COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LAND

ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS:
AFRICAN REVIEW
With special reference to Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana,
South Africa

By Clarissa Augustinus
WORK UNDERTAKEN FOR THE WORLD BANK, FUNDED
BY DFID

January, 2003.

1. Background
This review is based on five case studies of countries in Africa, namely Mozambique,
Uganda, Namibia, Ghana and South Africa. These countries were chosen because it was
considered that they had undertaken innovative land administration exercises and/or there
had been important project interventions. The five case studies were undertaken using
existing material and no new research was done specifically for the study, which has
meant that there are numerous gaps in the data. However, five case studies were done,
more than in the other regions, to try and fill these gaps and create an overall picture. The
Africa review had to dovetail with the other regions as much as possible. This was
somewhat problematic as the majority of tenure in Africa is outside of the conventional
land titling system and the focus of new land laws has been on new forms of title and
tenure security, rather than on extending the conventional titling system. This review
therefore describes the conventional systems, the new tenure forms under development
and that the majority of rights are currently outside of these systems.
1.1 Factors that Distinguish Land Administration in the Region
Land administration in Africa consists of the conventional land administration systems
based on land registration and; customary and/or informal land administration systems.
As Table 1. illustrates, the vast majority of African countries populations use the
customary land administration system, especially in rural areas. As most African cities are
30-80 percent informal (UNCHS:1990:4, 1991:3), most urban residents are also not using
the formal land registration and administration system in urban areas.
Table 1: Formal and customary coverage
Title
and
customary
Customary
coverage

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

62% of surface
but about 68%
of population

Majority
of
population

90%
transactions

Title/deed
coverage

12-15 %

Majority
of
surface area
but
not
majority
of
population

1-15%

Unknown

No.
of
registered
titles/deeds

700,000 titles

Unknown

Unknown

11,383 titles
/deeds
unknown

of

78% of total
area

South
Africa
10-13% of
area
but
about
2530% of rural
former
homeland
population
80-90% of
area
but
excludes at
least
2530%
of
population
6,996,658
deeds

Due to the complex nature of the cadastre and property rights, colonial land
administration laws and regulations remain entrenched in many countries still to this day
in Africa (United Nations:1997:4). In a number of countries, such as Uganda, Ghana,
Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa, new land registration laws have been or are

being introduced and discussed. These laws are an attempt to move away from colonial
forms of land administration on the one hand, but also to develop land administration
systems and laws that more closely reflect the social land tenures on the ground
(customary and/or informal).
A review of the land registration, cadastral and land information management systems in
Africa indicates that:

Less than 1 per cent of sub-Saharan Africa is covered by any kind of cadastral survey
(UNCHS:1991:3, 1990:4) and the case studies show that the vast majority of people
in a country are instead using customary tenure forms (Uganda, Namibia,
Mozambique, Ghana case studies).
Most African countries do not have a national land information management system
using LIS/GIS (UNCHS:1991,1993, Uganda, Namibia, Mozambique, Ghana case
studies).
Cadastral systems, generally in manual form, and with incomplete coverage, are
supplying most of the available land information. (Okpala:1992; UNCHS:1991,
Uganda, Mozambique, Ghana, Namibia case studies).

Some of the major problems with land registration systems in Africa are:

There is a general lack of financial, technical and human capacity throughout Africa.
Because the systems are under-resourced many of them are out of date, expensive to
maintain and inefficient. (Durand Lasserve: 1997:4-5,12,16; Ezigbalike:1996:350;
Okpala:1992:93-4, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana, Mozambique case studies).
A World Bank study on Africa.. (showed that) ..if no dispute occurs, the process of
land registration takes an average of 15 to 18 months, and that normally, a period of
two to seven years is not uncommon. This lengthy and costly procedure.. (means
that).. tens of thousands of land titles.. (are usually).. pending. (UNCHS:1991:5,
Uganda, Ghana, Mozambique case studies).
Most of the systems are centralized (UNCHS:1993, Uganda, Ghana, South African
case studies).
Available information often relates only to the part of the city or rural area where
formal legal procedures were used for planning (UNCHS:1998:4). Yet most decisions
need to be made about the non formal and/or customary parts of the country, which
are not covered by the cadastre (Okpala:1992:94, South Africa case study relating to
former homeland areas, Uganda case study).
Despite numerous initiatives during the last decade in sub Saharan Africa to set up
new land information systems or to modernize existing ones, limited results have
been achieved. (Durand Lasserve:1997:12, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana case studies).
Where information exists, it is often spread among several government departments
and accessing it is difficult. These institutions are usually public, highly centralized,
not well managed, and have over-lapping responsibilities. (Durand Lasserve:1997:12,
UNCHS:1998:4, Uganda, South Africa, Ghana case studies).

Many of the parcels in the land registration systems are cloudy and hold ambiguous
information despite attempts to create land registration systems with certain, highly
accurate information (UNCHS:1996:11; Durand Lasserve:1997:2; UNCHS:1993,
1995,1991:3;1990:4; UNECA:1996, Uganda, Mozambique, Ghana case studies).

To contextualise the information presented above and below further, a number of Africas
characteristics that affect land administration are identified.
1. Customary tenure is generally secure and titling is unnecessary. However,
customary tenure also transforms under certain conditions and becomes less
secure for customary residents these conditions include, urbanization, ribbon
development, cash crops. Also, the formal land registration system is not neutral
and where titling is implemented often customary tenure people lose their rights
(women and overlapping rights holders are very vulnerable).
2. Land markets exist all over Africa, both in rural and urban areas. They are not a
recent phenomena. They are not free land markets and the sale of land is limited
to relatives (by blood and/or marriage), and/or ethnic/national groups, and/or
religion in certain areas and/or to men. All of these sales generally take place
outside of the formal titling system. There is an active rental market both in rural
and urban areas, also to strangers who do not fit into the above categories.
3. Due to the general weakness of the central state in Africa, it is not possible to
implement at scale a centralised titling programme, or land use controls, or
enforcement. Most implementation is only in the cities, especially in the capital
city, and ad hoc.
4. The patron-client relationship in relation to land can be very strong at national,
ethnic, family, local government/politician levels.
5. Womens rights to land are often nested in that of the family. In countries where
there have been wars, genocides etc. women often struggle to obtain land rights
when the men in their families are deceased, because society understands their
rights in terms of family/mens rights.
6. There are large scale problems around the flow of spatial information for land
administration purposes both within government, between departments at national
level, between national and lower level tiers, and between government and the
private sector and users. Coordination is a critical issue. There are few
comprehensive national digital systems in operation that contain land information
for land administration purposes. Where they do exist they only include that part
of the country covered by the cadastre, typically formal urban areas.
7. Most countries have colonial forms of legal evidence requiring high standards and
professional inputs. There are few registered professionals many countries have
less than 30.

8. Many countries have started law reform to change the situation and introduce new
forms of evidence and approaches, but the scale and comprehensiveness of
change needed is huge and has not reached implementation at scale level.
Systematic titling is not considered an option for most of Africa for a range of
reasons.
9. Many of the existing titles are cloudy and require legal processes rather than just
administrative processes to transfer. In defending their rights people will refer to
both the paper and to customary evidence to protect their rights, sometimes this is
legal, occurs frequently in the legal system, or forms part of land reform
procedures.
2. Comparative Analysis
The five countries reviewed have a range of tenure types, both colonial and introduced
under new law.
2.1 Land Tenure Systems
Table 2: Tenure types formal and informal
Tenure types

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

South
Africa
Yes
Yes
Yes

Freehold
Registered leases
Customary (not necessarily
legal)
Occupancy rights
Anti-eviction rights
Group/family titles
Modern starter /provisional
type titles
Adverse
possession/squatters rights
State land ownership
Informal settlement

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes -pilot

No
No
Unknown
Not yet

Yes
No
Yes in law
No

Unknown
Unknown
Yes
Yes

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

planned
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
A few

Yes
Yes

Tenants

Yes

Yes
Yes
at
least
30,000
individuals
Unknown

Unknown

Yes

Yes

The new tenure types which are considered Best Practice include occupancy rights
(generally critical for customary tenure rights if they are not protected specifically),
anti-eviction rights, adverse possession, family/group rights, and modern
starter/provisional titles, which can be upgraded.

2.2 Legal Framework

Table 3: Legal systems
Legal
systems
Legal legacy

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

South
Africa
RomanDutch

British

Portuguese
& socialist

English

Title system
Deed system
Legal
liability

Yes
No
Yes state

South
African/Roman
Dutch
No
Yes
Yes private
sector

No freehold
No freehold
None

No
Yes
Yes private
sector

Colonial
forms
of
legal
evidence
used
New forms
of
legal
evidence
also used
Legal
pluralism

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
title
system only
(yet to be
implemented)
Yes

Yes pilot

Not yet

Yes

Unknown

No

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Yes former
homelands

Yes

2.3 Technical arrangements and indications of functionality

Table 4: State of conventional systems
State
of
conventional
systems
Time taken for
new
registrations

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

South
Africa

Years large
backlog
for
first titling

3 years for
first titling

6 months if no
dispute

Unknown

Time taken for

registration of
transfers
Geodetic
Records
Mapping

Unknown

Unknown

2-10
years
(trying
to
implement 90
days)
Unknown

Unknown

Poor
Poor
30 years old

Fair
Fair
Unknown

Poor
Poor
30 years old

Coverage

12-15 %

Majority
of
surface area
but
not
majority
of
population

1-15%

Fair
Poor
30 years old
-majority
Unknown

No. of registered
titles/deeds

700,000 titles

Unknown

Unknown

10
days
once in the
registry
Good
Good
Good in 8790%
80-90% of
area
but
excludes at
least
2530%
of
population
6,996,658
deeds

No.

5 million

Unknown

Millions

of

land

11,383 titles/
deeds
unknown
15,000,000

Millions

parcels still to be
registered
(if
desired)
Spatial
data
infrastructure
for country
Technical
staffing
Modern
mortgage law
Donor funding
for conventional
system
Systematic
titling schemes

No
under
development

No

No

No

Yes

Insufficient
less than 20
professional
land surveyors
No

Insufficientless than 20
professional
land surveyors
Partially

Insufficient

less than 20
professional
land surveyors
No

Insufficient

Good

Yes

Small amount

Small amount

Yes

Yes
title
system only
Yes

No systematic
demarcation
for
spatial
information
(piloted)

No will be
done
per
informal
settlement

No
sporadic
titling
and
sporadic
demarcation of
communities

Yes

No only for
upgrading
informal
settlement
projects

None

Wherever possible the costs related to the existing land registration systems and the new
systems were identified and these are presented in Table 5 below. In general these figures
were not available because some of the process is undertaken by the private sector, or
public sector officials operated as consultants undertaking private jobs, or new forms of
titling had not yet started as a routine operation, or the accounting systems of the agencies
were not yet capable of producing such information, and there are no systematic titling
projects.
Table 5: Costs
USD

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

South Africa

per

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Base US$ 4 +
ad valorem
scale

Unknown

Cost per parcel

for state
Cost of registered
transfer to user

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

USD 4

Unknown

USD 2.87

Unknown

Base USD 13
+ ad valorem
scale

Cost per survey

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Scale
regulated
-based on size
and location
of parcel.

Between
USD 518 for
USD 7,940
USD 4,538
for
USD
57,537 per
property
Unknown

Costs
for
systematic titling

Not
being
undertaken

Not being
undertaken

Doing sporadic
only

Unknown

Total cost
parcel

Not done

unit
Percentage
of
national budget
Running costs of
registry
Running costs of
Surveyor
General
Running costs of
land titling at
local government
level
Annual funding
by donors for
land
administration

Less than 2%
for
whole
department
Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Less than 1%
for
whole
department
USD
19,907,940
p.a.
About USD
8 million

Unknown

Unknown

About USD
300,000 p.a.

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

About USD 1
million p.a.

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Not
applicable

None

Unknown

Unknown

About USD 2
million

Varies

None

2.4 Land market information

Table 6: Land markets
Land markets
Formal no. of
registered
transfers per
year
Unregistered
transfers
Occurring in
customary
Informal
settlement
transfers

Uganda
Unknown

about 300,000
current titles

Namibia
Unknown

Mozambique
Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Yes
sporadically
Yes

Yes
-sporadically
Yes

Yes some areas

only
Yes

Ghana
216
titles
(1999),
85
(2000), deeds
unknown
Yes

South Africa
380,000

Yes

Yes
-sporadically
Yes

Unknown

Yes

3. The introduction of new approaches to land administration

There are large scale problems both within the conventional land administration system
and with the conventional system by users. As indicated, the majority of people in most
African countries live outside of the formal land administration system associated with
titling. What follows is firstly a description of user problems with conventional titling
systems. Secondly, the best practices and lessons learned from five African countries are
described with respect to transforming land administrations systems to be more user
friendly and pro-poor. Finally, an attempt is made to draw cost components together.

