A Community Perspective in Land Management;  The CMP Experience in Uganda

As the Uganda Shelter Strategy revealed, there is no physical shortage of land in Uganda; the many difficulties related to land use in Uganda are a product of human interaction and its various facets, political, economic, social, administrative and legal.  These all impinge upon human settlements and the human communities which create and depend upon those settlements.  Experience in the Community Management Programme of Uganda, which seeks to strengthen low income community groups in their ability to take decisions about their own development, has shown that tenure of land (including legal instruments, prevailing attitudes, practices, and information) impinges directly upon community management training and the construction of communal facilities which is used as a tool of strengthening by CMP.  Some of the major issues are noted below.

Bringing together specialists in Ugandan land problems per se with community development workers, CMP has compiled a series of land priority problems, and a set of recommendations to address those problems.   While detailed documentation is extensive, these are summarized below. (The first chapter which follows is, in essence, the conclusion).

In effect, this section or chapter is the conclusion to this document.

The following lists the priority land issues in their order of concern, makes recommendations to Government (central and district, leaders and officials) for each problem, then recommendations aimed at community workers.

1. There is an unacceptable lack of information about land tenure laws and practices, maps and transaction records. There is no functioning LIS (Land Information System).

 

 

This implies the need to keep records (LIS), and that information, in English and local languages, about rules and map making be made accessible (transparency) up to the sub county level. Community workers should (a) be familiar with land issues, then (b) inform community members during mobilization exercises about land tenure.

Advocacy groups are encouraged to prompt the central and district governments to initiate and carefully operate an accurate land information system. A community agency or the ministry is encouraged to hire a consultant to prepare a manual on land and community facilities.
 

2. There is a lack of instruments for effective land use practices (LUP): eg over centralization; lack of money and skilled manpower, thus no land security. As with individuals, community groups are discouraged from building human settlements facilities (eg clinics, latrines, schools, water supplies) because there is no security of tenure on land acquired for such purposes.

 

 

Central Government is encouraged to build district capacity for land use procedures and appropriate instruments; training local authorities; hiring skilled labour.

Community agencies and the Ministry are encouraged to expand their interpretation of community development so as to train local authorities in land use practices. (They could, for example, use land experts as consultants, and train them in participatory methods).
 

3. There are inconsistency and confusion about land tenure as such. This is mainly because of multiple land tenure systems. It results in a lack of security of tenure (ownership, occupancy, usage, not merely the laws). Although parliament is grappling with land issues, there remain disagreement and lack of consensus about land, as many vested interests of specific segments of the population have their say in Parliament.

 

 

The Government is encouraged to improve existing legal instruments and make effective bylaws on communal properties ownership and management.

Community workers do not have a direct influence on law making as such, but are encouraged to develop innovative mobilizing and training practices around the existing system.
 

4. In spite of there being some laws which are consistent in their wording, many remain unenforced. The lack of enforcement of existing land laws and regulations contributes to the lack of security mentioned above.

 

 

The Government is encouraged to enforce these laws in several ways. One way is to empower local councils, levels 1, 2, and 3 (as part of the current decentralization activities in Uganda) so that they may have the authority and means to enforce land laws.

Community workers are encouraged to research and become familiar with existing land laws and rules, and bring them to the attention of community members and authorities.
 

5. The fifth priority land problem in Uganda relates directly to urbanization. Most of the available land in Uganda is remote, rural, and without access (no roads) or other infrastructure. There is a high cost of land in any developed areas having access (eg roads and other infra structural facilities), especially in urban areas.

 

 

The Government is encouraged to open public land for communal facilities. Where the cost is prohibitive, government could purchase land for communities' use.

Community workers can take two steps: (a) encourage land owners to donate and transfer parcels of land to community groups building facilities, and (b) engage in community work designed to empower (through income generation) community groups to purchase parcels of land for communal facilities.
 

6. The sixth priority problem relates to inequality of access to and security of land. Social and cultural roadblocks hinder some categories of citizens. In spite of gender equality laws, for example, existing attitudes and practices work such that women cannot buy land (inheritance practices, property rights).

 

 

The Government is encouraged to engage in gender affirmative action in all sectors, including those related to land and community development.

Meanwhile, community workers are encouraged to inform, train, and mobilize more women, and to sensitize men about women's issues. Community workers in non-Governmental agencies and the Ministry are encouraged to talk to local councils about issues of gender and land inequality.

.

This section introduces the paper.

The community management programme (CMP) of Uganda is implemented in communities in rural and urban areas, in the districts of Mpigi, Mubende and Kampala.  The nature of the social and economic activities vary in quality and quantity as well as in the degree and content of regulations and control to which they may be subjected.

