65
I am holding this land for you in town....[W]hen you die, I must find land to bury
you here as I should when you return home to settle. Where will you stay when you
come back if I allowed people to get title deeds to our land?
Headman Mwambula of Chieftainess Nkomesha also rejected the notion of land titles and said
he never consents to them for his subjects. His chieftainess, Chieftainess Nkomesha, has recommended
people for title deeds but has watched her authority over that land erode and considers that a strong
case must be made by a potential investor to justify her granting a title deed.
Senior Chief W. Tafuna, in Mbala, was willing to consider requests to title deeds and has
consented to several, including some to foreign nationals. They are given land away from the
villagers' cultivation. But, he stressed, "we do not really understand title deeds, and are not clear on
the relationship between farms and title deeds."
Paramount Chief Chitimukulu, near Kasama, argued the importance of title deeds, and said
that he encouraged his subjects to obtain them. He was not enthusiastic about titling for investors
coming from outside, however, and while land is plentiful in the area he worried about possible
lessees who would bring new systems of land use, such as livestock herding, and take up large
amounts of land quickly. He reacted favorably, at least tentatively, toward the suggestion of a program
of systematic survey and titling of existing farm holdings.
Indeed, the full range of opinion was present, from chiefs who said they would never consent
to a lease in their territory under any circumstances, to chiefs who had selectively approved leaseholds
for outside investors but made the allocations well away from traditional areas of cultivation to prevent
conflicts with traditional tenure rights, to chiefs who wanted titles for all their subjects in order to
protect their land rights and foreclose the possibility of the ministry allocating the land to outsiders.
Government has taken two steps in this area. The first is the limitation of grants of leaseholds
to 250 hectares in the Reserve/Trust Lands (D(v) of the circular).7 ).' This is a critical step in limiting
abuses, but it is undermined by the understanding that exceptions can be made with the consent of the
minister, with no clear criteria for those exceptions. It also may effectively preclude cattle ranching
or extensive mixed farming systems in certain regions where there are sizable economies of scale. The
second positive step is the requirement of prior consent to any allocation by both the local chief and
the local council. This is an important step towards more local control over the use of land and other
natural resources.
What is needed is a clear vision of the future that reassures traditional farmers. One option
would be systematic, compulsory registration of customary titles as leaseholds. But experience from
other countries suggests that this would be expensive and difficult to justify in cost/benefit terms.
Considerable flexibility is needed. There is a need to provide for systematic registration for limited
areas where commercial development is relatively advanced, for instance in areas closely associated
with State Land farms along the rail lines. There may be a need to provide for some means by which
local residents can overcome the reluctance of their chiefs to approve leaseholds, especially in the
7 The policy debate does not yet seem to have contemplated restriction on the number of leaseholds. As indicated in
chapter 3 (table 3.6), multiple parcels are held, making it possible, even likely, that the 250 hectare limit could be
contravened by acquiring two or more leaseholds.