3.1 Experience of conventional system by users

Table 7: Poor users problems with conventional systems
Poor
user
problems
with
conventional
system
Does not fit
customary
tenure
Focus of land
registration
based
on
individual
tenure only
User access
to
information
difficult/not
decentralised
Titling
system
too
expensive
Titling
system not
transparent
Not
gendered
Does
not
solve
land
disputes/old
adjudication
approaches
Registration
system
requirements
of personal
documents
too onerous

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

South
Africa

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes former
homelands

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partially

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partially

Yes

Partially

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Unknown

Unknown

Yes

Table 8: Types of disputes

Type of Disputes
State/public
land/customary
Over-lapping
customary rights
Customary/ market
sector
Tenants/ landlord
Customary/statutory
forms of evidence

Uganda
Yes

Namibia
Yes

Mozambique
Yes

Ghana
Yes

South Africa
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Unknown
No

Unknown
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
No

Ambiguous
administrative
information

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Yes
in
former
homelands

3.2 Phases, sequences and activities for a new regulatory framework

The transformation of a land administration system is a large undertaking in that it
normally involves a number of separate agencies, it relates to power and patronage, and
it requires extensive civil society debate at a national and local levels, it is cross-sectoral
and considered key to poverty alleviation. In the 5 country case studies it took at least 8
years, and often 11 or more, for a country to get from discussing land policy to the point
of implementing it at scale. There are a number of discrete pre-titling steps in this
process identified in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Phases and sequence for the development of a new regulatory framework
Development
of
new
Regulatory
framework
Multi-stakeholder
consultation
at
every
level
of
regulatory
framework
development
Land
Policy
completed
New land law/s

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

South Africa

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No not private
land
professionals
who guarantee
land rights

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No -planned

Regulations
completed
Administrative
procedures
completed
Functions
sorted
out
Training of officials
Pilots undertaken

Partially

No

Yes

No

No in
form
No

Partially

Partially

Yes

No

No

No

No

Partially

No

No
Yes
-Busy
At least
8 years
and still
at pilot
stage
No yet

Partially
No

Partially
Yes-completed

Streamlining
planned
No
No

9 years
and still
not law

At least 11
years ready to
roll out

17
years
(1986 Titles
Act)

At least 9 years
and still far
from
implementation

No
yet

Not yet

Yes (1986
Titles Act)

No law yet

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial

Time
taken
to
implementation of
new forms of titling
Court cases to test
new
laws
and
procedures
Substantial donor
funding
for
development new
law policy/law

law

bill

No
No

The new land laws that are under development or have been developed in these 5
countries have common characteristics. These are identified in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Elements of new land laws
Elements of new land
laws
Protects poor occupants
Protects womens rights

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

Yes
Partially

Yes
Yes

Not specifically
Not specifically

Strengthens
decentralized
land
administration
Improves governance,
accessibility
and
transparency
Information/media
campaign
Strengthens
service
delivery
Strengthens land tax
Addresses conflict over
land
between
customary/
investors/state
Form
of
dispute
resolution mechanisms

Yes

Yes
Nothing
specific
Yes

South
Africa
Planned
Planned

Yes

Yes

Planned

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Planned

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Partial

Yes

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Unknown

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
No

Unknown
Planned

Tribunals,
local
government
mediators

Local
property
office land
administrator
working on
site

Local
community
structures/ local
government
structures

Courts

New
adjudication
approaches
Affordability
and
sustainability
Innovative
cadastral/registration
design
Robust design including
existing
conventional
system
Convergence
between
design of general land
law
and
technical
procedures
Alteration of technical
process
and
restructuring of cadastral
and registration system

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Planned
-Existing
structures,
courts, land
courts,
local
leaders,
Dept. Land
Affairs,
private
sector
Planned

Yes

Unknown

Yes

No

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yesplanned

No

Yes

Yes

Unknown

Unknown

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unknown

Partially
some
procedures
in
place
awaiting law

Yes

Yes

Unknown

Partially
pilot

Requires re-structuring
of
government
to
implement land titling
etc
Accuracy of parcels

Rights obtained by poor

Customary tenure titled

Date when start new
forms of titling
Linked
to
PRSP/equivalent

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Planned

Handheld
GPS
with
local
reference
system
Sale, lease,
mortgage,
inheritance,
compensation
if moved not
as individual
right but as
family/group
Yes
2002first
pilot
Yes

None
for
starter titles,
lower
for
landhold title

Unknown, but
very low for
community
demarcation.

High

Unknown

Right
to
perpetual
occupation,
sell, inherit,
donate, form
of
family
title

Occupancy
rights

No rights for
informal/squatters

Use,
occupation,
transfer

No
Not yet

No
2002/3

Yes
1986 titles act

Unknown
Not yet

No

Yes

Unknown

No

The common characteristics in the new land laws being passed in Africa, identified
above, are based on a number of themes. The first theme consists of the characteristics
associated with the PRSPs which have become cross cutting themes also affecting land
namely:- poverty alleviation, decentralization, governance and transparency, service
delivery, protection of women. The PRSPs are critically important to African
governments, and their Departments of Lands, because of the large scale donor
involvement in their budgets, and that a key covenant of most donors is poverty
alleviation. The PRSP characteristics when applied to land administration take the form
of decentralized local land administration offices, cheap/free titles/rights and/or tenure
protection for the poor, information campaigns at national levels about peoples land
rights, transfer of information about land rights during titling and how to obtain them,
adjudication procedures that also protect the occupants of the land not just those being
titled or holding registered titles, removal of land professionals from routine operations to
management, incremental upgrades over time, the adaptation of the conventional land
registration system to accommodate the poor and other forms of legal evidence used by
the poor to protect their assets, the protection of womens land rights, no systematic
titling, no rigid boundaries in customary areas, avoidance/delay of adjudication of
individual rights, and the development of spatial information systems as a public good for
the delivery of economic and social services.
Gendered land administration also has a number of specific characteristics identified in
Table 11. below.

