60
have integrated management at that level rather than separate lines of authority running back to the
respective departments in Lusaka.
A further area of concern is the requirement of consent by chiefs and councils for certain
leases. Because the MOL does not generally have a presence at the district level, it relies heavily on
local political institutions for decisions about the availability of land, the viability of proposed land
development, and the reliability of proposed lessees. This is not just an administrative convenience.
It is entirely appropriate that local authorities, in closer contact with local opinion, should make
decisions about land allocation in their areas. These decisions should not be centralized in the MOL.
On the other hand, some important questions can be asked about the present arrangements. There is
significant demand for leaseholds in some Reserve/Trust Land areas, especially near towns and along
major roads. The popular attitude toward leasehold tenure from the state is effectively blocking the
development of leasehold tenure in these areas. This may be expressed as opposition from chiefs, but
it has a broader base and extends to some councils. The councils may delay or ignore lease
applications, and in one case a council suspended consideration of applications for leases two years
ago. When the councils are willing, they lack the staff and administrative systems necessary to play
their role properly.
A number of other problems hamper the land administrative system as well. In the areas
visited, the poor state of rural infrastructure and the rather desperate financial situation of rural
councils was striking. Both the chiefs and councils have a virtual veto over any application for a lease
in a Reserve/Trust area. Further, they do not have a good working relationship, and there is often a
difference of perspective about the utility and future of leasehold tenure. At present, there is no forum
for discussion and compromise, which would lead to the development of a common vision of the
future of land tenure in these areas. This problem is discussed further in section IX below, but in time,
there will need to be significant institutional changes at the local level to permit effective land
administration.
VI. Ignorance of correct procedures
Another source of problems is the widespread public ignorance of correct procedures. As far
as the local participants are concerned, all the procedures of which they need be aware are outlined
in one document: the MOL's circular (see p. 21). But some officials at both district and provincial
level are not familiar with the circular and could not locate a copy in their offices. In addition, the fact
that many important steps in the process involve staff of government agencies other than the MOL
makes these procedures more difficult to communicate. This appears to be a particular problem in
settlement schemes, in which Ministry of Agriculture or Directorate of Settlement personnel are the
primary source of information on how settlers can apply for leasehold titles after the successful
completion of their probationary periods.
It also seems that no attempt has been made to provide chiefs with copies of the circular. All
consulted at village and district level expressed enthusiasm for the possibility of seminars and popular
education on leaseholds and titling. One chief remembered a 1988 Pickwe seminar at which these
issues had been discussed. While the wider distribution of the circular is one element in such a
program, it would be important to produce and distribute more informal instructions. These should
discuss not only procedures, but the rationale for the system. Translation of such materials into local
languages should be considered.