Land Market, Consolidation and Readjustment Component

FINAL REPORT
The Government of the Republic of Uganda
LAND SECTOR ANALYSIS

LAND MARKET, LAND CONSOLIDATION,
AND LAND RE-ADJUSTMENT COMPONENT
GRANT NO. PHRD/02/04
Rose Mwebaza
Richard Gaynor
Rural Development Institute
FEBRUARY 2002
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND TO LAND MARKETS STUDY ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 SITE SELECTION ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY .................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PAPER ......................................................................................................... 4
2 LAND MARKETS .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 BACKGROUND – THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................... 4
2.2 MARKET DYNAMICS IN UGANDA ...................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Profile of Market Participants................................................................................................ 7
2.2.2 How Buyers and Seller Find Each Other ............................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Determination of Price in Land Transactions ........................................................................ 9
2.2.4 Due Diligence for Land Transactions .................................................................................... 9
2.2.5 Documentation of Land Transactions................................................................................... 10
2.2.6 Financing of Land Purchases............................................................................................... 12
2.2.7 The Consent Clause .............................................................................................................. 14
2.2.8 Levels of Market Activity ...................................................................................................... 15
2.3 ISSUES AND RECOMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 16
2.3.1 Imperfections in the Land Market......................................................................................... 17
2.3.1.1 Multiple Layers of Rights to Single Land Plot. ............................................................................... 17
2.3.1.2 Transactions on titled land are too complicated .............................................................................. 18
2.3.2 Distress Sales and Landlessness........................................................................................... 19
2.3.3 Procedure for Acquiring Certificate of Occupancy and Certificate
of Customary Land Too Complex ......................................................................................... 20
2.4 SYSTEMATIC DEMARCATION .......................................................................................................... 21
3 LAND FRAGMENTATION, CONSOLIDATION AND READJUSTMENT ............................ 22
3.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 22
3.2 FRAGMENTATION, CONSOLIDATION AND READJUSTMENT .............................................................. 23
3.2.1 Causes of Fragmentation...................................................................................................... 23
3.2.2 Disadvantages of Fragmentation.......................................................................................... 25
3.2.3 Advantages of Fragmentation............................................................................................... 26
3.3 LAND CONSOLIDATION AND READJUSTMENT PROGRAMS .............................................................. 27
3.3.1 THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE ............................................................................... 27
3.3.2 Observations Regarding Successful Consolidation Programs ............................................. 28
3.4 FINDINGS REGARDING LAND FRAGMENTATION, CONSOLIDATION AND
READJUSTMENT IN UGANDA ........................................................................................................... 29
3.4.1 Background - Findings from Prior Studies........................................................................... 29
3.4.2 Plot Size from Household Survey.......................................................................................... 30
3.4.3 Number of Plots per Household from Household Survey ..................................................... 30
3.4.4 Opinions Regarding Causes of Fragmentation in Uganda................................................... 31
3.4.5 Opinions Regarding the Advantages and Disadvantages of Fragmented Holdings............. 31
3.4.6 Opinions Regarding Consolidation ...................................................................................... 32
3.4.7 Opinions Regarding Obstacles to Consolidation.................................................................. 32
3.4.8 Opinions Regarding Government-Mandated Consolidation ................................................ 33
3.4.9 Readjustment Under the LSSP.............................................................................................. 33
3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CONSOLIDATION OR READJUSTMENT ......... 34
3.5.1 Pilot Readjustment Program ................................................................................................ 34
3.5.2 Key Components for Implementation of a Readjustment Pilot ............................................. 36
3.5.2.1 Component One – Careful Site Selection........................................................................................ 36
ii
3.5.2.2 Component Two – Comprehensive program of public education and sensitization........................ 37

