 3

Jubilant scenes rockedChimbalanga Villagein Thyolo on the night

of November 5 2005 as35 households boarded agovernment-hired lorryto find a new lease of lifeas beneficiaries of theKudzigulira Malo Project.

The families were beingrelocated to Bilila Estate inMachinga.

Elena Robert recalls thatnight vividly, as it broughtrays of hope of an end topoverty.

We looked forward to anew farming life. Each ofus would be allocated twohectares of land, which wasfar much bigger than the smallpiece of land I had in Thyolo,said Robert in an interview in

Thyo lo recently.But that hope turned intodesperation once they set footin Machinga. Before leavingThyo lo, each household wasgiven a resettlement allowanceof K6 665.

According to the WorldBank project performanceassessment report released inJune this year, each householdwas entitled to a cash grant ofUS$1 050 (in 2005, that was

K123 900 and roughly K340000 today).

The report says 30 percentof the money was meant forbuying land, 60 percent forfarm development and 10percent would cover transportand shelter costs.

Said Robert: We used themoney to buy maize as wecould not go to a strange landwithout food. When we got toMachinga, we were told themoney was meant for us tobuild shacks. Life became sohard that most of us went toloan sharks to survive.

In February 2010, the 32-year-old mother of five feltshe had had enough. She

Benefciaries abandon project,return to original homes

packed her belongings andreturned to Thyolo where shenow lives.

I could not have left, butlife was just too hard for me.We had to go into katapira[usury] to pay those who werehelping us cultivate. When weleft Thyolo, we were buyingmaize at K20 a cup, but inMachinga that same cup was

at K40, said Robert.When they settled in

Machinga, the beneficiariesidentified from their midsta village head bearing thename of their original village,Chimbalanga.

He, like Robert, has a tingeof bitterness, explaining thatthe money they received forresettlement was little.

no reason to stop him fromreturning to his ancestralland.

The biggest problem was

water. It was a dry land andgetting water was a hustle.It got worse in 2007 whenthere was a cholera outbreak.

generated quite unanticipatedconsequences which reallyprovide some food for thoughtas we attempt to address thequestion of land reform as anation.

The CBRLDPs impact onproductivity has been quite

unprecedented. The meanmaize produced amongbeneficiary households has

increased from 219 kilogramsbefore the programmeto 1 4 11 kilograms afterthe programme. Andthere are statisticallysignificant differences inmaize production betweenbeneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in favour of

beneficiaries with a meandifference of 814 kilograms perhousehold.

The CBRLDP has alsoimpacted positively ontechnological adoption,particularly in terms of the useof improved seed. Up to about63 percent of the beneficiariesdevote their landholding tohybrid maize productioncompared with only 31 percent

more widely than those withlow or no education at all.

However, differences in

productivity levels betweenbeneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are significantonly when distinguished bythe year of resettlement. It isthus only those beneficiaries

Tracing the problem of land in MalawiExclusivE

inquiry pagE 2

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 4

Land lies at the heart of Malawis economy

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 4

Kondwani Kamiyala

Sub Editor

of land devoted to hybridmaize by non-beneficiaries.Strikingly, female-headed

households adopt advancedfarming technologies such asthe use of hybrid seeds andchemical fertilisers more thanmale-headed households.

Education also plays animportant role. Householdswith higher education adoptimproved technologies much

Chimbalanga said life wasso unbearable in Machingathat returning home becameinevitable for 30 of the 35households.

Chimbalanga was inMachinga for three farmingseasons. His yield rose fromthe four, 50kg bags of maizehe used to cultivate in Thyoloto 20 bags. But that was

photographs:nationlibrary


4/8


Benefciaries go back to original homes

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 7

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 3

Kudzigulira Malo Project in perspective

ExclusivEinquiry pagE 3

I only wish government andinstitutions implementingpeople-centred projects wererealistic and fulfilled theirpromises, he said, referringto social amenities such asclinics, safe drinking waterand schools that they werepromised before relocation,but which never materialised.

Another beneficiary, 38-year-old James Simenti, isphysically challenged andgetting on the project meanta better life for him.

