106
Smallholders are still farming in the margins around the new private farms and colonial-
era farms; some continue to squat on those farms. The majority of these farmers—indeed, the
majority of all farmers with whom we spoke—admitted that they had no confidence in their
ability to maintain their land rights. Some individuals seemed resigned to this while others
were angry. In two different locations in Vanduzi, farmers grumbled that nothing had
changed much since the colonial period and that they had gained little as a result of the
wars.237 This view was echoed by officials at the locality, district, and provincial levels of
government (in several provinces).
As displaced farmers returned, some found new residents in their communities and new
farmers on their holdings. Some of the new residents are larger commercial farmers and
others are smallholders. Smallholders reported that if their family land was occupied by
another family, a meeting would be held to determine the status of the land. Land rights
would be confirmed or negotiated, and compensation was sometimes paid if the squatting
farmer had to abandon crops. Smallholders said that if the land was occupied by a
commercial interest, they had little recourse. 238 When farmers displaced by new commercial
interests complained to locality government officials, in some instances these authorities were
able to arrange temporary use rights in other locations.
As in Sofala, rural extension agents told about farmers who were self-displaced from
RENAMO-administered areas. Farmers said that when the peace accord was signed, they
were able to move south or north to the corridor, which they chose to do because of the
relative safety and because of the availability of humanitarian assistance and services.
In 1993, farmers who had no land, who had insecure rights (e.g., they were squatting on
state farm land or land belonging to colonial-era privados), or who were farming near new
private holdings expressed concern regarding their future ability to feed their families.
Despite the government's PDRM effort, smallholders in Manica were not as optimistic about
the future as those interviewed in Sofala.
Two examples of the complex nature of land access for smallholders and commercial
private farmers in Manica Province are discussed below. They are drawn from our research
in Belas I, Belas II, and Almada communal village.
Belas I and II (see map 16) are different from the other communities studied because they
are part of PDRM. With the approval of the provincial government, the Italian Cooperation
built the two villages in 1991 on land that once was part of one production unit of the
Vanduzi State Farm. Each village controlled a few hundred hectares for smallholder
production. In 1992, Italian Cooperation requested permission to build a third village at the
237. Ironically, white members of the research team were approached on several occasions by smallholders
and asked if they were returning to reclaim holdings. (This happened in several locations throughout the
country.) One old farmer in Nampula Province badgered the research team, asking when the "patron would
return." He echoed several others in different sites when he said that at least when the "whites" were here, he
had ajob and food to feed his children. While this farmer obviously is not making a statement favoring one
ethnic group or a return to colonial government, he is clearly expressing dissatisfaction and frustration with the
results of independence and civil war.
238. Interviews with smallholders, Vanduzi Administrative Post, August 1993.