3.5.2.3 Component Three - Support to participating institutions and professionals .................................... 37
3.5.2.4 Component Four - Streamlined procedures..................................................................................... 37
3.5.2.5 Component Five – Subsidized or free services................................................................................ 38
3.5.3 Legislative changes............................................................................................................... 38
3.5.3.1 Land Act, and Town and Country Planning Act. ............................................................................ 38
3.5.3.2 National Land Use Policy – Zoning and Land Use Restrictions ..................................................... 39
3.5.3.3 Succession Laws and Customary Practices ..................................................................................... 39
3.5.3.4 Market Mechanisms to Facilitate Consolidation ............................................................................. 39
4 MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE RISKS IN AGRICULTURE – LINK TO PMA MISSION ..... 39
5 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 41
6 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 44
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Land Markets Study was commissioned by the Secretariat of the Plan for the
Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA) as one of three studies constituting the “Land Sector
Analysis.” The other two studies were the gender/family issues and land rights study;
and the common property regimes study. The findings from all three studies will feed
into implementation of the PMA, as well finalisation and implementation of the Land
Sector Strategic Plan (LSSP), which will establish the strategic framework for reforms in
the land sector over the next ten years. The LSSP is being developed under the auspices
of the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment (MWLE), with co-operation from other
relevant government and non-governmental agencies.
This Study consisted of two main tasks: (1) an examination of land markets and land
market dynamics across the four tenure types in Uganda; and (2) an examination of land
fragmentation and its causes, and identification of possible land consolidation and
readjustment mechanisms.
Task one included an examination of how land transactions are carried out, who the
participants are, how prices are determined, how transactions are financed and
documented, and the perceived, actual, and anticipated impacts of the Land Act’s consent
clause on land markets and access to credit.
Task two consisted of an examination of the issues related to land fragmentation,

subdivision, consolidation, and readjustment. The Study investigated the extent to which
land fragmentation exists in Uganda and is increasing, and the impact fragmentation may
have on agricultural production. It also analysed the causes of fragmentation, and its
costs (i.e., increased travel time, less opportunity for large-scale investment, etc.) and
benefits (i.e., risk spreading, equitable land distribution, etc.). Land consolidation and
readjustment mechanisms from other countries were reviewed and analysed for their
applicability to Uganda.
Three techniques were used to gather the information for the Study: (1) a desk review of
relevant literature and legislation; (2) rapid rural appraisal activities; and (3) a small
household survey (consisting of approximately 50 households in each of three different
locations for a total of approximately 150 households).
The study was conducted in three districts: Lira, Mbale and Wakiso. These districts were
chosen based on recommendations from representatives of the PMA Secretariat and the
MWLE because they represent a variety of factors affecting land markets, including
different tenure types, rural and peri-urban circumstances, and different regions of the
country with different historical and cultural traditions.
iv
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. LAND MARKETS
i. Profile of Market Participants and Their Motives
The profiles of market participants and their motives for engaging in transactions vary
depending on whether land is located in rural or peri-urban areas. In rural areas, market
participants tend to be from within the community. In the peri-urban areas in the districts
of Wakiso, Mbale and Lira, market participants were more diverse, consisting of both
community and non-community members.
Most of the people who sold land in rural areas did so in order to raise money for
particular family needs, including school fees, hospital bills, and marriage-related
expenses such as purchasing cows. Sellers of land in peri-urban areas were similarly
motivated by the need to raise money but tended to use the money for additional purposes
like funding a small business or constructing a residence.
Like sellers, buyers seemed to be motivated by different factors depending on whether