But he said although theland in Machinga was fertile,water was scarce, which madefarming difficult.

According to Simenti,the 35 households wereallocated 79 hectares, witheach household getting at

least two. Four hectares werereserved for development.

We were told that a schooland a clinic would be built nearwhere we were relocated, butthat never happened. The laststraw was when I developeddiarrhoea due to the uncleanwater. There was no one totake care of me, since mymother was in Thyolo.

I sold my 14 bags of maizeand bought a bag of rice.

Then, I left . I sold the ricewhen I arrived back at myhome village [in Thyolo].

This project was good, butthe lack of amenities let usdown, said Simenti.

Machinga Centralconstituency MP ShaibuKaliati said water is one of theproblems people resettled infour areas in his constituencyface. He, however, said the

majority of people are still ontheir land.

Besides, schools are farfrom the remote estates wherethe people were relocated. Insome areas, people have towalk 10 kilometres to find a

school, which means childrentake long to enrol, saidKaliati.

According to the WorldBank assessment report,building infrastructure inthe remote areas could have

been costly. The report saidincluding the social amenitiesfor the pilot phase was notappropriate.

The project objectives didnot promise poverty reductionin the fullest sense, which

would have meant improvingthe education and healthstatus of the beneficiaries, butthey committed to boosting

that have recently resettledthat produce more maize

compared to non-beneficiaries.This is attributed to thefarming support that newsettlers access during the firstyear of relocation. Once thesupport is discontinued at theend of the year, productivitylevels slump to normal levels.

The implementation of theCBRLDP has been negativelyaffected by the institutionalframework of the 1967 landreforms. The beneficiaries of

the 1967 land reforms have aninterest in the existing landtenure patterns. They are notprepared to give up vast tractsof land accumulated under theaegis of the 1967 land reformsthat simply perpetuated thecolonial land tenure patterns.

There is evidence that theCBRLDP has been capturedby local elites, particularlytraditional leaders, by steeringits implementation in ways

that largely benefit them inboth sending and receivingcommunities. Traditionalleaders are reportedlyinfluencing the composition ofcommittees tasked to identifyand recommend beneficiariesto the programme so that

they have influence in theirdecisions; the committeesare demanding bribes forhouseholds to be includedas beneficiaries; and they

are prioritising relativesand friends as beneficiariesprimarily to benefit from theresettlement grant.

Traditional leaders areprotesting against theCBRLDP by not taking theirquasi-judicial role seriously

in dealing with land disputesinvolving the new settlersand the local residents. Thishas resulted in widespreadand unresolved land disputes

underpinned by a forcefuldiscourse of dispossessionthat equates rights to landwith citizenship. This createssome sort of insecurity among

Simenti: I had no choice but to returnp

ho

tographs:kondwanikamiyala

Chimbalanga: The biggest problem was water

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 5


5/8


F

or Wanja Rajabu, thecoming in 2005 of

beneficiaries of theKudzigulira Malo Project in hisChilala Village, T/A Nsamala inMachinga meant more than justanother development initiative.

He found love in one of thesettlers, whom he married.

But the marriage was short-lived because his wife returnedto her original ChimbalangaVillage in Thyolo, abandoningthe resettlement land she

received under the programme.I dont know what went

wrong. We just found that theywere returning to Thyolo. Therewere 35 households initially,but today only five remain. Iloved her, but I could not stopher from going back with herkith and kin, said Rajabu, whohas since remarried.

His uncle, Village HeadMoses, said the hosts tried all

they could to welcome the newsettlers after the World Bankand government oriented themon how to accommodate thenew arrivals.

In fact, when the firstgroup arrived, we dancedNgoma with them becausemost of them came from T/ABvumbwe in Thyolo and areNgoni. We avoided every formof tribal discrimination and we

were using the same facilities:schools, hospitals and evenmaize mills, said Moses.

But Estere Jonasi, one ofthe beneficiaries who chose toremain behind when otherswere leaving Machinga, saidit was hard in 2005 when shewent to join her parents wholeft Thyolo in 2003.