Table 11: Gender aspects

Gender aspects

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

New gender friendly

land law

Yes

Not yet

Yes

No

Procedures
implemented
Legal systems allowing
co-ownership

No pilot

No

Partial

No

Yes

English
based

Yes

Yes

English
based

Co-ownership

No

No
Roman
Dutch
based
No

Yes

Yes

Protection of womens
land rights

Partial
can
prevent
transfers
Yes

being
piloted

Unknown

Unknown

No
specific
procedures

No

Partial
in
procedures but
implementation
problems

No
specific
procedures

Adjudication
procedures to protect
women

South
Africa
Yesfamily
law
applied to
deed and
planned
new law
Yes
NoRoman
Dutch
based
Yes

through
family
law
applied to
deed
Yes

No ad
hoc,
planned
protection

The second set of characteristics relate to dispute resolution. This aspect was central to
many of the discussions associated with the laws and their designs even if it was not
always explicit in the law. This aspect became a significant cost factor for Uganda that
led to an inability to implement at scale. An earlier draft of the South Africas law was
considered too expensive in terms of the institutional structure required to deal with this
issue.
The third set of characteristics found in Table 10. above relate to the technical design of
the land administration system accuracy of parcels, type of rights allocated, designed in
isolation or not from conventional system, adaptation of conventional system to new law.
In regard to this, a range of cost avoidance characteristics can be found in the designs,
identified in Table 12. below.
Table 12: Cost and resource avoidance designs
Cost
and
resource
avoidance designs in
new land law and
procedures for poor
Use of technicians for

Uganda

Namibia

Mozambique

Ghana

South
Africa

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unknown

routine operations not

professionals
Large
scale
new
institutional
structure
for
titling,
dispute
resolution etc.
Lowering
survey
accuracies/equipment/no
individual
boundaries
for poor
Removal of lawyers
from routine operations
Plan
for
full
conventional
system
upgrade
Systematic titling
Funding of titling

Yesoriginal
plan
in
law
Yes

No

No

Yes

Unlikely

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No -pilots

Unknown

Yes

No

No

No sporadics
and
target
areas
No

Yes
-planned
Unknown

By user

Unknown

By investor

State/World
Bank

Yes

No

application
driven
Probably
state

One of the most critical issues to be addressed in the land administration designs relates
to the fact that the design has to have national application, be affordable to the poor, and
yet not over-ride customary (local) tenure where it is the tenure of choice, despite the fact
that land titling has not been neutral and has often taken away the rights of occupants.
Different countries took different approaches. Uganda chose systematic demarcation for
spatial information and dispute resolution with voluntary titling only, and Mozambique
opted for sporadic titling of investors and not to title the poor but to carefully adjudicate
investor titling to ensure it does not infringe on the rights of the poor (see Best Practices
below). Namibia opted for starter titles unsurveyed within outside surveyed cleaned up
boundaries for informal settlements. That is, innovative non conventional approaches to
land administration had to be introduced and conventional systematic titling approaches
following the rest of the world were considered to be unaffordable and not relevant to
local requirements. Large scale adaptation and re-thinking had to take place of a technical
nature to be able to implement the general new land law. The degree to which this rethinking was done by technical people working with land reformers was often an index of
the success of the system (Mozambique, Namibia Uganda) and the degree to which the
conventional system was linked to the new forms of title also became an index of the
success of the system (Namibia, Mozambique).
In terms of cost elements of land administration, which are outlined in Table 13. below,
a key issue is that it can take up to a decade before the first titles are produced in terms
of the new land law. This is because of the amount of capacity building that needs to be
undertaken, as well as the multi-stakeholder negotiations that needs to take place in
relation to the law. Also, the cost elements have to include elements usually associated
with the conventional system in an adapted form, as well as elements associated with
the new land law.

3.3 Cost elements for the new framework

Table 13: Cost elements for land administration projects
Multi-agency
Registry
Surveyor General
Land use planning
Land policy development
Regulatory development
Multi-stakeholder consultation
at every level of regulatory
framework development
Workshops, training materials,
trainers etc.
Sensitization campaigns
Land Policy
New land law
Regulations
Administrative procedures
Functions sorted out
Pilots undertaken
Training of officials
Land tenure studies
Development of additional laws
e.g. mortgage law, land use
planning etc.
Capacity building of
conventional systems
Geodetic
Records/registration
Cartographic
Cadastral
Spatial data infrastructure for
country
Land use information
Land use planning
Technical staff training
Accountancy
Equipment
Consultancies
Management
Recurrent costs of current
system
Revitalisation
of
current
conventional system
Revitalisation of current system
to serve poor and investors
Re-structuring for
implementation
Recurrent costs of institutional
structure for decentralized land
administration
Recurrent costs of institutional
structure of decentralized land

dispute resolution
Gender transformation
Preparation
adjudication
procedures
Institutional decentralisation
Management of decentralized
fiscal flows
Setting up dispute resolution
mechanisms on the ground
Setting up dispute resolution
mechanisms re ambiguous titles
Development of SDI as Public
Good for service delivery
Development of Property Data
Base, map and plan series for
transformation
Land tax system administrative
facilitation
Information/media campaign
Large scale training technical,
management, accounting,
gender, new procedures etc.
over a long time period
Introducing participatory
approaches and community
consultation to adjudication and
titling
Establishing cost structures for
innovative forms of titling
Monitoring and evaluation for
poverty reduction, efficiency
and effectiveness

4. Best practices and lessons learned from case studies

4.1 Best Practices
A number of Best Practices are described in the five country case studies in terms of both
PRSP principles i.t.o. land administration, and sustainable pro-poor technical designs.
1. Use multi-stakeholder led process to discuss and implement new laws, it was not
possible for Lands to lead on its own (Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia).
2. A guiding principle is that smallholder agriculturists should be empowered,
through participation, in determining the procedures and processes through which
rights in land are defined, exercised, changed or transferred; and how conflicts
among parties holding an interest in a particular piece of land (owner, tenant,
association, or the state) are objectively adjudicated rather than resolved in a
discriminatory manner favouring those individuals or groups with the most
influence and power (Uganda).

