Titling as Land Reform in Tanzania: Contours, Conflicts and Convergence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors and MDPI Journal editors,

I have three comments on this (surprisingly short) article.

1. It is very well written, 'adequately' researched for the topic (but see below) and very valuable for bringing together common criticisms of privatized titling in numerous states (although in this case just dealing with Tanzania) - along with some tangible insights in the Tanzania case.

2. I am torn as to whether it is sufficient to stand on its own. The topic is narrow (although not exactly new), so  probably it does. However, with one exception, I felt it lacked essential context. That exception is at line 359-360 "Let us not forget that customary land rights in Tanzania were given legal recognition in the absence of formal title by ..." No 4 and No 5 of 1999).

This is the only intimation of what I concur has become a de facto disaster which has become privatized titling within village customary lands - and yes, indeed, I concur has been primarily a consequence primarily of international positions which fail to budge from surveyor-led privatized titling positions. It is no coincidence, for example, that de Soto's plan (which I happened to critique at length at his agency's request and urged a focus of village land boundary adjudication and demarcation, resulting in cutting of all correspondence at the time) occurred in 2005, not in the late 1990s when the original new land law was being drafted, or indeed in the early 1990s when following Shivji's critical proposals, included considerable debate on the status of customary rights.  For myself, closely involved since 1993 in land rights reform in mainland Tanzania, what your piece demonstrates so clearly is very important; how intentions can be so easily hijacked, not so much just by the international community (World Bank in this instance prime among them) but by the fact that capitalist privatized, and market-based titling late colonial/early post-colonial theology is so easily bought into by the elites they have promoted.  To help find remedy - which you only hint at with a somewhat tired, "we need to rethink" - it would have been helpful for authors in this instance to revisit the history, documentation, debated and clearly inscribed conditions of the bill (and which became two laws simply for bulk, but in the process introduced some problematic contradictions).  For example, at the time, drafted at the same time as several other new land laws on the continent were being drafted (resulting in Mozambique's 1997 law and Uganda's 1998 law), quite dramatic were made - eg.-

- as you acknowledge, not compulsory to title

- totally dependent upon villages agreeing inter-village perimeter boundaries (another area which got bureaucratized in practice, with district govts having to do that work)

- totally dependent upon zoning - which you meniton as the VLUP - but even more severely overstepped the delibertely simple procedures for carrying this out - nothing like measuring water flow as the NLUP now insists - needed to be done; it was to be common sense, and no private title for individuals/spouses or families could issued prior to such zoning;

- vesting title - if it was the custom, directly in the community - never developed as the norm -  bureaucrats quickly reconstructed interpretation to avoid this, and ignored the enormous potential of genuine collective land title, totally consistent with the idea of the land right as an exclusive right to occupy and use the land, not to own the soil itself

- the critical use of elected village governments as strictly no more than managers/administrators of rights, not owners (following the disastrous earlier village act of the 1970s)

- and a host of other good intentions which a quick reread of the VLA makes clear.

 

In short, I would have liked in a paper like this - even if it takes a new section - comparing intentions with present day foci (individualized titling) and interpretations of the law.  Start way back with the 1992 Shivji-led Commission report... read the NLP again, the draft bills.

A lot of important aspects were innovative at the time - vesting title directly in communities or groups as legal persons, if the community so wished, not just the commonage - the absence of which remains problematic is so many regions, and in certain Africa states;

Not making titling compulsory - ditto as above;

Making a customary entitlement stronger than a non-customary, entitlement, at least in term (in perpetuity) not a form of lease from the state;

Using a democratic entity (elected) as the lawful Manager (another area which has collapsed due to collusive corruption);  and certainly not the nor in many other African states where traditional authorities are favoured, with a raft of other accountability issues;

Upgrading the status of customary law, with strong indication that what was meant by this was the majority consensus of the community members, not what elders once did, to sustain that adaptability;

And perhaps most important of all, removing the presumption prevailing since villagization that village land meant just the present settlement and farming areas, a bit of grazing land, and a bit extra; during the early 1990s the new departments in Dodoma strongly believed that village titling would yield the State a lot more general land - until the Sida-funded LAMP programme argued just as forcefully and with evidence  that there should be NO gaps between village boundaries, that these did not and should not exist. That, at least, was a success achieved during the legal drafting.

and so on. All this had enormous impact upon other jurisdictions, in Africa and beyond.