It was difficult consideringthat we had left behind our

ancestral land where weburied our dead. We left landwhere we had our initiationceremonies. Now, I am usedand comfortable here. As amatter of fact, I am now a fluentChiyao speaker, said Jonasi.

Development expert Dr

Poor homework on culturaldimension did not help

Blessings Chinsinga, who hasdone studies on the project,said the initiative did notconsider some socio-culturaldimensions; a situation he saidled to cultural conflicts betweenthe new settlers and their hosts.

Thyolo and Mulanje arepredominantly Lhomwe areas,while the Yao dominate in

Machinga and Mangochi. TheLhomwes love rearing pigs,whereas the Yaos despisethem. Such cultural and socialconflicts led to some of thebeneficiaries to go back totheir original homes, saidChinsinga.

On the other hand, thehosts felt their land was beinginvaded by strangers. Heobserved that the estates where

the settlers were relocatedoriginally belonged to the localsbefore commercial farmersbought the land in the early1960s, giving them paltrycompensation.

Conflicts arose as somehosts turned hostile since they

felt the land the new settlerswere allocated belonged totheir ancestors. This wasnot considered in the projectdesign, said Chinsinga.

Mangochi districtcommissioner BesterMandere agreed that culturaldifferences may have led somebeneficiaries to go back home.

For instance, Mangochi andMachinga people are mostlyMuslims who dont eat mice,which are a delicacy in Mulanjeand Thyolo. Besides, in mostareas, social services such asclinics, clean water and marketswere far from relocatedcommunities, said Mandere.

According to World Banksenior agricultural specialistfor Malawi Dr Olivier Durand,

who was the team leader forthe projects implementationcompletion report, one of thelessons the bank learnt fromthe pilot phase is that it didnot consider some culturalaspects that would affect theprogramme.

Durand said apart from thelack of amenities, similar futureprojects should also look intosocio-cultural issues.

There is a need to maintainsocial and cultural ties, whichmakes people prefer to relocatewithin or close to their originalhomes, he said.

Bearing witness, beneficiaries

relocated from within or closeto Machinga said the projecthas improved their lives anddo not want to return to theiroriginal homes.

One of the beneficiaries, 31-year-old father of one PatrickBob, relocated to Mwaya Estatein Ntaja in Mangochi from hisoriginal home in Ulongwe,Balaka.

I cant think of going

back home. I had no space tocultivate but here I am able toproduce enough to feed myfamily. In the past, I couldntproduce more than three bagsof maize on my small plotbut now I get 15 or so bags ofmaize, said Bob. n

Kondwani Kamiyala

Sb Edto

Jonasi: I am happy

in Machinga

photographs:kondwanikamiya

la

Moses: We did not discriminate

against them

Spotlight on

KudziguliraMalo

ExcluSivE

inquiry pagE 4

the people about the newlyacquired land.

These findings raise several

important policy implicationsgoing forward. The findingsdraw attention particularlyto the fact that land reformsare not merely a technicallyneutral exercise; they arehugely political. The pointis that the context in whichthe reforms are taken and therange of stakeholders involvedmatters in determiningoutcomes, successes and

failures. Understanding theinterface between formaland informal institutions inthe context of the reformsis important in terms ofanticipating and dealing withunexpected consequences.

The findings further suggestthat land reforms without awell thought out supportiveinfrastructure in the short tomedium terms are unlikely

to be sustainable. This is tosay that land reform is morethan just access to land; landreforms must be accompaniedby access to non-land assets,access to credit, access toextension services and trainingof beneficiaries in modernfarming techniques. Thefunctioning of other marketssuch as transport, output,labour and financial markets

is critical for households tomaximise the benefits fromaccess to land and improvedtenure security.

Finally, a gender balancedselection of beneficiarieswould enhance the positiveimpact of any land reforminitiative. The participationof female-headed householdsin the CBRLDP is limited,yet economic analysis

reveals that male-headedhouseholds invest less inhybrid production comparedto female-headed households.

The level of education is also

ExcluSivE

inquiry pagE 6


6/8


ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 5

Drawing lessons from land reforms

World Bank,

govt hail project

photograph:NatioNL

ibrary

Because of skewed landholding patterns, farming has suffered in some areas

W

hile the project has beenrocked in problems, with

some resettled peoplereturning to their original homesout of frustration emanatingfrom unmet expectations, theinitiatives framers say it hasachieved its objectives.

