Land repossession

| Thursday April 22, 2010 00:00

I hope the government, particularly HE the President and Ministries of Agriculture and Lands and Housing, will sit up and take notice of the points Rapitsenyane is making.

In June 2009, HE the President expressed concern to the Ministry of Lands and Housing about the slow pace at which ploughing fields are being repossessed.

He directed the Ministry to expedite the re-possession of ploughing fields, which have remained uncultivated for years.  Subsequently, the ministry sent a circular to all Land Boards directing them to implement this policy. Land Boards are required to reserve these fields for the Ministry of Agriculture who will identify 'serious' farmers to use the land.

I would like to address Rapitsenyane's first question, 'Why the land remains unused?' and then address some wider policy issues, which need to be debated.

Large areas of land are uncultivated for a variety of reasons, of which the main ones are:

*The South African farmer, blessed with better soils and climate, better fixed and 'soft' (i.e. extension, marketing and input support) infrastructure and the benefits of the Customs Union can grow, mill, package and deliver grain to Botswana for about the same price as it costs the Botswana farmer simply to grow it.

*Botswana farmers are constrained by poorer soils, a difficult climate, poor infrastructure, lack of effective extension support and competition for labour.

* Consequently, it makes sense for many rural families to send their young people to the towns to earn wages, which  are remitted home to purchase food.

However, in Botswana we do not have an effective social security system. In response, rural families (and many urban workers) retain their family fields so that if disaster strikes and all else fails, they can go back to the land and grow their own food. Land is the ultimate form of social security.

Consequently, this policy is a direct attack both on the only social security that many poorer households possess but also on citizens' property rights, as the owners of these fields see them as their property and birthright.

In pursuing this policy, I must warn the government that it is treading on very dangerous ground. This is the one issue which can destroy the BDP in its electoral heartland in the rural areas.

There is a sensible alternative, which can both bring underutilised land into production and enable its owners to get income from it. This is to promote a rental market where farmers rent land from land holders who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to farm it.

What is needed is for the Ministry of Lands and Housing to prepare pro-forma standard forms of agricultural lease for use by farmers and landholders.

These need to be legally watertight  (i.e. carefully drafted by competent and experienced lawyers) and to fully protect the legitimate interests of both lessors and lessees. They also need to be freely available to all who need them in the rural areas.

It has been done before and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. A similar problem was effectively tackled in Ireland and Scotland in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Standard forms of lease were drafted and made available to the public through post-offices.

It has worked well for the better part of a century and, suitably adapted to our circumstances, could work in Botswana too.

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Lands and Housing appears not to be very interested in the idea and to prefer to use regulation and repossession instead. A change of approach is needed.

Richard WhiteTSABONG