64
problematic. To date, land policy seems to anticipate the gradual conversion of the land under
customary tenure to leasehold tenure. But such policies have worked out badly in many countries.
Administrative allocation of land has often been used to deprive indigenous people of their land. Those
who lose the land are not compensated. Often the land is allocated to those who use it poorly,
resulting in resentment.
Zambia has been no exception to this pattern. Zambia's Land (Acquisition) Act, 1975, is a
textbook example of a callous disregard for rights in land. Allocations made by the ministry to date
have induced cynicism about government's intentions on the part of local people. In rural areas in
Eastern and Northern provinces, complaints were heard of land-grabbing and a failure to bring the
land under production. In one location, an 8,000-hectare allocation to a former commissioner was said
to be undeveloped, but now is being subdivided and sold. In other places, huge areas of land taken
by the government for unsound development projects, for instance the ill-conceived council farms, are
sitting idle. There are bitter complaints about the abuse of the ministry's power to allocate land. Land-
grabbing has emerged as an issue in the local press (Daily Mail, 14 January 1994) as the result of a
critical report from the Southern African Non-Governmental Organizations Network (see p. 29 in
chapter 1 for an extract from the Daily Mail).
The current titling system, which is in theory open to traditional farmers in the rural areas,
is by reasons of expense and complexity really open only to the relatively wealthy, well-informed, and
influential. It is exceptional for traditional farmers to apply for or receive titles. The system as it is
now working is not solely or even primarily a system for providing title as evidence of rights to land,
but a mechanism for taking land away from communities which customarily have had access to it and
allocating it to new governmental and commercial elites, both Zambians and foreigners.
If the land is actually allocated to those who will develop it, if reasonable compensation is
provided to the community that loses access to it, and if the community consents, some such transfers
may be appropriate. There are areas of unutilized land in Reserve and Trust regions which local
communities will not need for the foreseeable future. If the land is developed, local communities can
potentially profit through new jobs, new technologies, and new sources of revenue. However, as rural
people look at the current system, they see no end to this process of deduction from their land. It
occurs not only through leasehold titling but through the declaration of protected areas and reserves
for environmental purposes. In some areas, at least, they feel threatened. The vast majority of
traditional farmers do not understand the pros and cons of leasehold tenure and are not in a position
to evaluate its relevance to the development of their land. While most traditional farmers seem to have
no felt need for titles, there are exceptions, especially in areas near towns and along main roads.
Chiefs see the gradual erosion of their authority over land as seriously undermining their
power and a harbinger of landlessness and social disintegration. They react in very different ways,
and it is worth reviewing their comments on these issues.
Headman Mang'ang'auka, Chief Sianjalika, Mazabuka, said that he could not allow title deeds
in his village, arguing that the traditional systems of tenure would not allow it. Land, despite
allocation, remains community land. He said he held the land for the community which, by
implication, would cease to be a community if individuals acquired title deeds for their land: