Last year, the Zimbabwean government surprised many when they announced plans to allow newly resettled farmers to freely sell their land. This was followed by confirmation that farmers who received land under the “Fast Track” land reform program would be granted title deeds to their plots. There was considerable excitement; it seemed like a genuine step forward on the contentious land question, an issue that has been stagnant for years. However, recent revelations regarding the specifics of these title deeds suggest the initial optimism may have been misplaced. It appears that while farmers will indeed receive “title deeds,” these documents do not seem to possess the qualities necessary to make them bankable.

How will these “Title Deeds” Work?

The government has clarified that these title deeds are essentially a mechanism to formalise a farmer’s right to use a specific piece of land. Crucially, the land remains the property of the state. According to Mr. Kudakwashe Tagwirei, Chairperson of the Land Tenure Implementation Committee, the “title deeds” are issued based on an individual’s national identification number. This is designed to prevent multiple land ownership, which is currently prohibited by the Constitution. The logic is that a single person can only have one unique identification number.

The process will work like this: a farmer will receive the title deed after demonstrating they are working the land. Banks will then be able to offer loans secured against this title deed. However, in the event of loan default, the bank cannot simply seize and sell the land. The government remains the ultimate owner. Instead, the bank must work with the government to find a solution, such as reallocating the land to another farmer.

Title Deeds vs. 99-Year Leases: What’s Changed?

The previous land tenure system involved 99-year leases. These leases, although intended to provide security, have been largely rejected by banks as insufficient collateral. Let us compare some key aspects of the 99-year leases and these new “title deeds”:

The table highlights a critical point: on the surface, the new “title deeds” appear to offer greater security than the 99-year leases. However, a closer examination reveals that many of the fundamental problems remain. The government still retains ultimate ownership and this remains a major hurdle.

Improvements Over the 99-Year Leases

The key supposed improvement with these title deeds is their apparent focus on being easier to transfer than the old leases. The government is pushing them as a more attractive option for banks to provide loans against. They are supposedly allocated based on national identification numbers, addressing previous concerns about multiple farm ownership. The other notable improvement is that the “title deeds” are touted as an unlimited term, where as the leases expire after 99 years. However, both are still dependent on continued use of land.

What Makes a Title Deed Bankable?

For a title deed to be considered truly bankable, it must grant the holder clear, unquestionable rights, especially the right to sell the land. Banks need assurance that if a borrower defaults on their loan, the collateral (in this case, the land) can be easily liquidated to recover the outstanding debt. This means that a bank must be able to seize and resell the land without significant legal hurdles. This is the reason why the Zimbabwean government has struggled to secure international financing; the banks do not consider 99 year leases as proper security.

Furthermore, bankable title deeds should be readily transferable and allow for the property to be valued accurately. The system must be transparent and reliable. Essentially, a bankable title deed must function as a liquid asset, easily converted into cash.

Why These “Title Deeds” Don’t Sound Bankable

The major problem with these title deeds is that the state retains ownership of the land. This makes it difficult for banks to feel comfortable accepting them as security because if a borrower defaults they cannot simply take the land and sell it. The government’s explanation that banks are simply administering a fund does not instill confidence. The entire value of the land is around US$20 billion and according to Tagwirei, no bank has the capacity to provide a mortgage for such an amount. It does not help to rephrase the same old issue using new terms; the bank still cannot take the land as collateral, it is not a fully liquid and reliable asset. This creates significant uncertainty and makes lending to farmers riskier.

The government, in the past, has been reluctant to hand out private title deeds, which would grant farmers full ownership, and this continues with these new title deeds. This stems from the understandable fear that allowing for the land to be easily resold, would reverse the gains of the land reform program which sought to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth by transferring land from white commercial farmers to black farmers.

These new title deeds appear to be another attempt to achieve this while keeping the state as the ultimate authority on the land. The end result is not quite the radical reform some had hoped for and is unlikely to make a meaningful difference to the bankability of resettled land in Zimbabwe. The new system is simply a glorified version of the old 99 year leases. Whilst the intention was good, the execution does not inspire confidence. Ultimately this is likely to be another missed opportunity for truly transformative change.