Next Article in Journal
Daytime or Overnight Deliveries? Perceptions of Drivers and Retailers in São Paulo City
Previous Article in Journal
How to Achieve Sustainable Development of Mobile Payment through Customer Satisfaction—The SOR Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 22
10.3390/su11226315
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Land Conflict Management through the Implementation of the National Land Policy in Tanzania: Evidence from Kigoma Region

by
Gelas Rubakula
,
Zhanqi Wang
* and
Chao Wei
School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences, NO.388 Lumo Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan 430074, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(22), 6315; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226315
Submission received: 9 October 2019 / Revised: 30 October 2019 / Accepted: 8 November 2019 / Published: 11 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainability in Geographic Science)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The land policy in Tanzania, which has been implemented since 1995, aims to resolve land-use problems. This study explored the implementation of land policy in rural Tanzania. A cross-sectional multiple data collection technique was performed during the period July–November, 2017 to examine whether the policy has addressed land issues, including land conflicts. The findings indicate a significant association between immigrants and land conflicts, thus implying an insecure land tenure. The results also show that the realization of land policy was hampered by insufficient budgetary allocation and too few land staff to spearhead the land policy and legislation requirements. In view of these findings, this article suggests that the government must mobilize the resources required for registering communal land and simultaneously reinforce the use of social institutions, cultural norms, and adjoining landowners in securing land rights. This decision will encourage the majority of rural landowners (peasants and herdsmen) to invest in their land for higher and sustainable production.

1. Introduction

Land is an essential natural resource for human activities and for the maintenance of all terrestrial ecosystems [1,2,3]. Studies have revealed that the availability of land as a resource is declining [4,5]. Similarly, in Tanzania, increased demands or population pressure on the land has resulted in the reduction of crop production, degradation of land quality and quantity, shifting cultivation, and increased competition for land, thereby inducing various land conflicts [6,7,8]. Responding to these challenges, the United Republic of Tanzania (URT) proposed the National Land Policy in 1995 to address various land issues, including land conflicts [9].
In the 1990s, Tanzania underwent considerable tenure reforms in various fields, including economic growth, poverty eradication, and environmental sustainability [9]. The changes stressed poverty alleviation and land access for persons with a disability, respectively [10]. Also, the land policy in Tanzania designated land for investment and aimed to reduce land grabbing and speculation [11]. The changes in land use, an increase in wildlife and human conflict, the land competition in and around major urban centers, the demand for large areas of land for investment, and the development of land markets, influenced the formulation of the land policy [9]. Moreover, the mandatory villagization program implemented in the 1970s affected customary land tenures in numerous rural areas [12]. To overcome these challenges, the Government of Tanzania formed a Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters in 1991 which proposed the National Land Policy in 1995 [9]. The policy objectives include the following: promote equitable distribution of and access to land for all citizens; encourage and promote customary rights of smallholders (peasants and herdsmen); ensure the most productive use of land for fostering economic growth; modify and streamline the available land management systems; modernize institutional arrangements in land administration and land dispute adjudication; improve prudent land information management; and protect land resources from degradation to encourage sustainable development [9,13].
The National Land Policy and corresponding laws categorize the land in Tanzania as general, reserved, and village land [13,14]. All land that is not categorized as reserved or village land, as well as uninhabited or unused village land, is defined as general land [15]. Reserved land includes hazardous land and all land designated for forest reserves, national parks, game reserves, conservation areas, public utilities, and highways. Village land is the land that is demarcated as village land under any law or administrative procedures [16]. Generally, land in Tanzania can be acquired through the following methods: purchasing, government allocation, inheritance, and grabbing. The latter is rarely practiced [9]. The Land Act, which was initially one act but later divided into two, complicated the process of defining land tenure [9]. However, this act recognizes two categories of land tenures: customary and statutory tenures. Customary tenure follows the systems implemented in the majority of rural African communities for order ownership, possession, and access, and for regulating land use and transfer [10]. Under this category, the government can issue the ‘Customary Right of Occupancy’ (CCRO) certificate to the landowner, who can be an individual, a family, or a clan head [15]. By contrast, statutory land tenure is primarily employed for the general land. By using the legislative land tenure, the certificate of the granted right of occupancy is issued to the landowner [17].
Land titling is one of the objectives of the National Land Policy in Tanzania; however, this approach has numerous challenges. Although the Land Act and Village Land Act recognize customary tenure and empower village governments to manage the village land, various villagers and communities are subjected to the insecurity of customary land [18]. For example, with the lack of surveyed or registered communal land designated to pastoralists and hunters-gatherers, the herders use reserved land, which is under strict protection, or they use community land, thereby causing regular land conflicts [19,20]. The titling of community land can prevent land conflicts and deforestation [21]. However, because of weak incentives, land registration in Tanzania has been slow [11]. For example, in 2017, only 21,743 land titles were registered under the title deed [22].
Furthermore, to avoid land disputes and ensure land is used for suitable purposes, such as farming and animal keeping, land-use planning was included in the National Land Policy [16]. In villages, land-use planning allows villagers to ensure optimal land use. It involves a systematic assessment of land resources based on physical, ecological, and socio-economic aspects and the establishment of a framework for preventing land-use conflicts [23,24]. Moreover, this approach allows the planning and management of the land for community facilities, such as schools, markets, roads, cemeteries, dispensaries, and playgrounds. For a village, a final land-use plan with bylaws that do not contradict the national law is presented to the District Council for endorsement [23]. However, this policy has not been implemented in the majority of rural areas in Tanzania [11]. By 2017, only approximately 1625 (13%) of 12,500 villages had developed land-use plans, and nearly 40,000 people had acquired individual title documents [25].
Numerous studies conducted in Tanzania examined factors contributing to the occurrence of farmer-herd conflicts, pointing to policy deficiencies and contradictions, corruption practices, insecurity of land tenure, inadequate capacity in village land use planning, and lack of land information as major contributing factors [8,26]. By contrast, Wily [27] and Shayo [28] analyze land conflicts concerning land reforms and the extent to which pastoralists and peasants are involved in the decision making for land-related issues. Moreover, different government programs and strategies meant to address land conflicts have been examined [16,29]. However, there is a paucity of studies investigating land conflicts concerning the immigrations caused by vulnerable populations fleeing social and political conflicts. Kigoma region is unique in that it is periodically impacted by refugees from neighbouring countiries, particularly Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo [22,30].
This paper discusses the implementation of the National Land Policy in the rural areas primarily affected by immigration in western Tanzania, focusing on factors associated with land conflicts. The study used a combination of the anticipated land policy impacts, objectives, and outcomes to evaluate the policy’s implementation in terms of addressing disputes, land use planning, and degradation. Planners, administrators, land management officers and humanitarian agency workers will find the article informative regarding land use management and policymaking processes.
This article is divided into six sections. Apart from the introduction, the remaining article is structured in five parts as follows: the evolution and elements of the National Land Policy implementation in Tanzania; the materials and methods section, which presents a brief explanation of the methodology used to conduct the study, the study results, discussion of the findings, and conclusions.

