2J INTRODUCTION
2.4 LAND ACOUISmDN
2.4.1 Land Invasion
Land invasion is one ofthe mechanisms to alienate land. According to Leduka (2001), and Ward (1983) land invasion is the informal occupation of land because authorities concerned do not approve of it and is consequently unlawful. The land subdivisions are done without proper permission and adequate service provision and through illegal sale ofland to which the vendors have no alienable rights. This description of invasion fits the nature of the informal settlement that happened at Ha Matala study area.
Land invasion process, points out Masinga (1994), takes various fonns and trends, some invasions begin as individual encroachment, others occur as a collective action, which can be organised or spontaneous. The infonnal settlement in the study area, started with an individual whose house was demolished. However, the illegal land allocation by field owners, in Ha Matala
study area, was more of a collective action.
Soliman, (1987) refers to land invasion as gradual occupation of plots on vacant land. He states that, one or more families can initiate this occupation. The occupation can occur on vast amounts ofland, which the occupier can later on, infonnally subdivide into small plots and sell to new corners. Land occupiers can acquire security in the site because of their connection with the most powerful person, the leader of the community, who is personally connected with the local authority. This then encourages more illegal occupation ofland as in the case ofLesotho.
Soliman's discussion about land invasion holds true in the case of Ha Matala as well, but the difference lies with the fact that, the land that was infonnally subdivided, initially belonged to the sub-divider whose land was, by then, expropriated by the government.
Bernstein and The Urban Foundation, (1993), speak in tenns of urban invasion, which refers to the occupation ofland, for residential purposes, by people who are not specifically authorised to do so by the owners of the property. It is a collective process, which distinguishes it from incremental encroachment by individual squatter households. Like encroachment, invasion can be seen as an infonnal or irregular process ofland delivery. Unlike encroachment, it sometimes also expresses a clear political motive, being used overtly as a fonn of protest or as a tool to win power or resources.
According to The Urban Foundation (1994), a lack of alternatives for acquiring access to land in rapidly growing cities is the major cause ofland invasion. The case ofBogota and Mexico bear witness to this. While these cities are growing rapidly, only less than 1%ofthe population used to reside in invasion settlements because ofthe availability of alternative and effective processes of delivering land to the poor.~contrast, in South Africa as well as in Lesotho, the apartheid an-fLc910niallaws made no alternative provisions for land acquisiti9n for the urban poor. Thus, i~ion_o~curred ~t ~01!si~l2.]y!ligh r~t~wever, The Urban Foundation (1994) argues that the availability of state land encourages land invasion because people tend to invade cheap land left vacant by the state.
Ward (1983) points out that, agricultural land may with time become obsolete and useless to the owners who are then tempted to subdivide and sell. This is encouraged by the expansion of nearby towns that increase land demand for housing. Landowners then engage in informal land trade, which they do individually or through a chosen representative. According to Ward (1983), the practice is wise because there is cash that is received from the sales, and there is also compensation that comes later with government intervention to expropriate and legalize the occupants' tenure. The practice may be unsound and should include negotiations between landowners, tenants and the government in order to determine the selling price ofland.
Land invasion varies considerably in scale, timing, political motive and strategy. The scale can be as small as plus or minus 20 households, or as extensive as approximately 200 000 or more people. Masinga (1994) cites Healy as saying that cities ofLatin America have experienced land invasion at a very high level, because it was the major form of acquiring land for the urban poor.
Concerning timing, invaders may choose to invade during political campaigns when every politician wants to win the elections and does not want to jeopardise that by removing invaders.
They can also decide to invade during big occasions when all authorities are too busy to pay any attention to them. The success or failure ofinvasion depends on the political motive. Invaders do not use the same strategy everywhere they go (Ward 1983). The informal settlement in Ha Matala study area is based on misunderstanding between the Planning Authorities, Traditional Authorities, and the field owners. This misunderstanding, it seems, comes back a long way. It started with land policies that negated the role of Traditional Authorities in land matters and was complicated by a lack oflegal and political support for Physical Planners.
Land invasion can be at relatively low or medium or high densities depending on the number of households per hectare. With low densities, land invasion can lead to scarcity of land because there are fewer occupants. It can also lead to overcrowding with densities that are high and subsequently lead to social tensions and unhealthy environments. Land invasion can occur on refuse sites or environmentally sensitive areas such as marshy lands. It can also occur on good and undeveloped land or on serviced land as in the case ofHa Matala Study Area.
Masinga (1994), points out that, invaders use various materials to build. Ifthey are of the working class, then they use standard building material such as tiled roofing. Ifthey are poor, they use any material at their disposal such as cardboard boxes, tins, plywood and so on. In the case ofLesotho, the poor often use cement blocks or stones mixed with mud and cow dung.