Struggles of Women to Access and Hold Landuse and Other Land Property Rights under the Customary Tenure System in Peri-Urban Communal Areas of Zimbabwe

The struggles of women to access and hold landuse and other land property rights under the customary tenure system in peri-urban communal areas is increasingly becoming a cause for concern. These debates are revealed using a case study of a peri-urban communal area called Domboshava in Zimbabwe. Women living in this peri-urban communal area struggle to access and hold landuse and other land property rights registered under their names. The aim of this paper is to present an analysis of the struggles faced by women to access and hold landuse and other land property rights in Domboshava. This paper is a product of a literature review on land property rights, land tenure systems, and peri-urbanity more generally. Field data was intermittently collected in the peri-urban communal area of Domboshava over a period of four years from 2011 to 2014, as well as through post-research social visits stretching to 2019. Thirty-two women were conveniently selected and interviewed. I applied Anthony Giddens’ structure-agency theory as a framework of analysis. The struggles to access and hold landuse and other land property rights by women are rooted in land transactions, social systems including the customary land tenure, patriarchy, as well as the peri-urban context of Domboshava. Responsible authorities on land administration in communal areas need to acknowledge the existence of new and invented ways of accessing and holding landuse and land property rights under the customary land tenure system, as well as to find ways to mobilize more opportunities for women on the peri-urban land market.

Effect of Land Property Rights on Forest Resources in Southern China

The land tenure reform is important for forest resource management worldwide. Since China initiated a new round of collective forestland tenure reform (CFTR) in 2003, improving forest output by clarifying property rights plays a crucial role in realizing sustainable forest resource management. Using survey data of 312 bamboo plantation households from Southern China, this paper empirically examines the impact path of land property rights on forest resources. The estimation results show that both the forestland use right and disposal right are able to significantly improve the forest output by encouraging households to invest and optimizing the allocation of forestry labor. Particularly, the results reveal that the use right has a positive impact on forest output through forestland investment. With regard to the disposal right, we find that it has a positive effect on forest output through forestland investment, but it has a negative impact on forest output through the forestry labor allocation. The findings of this study suggest that to promote the growth of forest resources, the government should endow households with a more complete set of rights, and further strengthen their understanding of property rights. In addition, our findings enhance the understanding of the collective forestland tenure reform in China; they also have implications for the decentralized management of forestry elsewhere in the world.

KARAKTERISTIK HAK GUNA BANGUNAN DI ATAS TANAH HAK MILIK

The need for land for the business world is getting bigger, while the land supply is limited. One of the rights to land used by investors to support their business is the building rights. The building rights.is the right to own and own buildings on land which is not his own with a maximum period of 30 years. The land which can be granted of the right building is the State Land, the land of management rights and the land of property rightsTeh Building Right as one of the objects granting of Right Building is the hereditary, strongest and most fulfilled right which can be owned by people on the land keeping in mind the provisions in Article 6 of the Basic Agrarian Law.The Building Right on the land Property rights have special characteristics because the granting of their rights is set forth in the form of deed granting of building Right on the land of property rights, which specifically regulates the agreement of the parties in order to fulfill the principle of freedom of contract. In addition, in making the deed granting of Building Right on the land of proprietary rights can be arranged specifically about the contents of the deed by deviating from the prevailing laws and regulations. Where a Building Rights Holders intend to impose a mortgage right and transfer this right shall obtain the consent of the right holder. This is different from the building right on state land. The buildings rights on state land may be borne by mortgages and transferred without obtaining the consent of othersKeywords; Building Right , Property Right ,Land

2. Personal and Property Rights in Land

This chapter explains the nature of land as a legal concept, as well as the nature of rights in land. Land includes both corporeal things — such as land and buildings — and incorporeal things, such as rights over land. Property rights in relation to land come in two forms: estates and interests. Estates are rights which a person holds in their ‘own land’, while interests are rights which a person holds in relation to another's land. Both of these are proprietary; proprietary interests are those rights which are capable of having third party effects. Therefore, the crucial distinction between personal and property rights is about the effect that these rights can have on third parties. The chapter then looks at the numerus clausus (closed list) of property rights. If a right is not part of this list, then it is licence. Licences are the generic category of rights that relate to land but which are not property rights. The four categories of licence include estoppel licences, bare licences, contractual licences, and licences coupled with an interest. The chapter concludes by exploring the concept of relativity of title in English land law.

Rights in Land

This chapter considers property in land. Property rights in land, compared to property rights in chattels, are not very ‘paradigmatic’ of property rights. Rights in land are much more varied than rights in chattels or most kinds of intangible property. Because of that it is difficult, both historically and theoretically, to identify what ‘ownership’ of land consists of. This is not to say that we cannot apply the tripartite structure of title, to land. But because of its special features, title to land is everywhere adjusted, compromised, straitened, and complicated by a host of surrounding rules, some but not all of which have a public law character. The chapter concludes by arguing that there is no general right to enclose land, but that this is not based on some notion of common ownership of the earth, but on some developed notion of ‘home’.