2. Evolution and Elements of the National Land Policy Implementation in Tanzania

The implementation of the National Land Policy proposed in 1995 started with the development of laws [9]. An action plan was then proposed for implementing these laws. Statute regulations were proposed, and the laws were publicized. Furthermore, a program was developed for managing land resources. This program comprised three significant components: (i) land tenure security enhancement, (ii) land market reform, and (iii) land information management. Moreover, the implementation involved the modernization of infrastructure, and the land information system (LIS) focused on the modernization of the Survey and Mapping Division and the Registrar of Titles Project in Land Administration [31].
Some strategies for land policy implementation have been successful at a pilot level but not on a large scale [11]. In 2002, some intra-ministerial projects, such as the Property and Business Formalization Program, were initiated as a part of the National Land Policy [32]. The program aimed to empower the economically backward majority in Tanzania by increasing their access to formal financial markets and other services through the formalization of their property rights and businesses. This program anticipated that landowners in rural areas would use their formalized land as collateral to acquire loans from banks and thereby start business ventures using the loan money to improve their livelihood [32]. However, the program failed because of its dependence on external donors, particularly the Norwegian government, which funded the first two stages. In early 2008, the funding stopped, following a critical evaluation and criticism over the program [33].
Similar to the National Land Policy [13], the Land Disputes Settlement Act was enacted in 2002 to establish a distinct mechanism for settling land disputes [34]. For land disputes, the Ward is the lowest tribunal, followed by the District Land and Housing Tribunal and the High Court Land Division, whereas the Court of Appeal is the highest tribunal. However, a recent assessment revealed the inadequate success of this mechanism caused by a lack of human resources and other facilities [34]. In 2017, 21,183 new disputes were filed at District Land and Housing Tribunals, resulting in a total of 45,375 disputes. Among these disputes, 21,561 disputes were resolved in 2018, whereas 23,814 remained ongoing [22].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

Kigoma Region is located in western Tanzania between 3.6° and 6.5° S latitude and between 29.5° and 31.5° E longitude along the shores of Lake Tanganyika. The region has an area of 45,066 km2, with 8028 km2 covered with water [35]. The region comprises six districts: Kigoma Rural, Kasulu, Kibondo, Kakonko, Buhigwe, and Uvinza (Figure 1). The majority (75%) of the land users in the region include smallholder and livestock farmers [36]. During the population and housing census in 2012, the population of Kigoma Region was 2,127,930 [37], which increased to 2,528,708 in 2017 [22]. In 2017, the region registered 358,520 new arrivals, with 315,073 refugees and 43,447 asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi [22]. Therefore, the current influx of refugees from the neighboring countries, and of that in the early 1990s, has increased population growth and induced enormous pressure on the available village land and the forest reserve [22,30,38].

