Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
from 1969 onwards, there has been a continuing struggle over land between
the farmers displaced by the dam and the irrigation works and
absentee/commercial farmers. There were numerous incidents of open
conflict on land until ICOUR took over in 1981 and established the Land
Allocation committees for each scheme who set up priorities and rules (see
Table 4.3) for land allocation (Tate and Lyle, 1982).
It should be noted that farmers were not consulted nor given the option of
dissenting from the rules established. The above mentioned rules for land
allocation are being followed in Tono but not in Vea. In Vea the land is
formally owned by ICOUR but in practice controlled by the farmers. The
current situation takes its roots from land management lapses which took
place at the commencement of the irrigation scheme.
Table 4.3: Priorities and Rules for Land Allocation at Vea and Tono.
Priorities for Land Allocation
Rules for Land Allocation
1.
Those people who have lost their
homesteads and farmland in the
construction of the project
Age limit males over 18 years
Women not considered except where
circumstances make them household
heads
ICOUR decides the area to be
allocated to individual farmer
Land to be allocated on individual
basis but in the case of Vea it will
be on household basis due to
pressure on land
Each
2.
Those who lost only farmlands in
the project area
3.
Organisations
or
commercial
farmers
4.
People who reside in areas
around the project
farmer
(tenant)
will
be
required
to
sign
a
tenancy
agreement with ICOUR
The land allocation committee for Tono has not met for almost a decade as
hinted by some committee members. The reason given was that there have
not been any serious land issues to resolve. The last land allocation meeting
held at Vea could not be determined by the manager who was fresh at post.
Other long-serving staff could also not recollect the last meeting held.
The 1932 Land Rights Ordinance vested the management, control and
administration of northern lands in the Governor in trust for the people.
What is clear is that the Ordinance made it lawful for the Governor to
appropriate land for development purposes, subject to payment of
compensation for dwellings and economic trees. The provisions were
Search WWH ::
Custom Search