The World Bank and theMinistry of Lands and Housingsay the Kudzigulira Malo Projectwas a success.

In fact, the two partnerssay they may even implementanother phase of the project.

Ministry of Lands andHousings public relationsofficer Mike Chigowo said theperformance of the project wassatisfactory as it achieved itsintended results.

Idle land on which landlessand land-poor people wererelocated is now put intoproductive use, which is goodfor the country. The project alsoimproved various outcomesof relocated households like

production levels for differentcrops and income, saidChigowo.

He said this has ledgovernment to plan scaling upthe project.

On his part, World Banksenior agricultural specialist forMalawi Dr Olivier Durand saidthe institution is aware thatgovernment is willing to scaleup the project.

According to Durand, the

banks Country AssistanceStrategy (2013-2017) forMalawi provides that thenext Agriculture Sector WideApproach [ASWAp Phase

Kondwani KamiyalaSub editor

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 8

Two, planned for 2015] would

include investments in landissues, especially in improvingland administration andfacilitating land redistribution tosmallholders through targeted

actions based on the impact

evaluation of the project.The bank is committed to

helping government addresssome land issues since land is oneof the most critical constraints

to productivity increase and to

agricultural growth, he said.Durand said, for instance,

production of maize increased to1 800 kilogrammes per hectareby 2011, compared to a baseline

of 800 kilogrammes per hectarein 2008.

For tobacco, he said thebaseline in 2008 was 300kilogrammes per hectare and this

increased to 800 kilogrammesper hectare.

But development expertDr Blessings Chinsinga, whorated the project as partiallysuccessful, said similar futureprojects should be backed byproper legislation.

Land reforms are not merelya technical neutral exercise;they are hugely political sinceland is the primary source of

production and different peoplehave different interests in it.For instance, when land

squabbles developed inresettlement areas, chiefsabandoned their quasi-judicialroles in dealing with disputesbetween settlers and theirhosts, said Chinsinga.

The very fact that somehouseholds preferred to returnto their original homes to faceold land problems than stay on

in their new villages should stillgive planners food for thought.It is not clear how many of

Putting people at the centre of land reformsKondwani KamiyalaSub Editor

With the countrys agro-basedeconomy, land is a criticallyimportant asset for 85 percentof Malawians who eke alivelihood out of agriculture.Crop and animal husbandry,which contributes over 90

percent of the countrysexport earnings, depends on

availability of land.Yet, land ownership remains

inequitable, as it is estimatedthat one third of smallholderfarmers cultivate between 0.5and 1 hectares. The situationlocks smallholder farmers inperpetual need of food and

exposes them to risks andshocks as well as dire poverty.

Since 1891, when Malawibecame a British Protectorate,land ownership hasmarginalised the poor becausecolonial masters promotedthe transfer of customary landto European estate owners,leaving the locals with little or

no land.In fact, the landless locals

were forced to work on theestates for exploitative orno wages at all. One of themain elements in the 1915Chilembwe Uprising againstcolonialism was the issue ofland, as John Chilembwe ledthe locals to fight for their

land rights in the context ofoppressive systems such asThangata.

When Malawi wonindependence in 1964,expectations were high that thepoor rural masses would have

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 7

important in promoting theadoption of improved farmingtechnologies such as hybridseeds and fertiliser.

The political cl imate seemsquite propitious to pushthe land reform agenda toits logical conclusion in abid to further cement thefoundations for Malawistransformation from a

predominantly consuming andimporting to a predominantlyproducing and exportingeconomy. However, thiscannot be fully achieved ifthe question of land remainsunresolved.

Taking the land reformagenda forward would,however, require somedecisive movement on theland legislation developmentexercise. Without a new LandAct in place, the land reform

agenda cannot move beyondthe current impasse. It will

be like putting new wine inold bottles. And yet the hopesfor a prosperous future arehugely dependent on the fateof the reform agenda. n


7/8


ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 8

Why resettled people

are returning home

photograph:nationl

ibrary

One of the objectives of the project was to increase agricultural productivity

incomes, reads the report.In Mangochi, the relocated

people face similar challengesas those resettled inMachinga.