3.2. Sampling Procedures and Data Collection

A cross-sectional study, using multiple data collection techniques, was conducted from July to November 2017. The process included a household survey conducted by the first author and two reaserch assistants, interviewing 750 household heads from four districts of Kigoma Region, namely Kigoma Rural, Kasulu, Buhigwe, and Uvinza (one respondent per family), and reviewed the secondary data.
Researchers used Yamane formula for a finite population to determine the household sample size. The estimated number of households was 211,057, with 95% precession, whereas the sample size for household interviews was 399. However, considering the cluster sampling design effect, the researchers doubled the sample size from 399 to 789. During fieldwork, we reached 94% (750/789) of the anticipated household sample size. Table 1 shows the total study area population, the number of households, expected sample size, and the actual sample attained by the district after the survey. To select family heads for interviews, the researchers used the stratification technique. Four of the six districts, two wards from each chosen district, and two villages from the corresponding wards were randomly selected. For each village, the authors used a clustering technique to select households to be interviewed. The first author and two research assistants used a structured questionnaire to interview the heads of the household.
Regarding the secondary data from the local administrative and village land use plan reports, the first author used the Excel worksheet to extract the data from the routine and annual reports. The data included the land officer’s qualification, department, and district. The authors also added to the data the number of villages with land-use plans, compared to the total number of communities in the region.

3.3. Data Analysis

The data collected were coded, checked and edited, and entered into Microsoft 10 v 14.0 Excel software (Redmond, Washington, US) and exported to STATA v 14.2 (STATA Corp. 2015 Texas USA) for analysis. The data were descriptively presented in the tables of frequency. To test for associations, we used Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) to compare, for example, the prevalence of the variables between sex and the possession of land titles. Any p-value of <0.05 at 95% confidence interval (CI) was considered statistically significant.

4. Results

4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

In total, we interviewed 750 households, with 62.3% male and 37.7% female respondents from the four districts of Kigoma Region. The majority of the respondents (54.9%) were aged between 31 and 50 years, and 28.9% and 16.1% were in the 20 to 30 and older than 50 years range, respectively. Moreover, 16.4% of the participants had not received formal schooling, whereas 53.2%, 26.5%, and 3.9% had, respectively, completed a primary school education, attended secondary school, and received a college education.

4.2. Gender, Land Titling, and Participation in Land Issues

The authors analyzed males and females participating in land management issues, such as holding titles, owning a surveyed land, engaging in land-use planning, and performing socio-economic activities (Table 2). More males, 73 (80.2%) compared with only 18 (19.8%) females, were likely to own land titles (OR = 0.578, 95% CI = 0.363–0.921, p = 0.0139). Also, more males, 149 (56%), were involved in land-use planning than females, 118 (44%), (OR = 0.655, 95% CI = 0.655–0.901, p = 0.0066). Statistically, there were no significant differences between males and females in owning surveyed lands, participating in land issues, and performing socio-economic activities.
The study revealed a critical shortage of human resources for managing land use and enforcing land-use legislation. Relative to the population and number of villages, fewer staff members are allocated to the region. The findings revealed that various disciplines have only 37% (18/49) of the required number of land management officers, with individual proportions for all designations ranging from 0% to 50% (Table 3). Moreover, 13.3% (41/308) of the villages had developed land-use plans, with proportions for individual villages ranging from 0% to 40% (Table 4). These observations imply a critical deficiency in the budget for village land management activities.

4.3. Frequency and Factors Associated with Land Conflicts in Rural Areas

The majority of the respondents underscored that inter-community conflicts are most prevalent (e.g., among farmers, pastoralists, and refugees), followed by conflicts between communities and state, between individuals owning lands, and between communities and investors (Table 5).
Contrary to our expectation, the land-related conflicts were observed among households with land titles (71.4%) as well as in areas with land-use plans (65.2%). More land-related conflicts were reported in areas with immigrants (75.5%) than in those without immigrants (28.5%). Immigration, in this context, refers to herdsmen immigration, farmer immigration, and the refugees. Furthermore, approximately two times more immigrants were associated with conflicts than other respondents (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 1.963, 95% CI = 1.441–2.673, p = 0.000) (Table 6).
Although other factors, such as possessing land titles, owning surveyed land, shifting cultivation and the nature of land acquisition (i.e., purchasing, government allocation, and inheritance) were associated with land conflicts, when compared with areas free from such factors, the difference was not statistically significant. Areas with land-use plans were associated with more conflicts than those without land-use plans (AOR = 1.419, 95% CI = 1.01–1.993, p = 0.043).

