One of the key things that was important in this study was to establish the tenure status because it provided a measure and level of security to land and investment thereof. Secure land rights for small-holder farmers were building blocks for agricultural production and economic empowerment of rural households because they gave them greater incentive to make production enhancing investments since they were more confident to recoup those investment (Giovarielli. et. al., 2013). Boyce et. al., (2005) supported this view arguing that across the globe, small-scale farmers tended to consistently: grow more output per acre than large-scale farmers, when holding secure tenure land rights small-scale farmers were better environmental stewards, protecting and enhancing soil fertility, water quality and biodiversity hence, democratisation of access to land could be the cornerstone for rural sustainable development. Evidence around the world demonstrated that small, owner- operated farms typically produce more output per acre than large farms cultivated by means of wage labour or tenants due to: high cultivation intensity, high crop intensity, high value crop mix, and high yields per acre (Boyce et. al., 2005).
There were three land tenure schemes provided for in the FTLRP programme: A1 (villagisation) and A2 (individual plots of land classified as small, medium and large-scale
84
commercial farms) schemes as well as the Tier model (allocated commercial farms as additional grazing to an existing CA settlement). User permits were issued by the Ministry of Lands through the DLC on recommendation of village head or local councilor. A1 scheme had a 99 year lease while the A2 scheme had a 25 or 99 year lease with an option to purchase the land. Table 15 illustrate that most of the women at 33 and 20 per cent widowed and married respectively, own land in their own right independently or jointly because their names were on the land permits, hence had secure tenure status. While a significantly high percentage (52%) of widowed women own land, in 2 per cent widowed cases either both names were on the permit and in another 2 per cent widowed cases the husband’s name was still on the permit although the spouse had since passed on. In a further 12 per cent cases the name on the permit was a relative or family member.
Table 15: Percentage land holdings held by women with permits
Marital Status Tenure Status Name on Permit Total Percentage
Widowed Permit Wife 20 33%
Married Permit Both 12 20%
Widowed Permit Relative/Family 7 12%
Married Permit Relative/Family 4 7%
Divorced Permit Wife 4 7%
Widowed Don't Know Relative/Family 3 5%
Married Permit Husband 2 3%
Married Permit Wife 2 3%
Married Don't Know Relative/Family 2 3%
Never Married Permit Wife 1 2%
Divorced Permit Both 1 2%
Divorced Permit Relative/Family 1 2%
Widowed Permit Both 1 2%
Widowed Permit Husband 1 2%
Total 61 100%
While the majority of married women had joint titling, in 3 per cent cases the name on the permit was either the wife’s or the husband’s while in 7 per cent cases the name on the permit was a relative or family member. 7 per cent widowed women own land in their own right independently because their names were on the permit, however in 2 per cent cases either the husband’s name was on the permit or a relative or a family member had the name on the permit.
The respondents pointed out the following problems they encountered in relation to land permit allocation:
I. There were two wives’ but the permit was in the husband’s name alone although
he was deceased.
II. One woman was staying on the stand and keeping it for the family hence the
permit was not in her name.
III. There were two co-wives residing at the stand and the permit was in both their
names, however one of the women had health problems and although they shared the stand she didn’t get any assistance from the co-wife and her family.
85
IV. The stand was given to the woman by her mother but the headman registered
the stand in someone else’s name on the permit, effectively stealing the stand from her although she was staying on it.
V. Four (4) stands were reserved for government officials and this caused conflict
within the farm community.
VI. The mother registered her stand in her son’s name on the permit to avoid
problems associated with women land ownership if the stand was in her name.
VII. In some cases, the stand was registered in a relative’s name on the permit (father,
mother, father-in-law and/or mother-in-law), for married, divorced and widowed women hence they didn’t have secure tenure status and effective control over the land.
VIII. The stand was registered in the name of mother-in-law and there was trouble
ever since her son passed on. The mother-in-law wanted to evict her daughter- in-law from the stand and the case had to be resolved by the Ministry of Lands effectively giving the daughter-in-law secure land rights over the land, hence she was in the process of registering it in her name.
IX. The stand was registered in her deceased husband’s name on the permit and
change of ownership was supposed to be processed when the death certificate had been obtained but her husband’s relatives were refusing to assist her to obtain the death certificate. Husband’s relatives were required to sign death notification forms as witnesses because the husband died at home in the CAs as opposed to a hospital or healthcare centre which provides such certification.
X. Five (5) stands that were allocated by headmen were still awaiting formal
approval, registration and allocation of stand numbers by the District Lands Committee. However, the DLC and the Ministry of Lands insisted that these allocations were “illegal” hence they were not recognized and won’t be allocated stand numbers and permits and whoever own these stands had no legal recourse when they were disposed. All together records show that a total of 79 stands were in this predicament