Tanzania and Mozambique — countries of vast mountain ranges and open stretches of plateaus — now face a growing land problem. As soil degradation, climate change and population growth place enormous strains on the natural resources that sustain millions of people, multinational companies are also gunning for large swaths of land across both countries. Caught between these pressures, many poor, rural communities get displaced or decide to sell their collectively held land.

In Nigeria, the recurring impoverishment and other negative socioeconomic impacts endured by landholders affected by expropriation are well-documented and call into question the Land Use Act’s (LUA) effectiveness in protecting local land rights. The World Bank’s Land Governance Assessment Framework found that, in Nigeria, “a large number of acquisitions occurs without prompt and adequate compensation, thus leaving those losing land worse off, with no mechanism for independent appeal even though the land is often not utilized for a public purpose”.

The Committee met to deal with the two proposed amendments that had been made by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on the Expropriation Bill [B4B-2015]. The first amendment aimed to increase the number of days in which the municipal manager must inform the expropriating authority, in writing, of charges from 20 days to 30 days, if land which had been expropriated is subject to municipal rates.

To provide for measures with State assistance to facilitate long-term security of land tenure; to regulate the conditions of residence on certain land; to regulate the conditions on and circumstances under which the right of persons to reside on land may be terminated; and to regulate the conditions and circumstances under which
persons, whose right of residence has been terminated, may be evicted from land; and to provide for matters connected therewith…”

To amend the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994, so as to empower the Minister of Land Affairs to purchase, acquire in any other manner or expropriate land, a portion of land or a right in land for the purpose of the restoration or award of such land, portion of land or right in land to a claimant or for any other related land
reform purpose; and to provide for matters connected therewith

To provide for the expropriation of land and other property for public and certain other purposes; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
1. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates-
“compensation court”
[Definition of “compensation court” deleted by s, 1 (0) of Act No. 45 of 1992.]

The challenges associated with determining fair compensation for expropriated land have been extensively discussed and debated among scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and the public. However, to date, a comprehensive study of national-level compensation procedures established by law considering whether such procedures meet internationally recognized standards on compensation valuation has not been conducted. This article aims to bridge this gap by serving as a reference point and informing “expro” debates among scholars, practitioners, and policymakers.

Date: 2017

Source: Foncier & Développement

Par: Ministère de la Ville et de l’Aménagement du Territoire de Guinée | IIED / IUCN / INSUCO

This report includes a situation update submitted to KHRG in May 2013 by a community member describing events occurring in Papun District mostly between March 2012 and March 2013, and also provides details on abuses since 2006. The report specifically describes incidents of forced labour, theft, logging, land confiscation and gold mining. The situation update describes military activity from August 2012 to January 2013, specifically Tatmadaw soldiers from Infantry Battalion (IB) #96 ordering villagers to make thatch shingles and cut bamboo.

As Myanmar’s junta prepared to step down from government, the military set about seizing public assets and natural resources to ensure its economic control in a new era of democratic rule.

Guns, Cronies and Crops details the collusion at the heart of operations carried out by Myanmar’s armed forces in northeastern Shan State. Large swathes of land were taken from farming communities in the mid-2000s and handed to companies and political associates to develop rubber plantations.

This Situation Update describes events occurring in Kawkareik Township, Dooplaya District in September 2014, including issues of land confiscation and explicit threats toward villagers. Starting in November 2010, the Tatmadaw began to confiscate A--- villagers land upon which they built houses for their soldiers’ families, as well as houses for members of the Border Guard Force (BGF) and the Karen Peace Force (KPF) and their families. Villagers complained to the A--- village head, who felt too afraid to raise the issue with the Military Operations Command (MOC) #19 General Tun Nay Lin.

President of Myanmar, U Thein Sein, announced that the government cannot give back over 30,000 acres of paddy land that the state has been using since it was confiscated by the army two decades ago. On the one hand the President ordered state and regional governments and land management committee to cooperate with members of the parliament to solve the problem of land grabbing cases. On the other hand he has announced the government cannot handover some land back.