5. Discussion

The findings suggested that although Tanzania has implemented the National Land Policy for more than two decades, the occurrence of land conflicts continues. Most reported conflicts include inter-community conflicts and conflicts between communities and state, between individuals owning lands, and between communities and investors. Conflicts between communities and state occur where fair compensation is not offered for an expropriated land, and there are unclear boundaries between reserved land and village land. Also, the study reported an association between immigrants in villages and land conflicts, which is consistent with other studies [8,16]. The immigrants in this context, however, include herdsmen, farmers, and refugees. Tanzania is home to numerous refugees from the neighboring countries Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [30,39,40]. Similar to other countries [41,42,43], refugees in Tanzania increase the pressure on land and land conflicts, and environmental mismanagement occurs [44,45].
Moreover, although the legal framework promotes women’s rights, many patriarchal societies, such as in Tanzania, still report a gender-based variation in land title possession [18,44,46,47]. As anticipated, this study demonstrated a significant difference in land title possession between the male and female populations, which is consistent with other studies [10,15]. Furthermore, the research showed that more male respondents were engaged in land-use planning than their female counterparts. However, neither title possession nor land-use plans resolved land conflicts. The study revealed that the majority of the households in the rural areas do not have legal rights, such as title deeds, right of occupancy, or customary right of occupancy, and thus, most of them experience land insecurity, which accelerates regular land conflicts.
The government of Tanzania proposed the Land Policy, including the subsequent acts and guidelines, with good intentions. However, the policy did not successfully address land conflicts in rural areas, particularly, in this study’s context, where a major stated policy objective is to protect Tanzanian citizens. The land policy lacked suitable implementation because of the limited resources for land management activities, including land demarcation, surveying, registration, and new land management information systems. The policy, to a greater extent, ignored the role of costs, including transaction costs [48,49], in terms of legalizing pieces of land. The policy’s implementation is a continuous, non-linear process, and dynamic [50] failure to revisit the original idea has failed the entire application. However, in addition to the development of a consensus, stakeholders’ participation, conflict resolution, adjustments, contingency planning, and adaption, it requires resource mobilization [51,52]. Decision-makers and policymakers are tasked with resource mobilization to realize changes. People against the change may attempt to impede access to the necessary resources (e.g., political, financial, managerial, and technical resources), thus delaying the reform process [53]. It has been revealed that the inability by the governments to redistribute resources to new priorities is frequently the cause of program or project shutdowns after donor resources have been exhausted [53]. This phenomenon is observed in Tanzania with a recent assessment indicating the partial failure of land dispute settlement mechanism with the critical shortage of resources and other facilities [34,54]. Therefore, this article proposes that the government must mobilize the necessary resources for successful policy implementation. As emphasized elsewhere [55,56], both traditional and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can be employed to reduce land conflicts.
The study reports a prevalence of land conflict regardless of whether one owns the land legally or not, or whether the land use plan is in place or not. The findings support the idea by Kimaro [57] that suitable land for agricultural and commercial use is very scarce. How the property is acquired does not significantly contribute to the conflict reduction attributed to significant proportions of the reserved and protected area, and to land grabbing by the government for other investments and mining [54,58,59]. On the other hand, the international instruments ratified by the nation consider the refugees special immigrants due to their protection. Regarding the environmental degradation and migration, some reports show the correlation between ecological conflict with the hosting communities [43]
As a recommendation, the government must continue to decentralize land management activities in rural areas, thereby allowing the local government authorities to supervise, control, and perform the formal registration of legal and technical land information. The mechanism should leverage social capital to address land management and transaction costs [16,49]. The local leaders, such as chiefs and heads, can be involved in the process of decentralization of land management, which is feasible and cost-effective in a limited resource environment [60]. For example, to improve the security of land tenure in rural areas, the government must reinforce the use of social institutions, cultural norms, and adjoining landowners. This approach has been successful in major rural settlements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America [61,62].