Katete Farm in Mangochi isin the middle of nowhere. The

area is so isolated that to reachthe nearest school, SongaPrimary School, children haveto walk over four kilometres.

The nearest trading centre,Bwanje in Ntcheu, is aboutseven kilometres, whilethe nearest health centre at

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 4Damu on the border betweenMangochi and Ntcheu is abouteight kilometres away.

For the relocatedhouseholds, water is thebiggest problem. They drinkfrom the Kabudula River, ajourney of four hours. Andwhen the river floods duringthe rainy season, people are

cut off from the rest of theworld.One of the Kudzigulira

Malo project beneficiariesthere, Emmanuel Epulo, saidsurvival is hard.

We were just dumpedhere. We walk such a long

distance to dig on the riverbanks for water. We share thewater with animals. There isno hope for us as we only liveby Gods grace, said Epulo.

Another villager, JanetMailosi, said the nearestmaize mill is at BwanjeTrading Centre.

Life is hard for us. How

do they want us to survivewithout important socialamenities? said Mailosi

Mangochi districtcommissioner BesterMandere said as a council,they could not provide theamenities because the council

required funding. He saiddevelopment proposals haveto be channelled throughvillage and area developmentcommittees.

The design of the projectdid not look into issuesof social services. In somecases, people sought theirown solutions, but they were

limited in some areas. Whenpeople faced problems in theirareas, they drilled boreholes,but what about schools?Before people are relocated,they should first be allowedto assess the land, saidMandere. n

Do landreorms

beneftpeople?

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 6

access to this crucial resource.However, Malawis post-colonial governments have

done little to redress historicalimbalances in access to land,a situation that has left mostfertile land in the hands of theelite.

When the issue of landdominated public discourseafter Bakili Muluzi becamepresident in 1994, there washope that the country waswell on its way to dealing withhistorical inequalities in accessto land.

Indeed, the PresidentialCommission on Land Inquirywas constituted in 1996 andwound up its work in 1999.The commission establishedthat Malawi had 2.6 millionhectares of underused arableland, mostly in large estates,which could be redistributedthrough a land reform. It wasalso estimated that illegaloccupations of land covered 52percent of farms with 500 ormore hectares.

Findings of the commissionformed the basis for a broadprogramme of land reform thatgave birth to the Community-Based Rural Land DevelopmentProject (CBRLDP), popularlyknown as the Kudzigulira MaloProject. With funding from theWorld Bank, Malawi becamethe first country in Africa toengage in such a project, whereabout 15 000 households wereto be relocated in the four pilotdistricts of Mangochi, Machinga,Thyolo and Mulanje.

Primarily, the objective ofthe US$27 million projectwas to increase the incomesof rural households throughthe implementation of adecentralised and voluntarycommunity-based land reformprogramme.

The scope of the projectwas expanded when the WorldBank adjusted funding byUS$10 million to increase theagricultural productivity andincomes of the beneficiaries.

In the context of the centrality

A O S d


8/8


People-centredland reforms key

8

photograph:NatIoNL

IbrarY

While the project enhanced agricultural productivity, hurdles beset the programmefrom the beginning

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 6

the 15 000 relocated householdsunder the Kudzigulira MaloProject are still in it as theMinistry of Lands and districtcommissioners for Mangochiand Machinga have failed to givefigures.

The World Bank projectassessment report indicatesthat only 10 percent of resettledbeneficiaries abandoned their

Govt says Kudzigulira Malo is a successnew farms, despite the generallyunsatisfactory state of theneighbourhood infrastructure.

This translates to 1 500 of thebeneficiaries out of the 15 000relocated.

According to the bank, reasonscited for quitting included ex-beneficiaries who just wantedcash, lack of infrastructure,family problems, resettlement oninfertile land, misunderstandingsbetween groups and generalmisbehaviour.

Government officials kepttossing the question of howmany have left to one another.