they were purchasing rural or peri-urban land. Most buyers in rural areas reported that
they bought land to meet the growing needs of their families especially where there were
polygamous unions. Buyers in peri-urban areas tended to purchase land for residential or
commercial use.
ii. How Buyers and Sellers Find Each Other
For transactions involving untitled land, market participants most frequently found each
other through informal mechanisms such as word of mouth. On titled land, buyers and
sellers often use more formal mechanisms, including the use of brokers and
advertisements in newspapers and on radio. The Study found that mechanism for buyers
and sellers to find each other exist and are functioning well. Sellers and buyers are able
to find each other with minimum difficulty and are able to conduct their transactions in a
largely informal market that meets their demands.
iii. Most Important Factors Determining Price
Most respondents chose soil quality as the most important factor in determining the price
of a land plot. The type of tenure of the land was one of the least important factors in
determining price according to both buyers and sellers.
iv. Due Diligence Mechanisms
For titled land, the principal source of due diligence information is the Land Registry in
the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, whereas due diligence on untitled land is
carried out informally, often involving interviews with neighbours and local council
v
officials. Although these mechanisms are informal, buyers of land tended to feel secure
regarding their due diligence investigations.
v. Documentation of Land Transactions; Cost and Procedures for Transactions
Most land transactions involve untitled land. For these transactions the buyer and seller
typically enter into an agreement that is witnessed by local council officials, or clan
elders. Neither the agreement nor the transaction itself is recorded or registered in any
way.
Most participants in untitled land transactions were satisfied with the way in which the
market is functioning, and did not perceive the costs as being prohibitively high or the
procedures as being too complex. With regard to transactions on titled land, there was a
general perception that the costs were too high and the procedures too complicated. For
transactions involving leaseholds on the Kabaka’s land, procedures were even more
expensive and time consuming. There was also a perception that transactions were
further complicated by corruption at the Land Registry.
vi. Financing of Land Transactions
The majority of the respondents stated that their land purchases were self-financed.
Some respondents also reported financial support from their families, especially their
spouses. Bank loans to finance land acquisitions are extremely rare. There were no
bank-financed acquisitions in our study.
Although banks rarely make loans for land acquisitions, they do take land as collateral for
working capital and other loans. Most banks will only take titled land as security, though
at least one bank commonly takes undocumented bibanja and customary rights as
collateral. Banks are satisfied with legislation regarding mortgages, so inadequacy of the
legislation is not the cause of the lack of bank financing.
Although most bankers were satisfied with mortgage legislation, they almost
unanimously complained about the confusing and conflicting rights of mailo owners and
occupants under the Land Act. Bankers also unanimously complained about the consent
requirements imposed by Section 40 of the Land Act. They reported that it was
impossible for them to verify that all the required consents had been obtained prior to
granting a loan.
vii. The Consent Clause
Most respondents in the household survey talked to their spouses before engaging in a
land transaction, but the conversation was primarily by way of information. The formal
written consent required under Section 40 of the Land Act is rarely obtained. Most
respondents were not sure if the consent requirement covered all the land plots of a
household, just the plot on which the family actually lived, or plots that were used for
family sustenance.
vi
viii. Levels of Market Activity
Land markets are quite active across all tenure types. 83% of all the household survey
respondents had either bought or sold land during their lives. Purchase was the most
common method of acquiring a land plot, followed by inheritance, then gift. Markets in
untitled land (kibanja and customary rights) were quite active, with 72% of kibanja
holders having purchased their plots, and 44% of the holders of customary rights having
purchased their plots.
B. LAND MARKETS: ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
i. Multiple Layers of Rights to Single Land Plot
Land market activity is complicated by the Land Act’s recognition and formalisation of
multiple layers of rights over a single land plot, especially on mailo land. The Land Act
attempts to reconcile the overlapping rights of owners and lawful occupants by putting
adopting various consent requirements and rights of first refusal. As a practical matter,
mailo tenants are buying, selling, and otherwise transferring their rights without obtaining
the consent of the mailo owner, as the Land Act requires. They also seem to be ignoring
the owner’s right of first refusal.
The Land Act’s protection of the rights of lawful occupants, women, children and other
disadvantaged groups was a deliberate policy decision taken after extensive study and
public debate. Therefore, it is not recommended that these protections be eliminated
even though the complicate land markets. Rather, government policy makers must be
aware of the burdens these protections put on the market, and attempt to identify ways to
lessen the burdens without negating the protections. As an example, in conducting
systematic demarcation, the focus should be on clearly identifying the holders of all
rights, ideally including the holders of consent rights, and documenting those rights so
that potential buyers of land, bankers and other investors can more easily obtain all
necessary consents. Similarly, procedures for obtaining certificates of occupancy and
certificates of customary ownership should be streamlined so that the overlapping rights
of different holders can be more efficiently documented. Measure like these will ease the
burdens imposed by the Land Act without negating their intent to protect certain market
participants.
ii. Transactions on titled land are too complicated
Reforms that will simplify transactions on title land should be considered. Some possible
measures include:
Government institutions facilitating the exchange of documents and information in