6. Conclusions and Further Research

The land policy implementation, in particular in the rural areas in Tanzania, may be compromised in specific contexts of a high number of immigrants, such as the refugee influx as reported by our study. The reported continued land conflicts, even in the areas where the populations have land plans, land titles, or ownership of surveyed lands, is worrying. The land conflicts suggest that the government must contextualize land policies and legal frameworks to meet the population’s specific needs. A mixed migration of the refugees, the farmers and the herdsmen makes the land management complex. Thus, it requires more complex solutions than the existing policies and laws.
Although the development of the National Land Policy in Tanzania involved extensive policy recommendations, few were promptly considered [63]. The National Land Policy and resultant laws were primarily developed in collaboration with development partners, who funded the implementation process, ignoring the contribution from land users whose input was significant [64], presumably contributing to sluggish policy implementation. However, the government started to redesign the policy in August 2015 by addressing the insecurity of land tenure, rapid macroeconomics, and socio-ecological dynamics. This article underscores the significance of active and comprehensive public consultation for the new policy to implement enhanced land security in the rural areas of Tanzania.
This paper highlights the implementation of the National Land Policy for conflict resolution without considering policy formulation. Further research can address the suitability of the National Land Policy as the sole measure for land conflict management. Such a study can use different theoretical perspectives, such as the ability of Tanzania—a developing country—to design appropriate public policies [65,66]. This approach may reveal the causes of unabated land conflicts in the major rural areas of Tanzania despite the implemented land policy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.R. and Z.W.; methodology, G.R.; software, G.R.; validation, G.R.; formal analysis, G.R.; investigation, G.R.; resources, C.W.; data curation, G.R.; writing—Original draft, G.R.; writing—Review and editing, G.R. and Z.W.; visualization, G.R.; supervision, Z.W.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Kigoma Regional Administration Office for permitting us to conduct the study in the region. We are sincerely thankful to the village leadership and communities in the selected districts for their cooperation during the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Verburg, P.H.; Crossman, N.; Ellis, E.C.; Heinimann, A.; Hostert, P.; Mertz, O.; Nagendra, H.; Sikor, T.; Erb, K.-H.; Golubiewski, N.; et al. Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene 2015, 12, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Marzelli, S. Land resources in the Alps and instruments supporting their sustainable management as a matter of regional environmental governance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 14, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Niedertscheider, M.; Kuemmerle, T.; Müller, D.; Erb, K.-H. Exploring the effects of drastic institutional and socio-economic changes on land system dynamics in Germany between 1883 and 2007. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Haberl, H. Competition for land: A sociometabolic perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 119, 424–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jayne, T.S.; Chamberlin, J.; Headey, D.D. Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in Africa: A synthesis. Food Policy 2014, 48, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mangora, M.M. Shifting Cultivation, Wood Use and Deforestation Attributes of Tobacco Farming in Urambo District, Tanzania. Res. J. Soc. Sci. 2012, 4, 135–140. [Google Scholar]
  7. Msuya, D.G. Farming systems and crop-livestock land use consensus. Tanzanian perspectives. Open J. Ecol. 2013, 3, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mwamfupe, D. Persistence of Farmer-Herder Conflicts in Tanzania. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2015, 5, 8. [Google Scholar]
  9. Stahl, M. Looking Back, Looking Ahead—Land, Agriculture and Society in East Africa: A Festschrift for Kjell Havnevik; NAI: Uppsala, Sweden, 2015; ISBN 978-91-7106-774-6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pritchard, J. Securing Community Land and Resource Rights in Africa: A Guide to Legal Reform and Best Practices; Fern: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013; ISBN 978-1-906607-33-3. [Google Scholar]
  11. OECD. OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Tanzania 2013; OECD Investment Policy Reviews; OECD: Paris, France, 2013; ISBN 978-92-64-20433-1. [Google Scholar]
  12. Shivji, I.G. Land Tenure problems and Reforms in Tanzania. In Proceedings of the Sub-Regional Workshop for East Africa on Land Tenure Issues in Natural Resource Management, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 11–15 March 1996. [Google Scholar]
  13. The United Republic of Tanzania (URT). National Land Policy, 2nd ed.; The Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 1997.
