Land and Natural Resource Redistribution in Zimbabwe Access, Equity and Conflict.【外文翻译】

毕业论文（设计）文献翻译Land and Natural Resource Redistribution in Zimbabwe: Access, Equity and Conflict.The struggle for land redistribution in Zimbabwe raises a number of critical policy questions, and lessons for the southern Africa region. Twenty years after independence following armed liberation struggle, the structural roots of Zimbabwe’s current political conflict and economic crisis remain largely defined by racially based inequalities in land ownership and access, to related resources. In this context the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) together with land owners and the international community ‘have been seeking’ a framework for land negotiations since 1980s, however the market route chosen for land transfer was ineffective and failed to deliver adequate land for resettlement.One of the unique features of Zimbabwe’s land reform crisis is that its decolonization in 1980 was not accompanied by guaranteed arrangements for the former colonial powers to restore lost land rights or to compensate for the same. While, the United Kingdom (UK) in 1997 at Lancaster House promised £75 million for Zimbabwe’s land redistribution alongside apparent United States of America (USA) offers of US$ 500 million for the same, there was no formally binding procedure which underlay this. Reparations were not directly discussed. Instead a vague “development assistance” framework was used to prescribe such support, in spite of the fact that the “Kissinger US$ 1 billion” for Zimbabwe mooted in 1976 as the basis for a political sett lement which accommodated white settlers in an independent Zimbabwe. By 2000, Zimbabwe had received £30 million. In contrast the Kenyan decolonization process came with over £100 million provided in loans and grants for land acquisition and resettlement. I ndeed Zimbabwe’s decolonization required the post-independence government to compensate land at market prices and to pay retired pensioners in foreign currency. Thus colonial obligations for land restoration are uniquely sore points in Zimbabwe’s land refo rm process.Land reform in Zimbabwe aims to redress past land alienation through promoting equal access to land by the majority with the hope of creating political stability and acceptable land property rights (GoZ, 1998). Land reform is also aimed promoting economic growth through wider equity and efficiency gains from land redistribution. Reducing the size of land holdings per individual and reallocating land to the landless, war veterans, the poor and commercial farmworkers also aims to promote national self-sufficiency, food security and agricultural development through labor intensive small farmer production and optimal land productivity and returns to capital invested.In Zimbabwe the power relations and the structures that have developed over a long time on the land question have been the major foci on which conflicts over land have evolved. In most cases land reforms have to, and almost axiomatically, entail major confrontations between different powers. The paper illustrates that, in spite of trying persuasion and all sorts of negotiated forms, of land acquisition the driving process has been some kind of confrontation. In terms of the international experience, in 30 or so countries in which there’s been land reform, from Japan to Chile, in Europe and even in Africa (Algeria and Kenya, and South Africa), there is hardly any country where there has been some kind of a pure market land reform or land reform based on full compensation on the market for land acquired. It has never happened anywhere else, except in Zimbabwe, and this is the issue that the paper emphasizes. The Zimbabweans, the South Africans, and the Namibians are debating a particular kind of market land reform that has rarely been feasible historically and that is politically problematic to implement and morally difficult to justify.For two decades mostly the market has governed the government strategy on land acquisition for redistribution. The GoZ used persuasion and force to restrain communities from spontaneous action to repossess their land rights. Instead government took responsibility for gradually acquiring land from the market and redistributing it to the needy and “competent”. The land acquisition policy is thus not based upon legal restitution of particular private or community land rights which had been expropriated during colonial rule. The postcolonial state did not affirm its sovereign right over land by for instance nationalizing it. However, Zimbabwe has experienced 3 broadly interactive approaches to land acquisition, namely: market land acquisition led by the state; state-led compulsory land acquisitions with full compensation or compensation only for improvements, and attempted land seizures through land occupations.This paper reviews Zimbabwe’s experie nce in land acquisition for resettlement since 1980. Although land reform and redistribution entails a variety of aspects such as land use planning, beneficiary selection; land settlement; infrastructure development, farming support system, and training, and financing the resettlement, the most volatile politics of land reform hover aroundland transfers. Public acquisition of land for redistribution is central to the history of land reform because state-led challenges to unequal private property relations have evolved over time alongside popular community actions (legal or ‘illegal’) to redress historical injustices in land ownership. After all the sustainability of any structure of property relations depends on its political acceptability in terms of equity and the respect of institutions that protect such rights. Restructuring land ownership patterns, quite apart from the subsequent use of land, is the starting point in land and agrarian reforms.The land question in Zimbabwe has also been examined in terms of the simultaneous execution of both land reform and agrarian reform. Agrarian reform presumes changing land property relations towards more equitable access to productive land (Moyo, 1999). The GoZ has in the last twenty years pursued agrarian reforms of a largely market oriented genre (Moyo, 2000) focusing on various agricultural marketing, extension and other policy reforms, tax incentives, financial re-organisation and institutional reforms (Rukuni and Eicher, 1996). Such reforms have however benefited mainly the current white large-scale landowners. The economic structural adjustment policy (ESAP) for instance offered little concrete resources to black smallholder export-led growth in commodity production, due to the restrictive land, water and infrastructural conditions of communal areas.Using a political economy perspective this paper examines key policy processes and political confrontations, which structure the acquisition of land for land reform in Zimbabwe. The major social and political contradictions and contestations, as well as social processes involved in land acquisition and restructuring land rights in terms of who leads and benefits are discussed in the context of changing institutional processes, including international capital and donors (Moyo, 1999). Heuristically, the empirical analyses followed addresses both macro-level and micro-level processes of the land acquisition. The paper questions whether land acquisition processes have been equators in terms of the quality of land and the nature of land rights extinguished, and how international interests converge or diverge with national interests that shape land reform.Moyo,Sam, "Land and Natural Resource Redistribution in Zimbabwe: Access, Equity and Conflict", African and Asian Studies, 2005, vol.4, No.1-2在津巴布韦的土地重新分配的斗争提出了若干重要政策问题，为南部非洲地区和教训。