So, I would feel more comfortable, if the somewhat trite theme of 'blame the internationals', true as it is in so many ways, especially as purse holders - were balanced with a more nuanced review of where mainland Tanzania has departed from the clearly inscribed principles - and then, an equally nuanced analysis of 'why is this?" It is just because the purse holders say so? Or is an equal or stronger force (you rightly hint this) in elites wanted and still want it that way, if only to facilitate the 1950s thesis of land accumulating yeoman farmers, themselves, and speculators.

This leads to another missing element in the paper; please don't just say that things need changing - of course they do - but suggest some concrete changes to be considered. You already have lots of material for that, including the dubiously legal (please check the law and regs) notion that fission by a village into 2 or more independent villages nullifies CCRO. Doesn't sound right to me ...

Two other lesser comments -

I would have liked to see more distinction drawn between the donors and all the engaged local agencies in what they were doing and why. They are not all the same.

I would have liked to see a more serious account of what participants think, with some sharper guiding questions as to what for them, and maybe different, for their parents before them - makes them feel more secure in their landholding, and what makes them feel less secure.

 

Author Response

Resubmission of “Titling as Land Reform in Tanzania: Contours, Conflicts and Convergence,” by K. Owens, K. Askew, S. Nagaraj, H. Stein, F. Maganga and R. Odgaard, for inclusion in the special issue “Critical Insights on Tenure Security in the Global South”

October 20, 2025

 

We wish to thank the three reviewers who made excellent suggestions for improvement of our above titled essay submission. Here, we explain the changes made as a result.

Reviewer 1 

We appreciate that Reviewer 1 checked all boxes affirmatively. We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be well written. In response to their other comments:

• The paper is no longer “surprisingly short” given considerable new material that we have added (based on all three reviewers’ comments) from close readings of the annual budget speeches from Land ministry officials to Parliament and from analyses of our own empirical data (household survey results). 
• Also, we have added “essential context” by outlining the legal categories of land and their corresponding forms of title; offering more information on the Shivji Commission and its recommendations (lines 113ff); and comparing those to operationalization of the policy over time. 
• Another point of Reviewer 1 is the need to show that the process is not driven entirely by international interests. We have clearly demonstrated that the biggest recipient of village land following formalization has been the state. 
• Also in response to this reviewer about the need to expand our recommendations for policy changes, we have added concrete recommendations in the conclusions on how to address extant problems including improving the generation of VLCs, which the government is getting close to completing nation-wide (lines 509ff), but which is continually undermined by the splitting of existing villages into two or more villages (lines 464ff).
• The reviewer was questioning our note on the impact of the division of villages into two new villages on CCROs and VLUPs. We have added quotes from our 2016 interview with the Director General of the National Land Use Planning Commission which clarify the consequences along with the impact of village rights after villages have been shifted into planning areas.
• We have also addressed two of this reviewer’s other more minor comments. We have provided additional detail on agencies that are involved in sponsoring titling, including the multifaceted reasons they use to justify their interventions. We have also added material (including tables) from our household survey analyzing sense of security and other issues. 

Reviewer 2

We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be a welcome contribution to the literature.

• We have expanded and enriched the literature review in line with the recommendation of Reviewer 2.
• In response also to reviewer 2 comments, the methodology section has been expanded and improved with essential details about the selection of regions and villages, along with the sources of data. 
• Typos have been corrected. 

 

Reviewer 3

We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be well-written and insightful. 

• As discussed above we have expanded the methodology section which was also suggested by Reviewer 3. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the idea that formalization is associated with economic and social development in Africa. It goes beyond the literature by focusing on the plurality of international actors and the chaotic way in which they work that has resulted in disparate outcomes which is a welcome contribution to the literature. The study employs “a mixed methods approach 17 that includes analyses of government policies and project documents; interviews with government 18 officials, project implementers and NGO staff; and rural household surveys in districts with and 19 without titling.” The methods are appropriate for the investigation. Although the paper adds value, there are a few issues that can be addressed before it is ready for publication. The paper can make some improvement by adding some literature, providing essential details and justification in the methodology, linking the results to the methods and presenting especially the survey findings systematically and addressing some typos. I present more detailed comments below.

Literature review needs to be presented better on the formalization of land tenure. While it is true that formalization has not led to economic benefits especially in developing countries, it is more appropriate to say it is ambiguous in rural areas than to say it does not have an effect. The literature review should give more discussion on what it says about the effects of formalization on credit access, labor market participation, women economic empowerment, income generating activities, investment in physical capital and land value. Durand-Lasserve and Selod (2009) The Formalization of Urban Land Tenure in Developing Countries, Galiani and Schargrodsky (2010) Property rights for the poor: Effects of land titling and Besley (1995) Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana can be helpful in summarizing this part of the literature even though a little dated.

The methodology could do with some essential details. What was the universe of titling or formalization programs that have been carried out in Tanzania and why were the ones used in this study selected? What was the nature and universe of primary documentation and was every document reviewed or sampled? What was the nature of the interviews: key informant or focus group, in-depth one-on-one semi structured? Unstructured? What was the study population, what was the sample and how was it selected (both in terms of how the four regions and 40 sites were selected, and also how the households were selected) and why, how was the survey data collected and what were the variables and their operationalization, what analysis methods were employed, what was the realized n of the survey.

Sentence 124-124 has a typo, needs rephrasing. “On the right side, the National Government, and 124 specifically the Ministry of Lands, implements of the largest share of the funding.”

The results and methods sections are not talking to each other. There is no reference to which specific findings were from key informants and which results were from statistical analysis from the survey data, apart from the discussion section.

Author Response

Resubmission of “Titling as Land Reform in Tanzania: Contours, Conflicts and Convergence,” by K. Owens, K. Askew, S. Nagaraj, H. Stein, F. Maganga and R. Odgaard, for inclusion in the special issue “Critical Insights on Tenure Security in the Global South”

October 20, 2025

 

We wish to thank the three reviewers who made excellent suggestions for improvement of our above titled essay submission. Here, we explain the changes made as a result.

Reviewer 1 

We appreciate that Reviewer 1 checked all boxes affirmatively. We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be well written. In response to their other comments:

• The paper is no longer “surprisingly short” given considerable new material that we have added (based on all three reviewers’ comments) from close readings of the annual budget speeches from Land ministry officials to Parliament and from analyses of our own empirical data (household survey results). 
• Also, we have added “essential context” by outlining the legal categories of land and their corresponding forms of title; offering more information on the Shivji Commission and its recommendations (lines 113ff); and comparing those to operationalization of the policy over time. 
• Another point of Reviewer 1 is the need to show that the process is not driven entirely by international interests. We have clearly demonstrated that the biggest recipient of village land following formalization has been the state. 
• Also in response to this reviewer about the need to expand our recommendations for policy changes, we have added concrete recommendations in the conclusions on how to address extant problems including improving the generation of VLCs, which the government is getting close to completing nation-wide (lines 509ff), but which is continually undermined by the splitting of existing villages into two or more villages (lines 464ff).
• The reviewer was questioning our note on the impact of the division of villages into two new villages on CCROs and VLUPs. We have added quotes from our 2016 interview with the Director General of the National Land Use Planning Commission which clarify the consequences along with the impact of village rights after villages have been shifted into planning areas.
• We have also addressed two of this reviewer’s other more minor comments. We have provided additional detail on agencies that are involved in sponsoring titling, including the multifaceted reasons they use to justify their interventions. We have also added material (including tables) from our household survey analyzing sense of security and other issues. 

Reviewer 2

We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be a welcome contribution to the literature.

• We have expanded and enriched the literature review in line with the recommendation of Reviewer 2.
• In response also to reviewer 2 comments, the methodology section has been expanded and improved with essential details about the selection of regions and villages, along with the sources of data. 
• Typos have been corrected. 

 

Reviewer 3

We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be well-written and insightful. 

• As discussed above we have expanded the methodology section which was also suggested by Reviewer 3. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very well-written and insightful article. It provides lessons for other Sub-Saharan countries considering titling a panacea for poverty reduction and improved agricultural productivity.

However, I suggest improvement of the methods section.

Specify the mixed methods used eg qualitative – key informant interviews, FGDs. quantitative – what kind of data and analysis used eg land matrix data, type of analysis. The methods section in its current state is unclear – what was done and how, the kind of data obtained, analysis carried out, sample size, categories of participants eg women

Author Response

Resubmission of “Titling as Land Reform in Tanzania: Contours, Conflicts and Convergence,” by K. Owens, K. Askew, S. Nagaraj, H. Stein, F. Maganga and R. Odgaard, for inclusion in the special issue “Critical Insights on Tenure Security in the Global South”

October 20, 2025

 

We wish to thank the three reviewers who made excellent suggestions for improvement of our above titled essay submission. Here, we explain the changes made as a result.

Reviewer 1 

We appreciate that Reviewer 1 checked all boxes affirmatively. We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be well written. In response to their other comments:

• The paper is no longer “surprisingly short” given considerable new material that we have added (based on all three reviewers’ comments) from close readings of the annual budget speeches from Land ministry officials to Parliament and from analyses of our own empirical data (household survey results). 
• Also, we have added “essential context” by outlining the legal categories of land and their corresponding forms of title; offering more information on the Shivji Commission and its recommendations (lines 113ff); and comparing those to operationalization of the policy over time. 
• Another point of Reviewer 1 is the need to show that the process is not driven entirely by international interests. We have clearly demonstrated that the biggest recipient of village land following formalization has been the state. 
• Also in response to this reviewer about the need to expand our recommendations for policy changes, we have added concrete recommendations in the conclusions on how to address extant problems including improving the generation of VLCs, which the government is getting close to completing nation-wide (lines 509ff), but which is continually undermined by the splitting of existing villages into two or more villages (lines 464ff).
• The reviewer was questioning our note on the impact of the division of villages into two new villages on CCROs and VLUPs. We have added quotes from our 2016 interview with the Director General of the National Land Use Planning Commission which clarify the consequences along with the impact of village rights after villages have been shifted into planning areas.
• We have also addressed two of this reviewer’s other more minor comments. We have provided additional detail on agencies that are involved in sponsoring titling, including the multifaceted reasons they use to justify their interventions. We have also added material (including tables) from our household survey analyzing sense of security and other issues. 

Reviewer 2

We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be a welcome contribution to the literature.

• We have expanded and enriched the literature review in line with the recommendation of Reviewer 2.
• In response also to reviewer 2 comments, the methodology section has been expanded and improved with essential details about the selection of regions and villages, along with the sources of data. 
• Typos have been corrected. 

 

Reviewer 3

We are glad the reviewer considers the paper to be well-written and insightful. 

• As discussed above we have expanded the methodology section which was also suggested by Reviewer 3. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A lot of hard work has gone into this paper. It should be promptly published as is. It is beautifully written, and justified. Not that it is anywhere near the 'whole story' of this reform 'gone wrong' - but a major contribution.  Bit by bit the tragedy of this failure needs to be unpicked. 

A couple of comments for a follow-up research if I may .

1. Do read the law (typically, only real evidence of this is in regard to gender provisions, by no means the most innovative of the LA and VLA). eg. The VLA did not exclude a village securing a single title for its entire village domain (which many of us wanted and have widely promoted and facilitated widely since on the continent as a means to get the entire domain under village control, and to conduct the very simple land use planning - not the needlessly complicated , but of course (like your good selves, everything was focused on the farm by govt). Nor does the law require a village to be issued a CVL on basis of useless straight line boundary identifications that we have had to tolerate, to suit the surveyor and method, but by boundary definition and agreement by the community with its neighbouring villagesm producing a very detailed general boundary with lots of squiggles to reflect reality on the ground - AND reduced sharply the number of boundary conflicts. There is so much in the VLA and indeed the regulations which should have been acted upon by Ministry of Lands and the useless NLUP Commission which has helped disempower villages by required needlessly complicated VLUP (like measuring water flow.. really?). Simplicity was the plan of the laws. I believe to failure to issue simplified versions (or even make KiSwahili versions available in every village and town, and the blatant legal illiteracy of policy and law makers themselves has a lot to do with this. 
2. Your focus on the farm (ironically like the govt, donors, etc you rightly criticize!! ) has hindered examination of several very  critical provisions of the 'reform' - it did succeed in empowering villages and their governance. The fact that governance has often become rotten after 20 years, so often caused by external actors, and corruptible elected officials, is worth examining why...
3. Ditto re the commons - your cursorily mention these, yet these are critical for village families, not just pastoralists or Hadzabe and other h/g. I look forward to seeing the figure on area of homesteads/farms under CCRO; I believe you will find that they are a minority of total areas of domains of all 12,333 villages. Controlling the commons is not being promoted, because these are the land the investors and elites want and also because village members have not been sufficiently empowered to recognize why they must hang on these for dear life. An over-focus on the farm can blinker recognition of this.
4. You misunderstand the provisions of vesting the soil in the President (and ignore the fact that this retained only with very clear addition that the President is only holding the land in trust for the people). Failures in popular legal literacy also afflict the 20+ African states which have done similarly (also India etc; vesting the soil in the state/President/government, which officialdom and politicians conveniently misinterpret as ultimate ownership as convenient. 

Looking forward to a next research project in rural Tanzania!