  14. The United Republic of Tanzania (URT). Land Act of 1999; Government Printers: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 1999.
  15. Knight, R.S. Statutory Recognition of Customary Land Rights in Africa: An Investigation into Best Practices for Lawmaking and Implementation; FAO Legislative Study; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2010; ISBN 978-92-5-106728-4. [Google Scholar]
  16. John, P.; Kabote, S.J. Land Governance and Conflict Management in Tanzania: Institutional Capacity and Policy-Legal Framework Challenges. AJRD 2017, 5, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nuhu, S. Land-access systems in peri-urban areas in Tanzania: Perspectives from Actors. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2019, 11, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ali, D.A.; Collin, M.; Deininger, K.; Dercon, S.; Sandefur, J.; Zeitlin, A. The Price of Empowerment: Experimental Evidence on Land Titling in Tanzania; Working Paper No. 369; Center for Global Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kironde, J.M.L. Improving Land Sector Governance in Africa: The Case of Tanzania. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Land Governance in Support of the MDGs: Responding to New Challenges, Washington, DC, USA, 9–10 March 2009. [Google Scholar]
  20. Noe, C.; Richard, Y.M.K. Wildlife Protection, Community Participation in Conservation, and (Dis) Empowerment in Southern Tanzania. Conserv. Soc. 2015, 13, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Buntaine, M.T.; Hamilton, S.E.; Millones, M. Titling community land to prevent deforestation: An evaluation of a best-case program in Morona-Santiago, Ecuador. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 33, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. The United Republic of Tanzania (URT). The United Republic of Tanzania: Economic Survey 2017; Ministry of Finance and Planning: Dodoma, Tanzania, 2018.
  23. Kaswamila, A.L.; Songorwa, A.N. Participatory land-use planning and conservation in northern Tanzania rangelands. Afr. J. Ecol. 2009, 47, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chigbu, U.E.; Schopf, A.; de Vries, W.T.; Masum, F.; Mabikke, S.; Antonio, D.; Espinoza, J. Combining land-use planning and tenure security: A tenure responsive land-use planning approach for developing countries. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 1622–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schreiber, L. Registering Rural Rights: Village Land Titling in Tanzania, 2008–2017. Innovations for Successful Societies, Princeton University. Available online: http://succefulsocieties.princeton.edu/ (accessed on 25 August 2019).
  26. John Walwa, W. Land use plans in Tanzania: Repertoires of domination or solutions to rising farmer-herder conflicts? J. East. Afr. Stud. 2017, 11, 408–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Massoi, L. Land Conflicts and the Livelihood of Pastoral Maasai Women in Kilosa District of Morogoro, Tanzania in Kilosa District of Morogoro, Tanzania. Ph.D. Thesis, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  28. Shao, I. Democracy and Land Conflicts in Tanzania: The Case of Pastoralists versus Peasants. Tanzan. J. Dev. Stud. 2010, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Van Donge, J.K. Legal insecurity and land conflicts in Mgeta, Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. Africa 1993, 63, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ongpin, P. Refugees in Tanzania—Asset or Burden? J. Dev. Soc. Transform. 2008, 5, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  31. Deininger, K.; Selod, H.; Burns, A. The Land Governance Assessment Framework: Identifying and Monitoring Good Practice in the Land Sector; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-8213-8758-0. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gwaleba, M.J.; Masum, F. Participation of Informal Settlers in Participatory Land Use Planning Project in Pursuit of Tenure Security. Urban Forum 2018, 29, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Benjaminsen, T.A.; Holden, S.; Lund, C.; Sjaastad, E. Formalisation of land rights: Some empirical evidence from Mali, Niger and South Africa. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Massay, G.E. Adjudication of Land Cases in Tanzania: A Bird Eye Overview of the District Land and Housing Tribunal. Open Univ. Law J. 2013, 4, 167–182. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pintea, L.; Bauer, M.E.; Bolstad, P.V.; Pusey, A. Matching Multiscale Remote Sensing Data to Interdisciplinary Conservation Needs: The Case of Chimpanzees in Western Tanzania. In Proceedings of the Pecora 15/Land Satellite Information IV/ISPRS Commission I/FIEOS Conference on Integrated Remote Sensing at the Global, Regional and Local Scale, Denver, CO, USA, 10–15 November 2002. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sulle, E.; Nelson, F. Biofuels, Land Access and Rural Livelihoods in Tanzania; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2009; ISBN 978-1-84369-749-7. [Google Scholar]
  37. The United Republic of Tanzania. 2012 Population and Housing Census: Population Distribution by Administrative Areas; National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance and Planning: Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania; Office of Chief Government Statistician, President’s Office, Finance, Economy and Development Planning: Zanzibar, Tanzania; Government Printers: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 2013.
