102
(perhaps family) land (Myers, West, and Eliseu 1993). This will be discussed in greater detail
in the following section. Here we wish to emphasize the pull effect that social services and
infrastructure had on people who otherwise strongly disliked the communal villages. Although
not stated directly, our interview responses suggested a strong negative reaction more to the
way people, often without consultation or option, were forced into the villages and how local
customary authorities were treated in the process than to the actual creation of the villages
and the attempts to provide services for rural populations. 217 In any case, the pull effect of
social services, safety, and other opportunities will continue to influence where—and
when—smallholders go.
Other land tenure practices included squatting and customary arrangements. In the first
case, some smallholders settled on former state farm land while others went to former
colonial holdings. 218 Neither of these groups had tenure security because no guarantees were
given that government would not distribute these same lands to outside interests. Smallholders
conceded that they would have to abandon the land when the state farm resumed operations
or when the old privado returned. In the second case, we recorded many farmers who were
farming on their own family land or land acquired from another local family, though
admittedly these farms either were far from Vanduzi Administrative Post and lacked access
to services and infrastructure (let alone security) or were on marginal land around the colonial
farms or state farm production units. This latter group depended on poorer quality land yet
had even weaker security. It remains to be seen how or whether the prospect of acquiring
rights in less congested areas will draw people away from the centers. 219 In addition, we
noted that some smallholders were settled on land that had been granted by concession to
nonlocal commercial farmers; they worked for the new landholders as landless laborers or
tenant farmers. In one case investigated in 1992, a new private landowner had acquired a
concession greater than 1,000 hectares. He had given smallholders temporary access to 350
hectares of his concession.'
When the first round of research was conducted in 1992, the Vanduzi State Farm had
recently closed. The directors of the farm as well as district and provincial officials were
involved in the divestiture of the farmlands and assets. At tha2t21time, the state had already
redistributed over 4,275 hectares of Vanduzi State Farm land. The provincial and district
217. Interviews with smallholders in Vanduzi Administrative Post, August 1992 and August 1993; and
agricultural extension agents, Vanduzi Administrative Post, August 1992 and 1993.
218. Not all of these instances are true cases of squatting, because some smallholders claim historical rights.
According to these smallholders, it was the colonial farmers, the state, or the new private interests who were
squatting, and they were simply reclaiming their land.
219. This, of course, assumes that unclaimed land is available. Most likely, when and if people move from
the centers, they will either return to family land or negotiate with another land-abundant community or family
for use rights. According to field interviews, Alexander (1994) notes that there was more "free" land available
in Sussundenga District, away from the corridor.
220. Interview with private commercial farmer, Vanduzi, August 1992.
221. See Myers, West, and Eliseu (1993). The central government reported that Vanduzi State Farm
occupied only 4,000 hectares of land. While it is likely that the central government underestimated the actual
area controlled by Vanduzi, this and other discrepancies suggest a more ominous problem. Government may be
granting concessions for land that was not previously claimed by a state farm. In doing so, it cheats
smallholders, who maintained or reacquired the area between the state farm production units and the colonial