3. The formalisation of customary tenure. Customary owners may undertake the full
range of transactions in land - both commercial (sale, lease, mortgage etc) and
family (gifts). While the formalization of customary tenure exists elsewhere in
Africa, Uganda has introduced the customary certification of these rights. Also, it
is not individual certification, and a number of people and a range of rights can be
registered such as the wife and husband and children, as well as those people with
third party rights, such as people crossing the land, obtaining fire-wood etc.
(Uganda).
4. Occupancy rights give some measure of tenure security, more especially if people
have to be compensated if they are moved. This serves to protect customary rights
holders against the state and against private investors acquiring title to public land
that is already occupied by customary rights holders. (Uganda, Mozambique,
South Africa).
5. Creation of an outside boundary recorded/registered in the Surveyor General, with
the rights on the inside held locally/by local office protects people from land theft
by the State or investors. Information on the land rights of investors, state and the
poor must be kept on the same record (Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, South
Africa).
6. Where there are large parcels of land owned by a landowner which land also has
customary occupants, provision through law of occupancy rights. Encouraging
better use and sorting out cloudy title through the use of a Land Fund, and the use
of land re-adjustment and land swapping, together with the provision of
infrastructure (Uganda).
7. New laws making provision for registration of group rights (Uganda,
Mozambique, South Africa).
8. Protection of spouses through co-ownership laws (Mozambique) and joint estates
through family law (South Africa).
9. Protection of spouses tenure security through requiring consent for the transfer of
land (Uganda, South Africa).
10. Creation of new independent machinery for land administration and dispute
resolution. Land administration and dispute resolution at highly decentralized
levels (Uganda).
11. Pilots used as a first step to implementation, with a strong monitoring and
learning component to feed into subsequent planning (Uganda, Mozambique).
12. The development of starter /provisional type titles with only the key land rights
provided (sale, inheritance, donation) (Namibia, Uganda -partially).
13. The creation of an ownership title deed which contains all the main elements of
ownership (inheritance, donation, sale, mortgage) without the complex elements
used by the middle class and commerce also found in ownership (Namibia).
14. The removal of land surveyors and property lawyers from routine operations
while at the same time using them for management operations (Namibia, Uganda,
Mozambique).
15. Different forms of evidence, and not necessarily titling evidence, can be used to
protect the land rights of the poor, such as occupancy rights and the delimitation
of community land, providing titling itself is done with rigorous adjudication
taking into account these other rights (Mozambique, Uganda).

16. The role of land professionals is to sort out the larger underlying titles/investor
titles within which/relative to which, the lesser titles can be allocated and
managed by less skilled people, thereby protecting third party rights, not
frightening away investors, creating cheaper options for the poor which are still
secure and contain all the instruments they require to manage their land (Namibia,
Mozambique, Uganda).
17. Development of local government level property offices at local government level
for transfers and information to the public (Namibia, Uganda).
18. A deed system which uses local witnesses and a local property office makes it
possible to record different types of customs in the registry system, which is
especially important for inheritance transfers (Namibia).
19. Involvement of local committees in adjudication. To overcome conflict,
adjudication must include participatory approaches, community meetings, report
backs and a transfer of knowledge to the community, and it must be gendered
(Mozambique, Uganda).
20. Giving title and tenure security without full adjudication for a site within a larger
area (surveyed outside figure) and then using a local land administrator to prepare
people for adjudication over time (information, documents etc). Full adjudication
required at first transfer only and/or when upgraded to ownership (Namibia).
21. Avoiding adjudication of customary rights when titling an investor, only
adjudication of the outside boundary of the customary rights, not individual,
family or ethnic claims (Mozambique)
22. Demand driven sporadic titling for investors accompanied by rigorous
adjudication of the rights of those in occupation and paid for by the investor can
protect the tenure security of the rural poor (Mozambique).
23. Guaranteeing the land rights of the poor by using government officials to
guarantee the rights, but within limited conditions, and in terms of a privatepublic partnerships for the management and creation of such guarantee able rights
(Namibia).
24. Use of computers and digital information to facilitate central government
management and supervision and supply capacity short at the local level
(Namibia, Mozambique).
25. The hierarchy of evidence used by the courts must include both titling evidence
and other evidence, with the former not automatically over-riding the latter
(Mozambique, Uganda).
26. A property data base, and plan and map series is a useful tool for land
administration of chiefships. It should start with identifying governance structures
and then move to land tenure and not the other way around (KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa).
27. Property data bases, using procedures from cadastral and titling systems, can be
used as a work in process to manage disputes and clean up cloudy title, rather than
as a finished product, and can include on the same system less accurate
information, overlaps and duplication in information and rights, titles, claims,
registered and unregistered, data of different integrity (KwaZulu-Natal South
Africa).

28. Under certain conditions land administration systems should be created in two
phases. The first phase should focus on the production of a foundation for the
purposes of land management and spatial information management at scale, also
to address the land management issues of the day. The second phase should use
this foundation to increase the tenure security of individuals (KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa, Uganda).
29. While systematic titling is not a Best Practice, Best Practice involves the
systematic collection and display of spatial and land record information for all
decision makers, and the systematic cleaning up of titles and solving of
ambiguities/disputes in preparation for individual titling on demand (KwaZuluNatal South Africa).
30. Systematic demarcation, not titling, undertaken of a whole local government area
on demand by the area, with all parcels being fully adjudicated. The spatial
information created at demarcation of the parcels used as a public good for the
delivery of economic and social benefits. Those people who have been
demarcated who want titles can apply for customary certificates. This process is
cheaper because it is systematic, and it deals with all disputes in an area at one
time, thereby protecting the rights of the poor (Uganda).
31. Boundaries surveyed for cadastral purposes but not used as legal evidence, can be
used as spatial information for a range of purposes such as the delivery of
economic and social services (KwaZulu-Natal South Africa, Uganda).
32. The development of a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) based on both cadastral
and non cadastral parcels such as sketch maps as foundation data (Uganda).
4.2 Lessons learned
A number of lessons have been learned during the transformation of the land
administration system in these five countries namely:1. It can take a decade to implement a new land policy in regard to titling because of
the participatory aspects, as well as the capacity building requirements
(Mozambique, Namibia, Uganda, South Africa).
2. Systematic titling is not sustainable, affordable or appropriate for customary
systems and cannot be extended to the entire countrys rural customary families
(Uganda, Mozambique).
3. To obtain certain boundaries between chiefs can take more than 15 years.
Adjudication of chiefships for titling rather than spatial information/parent
property purposes, can be a major constraint to development (KwaZulu-Natal
-South Africa).
4. Where there is ambiguity and a historical legacy of different
rights/titles/administrative descriptions, obtaining clarity and certainty is complex
and takes time and it is not just about cleaning up underlying titles or individual
titling (KwaZulu-Natal -South Africa).
5. Stakeholder consensus needs to be reached, also among donors, as to the
hierarchy of evidence used in court (Mozambique, Uganda).

6. Using the private sector to do land delivery, prepare documentation for registration
and supply legal liability lowers the costs of land registration to the state
dramatically. It also makes the system unaffordable to the poor if land
professionals undertake routine rather than just management operations (South
Africa).
7. Democratic structures forming part of new land laws, which are meant to make
land administration transparent, solve conflicts over land and bring good
governance at the local level, can be too costly to implement in terms of the
institutional structure required (Uganda, South Africa).
8. Mistakes made during policy development, by not tying policy development
sufficiently closely to technical implementation strategies, and costing this
implementation properly, can derail the entire land reform process (Uganda).
9. Designing new land titling approaches without taking into account the
conventional system. Land registration systems operate at national scale and are
implemented parcel by parcel. Every time a registered right is created the existing
registered rights have to first be checked, whether it is from the conventional
system or in terms of the new law. Therefore a one off survey of a cheap title
cannot be done without first checking if there are registered rights in place and
this can be as expensive as the creation of an expensive title (Uganda, Namibia).
10. For laws to be capable of implementation there must be convergence between the
technical design for implementation and the general law passed. Without
convergence the general law cannot be implemented and/or the intentions of the
law can be skewed by the actual titling process (Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia,
South Africa).
11. Affordability issues are critical in designing new sustainable approaches (Uganda,
Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa). The costing of implementation cannot be
done without a technical process describing the steps from application to first
titling. The costing of implementation has to take into account the institutional
structure required for dispute resolution.
12. Decentralized implementation requires inter-agency co-ordination between lands,
local government and (sometimes) justice, as well as vertical co-ordination with
Lands taking the role in new policy, regulations and administrative procedures
development, but with implementation resting at local government level. This has
fiscal implications requiring new fiscal arrangements. This need for coordination
across government and/or budget at local government levels can delay
implementation (Uganda, Mozambique)
13. Need to avoid large scale confrontation with the land professions who can delay
implementation for years. System design should extend the existing land
registration system and not wipe out existing ownership, it should use the existing
system to give land rights to the poor in new and innovative ways (Mozambique,
Namibia, Uganda).
14. If there are no surveyed boundaries for individual rights, group cohesiveness is an
important component of tenure security for the individual/family (Namibia,
Mozambique, Uganda).
15. Solving land conflict is not just about solving the allocation of land rights, but
even more about the allocation of land use rights (Mozambique, Uganda).

16. Due to the way donors and/or politicians operate, it is possible for only one
agency in a land registration system to be developed and the other left moribund,
or for there to be a focus on delivery without capacity building in the land
registration system, or for their to be a focus on land policy development and no
reform of the technical processes associated with land registration, all of which
delays the delivery of registered rights to the poor (Mozambique, Uganda, South
Africa).
17. Adjudication, transparency and good governance is facilitated when the registry
and its information is accessible to users (Rehoboth-Namibia).
18. Tenure security in a local registry can be undermined. Administrative checks need to
be built into the registry system to ensure the integrity of information and safeguard
against the conflation of functions (Rehoboth-Namibia).
19. Conventional registries do not assist the public with legal advice. Registries for
the poor need to also assist the poor with legal advice about their land rights and
their options (Rehoboth-Namibia).
20. The corporate culture of registry offices needs to be more user friendly to non
legal and poor people (Rehoboth-Namibia).
21. Titles do not have to be surveyed, providing they can be linked to the boundaries of
larger blocks of land for land management and spatial information purposes, and the
underlying title has been cleaned up (Rehoboth-Namibia).
22. Customary practices in relation to marriage, divorce and inheritance should not be
codified for the purposes of a land registration system, because even a superficial
overview of the different customary systems indicates the variations in
approaches in existence, let alone the modifications because of the pressure of
urbanisation, the legal framework of the country in relation to gender etc.
(Namibia, Mozambique, Uganda).
23. Registry systems have to be drastically adapted to be able to register customary
type tenures, not just by decentralization and transparent procedures and a userfriendly culture. Procedures have to be created which can move uncertain
customary information about inheritance etc. to certain information on the registry
record (Namibia).
5. Indicators
Based on the above, and indicators being used in Uganda and Mozambique, a number of
indicators for tenure security in Africa are suggested. While a range of indicators for
formal land administration systems already exist (FIG: 1995), indicators for land
administration in Africa need to be re-thought, both to deal with the pre-titling phase of
the first decade while capacity is being built to implement new land laws; as well as for
the extension of the land administration system to customary areas in new ways outside
of formal titling. Four types of indicators are suggested depending on the phase of the
country 1/Before the development of new land policy/law 2/In the decade during
development of new policy/law and procedures 3/After full roll out of new titling system
4/For customary tenure outside of the titling system.
The indicators suggested in the first phase are not about the measurement of statistics but
rather the qualitative assessment of processes related to the development of a new

regulatory framework. Only after the first phase is it possible to move to statistical
indicators. Also, land administration is not just about titling in Africa but also covers
customary tenure, which is the majority of tenure in most countries. A range of indicators
are required specifically for this customary tenure, few of which are statistical.
5.1. Titling indicators prior to the development of a new land policy/land law
1. Land registration system and technical process has not been altered to protect
occupants rights. If no new policy/law has been developed and/or there is no
form of occupancy rights and the land registration system has not been altered,
this indicates that the majority of the population are vulnerable to investors
obtaining their land through land grants/titling; and that their tenure security is
unprotected by the state.
5.2 Pre-Titling indicators for the first decade when introducing new approaches
1. The process and principles conform to the principles outlined in the countrys
PRSP (also critical for funding).
2. Multi-stakeholder debate and participation (awareness campaigns, number of
workshops, number of meetings, every level, for each step etc).
3. A national land policy and a national land use policy.
4. A new land law with the required elements (pro-poor, customary tenure security,
occupancy rights, anti-eviction rights, adverse possession, gendered,
decentralization, good governance, transparency, land dispute resolution,
sustainable, affordable, simple titles).
5. Regulations for the new land law with the required elements.
6. Local forms of legal evidence in new law and not just colonial forms of legal
evidence of land rights.
7. Sustainable and affordable design in new law (institutional structure, use of
technicians for implementation of professionals only for management, lower
accuracy requirements etc).
8. Administrative procedures for the new land law down to technical process level
all with the required pro-poor elements.
9. Adjudication procedures developed which are rigorous with customary rights,
occupants, womens rights, the poor being taken into account and include the
transfers of knowledge to occupants.
10. Enough technical and adjudication people trained to address the demand (statistics
of trainers, training courses developed, trained people in technical, mediation,
management, accountancy, staff development etc).
11. Pilots completed with the required pro-poor elements.
12. Re-structuring of government with new land administration functions set up at all
levels of government.
13. Dispute resolutions forums (different options customary, local government,
central government line function etc.) discussed, designed and set up.
14. Land conflict resolution procedures developed and accepted.

15. Sufficient funding at local level to implement land administration (different

options such as conditional grants, local government revenue, land tax etc.).
16. Development of a property data base for routine statistical data base collection
such as numbers of titles etc, number of disputes, number of solved disputes,
number of women with titles, or co-ownership (see below).
17. Court cases completed indicating robustness of new land law.
18. Multi-stakeholder acceptance of hierarchy of evidence relating to land rights
(different government departments, users and state, donors) this indicates
agreement and not divergence between major stakeholders.
19. Land titles of all types guaranteed, with either the private or public sector
accepting liability.
20. Full linkage of land use right allocation with land right allocation.
21. Land administration processes such as application, recording, adjudication,
transfer, land use regulations and distribution of benefits are becoming clearer,
better known and more used.
22. Authority in land administration processes is becoming clearer, better known and
more used.
23. There are more and increasingly accessible places to go to for recourse in terms of
land administration processes, and these are becoming better known and more
used.
24. Land administration processes are becoming less unfairly discriminatory against
any person or group.
25. Bridges are being built that span the gaps between actual practice and legal
requirements.
26. Benefits and services are becoming as available to people living under all forms
of tenure as they are to people living under freehold tenure systems.
Some of these indicators can be measured prior to the first title being delivered, while
some of them may be measured as the new system is being put into place at an early
stage, prior to full roll out, and some may only be put in place after roll out has started.
5.3 Indicators after title/deed roll out
1. Fee structure of agencies published, with affordable approaches for the poor.
2. Average cost of different types of titles to the state.
3. Number of title applications of different types of titles.
4. Number of titles of different types registered.
5. Number of new registrations in previous 12 months.
6. Number of transactions/transfers per year (parcels sold).
7. Number of households with land disputes in previous 12 months.
8. Number of land disputes solved in previous 12 months.
9. Average cost of solving disputes.
10. Number of titles owned by women.
11. Number of titles co-owned.
12. Number/hectarage of poor titled/demarcated.
13. Percentage of country covered by titles.

14. Percentage of land holdings titled, or demarcated, or described in the Spatial Data
Infrastructure.
15. Length of time for an average technical process from application to final titling.
16. Number of local government level offices opened, fully staffed and functioning
for transfers, information on land rights and complaints.
17. Number of information requests by the public, other government departments,
private sector at local government offices by category.
18. Revenue from spatial information sold.
19. Land sector revenue.
20. Types of land information used/required at local government level for the delivery
of economic and social services.
21. Number of complaints or disputes about land sector staff per office.
22. Number of private sector surveyors, valuers, at all levels of qualification
registered.
23. Routine mechanisms for distributing information to the public and users (maps
available, brochures describing land rights, knowledge transfer when
titling/demarcating, media campaigns, client access through local offices etc).
24. Development of a state asset register (to separate the states rights from
community land rights and to manage state facilities).
27. Land administration processes such as application, recording, adjudication,
transfer, land use regulations and distribution of benefits are clear, known and
used.
28. Authority in land administration processes is clear, known and used.
29. Accessible places across the country at local level to go to for recourse in terms of
land administration processes, and these are well known and used.
30. Land administration processes are not unfairly discriminatory against any person
or group.
31. Bridges exist to span the gaps between actual practice and legal requirements.
32. Benefits and services are available to people living under all tenure systems and
not just people living under freehold tenure.
5.4 Indicators concerning the extension of the land administration systems to
customary areas in new ways outside of formal titling.
1. Law protecting occupancy rights.
2. Law providing measures for the prevention of eviction and the payment of
compensation.
3. Law for the registration of family/group rights and not just individual rights.
4. Law making it possible for a spouse to prevent the transfer of land rights.
5. Law for the co-ownership of spouses.
6. Implementation of laws 2,3,4,5.6. above.
7. A Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) which has cadastral and non cadastral parcels
as foundation data, as a public good, to be used by decision makers for the
delivery of economic and social services, and not for individual titling in the first
place.
8. A Spatial Data Infrastructure as a record of land rights used as first evidence in a
court case of customary occupancy rights.

9. Local government level land administration offices where people can obtain
information about their land rights, complain about infringements.
10. Peoples rights are becoming clearer, people know better what their rights are and
they are more able to defend their rights.
11. There are more and increasingly accessible places to go to for recourse in terms of
land administration, and these are becoming better known and more used.
12. Land administration is becoming less unfairly discriminatory against any person
or group.
13. Bridges are being built that span the gaps between actual practice and legal
requirements. De facto customary tenure behaviour is also to a large extent de
jure (different mechanisms can be used such as occupancy rights, titling, family
law etc.).
14. Benefits and services are becoming as available to people living under customary
tenure as they are to people living under titled tenures such as freehold.

Bibliography
Alberts, R., Fourie, C., Latsky, J. and D. Palmer (1995) Discussion paper on options for parallel
interchangeable property registration systems, Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and
Rehabilitation, Namibian Government (unpublished).
Alberts, R., Fourie, C., Hojgaard, P.D., Shitundeni, J., Corbett, A. and J. Latsky (1996)
Discussion paper on land management and local level registries, Ministry of Lands,
Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Namibian Government (unpublished).
Asiama, S.O. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems case study Ghana.
Augustinus, C. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems case study Namibia.
Augustinus, C. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems case study
Mozambique.
Augustinus, C. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems case study Uganda.
Augustinus, C. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems case study South
Africa.
Bosworth, J. (2002) Integrating land issues into the broader development agenda: Uganda country
case study, presented at Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Africa, 29 April-2 May,
2002.
Cambaco, S.V. (2002) Impact of new legislation in Mozambique, Paper presented at Symposium
on Land Redistribution in Southern Africa, Federation of International Surveyors,
Pretoria, November, 2002.
Christensen, S.F., Werner, W. and P.D. Hojgaard (1999) Innovative Land Surveying and Land
Registration in Namibia, Working Paper No. 93, Developing Planning Unit, University
College of London.
Cousins T. and D. Hornby (2002) Notes from Legal Entity Assessment Project, Association for
Rural Advancement, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Dambiane, S.J. Rovicene (1997) An investigation of land adjudication procedures to increase
tenure security by incorporating local customary land rights, Msc. Thesis, Department of
Land Surveying, University of Natal (Durban).
Deininger, K. and R. Castagnini (2002) Incidence and impact of land conflict in Uganda, The
World Bank.
Ezigbalike, I.C. (1996) Integrated cadastre for rural Africa, South African Journal of Surveying
and Mapping 23(6).
Federation of International Surveyors (1995) The FIG statement on the cadastre, FIG Publication
No. 11.
Fourie, C. (2000) Land and the cadastre in South Africa: Its history and present government
policy. Guest lecture presented at the International Institute of Aerospace Survey and
Earth Sciences (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands, 1st November,2000.
Fourie, C. and J. Sharpley (2000) Working Draft Land Sector Strategic Action Plan, Ministry of
Water, Lands and Environment, Government of Uganda..
Fourie,C. (2003) Altering Regulatory Frameworks in Namibia: Merging Informal and Formal
Land Tenures, Paper presented at Lincoln Institute of Land, Harvard University, Policy
workshop on Comparative Perspectives on Urban Land Market Reform in Latin America,
Southern Africa and Eastern Europe, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 7-9th July,1998.
Hillermann, R. (2001) Development of a state asset register, including state domestic facilities,
Department of Traditional and Local Government Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Hillermann, R. (2002) Opportunities in land reform: experience with customary tenure in South
Africa, Paper presented at Symposium on Land Redistribution in Southern
Africa, Federation of International Surveyors, Pretoria, November, 2002.

