Land tenure and agricultural development in Lesotho and Swaziland : a comparative analysis

Although Lesotho and Swaziland historically practiced communal land tenure, their methods of modernizing land tenure practices, the subject of this report, have differed. Land in both countries was allocated on the basis of need, was used for the common good, and could not be bought or sold. The unravelling of traditional land tenure in Lesotho, due to population pressure and the emergence of a cash economy fueled by South African wage employment, resulted in landlessness, less farming, food imports, faster soil erosion, the decline of traditional authority, and a skewed income distribution favoring miners. Lesotho reacted by passing legislation to provide increased tenure security, rationalize land values through leases and licenses, solidify the power of village committees, formalize land inheritance, and differentiate urban from rural land use and progressive from subsistence farming. Communal tenure was thus maintained but refined. Swaziland, although sharing much in common with Lesotho, took a different path. Competing claims to ownership between Swazis and Boers resulted in a checkerboard of traditional maize farming on communal land (57%) and modern, intensive cultivation of cash crops (e.g., tobacco and cotton) on private land (43%). The Swazi Government has clearly stated its opposition to reform, and dualism is reinforcing itself. Thus, it appears that land ownership, although not a panacea to development, may be a prerequisite. Communal land tenure was not inflexible and suited a subsistence economy, but it has become outmoded and inefficient. The emergence of a landless class in both societies seems inevitable and will require new approaches to meet progressive farmers" needs and to provide social security. Development donors must: (1) recognize that land is used for more than agricultural production; (2) realize land tenure helps determine land use and people"s regard for land; (3) be aware of differences among small farmers; (4) utilize a systems approach in agriculture; and (5) be able to competently and professionally work with host country officials. A 53-item bibliography (1947-80) is appended.