order to reduce the time and costs that market participants have to incur as they move
from one office to the next.
vii
Government continuing to pursue realistic decentralisation as envisaged in the LSSP

with the ultimate aim of bringing land-related services as close to the people as
financially feasible.
MWLE take steps to address the public’s perception of corruption at the Land
Registry.
iii. Distress Sales and Landlessness
It is very difficult to legislate against distress sales, so the best way for government to
address this growing phenomenon is to enact programs that help alleviate the causes of
the distress. Examples of such programs are assisting the poor in paying for education
and health care so that they do not need to sell land to raise money for these purposes.
Programs that create off-farm employment opportunities will also help eliminate the
causes of distress sales and should decrease the frequency of such sales.
iv. Procedure for Acquiring Certificate of Occupancy and Certificate of

Customary Land Too Complex
To date, no certificates of customary ownership or certificates of occupancy have been

issued, largely because the necessary institutional structure has not been established.
Even if the institutions existed, the procedures for obtaining certificates of occupancy and
certificates of customary ownership are too lengthy and probably too costly for the
average occupant. Waiting periods should be shortened and other measure should be
taken to streamline the procedure where possible.
v. Systematic Demarcation
This Study and other prior studies establish that titling of land is not prerequisite to
establishment of land markets. Markets in undocumented land rights already exist and
may be more active than markets in documented land rights. Therefore, for systematic
demarcation to be justified it must be aimed at more than simply tilting land as a means
of stimulating land markets. It should also attempt to alleviate the market imperfections
identified above. Systematic demarcation should focus on reconciling the conflicting
rights of owners and occupants on mailo land, and on identifying the holders of consent
rights so as to facilitate market activity.
Untitled landholders tend to be more satisfied with land market mechanisms than titled
landholders. Transactions in untitled land are common and are concluded efficiently and
inexpensively with minimal governmental interference. By contrast, transactions in titled
land are relatively complicated and expensive. Therefore, imposing formal registration
procedures on transactions could have the unintended effect of stifling rather than
stimulating land markets. Streamlining of procedures and reduction of costs for
transactions on titled land will become even more important as more land is titled.
viii
C. LAND FRAGMENTATION, CONSOLIDATION AND READJUSTMENT
The Study results do not lead to a clear conclusion regarding whether fragmentation is
having a negative effect on agricultural production. Fragmentation is more pronounced
in some parts of the country than others. Among the three sites covered in the household
survey, Mbale had the highest incidence of fragmentation, with the median household
holding 5 plots, as compared to 4 in Lira, and 2 in Wakiso.
According to our survey, the median distance between the home and the household’s
other land plots was 1 kilometre both in Wakiso and Lira, whereas median distance was
.25 kilometres in Mbale.
Excessive subdivision of plots does seem to be developing into a problem. The median
plot sizes for parcels included in our household survey were 1 acre in both Mbale and
Wakiso and 6 acres in Lira. Previous studies of the central region have concluded that
subdivision either already was a problem or was becoming a problem.
The prevailing opinion is that the principal causes of subdivision and fragmentation are
(1) market transactions in which households carve off a portion of a land plot and sell it
to raise needed money; and (2) traditional inheritance practices that reflect the desire to
bequeath land plots to multiple family members, causing families to purchase multiple
plots, or to divide their large plots into smaller plots for eventual distribution to multiple
heirs. The survey results tended to support these opinions and findings of prior studies.
Farmers themselves feel that there are both advantages and disadvantages to
fragmentation. Advantages include having different plots for different uses, and having
multiple plots to bequeath to heirs. Disadvantages include inefficiencies caused by
having to travel between plots and having to manage non-contiguous plots.
The majority of respondents in the household survey (67%) thought that consolidation of
their fragmented holdings would make their plots more productive. Nonetheless, survey
respondents did not always want to consolidate their holdings. They often cited
complicated ownership structures and lack of finances as the main obstacles to
consolidation.
There was not strong support for a mandatory government consolidation program among
our survey respondents (72% opposed a mandatory program). Strong ancestral ties to the
land were cited as the principal reason for opposition to a government consolidation
program. In addition, many respondents did not trust the government to implement a
consolidation program equitably, or feared they would end up with less land, or land of
inferior quality.
ix
D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING

CONSOLIDATION OR READJUSTMENT
i. Approach consolidation/readjustment with caution
If consolidation or readjustment is attempted, it should be designed and implemented

cautiously. Many of the components essential to a successful consolidation or
readjustment program are currently lacking in Uganda, which would make
implementation very challenging. Challenges include:
Opposition to mandatory program

Strong ancestral ties to specific land plots
No empirical data suggesting that consolidation would increase agricultural
productivity
Lack of institutional capacity to conduct consolidation or readjustment program
Lack of financial and human resources for successful program
Risk of facilitating distress sales and causing inadvertent demographic shifts and off-
farm unemployment problems.
ii. Components of a Successful Consolidation/Readjustment Program
If consolidation or readjustment is attempted, it should include the following

components:
Careful Site Selection

Comprehensive program of public education and sensitisation
Support to participating institutions and professionals
Streamlined procedures
Subsidised or free services.
iii. Legislative changes
There do not appear to be any significant legal barriers to market-based attempts at

consolidation or readjustment. As farmers perceive that consolidation is desirable they
will undertake it on their own initiative. Nonetheless, the market imperfections identified
in Section One of this Study should be addressed to further facilitate market-based
consolidation when it is desired.
The Land Act, Succession Act and Town and Country Planning Act should all be
reviewed and where appropriate revised to attempt to decrease the occurrence of
excessive subdivision. This policy should be reinforced in the new national land use
policy being developed in Phase I of the LSSP. As part of the national Land Use Policy,
Local governments should be encouraged to adopt reasonable regulations and restrictions
on subdivisions.
x
iv. Adopt Measures to Reduce Overall Risks in Agriculture – Link to PMA

Mission
The prevailing attitude among farmers and other potential agricultural investors is that
investment in agriculture is too risky. Although some of the risks are related to land
markets, most of them have to do with non-land-related constraints such as lack of
functioning food markets, lack of adequate storage facilities, inadequate transportation
and communication networks and unavailability of credit. Until the risks to agricultural
investment are lessened, farmers are unlikely to engage in voluntary land consolidation.
Addressing these risks through the PMA will itself stimulate consolidation.
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO LAND MARKETS STUDY
The Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment (MWLE) is developing a Land Sector
Strategic Plan (LSSP) that will establish the strategic framework for implementation of
sector-wide reforms in the land sector over the next ten years. The overall policy context
for the LSSP is the Government of Uganda’s domestic and international policy
commitments, which emphasise poverty eradication, human, economic and social rights,
democratisation and sustainable development.
The specific mission of the LSSP is to “create an enabling environment for the
participation of all stakeholders in effective use and management of Uganda’s land
resources.” The mission will be achieved by pursuing six strategic objectives:
to create an inclusive and pro-poor legal and policy framework for the land sector;
to put land resources to sustainable productive use;
to improve the livelihood of poor people through a more equitable distribution of land
access and ownership and greater tenure security for vulnerable groups;
to increase availability, accessibility and use of land information in planning and
implementing developing programmes;
to establish and maintain transparent, accountable and easily accessible institutions
and systems for decentralised delivery of land services;
to mobilise and utilise public and private resources efficiently and effectively for the
development of the land sector.
The Government of Uganda commissioned this Study (the “Land Markets Study”) as one
of three land sector studies (collectively referred to as the “Land Sector Analysis”) to
assist in preparations for implementation of the LSSP. The two other studies are:
the gender/family issues and land rights study; and