The economic activities of the rural communities are by and large based on agriculture which requires large areas of land, whereas those of the urban slum areas are mainly based on employment or cottage industries which are not so highly land based.

.

The land tenure systems which are found in areas where CMP works include:

1. Public Land; land which is owned by the Government.  It leases land out to individuals on specific terms and covenants.  It also means land which the government leases out for 199 years to an urban authority which in turn leases it out for lesser terms and specific covenants to individuals.  The agency which handles the land matters on behalf of Government is the Uganda Land Commission.

 
2. Mailo Land; feudal ownership introduced by the British in 1900.  Prior to the 1975 Land Reform Decree, mailo land was owned in perpetuity by individuals and by the Kabaka's government.  Persons who lived on this land as well as new entrants with the consent of the land lords were legally protected to live on and use the land, but they were obliged to pay certain taxes.  The 1975 Land Reform Decree abolished mailo land and the rights of customary tenants on such lands, but the decree has not been effectively implemented except in so far as the customary tenants ceased to pay taxes to the landlords.

 

 

The Buganda Agreement of 1900 created the mailo land tenure system ("mailo" is a Luganda word for "miles;" the original grants under the agreement were measured in square miles).
 

3. Freehold Land;  land allocated to missions, businesses or eminent persons to own in perpetuity.  This type of land ownership is not widespread.  The Toro Agreement of 1900 and Ankole Agreement of 1901 created freehold tenure in those Kingdoms (native freeholds).

 
4. Leasehold Land;  Persons who hold primary interests or titles on land (as in 1-3 above) may lease them out to individuals.  There are comparatively larger scale lease transactions in the public and mailo lands than on freehold lands.  Leasing of mailo land and public land is greatly encumbered by the presence of customary tenants on such land.  In the case of public land, even their consent must be sought first and in both cases adequate compensation has to be paid first.

 
5. Customary Holdings;  Although a detailed study has not been conducted, it is safe to assume that the majority (more than 90%) of the people in Uganda own land by customary rights.  They carry no titles on such lands and continue to hold it practically as long as the landlords do not want it.   Customary holdings on public land are as good as freehold or held in perpetuity.  Although transactions on customary holdings are not permitted, a lot of them go on.  There are only about 260,000 land titles throughout Uganda.  Compensation to a customary tenant does not include the value of land. Furthermore, through usufructuary rights, some customary tenants have alienated specific areas of land to themselves with known and defined boundaries.  The boundaries may be marked by ridges, trenches or trees and grass.

In a survey on women and shelter carried out by UNCHS (Habitat) and Government in 1992, most women were not aware of whether they lived on mailo, public or freehold land. Even the few men who were consulted did not know.  Those who knew that they were on mailo land were not certain whose mailo land is. Generally, people settled on public land are aware of it.

Many people do not know the exact size of their "bibanja."  Because of the general lack of awareness on land issues, many of the community members do not know their rights and obligations.

Bibanja holdings are recognized in the constitution although they are not registered.

Today location of construction is determined by availability of land.  There was land donation in the past, when a chief acquired land for schools or hospitals.  Today it is very rare to find people with big land to donate willingly.

People construct permanent or semi-permanent houses and grow seasonal and perennial crops without hindrance.  Individuals have sometimes complained of not having enough land for some of their agricultural activities.  Some such individuals however, have been able to "borrow" pieces of land, say, to grow some seasonal crops, from those who have bigger portions.

.

Reference is made to the "National Shelter Strategy for Uganda," prepared by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.  In it, the key land issues (in general, not specifically for community work) were listed.  They were not all issues that impinged on community work, but many of them overlapped those which are listed here.  They are listed as an appendix to this document.  See below.

Specialists in land issues consulted by CMP identified five basic land problems:

1. Security of Tenure:  Where the members of the community themselves have no security of tenure, the security of their investments on services as well as economic schemes is also called into question.

 
2. Land Acquisition Processes:  Where a scheme traverses many land ownerships, the processes of acquisition may be cumbersome and lengthy. This may in turn cause delays in implementation, affect the quality and standard of the scheme and affect the final ownership/registration of the scheme.

 
3. Cost of Land:  Community-based schemes are expected to be affordable, sustainable and cost effective thus unless free or very cheap land can be provided, it may affect the success of the programme.

 
4. Ownership of the Property:  In law, land includes all the superstructures that may be developed on it. Hence the final ownership of a community or communally developed service will have to be defined to include land.  The ownership of the land on which the scheme is to be placed must first be clarified. Secondly, most communities do not operate as legal entities, and so the legal entity in which the property vests are never quite clarified but merely assumed.

 

 

Furthermore, where the ownership and security of tenure are not certain or specific, it is not possible to secure such properties against loans and so they do not help the communities to raise capital from banks.
 

5. Inheritance:  So far, most community-based facilities and ownerships do not seem to be subject to the laws of inheritance or succession.  Similarly, future new beneficiaries are not obliged to meet the initial capital costs or contributions.  They merely join in sharing any regular or whatever maintenance and expansion costs.

Workshops and consultations with community workers and others, by CMP, revealed several other aspects of land tenure problems, many of which hinder community work.

Facilities which the communities require have to be located on land.  Such services do not usually require large areas of land, but are generally scattered.  Although they are communally used, they are often located on individual and not communal lands.  This could easily create conflict in the right of access and utilization of the service and the ultimate real ownership of the service.

Land is very sensitive issue in this country and usually becomes quite emotional, thus the need to handle it with great care.

Group or community activities have suffered considerably because of existing land practices. While some people have been generous enough to donate land for communal construction of schools, dispensaries, churches and so on, there are those with large chunks of land who will not hear of even selling a few metres.  Where they do agree to sell, their prices are prohibitive and it is not easy to get low-income earners to contribute towards the acquisition of such land for community construction.  This can prevent construction of a facility for years.

Public land, too, is not easy to acquire for public facilities.   In many cases, the land has been leased out or 'sold' to individuals who have developed it in various ways.  This means that they have to be compensated by whomever wants to put up the public facility.  The costs involved have sometimes been very high.  Cited example:  the community wanted assistance to get water but the water source was on private land.  Therefore, the community members could not get access to the water source.

In Mubende, the Town Council has a tendency of subdividing land.  Those attempting to acquire public land find it difficult to get it.  The premium required to get land is high for low income people.

To acquire public land for development is not easy.   The processes to get land is very expensive in terms of time and money.  There is conflict between somebody allocated public land and the tenant(s). Tenants resist eviction and feel victimized.  This conflict may lead to loss of life.  Tenants have resisted paying yearly dues to mailo land owners.  The tenants feel cheated in this system because they have been on that land for generations.

In gazetted urban centres there is conflict between land owners and town council authorities when council decides to subdivide into small plots.  The land owner is normally given some portions. This brings dissatisfaction to the land owners.

People attempting to acquire public land will end up not getting it after spending time and energy and huge sums of monies.  The time taken to process the papers and forms is disappointing.  Many give up before finally getting the land.

The premium required to process a land title is also not simple to meet, and can only be afforded by the rich.

It is quite evident from discussions in the parliamentary committee dealing with land that, given the sensitivity of the issue, radical changes will not emerge, the tendency will be more or less to maintain the existing tenure systems with limited changes.

The construction of community facilities used to be a responsibility of both central and local government.  Given current demands on those institutions' meagre resources it is now difficult if not impossible.  Thus the number of these facilities is far less than demanded, although Government has the constitutional power to acquire land, and develop it for the community's use.  The communities in turn are inadequately equipped by law, financial and professional resources to do what the Government used to do.

When the population was low in this country, it was common for landlords to donate chunks of land for the general use of communities.  As the population increased over time, the supply of land has not.  Land attains such values that individuals are less willing to donate it.

In Buganda (where the capital city is located), roughly 50 per cent of the land is mailo; the same proportion applies to the City of Kampala itself.  In Toro and Ankole, the native freeholds come to less than ten per cent.  In other parts of Uganda there are no Mailo or native freehold holdings.  Most of the land in Uganda is public land and customary tenure is the most widespread system.

The 1975 Decree affects the constitutional right of a customary tenant by depriving him or her of security of tenure and limiting compensation in case of loss of tenure.

Prior to the decree, customary tenants had their holdings statutorily protected against eviction. Some pundits attribute to the decree the civil unrest which plagued Uganda up to the present regime.

Presently in Uganda land is hoarded for two major reasons, namely:

1. Speculation.  People are acquiring land cheaply through the system which is less understood by many and thus sell it later at enormous profits;   and
2. Land is hoarded to be bequeathed to children.  This is responsible for much land, some of it quite prime, remaining unutilized for long periods of time.  This is basically a result of the absence of alternative financial assets and properties that can be bequeathed to children.

Ineffective government land policies and development programmes at both national and local levels reveal a depressing record of failures and mismanagement because of:

• poor conceptualization of the problems;
• poor co-ordination between government agencies;
• inadequate funds to undertake the appropriate execution;  and
• lack of willpower to reverse the status quo that has developed.

A lot of development is taking place outside the formal sector. In most instances, the activities of the informal sector are ignored by government.  Thus Government officials are unable to understand the operation of the informal sector.

The existing multiplicity of tenure systems, especially in Kampala, affects planned and orderly access to land.  The requirement to conform to zoning and subdivision regulations.  It is almost impossible to find land for community facilities or services in Muyenga (which is mailo land), and in Namasuba (which is public land).

There is a serious land use deadlock between the mailo owner (freeholder) and mailo / freehold tenants.  This is exacerbated by so many informal urban settlements.

There is also a land use deadlock between the urban authorities (who own statutory leases of 199 years) and customary tenants on public land (who have a virtual freehold in most cases).

The public land delivery system is generally very inefficient.

The process of allocating public land is slow, time consuming and  bedevilled with corruption. The procedure is extremely lengthy and complicated, composed of several different phases and the decision making is highly centralized.

Existing public land allocation procedures, development and building codes are cumbersome and complicated and are therefore either ignored or lead to serious delays. Prevailing statutory planning, building and infrastructure standards are not appropriate to the needs and available resources of the majority of urban residents.

.

The following recommendations were submitted by the several land specialists consulted by CMP:

• Prior to implementation of community work in an area, the land tenure systems obtaining must be studied, identified and clarified.
• Individual land owners on whose land a community scheme happens to be located should be encouraged to give it free or as contribution in kind to be discounted against his or her cash or labour contribution.
• Land on which a community scheme is to be placed must be clearly alienated and transferred from the various individual owners to the sole ownership by the project beneficiaries.
• Project communities must be encouraged to form legal entities (eg co-operative societies or associations) which are registered with appropriate bodies and which are legally allowed to own land/properties so that whatever land is transferred to the community by individual owners under whatever terms may be surveyed and registered in such entities.
• Despite its low cost and donor contributions towards its cost, a community project should be run in such a way that it generates incomes which may be used for maintenance, expansion or diversification.
• Local authorities should make laws regulating the ownership, participation, contributions and maintenance of community-based self-help schemes, paying special attention to their sustainability and succession issues.
• Individual land owners should give land to community free for CMP development. In case of Maziba, land was given wholly for the construction of water bore holes.
• We need to have an informed community to counterbalance the general lack of information, up to date maps and records about land tenure, rules regulations and practices. There is inadequate information on this. People must be informed about the regulations.
• Government should keep records and make them accessible up to sub county level in English and local language.
• Mailo land in gazetted and non gazetted urban centres should be taxed highly to discourage land owners from holding big pieces of their land in these towns.
• The present tenants on mailo land should be legal owners of land and can have access to acquiring land titles if they can afford.
• Let us find a way of influencing the community to change their culture, i.e. some societies do not allow women to acquire land. Women should be empowered to own land as some of them have experienced problems already this will encourage them to develop the land.

.

Before 1900, all land in Buganda belonged to the Kabaka (hereditary king), and there were four types of land tenure, namely:

• Obutaka or Rights of Clans Over Land:  These rights accrued to the clan heads and all the fifty two clans had land viewed as ancestral land. If a clan head died, his heir would take over.
• Obutongole or Rights of Chiefs:  There were land rights the king gave to his officials the chiefs (Batongole).  Up-country chiefs were given official land around the Lubiri (palace).
• Bakopi or Peasants Rights:  Ordinary people in pre-colonial Buganda the Bakopi (peasants) were free to choose the chief under whom they would live for undisturbed occupation.  Upon the death of a Mukopi (a peasant) his successor had a right in occupation.
• Obwesengeze or Individual Hereditary Rights:  Here, a king could grant rights to an individual because of his merits.

.

When CMP wanted to explore the possibilities of its working together with the Mpigi District Water and Sanitation project (WATSAN; now WES) in providing water for the Wampewo Community (their foremost priority), the then National Director of CMP, the Officer in charge of WATSAN and the District Project Coordinator inspected all the water sources in the parish. This was intended to enable the group to assess the state of these water sources so that the WATSAN officer could make an informed decision on how CMP could collaborate. The things that were noticed:

• Some water sources had dried up because of environmental degradation of the water catchment areas through brick-making, growing of eucalyptus trees and destruction of natural vegetation (replacing it with agricultural crops). We were informed by the community leaders that those who had carried out the above had not heeded their advice because the land belonged to individuals who would do as they wished with it.
• Some suitable sites for the construction, repair or improvement of water sources were already fenced off by owners of the plots, and it would not make sense doing anything about them because the land owners could easily stop the community members from using them.

Nakawa Parish, with a population of 5,287, has two parts, (a) a slum area and (b) a dilapidated city council housing estate.  Poverty, food insecurity, primary and secondary ignorance as well as lack of community facilities prevail.  All this land belongs to Kampala City Council (KCC). On the estate part, the initial objective by KCC was to provide housing for low income people so the estate was built in 1940. KCC has now changed its policy to "facilitating individuals to acquire land for development of individually owned houses."  The other part of the parish is a slum.  The people living there are illegal tenants that can be evicted any time.  Their security of tenure is uncertain and therefore they cannot build good structures, individual or communal.

Nakawa Parish land belongs to Kampala City Council.  Some of the land has squatters and some is a slum area.  Kampala City Council (KCC) has agreed to sell the land to the squatters. The people felt insecure so they do not want to develop the land without being rightful owners of the land, so this caused problems in construction of facilities.  Land is very expensive so people buy small plots. It is difficult to develop on small plots, yet land owners of large areas are not ready to surrender their land for construction.

The Community Management Programme was introduced in 1993 November, when the community in Nakawa Parish had written a memorandum to the District Council requesting that the estate be restructured and plots sold out to cause private development of the area.  They proposed that the beneficiaries to the proposed sale of plots and houses strictly be the current physical occupants of the houses and sales be done on the recommendations of the local councils of the area at affordable prices.  Up to now, the response from Kampala City Council was very slow because of poor institutional capacity, inadequacies, corruption, lack of funds, lack of clear policy by KCC and political wrangles within the council (about the plots) and political wrangles within the council authorities between the offices of the local council (5) Chair and Town Clerk.

These have had an effect on community work.   Because of the insecurity of tenure, mobilization and training are slowly taking off, and the establishment of community facilities and services has not taken off at all.

.

Kiwatule Parish is a semi-urban parish in the expanding part of Kampala. Its population is 2,508.

Most of the mailo land has been fragmented into small plots that are sold at rates to freeholders.  The landlords survive by selling these plots and individual developers build standard houses on plans approved by KCC.

The problem here is that plots are sold exorbitantly, and KCC authorities demand a high price for approving plans.  When CMP approaches these people for contribution towards community work, they are unresponsive.  Mailo land owners are reluctant to offer their land for construction of community facilities.  Community members have proposed the construction of community facilities such as a community centre, health centre and a market but land is not available.  Land is so far available for the piped water project mainly because the pipes are going to be laid in the road reserve land.

Residents co-own land and therefore legal security of tenure is uncertain.  They cannot or they are not allowed to develop those bibanja (plots) beyond the landlord's degree of acceptance for fear of compensation in case the landlord wants to repossess his land.

The Kiwatule community requested an extension of water to their area.  This is in process. People are unwilling to sell land for community programmes.  Free land usually belongs to religious institutions and these have allowed a community programme to construct on their land.

An example was cited whereby, during the election campaign, a politician tried to associate himself with CMP.

.

Land problems for the country in general overlap, but do not exactly duplicate, those which relate to community work, nor are they in the same order of priority.

The nine key issues were as follows:

1. General lack of information about land tenure rules, regulations and practices.
2. Multiple land tenure systems in urban areas.
3. Lack of enforcement of existing statutes and procedures.
4. Lease terms unfavourable to developers. Few incentives to land owners to allow land to be developed.
5. Institutional inadequacies: lack of skilled human power, equipment, funds.
6. Lack of land transaction records. Lack of LIS (Land Information System).
7. Over centralized land administration.
8. Lengthy procedures and institutional practices (cause delays; discourage developers).
9. Land Reform Decree No. 3 of 1975 reduces rights of customary tenants.

.  Bottom of Page:  .  Disclaimer:The above document expresses the views of the author only, and is not necessarily the official executive policy of the UN, SCN, CDS, any NGO or any ministry that implements community development projects.  .  Permission is granted to copy some parts or all of this document, so long as the source is identified.   .  This site is hosted through Community Development Society (CDS) by Seattle Community Network (SCN)  .  If you are concerned with techniques of strengthening (empowering) low income communities, please write: academics, activists, educators, practitioners, mobilizers, managers, administrators, planners, researchers, students, trainers.  We are interested in hearing from you. We welcome debate, discussion and dialogue: Archival Document written in 1996 .  .  Link to:  – The CMP Strategy, – Handbooks   –  Training for Strength;  A Community Management Training Methodology, –  Key Words, – Links, –  Preparing a Community Development Policy Paper,  – ISS Research, – An Aural Method to Learn an Oral Language, – CMP (Uganda),  –  Community Development Society (CDS),  – Seattle Community Network (SCN), – Phil's Page – Fact Sheet – Home Page