  38. Whitaker, B.E. Refugees in Western Tanzania: The Distribution of Burdens and Benefits among Local Hosts. J. Refug. Stud. 2002, 15, 339–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Morel, M. The lack of refugee burden-sharing in Tanzania: Tragic effects. Afr. Focus 2009, 22, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kirui, P.; Mwaruvie, D.J. The Dilemma of Hosting Refugees: A Focus on the Insecurity in North-Eastern Kenya. Int. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2012, 3, 161–171. [Google Scholar]
  41. Duffy Toft, M. The Myth of the Borderless World: Refugees and Repatriation Policy. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 2007, 24, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Codjoe, S.N.A.; Quartey, P.; Tagoe, C.A.; Reed, H.E. Perceptions of the Impact of Refugees on Host Communities: The Case of Liberian Refugees in Ghana. Int. Migr. Integr. 2013, 14, 439–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Martin, A. Environmental Conflict Between Refugee and Host Communities. J. Peace Res. 2005, 42, 329–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Odeny, M. Improving Access to Land and strengthening Women’s land rights in Africa. In Proceedings of the Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, Washington, DC, USA, 8–11 April 2013. [Google Scholar]
  45. Berry, L. The Impact of Environmental Degradation on Refugee-Host Relations: A Case Study from Tanzania; New Issues in Refugee Research, Research Paper No. 151; UNHCR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  46. Magawa, G.L.; Hansungule, M. Unlocking the Dilemmas: Women’s Land Rights in Tanzania. J. Law Crim. Justice 2018, 6, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ali, D.A.; Deininger, K.; Goldstein, M. Environmental and gender impacts of land tenure regularization in Africa: Pilot evidence from Rwanda. J. Dev. Econ. 2014, 110, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shahab, S.; Clinch, J.P.; O’Neill, E. Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shahab, S.; Clinch, J.P.; O’Neill, E. Timing and distributional aspects of transaction costs in Transferable Development Rights programmes. Habitat Int. 2018, 75, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rap, E. The Practices and Politics of Making Policy: Irrigation Management Transfer in Mexico. Water Altern. 2013, 6, 506–531. [Google Scholar]
  51. Batley, R. The Politics of Service Delivery Reform. Dev. Chang. 2004, 35, 31–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Juknelienė, D.; Valčiukienė, J.; Atkocevičienė, V. Assessment of regulation of legal relations of territorial planning: A case study in Lithuania. Land Use Policy 2017, 67, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sulle, A. Result-Based Management in the Public Sector: A Decade of Experience for the Tanzanian Executive Agencies. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2011, 4, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kilonzo, R.G. This Is My Grand Pa’s Land: Land, and Development Projects and Evictions along Morogoro Highway, Tanzania. J. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 10, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Emanuel, M.; Ndimbwa, T. Traditional Mechanisms of Resolving Conflicts over Land Resource: A Case of Gorowa Community in Northern Tanzania. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2013, 3, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lange, A.; Siebert, R.; Barkmann, T. Sustainability in Land Management: An Analysis of Stakeholder Perceptions in Rural Northern Germany. Sustainability 2015, 7, 683–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Kimaro, D.N. Land for Agriculture in Tanzania: Challenges and Opportunities. J. Land Soc. 2014, 1, 13. [Google Scholar]
  58. Lai, Y.; Peng, Y.; Li, B.; Lin, Y. Industrial land development in urban villages in China: A property rights perspective. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Lai, Y.; Tang, B. Institutional barriers to redevelopment of urban villages in China: A transaction cost perspective. Land Use Policy 2016, 58, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Biitir, S.B.; Nara, B.B.; Ameyaw, S. Integrating decentralised land administration systems with traditional land governance institutions in Ghana: Policy and praxis. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 402–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wehrmann, B. Land Conflicts: A Practical Guide to Dealing with Land Disputes; GTZ: Eschborn, Germany, 2008; ISBN 978-3-00-023940-3. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ubink, J.M.; Hoekema, A.J.; Assies, W.J. Legalising Land Rights: Local Practices, State Responses and Tenure Security in Africa, Asia and Latin America; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; ISBN 978-90-8728-056-7. [Google Scholar]