Chigowo said the ministrycould not say how manybeneficiaries were still inthe relocated land. He saidMangochi and Machinga districtcouncils would have the data.

According to the projectdesign, beneficiaries weresupposed to become part of localcommunities in the districtswhich they were relocated to.

Therefore, the beneficiaries arenow within the jurisdiction oflocal district councils and not

the ministry, said Chigowo.However, Machinga DC Stuart

Ngoka referredNation on Sundayto the districts lands officer,Aubrey Jaza, who kept on askingfor more time until we went topress on Thursday.

Mangochi DC Bester Manderesaid the districts lands officer,Sylvester Makuku, would be ina better position to provide the

figures. But Makuku said theydid not have the statistics.

The final output-based

reports were not given to ourmonitoring and evaluationofficer. Contact the principalsecretary, said Mkauku.

But monitoring and evaluationofficer for Mangochi DistrictCouncil Geoffrey Chilenga saidthe ministry did not have thefigures.

Our database crashed, hesaid. n

of land to the countryseconomy, the project wascrucial. This was particularly sofor beneficiaries from Thyolowhich has a populationdensity of 267 people perhectareand Mulanje, witha population density of 208people per hectare, who would

be relocated to Mangochi andMachinga which have relativelylow population densities.

The project, wherebeneficiaries volunteered torelocate to land on estateswillingly sold by the owners,phased out in September 2011.According to the World Bankand government, the projectwas a satisfactory success.

The Ministry of Lands saysthe programme achieved its

goal of increasing productivitysince idle land was put toprofitable use. On its part, thebank quantifies the success,saying in some areas, maizeproduction shot from 800kilogrammes per hectare to 1800 while tobacco productionrose from 300 kilogrammes perhectare to 800.

This is attributed to theincreased access to land, aseach beneficiary acquired at

least two hectares of land anda grant for farm developmentand hybrid seed and fertiliser.

Even some independentsurveys showed that productionincreased to 1 411 kilogrammesper hectare from 219. From thebeneficiaries storiesthosewho are still on the landsacquired under the projectand those that abandoneditit is clear that agriculturalproductivity increased at the

household level.The bank and government

were so impressed with theproject that at some pointformer finance minister KenKandodo said this would makeMalawi a model in Africa andbeyond in land reforms It

is not without cause, then,that government used theKudzigulira Malo Project as

a pilot phase as it intendsto implement the approachon a larger scale in the formof the Malawi Land ReformProgramme (MLRP).

Currently, the bank intendsto support a similar approachunder the Agricultural Sector-

Wide Approach (ASWAp) asit enters its second phase in2015.

While the extent to whichbeneficiaries have stayed withinthe project is blurred, it is clearthat some of them went backto their original homes. Thefact that 30 of 35 householdsrelocated to Machinga returnedto their Thyolo village is reason

enough to say that somethingwent wrong.

Beneficiaries reasons for

abandoning the project areclear. For instance, one can notehow isolated the resettlementareas are from social amenitiessuch as roads and markets.

The beneficiaries,implementing agencies, thebank and experts agree that

without the social services,beneficiaries would rather goback to their original homes andsuffer the pain of landlessness.The project may have registeredsome success, but the idea ofthrowing people in the middleof nowhere did not help.

The banks argument thatsocial amenities could not beincluded as this was just a pilotphase comes across as ratherlame. The project should havebeen built on a sustainablemodel that would be easy toreplicate at a larger scale. Itis inconceivable how such aproject would succeed withoutputting social services at thecentre of its planning andimplementation.

On the other hand, increasedagricultural production is not

the end of the story. Were thebeneficiaries able to sell theirproduce when the closestmarkets were so far away? Itis clear from their stories thatfinding markets is a hustle.

Some studies show thatin all trusts [groups wherebeneficiaries were relocated]the experiences were thesame that farmers have hadto dispose of their produce at

extremely low prices due tolack of markets.It is also clear that some

beneficiaries did not reallyneed the land; they just wantedto have the grant money. Thatshould also be considered if theproject is to be scaled up n

ExclusivE

inquiry pagE 7

Exclusive Inquiry: From Boost to Bust

Documents