123
At independence, some of the colonial farms in this area were intervened and became part
of the CAIA production units. Local smallholders had thought that they could recover these
lands and were disappointed by the state's intervention. Smallholders reported that they were
encouraged to work for the state farm.' When the peace accord was signed, many small-
holders tried to reclaim these lands. Some were successful and planted crops, but their tenure
is uncertain because the government has not determined the status of the former state farm.
Supposedly, government officials want to alienate the land to private commercial enterprises.
In fact, some people were not successful in reasserting their rights precisely because some
of the CAIA lands had already been distributed to commercial farmers. 287 Some 2o88f these
commercial fanners got their land rights from district authorities as early289as 1986. Many
of these "temporary" land rights had been granted to nonlocal interests.
Local customary authorities conceded that there have been conflicts over agricultural and
sacred lands. Some of the case have been violent. In the first dispute, some smallholders are
struggling with the new commercial holders, claiming that they have priority rights to former
CAIA land. Other smallholders claim that the commercial producers are not respecting the
limits of their concessions and have encroached on adjoining land. In the second case,
smallholders attested that private farmers (and some nonlocal smallholders) had started to
farm on sacred (i.e., ceremonial and burial) land29.
their complaints to district and locality officials.
0In both cases the smallholders presented
Government officials have not been successful in resolving conflicts that the government
initiated through granting concessions. One customary authority interviewed in Chipala
inferred that district officials protect the interests of commercial producers and disregard the
claims of smallholders. 291 At least one dispute case was passed to the local court, but it too
has not been resolved. 292 In the meantime, smallholders are acting on their own initiative.
The situation is far from clear and far from one-sided. While it appears that government
has been favoring commercial interests, it is not certain that smallholders have lost all
disputes. Two of the private commercial farmers interviewed complained that they had lost
286. Interviews with smallholder farmers, M'Languene, February 1994.
287. Interviews with smallholder farmers, M'Languene, February 1994; and with locality government
representatives, M'Languene, February 1994.
288. See Eliseu (1994).
289. Interview with representative of the District Directorate for Agriculture, Angonia, February 1994. The
information was confirmed by participant debates at the Second National Land Conference in Mozambique.
These land concessions were reportedly granted on a temporary basis. The term "temporary" was never
defined. Recipients say that they were told they could use the land until the war was over or until "things
changed." We do not know what these farmers paid for their concessions, though one reported investing 70
million meticais (approximately US$13,000 at the current rate of exchange, December 1993).
290. See Eliseu (1994); also see Weiss and Myers (1994).
291. In contrast, another district government official suggested that no one would be entitled to CAIA land
for a long period of time because the state was going to resume agricultural operations. Interviews with
representatives of the District Directorate of Agriculture, January 1994.
292. Interviews with smallholders and customary authorities, M'Languene, February 1994.