1. T HE M ALAWI C OMMUNITY - B ASED R URAL L AND D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources August 4, 2008 1

2. L ANDLESSNESS 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

3. W HY 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

4. B UT 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

5. M AIN 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

6. T HE 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

7. P ILOT PROJECT HISTORY, SCOPE AND COST Effectiveness dateJuly 1, 2004 Origin districts: Machinga, Mangochi, Mulanje, Thyolo. Balaka & Ntcheu just included in 2008 Destination districts: Machinga, Mangochi, Balaka, Ntcheu Total project costUS$ 27.8 Million and US$27 million from IDA Co-finance from Malawi Government US$0.8 Million Project ratingModerately satisfactory Anticipated closing dateJune 30, 2010 7

8. C OSTS 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

9. ObjectiveTargetTo date (August 2008) Groups resettled450358 Households resettled 15,0008,222 Land acquired (ha)33,75018,254 Group titles transferred 450153 Trust deeds registered 450299 Average Land prices Initially MK 8,000/ha After 4 years MK 18,000/ha Maize yieldPrior to resettlement: 962 kg/ha After resettlement 2,269 kg/ha Household income4,500 MK/month7,300 MK/month 9

10. Rumors hurt the projectResolved Slow implementationResolved Government co-financeResolved MOLNR institutional capacityImproving Land titling and surveyingImproving Monitoring/evaluation delayedImproving Water supply highly inadequateSignificantly 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 communities Districts slow in providing Exit Strategy launched and managed by districts. Social conflictsVery few, mostly resolved Land tax rate raisedBut collection suspended at auction floors while estate sellers to the project pay. Land law draftedBut not yet passed 10

11. I S THE PROGRAM READY FOR SCALING UP ? Political willMainly at local and district levels Public knowledgeInadequate Operational and fiduciary Procedures Fully ready Impact evaluationIn progress Likely poverty impactPoverty targeting is good Impact on beneficiaries is high and sustainable Poor relatives left behind also benefit Likely economic returnsHigher than expected at appraisal Environmental and social impacts Marginal Does land remain availableEven in project districts land price rises have been very modest Future fiscal costFairly high Donor supportMany donors still skeptical World Bank support unlikely unless land policy issues are resolved 11

12. L ET THE DEBATE START ! 12