  63. Sundet, G. The Politics of Land in Tanzania. Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  64. Nuhu, S. Peri-Urban Land Governance in Developing Countries: Understanding the Role, Interaction and Power Relation among Actors in Tanzania. Urban Forum 2019, 30, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Haque, M.S. Theory and Practice of Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Traditions, Directions, and Impacts. Int. J. Public Adm. 2007, 30, 1297–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shahab, S.; Clinch, J.P.; O’Neill, E. Impact-based planning evaluation: Advancing normative criteria for policy analysis. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2019, 46, 534–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 11 06315 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the study area. Source: http://www.maphill.com/tanzania/kigoma/.
Figure 1. Map of the study area. Source: http://www.maphill.com/tanzania/kigoma/.
Sustainability 11 06315 g001
Table
Table 1. Distribution of household survey samples in Kigoma Region.
Table 1. Distribution of household survey samples in Kigoma Region.
DistrictsDistrict PopulationHouseholds
(HH)		Proportion to SizeExpected Sample Size of HHActual Sample Size
Buhigwe District245,34240,89019%145160
Kigoma Rural District211,56635,26117%125192
Kasulu District425,79470,96634%252215
Uvinza District383,64063,94030%227183
Total1,266,342211,057100%749750
Source: Field survey data, 2017.
Table
Table 2. Association between gender and participation in land issues, possession of land titles, owning surveyed land, and socio-economic activities in rural areas.
Table 2. Association between gender and participation in land issues, possession of land titles, owning surveyed land, and socio-economic activities in rural areas.
Male
n (%)		Female
n (%)		Total
n (%)		Odds Ratiop-Value95% CI
Possessing land titles
Yes73 (80.2)18 (19.8)91 (100)0.5780.01390.363–0.921
No421 (64)238 (36)659 (100)
Owning surveyed land
Yes172 (53)153 (47)325 (100)0.4950.06810.363–0.676
No295 (69)130 (31)425 (100)
Engaging in land-use planning
Yes149 (56)118 (44)267 (100)0.6550.00660.655–0.901
No318 (66)165 (34)483 (100)
Participating in land issues
Every time187 (61)121 (39)308 (100)0.8940.46410.656–1.220
Few times280 (63)162 (37)442 (100)
Performing socio-economic activities
Farming264 (63)155 (37)419 (100)0.9360.71110.649–1.346
Herding131 (64.5)72 (35.5)203 (100)
Source: Field survey data, 2017.
Table
Table 3. Designations for land management officers in Kigoma Region, 2017.
Table 3. Designations for land management officers in Kigoma Region, 2017.
DesignationNumber of Officials RequiredNumber of Officials Present n (%)
Physical planner104 (40)
Land officer105 (50)
Land assistant100 (0)
Valuation officer95 (50)
Land surveyor104 (40)
Total4918 (37)
Source: Regional Secretariat of Kigoma.
Table
Table 4. The status of land-use planning in villages in Kigoma Region, 2017.
Table 4. The status of land-use planning in villages in Kigoma Region, 2017.
DistrictsNumber of VillagesVillages with Land-Use PlansVillages without Land-Use Plans
Kigoma Rural District4611 (24)35 (76)
Kasulu District621 (0)61 (100)
Uvinza District6125 (40)36 (60)
Kibondo District500 (0)50 (100)
Kakonko District440 (0)44 (100)
Buhigwe District454 (9)41 (91)
Total30841 (13)267 (87)
Source: Regional Secretariat of Kigoma.
Table
Table 5. Respondents’ perspective on the frequency of land conflicts in the area.
Table 5. Respondents’ perspective on the frequency of land conflicts in the area.
StatementsMost FrequentFrequentNon-FrequentNeutralNo Response
Conflicts between individuals owning lands16.1%16.3%63.8%3.1%0.7%
Conflicts between communities and investors7.2%12.8%77.9%1.6%0.5%
Conflicts between communities and state29.5%31.1%36.2%2.9%0.3%
Conflicts between communities25.6%42.1%28.3%2.9%1.1%
Source: Field survey data, 2017.
Table
Table 6. Factors associated with land conflicts in the area.
Table 6. Factors associated with land conflicts in the area.
FactorsExperienced Conflict
Yes, n (%)		Experienced Conflict
No, n (%)		TotalAORp-Value95% CI
Possessing land title65 (71.4)26 (28.6)91 (100)1.3840.2330.811–2.36
Owning surveyed land212 (65.2)113 (34.8)325 (100)0.8960.5350.633–1.269
Availability of land-use plans186 (69.7)81 (30.3)267 (100)1.4190.0431.01–1.993
Presence of immigrants294 (71.5)117 (28.5)411 (100)1.9630.0001.441–2.673
Shifting cultivation458 (65.1)245 (34.9)703 (100)1.3780.3080.744–2.554
Purchased land319 (65)172 (35)491 (100)0.8640.7930.289–2.577
Government-allocated land66 (63)39 (37)105 (100)0.8250.7420.262–2.599
Inherited land87 (63.5)50 (36.5)137(100)0.7570.6290.244–2.347
Source: Field survey data, 2017.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rubakula, G.; Wang, Z.; Wei, C. Land Conflict Management through the Implementation of the National Land Policy in Tanzania: Evidence from Kigoma Region. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226315

AMA Style

Rubakula G, Wang Z, Wei C. Land Conflict Management through the Implementation of the National Land Policy in Tanzania: Evidence from Kigoma Region. Sustainability. 2019; 11(22):6315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226315

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rubakula, Gelas, Zhanqi Wang, and Chao Wei. 2019. "Land Conflict Management through the Implementation of the National Land Policy in Tanzania: Evidence from Kigoma Region" Sustainability 11, no. 22: 6315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226315

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop