THE MALAWI COMMUNITY-BASED RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTMinistry of Lands and Natural Resources

August 4, 2008

1

LANDLESSNESS IN THE MIDST OF IDLE LAND

• About 11 percent households are landless or near landless.

• 917,000 ha of estate land, of which 600,000 ha idle

• Why?– Many estates were never put to full use– Others lost their viability when smallholders were

allowed to grow tobacco – the “estates crisis”• The land market is not transferring the land

to other users– Smallholders have no money to buy it– Few of the estates are suitable for investors

2

WHY NOT REVOKE THE LEASES

• While the leases are renewable, owners are unlikely to fulfill the development conditions for renewal

• Many owners have not paid their land rent• Many leases are about to, or have already expired• Government could take the land back and return

it to the chiefs of the surrounding communities– Would the land be encroached before the chiefs take

control of it? – Would the chiefs allocate the land to the land-poor and

food insecure?– Would there be resistance from the leaseholders?– Would it scare international investors?

• Government will need to think about this option

3

BUT WHY PAY PEOPLE TO MIGRATE, WHEN THEY DO SO SPONTANEOUSLY?

• About 5 percent of rural households have migrated from another district (Integrated Household Survey 2004/05)

• 5 districts attracted tobacco tenant workers who remained after landlords abandoned the estates– Clearly part of the problem took care of itself– But only few estates were resettled in this manner– We know little about how well off they are, and whether they

have security of tenure–

• There are also other rural-rural migrants• However, on average, these migrant households remain

land poor and food insecure 4

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

• The problem of landlessness in the midst of idle land has not been solved – By acquisition of the land by former tenants– By spontaneous migration– By the land market– By reverting estates back to customary land

• Therefore the CBRLD Pilot Project was designed to develop and test an alternative approach

5

THE CBRLDP MODEL

• Similar programs exist in Brazil, Central America• Communities form themselves into groups and

are trained to look for land, acquire it and resettle themselves

• They get a grant of 1050 US dollars to buy the land, cover resettlement costs, and other startup costs in the new location

• They negotiate prices, with assistance from project

• Their move and peaceful integration is facilitated by community-based Project Management Committees, Chiefs, Headmen, Community Oversight Committees and project staff

6

PILOT PROJECT HISTORY, SCOPE AND COST

Effectiveness date July 1, 2004

Origin districts: Machinga, Mangochi, Mulanje, Thyolo. Balaka & Ntcheu just included in 2008

Destination districts: Machinga, Mangochi, Balaka, Ntcheu

Total project cost US$ 27.8 Million and US$27 million from IDA

Co-finance from Malawi Government

US$0.8 Million

Project rating Moderately satisfactory

Anticipated closing date

June 30, 2010

7

COSTS INCLUDED IN THE GRANT

• Land, including fees, taxes etc (less than 30 % of total grant)

• Resettlement cost and resettlement allowance

• Food• Farm Development grant for

– Inputs, labor, tools, etc.• Community infrastructure (including water)• Housing materials

8

Objective Target To date (August 2008)

Groups resettled 450 358

Households resettled

15,000 8,222

Land acquired (ha)

33,750 18,254

Group titles transferred

450 153

Trust deeds registered

450 299

Average Land prices

Initially MK 8,000/ha

After 4 yearsMK 18,000/ha

Maize yield Prior to resettlement: 962 kg/ha

After resettlement2,269 kg/ha

Household income 4,500 MK/month 7,300 MK/month

9

Rumors hurt the project Resolved

Slow implementation Resolved

Government co-finance Resolved

MOLNR institutional capacity Improving

Land titling and surveying Improving

Monitoring/evaluation delayed Improving

Water supply highly inadequate Significantly improved

Extension and Natural Resources Management

Improving

HIV and AIDS prevention & treatment

Improving

Access to education, health, markets is worse than in origin areas

Beneficiaries working with surrounding communitiesDistricts slow in providingExit Strategy launched and managed by districts.

Social conflicts Very few, mostly resolved

Land tax rate raised But collection suspended at auction floors while estate sellers to the project pay.

Land law drafted But not yet passed

10

IS THE PROGRAM READY FOR SCALING UP?

Political will Mainly at local and district levels

Public knowledge Inadequate

Operational and fiduciary Procedures

Fully ready

Impact evaluation In progress

Likely poverty impact Poverty targeting is goodImpact on beneficiaries is high and sustainablePoor relatives left behind also benefit

Likely economic returns Higher than expected at appraisal

Environmental and social impacts

Marginal

Does land remain available Even in project districts land price rises have been very modest

Future fiscal cost Fairly high

Donor support Many donors still skepticalWorld Bank support unlikely unless land policy issues are resolved

11

LET THE DEBATE START!

12