Experiences of private firms in delivering land services in peri-urban areas in Tanzania

Abstract

Demand for land planning and surveying services has increased significantly over the years in Tanzania and as a result, the public sector has not been able to cope. Private firms have therefore emerged to provide land use planning and surveying services for landholders in peri-urban areas, most of whom have accessed land through the informal sector. This paper explores the experiences of private firms in delivering land use planning and surveying services in peri-urban areas of Dar es Salaam City. Using a case study approach involving in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and document analysis, the study reveals that private firms face legal, policy and technical obstacles in land service delivery. Despite these challenges, private firms have been instrumental in facilitating the regularisation of informally accessed land. Supportive policies and other institutional reforms are deemed necessary to improve the delivery of land services and strengthen the participation of private firms.

Sustainability in Peri-Urban Informal Settlements: A Review

“…These differences are reflected in the scholarly debate. Some authors defend that regularization or registration have improved tenure security and provided good environment for the long-term investment and improvement of informal settlements, facilitated the operation of a market-oriented land tenure system, and facilitated conflict resolution, while recognizing pitfalls and adopting approaches to bring about success, such as involving private surveyors and community engagement, and by recognizing secondary and communal rights [56,128,141]. International agencies are seen on this side [73,128].…”

“…Some authors defend that regularization or registration have improved tenure security and provided good environment for the long-term investment and improvement of informal settlements, facilitated the operation of a market-oriented land tenure system, and facilitated conflict resolution, while recognizing pitfalls and adopting approaches to bring about success, such as involving private surveyors and community engagement, and by recognizing secondary and communal rights [56,128,141]. International agencies are seen on this side [73,128]. Others expound the weaknesses and threats of losing part of the continuum of rights, and that such initiatives increase the risk of exclusion through gentrification, promoted clientelism, and reduced sharecropping opportunities, leading to the fragmentation of family farms, segregated against the poor, women, and children, while favoring strangers, without bringing added tenure security.…”

“…Formal institutions tend to be overloaded to formalize land rights in informal settlements, using traditional systematic and centralized processes with little coverage [36,41]. By abandoning its obligations, a weak local government facilitates an increase in transaction costs [128].…”

“…Although advocating for an ambiguous legal framework may be convenient for some because informality opens up other ways to access land rights, the solution to land governance is important as a background to improve other services, such as water and waste management [112,148]. The process should be conducted in partnership arrangements with landowners and tenant participation, ensuring voices for vulnerable groups, and simplifying and de-bureaucratizing surveying procedures and standards [94,110,128]. Legal visibility, allowing for inspections, should be provided [72,153].…”

“…There is a need to integrate the registration process in a broader context of land policy reform, which needs to have a clear shared vision [44]. Practices to avoid are political interference [128], allowing the spillover of land-related conflicts into the wider society [49], coupling registration with credit and farming and subsidization of fragmented urban agriculture projects [67,133], obstacles to land rights transfers and leasing and manipulating prices and compensation values that provide incentives to off-register transactions, and in general letting transaction costs rise [72,84,144]. Titling or some form of recordation is not to be promoted before land-use planning [64] and with no regard for the pros and cons of customary arrangements and norms, including checks and balances on the exercise of customary norms [31,42,64].…”