87
(85.6 percent), and North-Western province with numerous and scattered small farms (82.5
percent)—with high land/resident ratios still have a high degree of fragmentation.
These data showing a prevalence of multiparcel farming units justify concerns over any policy
that attempts to restrict the number of leaseholds per farming unit or ration leases to individuals who
currently lack title. Any tenure insecurity, should it be present, would likely apply to all parcels
containing arable land rather than a single farm within a farming unit. Furthermore, they place in
perspective the potential population of lease titles required should the government seek to pursue its
goal of registering 500,000 to 1,000,000 titles nationwide (chapter 1). Based on the total number of
farming units (815,326 rural households) in table 3.5 and 1.5 parcels per household (weighted average
calculated from table 3.6), the total potential demand for rural leaseholds is 1,222,989.
It seems inconceivable that all these farms or even the majority would require or even want
title. This number of potential registrations would sharply increase if strictly urban and commercial
uses were included as well (as indicated shortly, the majority of lease issuances are in fact principally
for residential and commercial uses), but it remains questionable whether these titles should be handled
by the MOL. City and municipal councils already operate registries for statutory and improvement
areas within their jurisdictions under the Housing (Statutory and Improvement Areas) Act, 1986. As
municipal governments are developed and/or strengthened, strong arguments can be made for the
municipal registries to handle the residential and commercial registrations within their jurisdictions,
while the MOL retains responsibility for leases in the more rural or extensive areas. This of course
hinges on the state of the registry system and human skills in various municipalities and highlights the
need for a review of alternatives to gradually shift these titles out of the MOL to the municipal level
(see chapter 2 recommendations). Further, should the MOL's portfolio be restructured to emphasize
rural properties, the above data would suggest that a far more modest scale of registration activity
within the MOL is justified and even advised given the current bottlenecks being experienced in
registration activities.
III. Current structure, commercial farm sector
The Zambian agricultural economy comprises two principal sectors: commercial and
noncommercial. Farmers were considered commercial in 1987-88 if they had done any of the
following in the previous year:
(1) sold to the National Agricultural Marketing Board (NAMBOARD), or any other
cooperative union, any crops whose value was equivalent to 150x90 kg bags or more
of maize at the ruling producer price;
(2) grew tobacco in their own name and were registered with the National Tobacco
Company of Zambia Ltd;
(3) sold to the Dairy Produce Board;
(4) bred, reared, and/or fattened cattle or poultry and sold them to the Cold Storage
Corporation of Zambia, Poultry Processing Company Ltd, or to any licensed butcher;
(5) reared and/or fattened pigs and sold them to the Zambia Pork Products Company, the
Cold Storage Corporation of Zambia, or any licensed butcher or supermarket;
(6) bred hybrid poultry; and/or,
(7) were state farmers for the Agricultural Division of Zimco and other agencies on a
commercial basis.