The name is absent

66

vicinity of towns and along major roads. Incentives for local communities must be created which allow
them to continue to view land under leasehold as part of their community resource base. For instance,
ground rents might be collected by municipalities and chiefs with a portion retained for local
development projects.

Arrangements will to some extent need to be worked out locally and the various interests
effectively represented. It is not clear that any forum for this exists at this time. The MMD has talked
about an increase in the powers and responsibilities of chiefs, and there is a need to take better
advantage of the respect and authority that these traditional authorities still enjoy in many areas.
Moreover, the need is not simply to strengthen one side or the other in a struggle for control of land
but to create institutional arrangements within which the various interests are represented and have
incentives to work together and strike the needed compromises.

X. Policy debate: July 1993 Land Policy Conference

The electoral victory of the MMD in the 1993 elections provided the first opportunity in
twenty years to question in a fundamental way the land policies of post-independence Zambia under
UNIP. The MMD had campaigned on a platform which suggested it would promote basic changes,
such as the reintroduction of freehold tenure.

The July 1993 conference (see chapter 1), supported in part by USAID, provided the
opportunity for a first frank exchange of opinion on the issues. Conference participants discussed the
presidential power to acquire land and agreed that it should be clarified if not curtailed. They
discussed a need for two land statutes, one dealing with State Land and one for land under customary
tenure, without any distinction between Trusts and Reserves. They noted that discrimination against
women was common both in the allocation of State Land and in the Trust and Reserve areas. There
was broad agreement that the issues of land under customary tenure deserve more careful study, with
increased input from traditional leaders. It was questioned how much customary land was available
for allocation to investors, and whether customary land tenure itself needed reform.

Participants also debated the relative merits of leasehold and freehold titles. Those who
supported the freehold system argued that leaseholds became insecure as they neared the end of their
term. Freeholds, they argued, could be regulated to achieve many of the same ends desired in the case
of leaseholds. Those who supported the leasehold system argued that freehold would, through land
transactions, lead to the dispossession of the poor and excessive land concentration, especially in the
hands of foreign interests. They argued that it would lead to uncontrolled land speculation and
underutilization. In the end, a large majority of the participants favored a leasehold system.

Discussion of land concentration led to discussion of the effectiveness of ceilings on
landholdings and of the impact of auctions of land. It was agreed that the economic value of land
needed to be recognized in the form of increased ground rents, but there was no consensus as to
whether land should in the future be allocated by government or sold.

For land in urban areas, the discussions focused on the issue of squatters, the housing
shortage, and protection to landlords and tenants in their dealings with one another. In the domain of
land administration, the participants urged decentralization of Lands and Surveys and a greater

<<   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   >>

More intriguing information