Kasanga, K. (2002) Integrating land issues into the broader development agenda: The case of
Ghana, Paper presented at World Bank Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Africa,
Kampala, Uganda, 29 April -2 May 2002.
Land Act Implementation Study (1999) U. Blackshaw and L.Eturu (summary report), J.
Leatherdale and D. Palmer (Technical Appraisal), A.Rae and P. Nyaika (Financial
Appraisal), R.Purcell and A.Babumba Kyeyune (Land Fund Appraisal), E.Marsh and
C.Kego Laker (Social Appraisal), P. Oates and J. Ecaat (Environmental Appraisal),
P.McAuslan and R.Mwebaza (Legal Appraisal), U.Blackshaw, L.Okech Abe, P.Ngorok
(Institutional Appraisal) and D.Hunt and L.Eturu (Economic Appraisal), for Ministry of
Water, Lands and Environment, Government of Uganda.
Land Equity company (2002) Email notes from T.Burns and C.Grant on Ghanas land
administration system.
Nichols, S., Fourie, C. and M. Mejias (1997) Sida Support to DINAGECA in Mozambique 19911996, An evaluation of Sida support to national surveying and mapping, Department for
Natural Resources and the Environment, 97/15.
Quadros, C. (2002), Country case study Mozambique, Paper presented at the World Bank
regional workshop for Africa and the Middle East, Kampala, Uganda, Apr. 29-2 May,
2002.
Okpala, D.C.I. (1992) Land survey and parcel identification Data for effective land management,
Land use policy, 92-98.
Republic of Mozambique (1998) PROAGRI Sectorial Programme Investment, Land Component,
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Republic of Mozambique (1998) National Directorate of Geography and Cadastre, October, 1998
report.
Republic of Mozambique (2000), Ministerial Diploma No. 29-A/2000, of 17 March 2000,
Technical Annex to the Land Law Regulations.
South African Government (1937) Deeds Registries Act No.47 of 1937, Statutes, Deeds office.
South African Government (1976) Rehoboth Self-Government Act, No. 56 of 1976, Statutes,
Coloured Persons.
South African Government (1976) Registration of deeds in Rehoboth act No. 93 of 1976,
Government Gazette, No.5183.
South African Government (1996) White Paper on Land Reform, Department of Land Affairs.
South African Government (2001) Deeds Registries Act, 1937 (act No. 47 of 1937) Amendment
to regulations, Government notice no. R208, Department of Land Affairs.
Sunday Tribune (2002) Budget before buying by James Brennen, Property Guide, 17/12/2002.
South West African Administration (1976) Regulations in connection with the registration of deeds in
Rehoboth in terms of the registration of deeds in Rehoboth Act, 1976 (Act 93 of 1976),
Government Gazette No. 5347, Windhoek.
South West African Administration (1985) Deeds Registration Amendment Act, No.26 of 1985,
Official Gazette Extraordinary, No.5146.
Tanner, C. (2002) Comments Paper presented at the World Bank regional workshop for Africa
and the Middle East, in session The Legal Basis for Land Administration in the African
context, Kampala, Uganda, Apr. 29-2 May, 2002.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1990) Guidelines for the Improvement of
Land Registration and Land Information Systems in Developing Countries, Nairobi.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1991) Report of the Workshop on Land
Registration and Land Information Systems, Nairobi, Kenya (15-18 October 1990).
United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1993) Ameliorer les Systemes
DImmatriculation Fonciere et de Reconnaissance des Droits sur le Sol Dans les Villes
DAfrique Sub-Saharienne Francophone, Serie Gestion Fonciere No.3.

United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1995) Gestion Fonciere Urbaine,
Politiques de Regularisation et Developpement Local en Afrique et Dans les Etats
Arabes, Serie Gestion, Fonciere No 5, Conclusions de Letude et du Seminaire (Abidjan,
21-24 Mars 1995).
United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1996) New Delhi, Habitat II Global
Conference on Access to Land and Security of Tenure as a Condition for Sustainable
Shelter and Urban Development, New Delhi, India (17-19 January, 1996).
United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) 1997 Global Urban Observatory
Monitoring Human Settlements with Urban Indicators (Draft) Guide.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) 1998 Informal Settlements, Security of
Tenure, Urban Land Management and Local Governance, Experiences in Implementing
the Habitat Agenda, Land Management Series No. 7 (Draft version: Nairobi, June 1998).
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa 1996 Sub-Regional Workshop on Land Tenure
Issues in Natural Resource Management in the Anglophone East Africa with a focus on
the IGAD region, Addis Ababa, 11 to 15 March 1996.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa 1998 An integrated geo-information (GIS) with
emphasis on cadastre and land information systems (LIS) for decision-makers in Africa,
Working document for meeting of Group of Experts at United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, 23-26November,1998.
Van der Berg, A. (2002), History of Settling Southern Africa, Paper presented on behalf of Dr. N.
Mkgalamele, at Symposium on Land Redistribution in Southern Africa, Federation of
International Surveyors, Pretoria, November, 2002.
Van der Berg, M. (2002), Survey methods and data management for the demarcation and
management of informal rights in South Africa, at Symposium on Land Redistribution in
Southern Africa, Federation of International Surveyors, Pretoria, November, 2002.