the common property regimes study.
The findings from the Land Sector Analysis will feed into the LSSP and the Plan for
Modernisation (PMA), which establishes the strategic framework for poverty eradication
through modernisation of agriculture.
The purpose of the Land Markets Study, as stated in the Terms of Reference, was “to
address directly the implication of certification, titling and demarcation on the land
market, with particular attention to the opportunities offered by vibrant land markets for
land consolidation mechanisms, and land readjustment.” The Terms of Reference for the
Study as they originally appeared as part of the Request for Proposals are attached as
appendix 1.
The Terms of Reference were discussed and refined during contract negotiations and
project inception meetings to provide additional guidance to the consultants. The
2
refinements were described in the Final Inception Report dated November 18, a copy of
which is attached in the annexes. For clarification purposes, the Study was divided into
two main tasks: (1) an examination of land markets and land market dynamics across the
four tenure types in Uganda; and (2) an examination of land fragmentation and its causes,
and identification of possible land consolidation and readjustment mechanisms, including
refinements to land markets that might facilitate land consolidation.
Task one included an examination of how land transactions are carried out, who the
participants are, how prices are determined, how transactions are financed and
documented, and the perceived, actual, and anticipated impacts of the Land Act’s consent
clause on land markets and access to credit.
Task two consisted of an examination of the issues related to land fragmentation,

subdivision, consolidation, and readjustment. The Study investigated the extent to which
land fragmentation exists in Uganda and is increasing, and the impacts fragmentation
may have on agricultural production. It also analysed the causes of fragmentation, and its
costs (i.e., increased travel time, less opportunity for large-scale investment, etc.) and
benefits (i.e., risk spreading, equitable land distribution, etc.). Land consolidation and
readjustment mechanisms from other countries were reviewed and analysed for their
applicability to Uganda.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Three investigative techniques were used to gather the information for the Study: (1) a
desk review of relevant literature and legislation; (2) rapid rural appraisal activities; and
(3) a small household survey.
The desk review concentrated on international studies of land markets and land
fragmentation/consolidation, studies of land markets and fragmentation in Uganda, and a
review of Uganda’s land-related legislation.
The rapid rural appraisal consisted of key informant interviews and focus group
discussions. Interviews were conducted at the central and local levels. At the central
level representatives of the following institutions were interviewed:
Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment (including the Land Sector Strategic Plan
Task Force)
PMA Secretariat
UPPAP Secretariat
Ministry of Finance
Bankers Institute
Uganda Investment Authority
Mengo Land Board
3
At the local government level, interviews were conducted with:
District Land Boards

Local land offices
Chief Administrative Officers
Sub-county chiefs
Parish chiefs
Chairmen LCV
A list of people met and interviewed for this Study is attached as appendix 3. Every
attempt was made to include everyone with whom we met on the list, but in some cases,
omissions may have occurred, particularly when informal discussions were held at the
local level. It was also impossible to include a comprehensive list of all focus group
participants. A field research checklist was used to conduct the interviews and focus
group discussions. The checklist is attached in the appendix.
The Study also included a small household survey of approximately 50 respondents in

each of three different districts for a total of approximately 150 respondents. The survey
data from the household survey is also appended to this Study.
1.3 SITE SELECTION
The study was conducted in three districts: Lira, Mbale and Wakiso. These districts were
chosen because they:
provide a comprehensive representation of the four different tenure regimes in the

country (mailo, freehold, leasehold, and customary)
capture the dynamics of the land markets in both rural and peri-urban circumstances
represent different regions of the country with different historical and cultural
traditions.
Lira is an area of predominantly customary tenure where individualisation of land rights

is occurring but is less common than in the central region of the country, represented by
Wakiso, where mailo land predominates. Mbale is an area where fragmentation is
perceived to be a growing problem. Wakiso offered the opportunity to study market
dynamics in a growing peri-urban area.
In each District, two sub-counties were selected to capture rural and peri-urban market
dynamics. In each sub-county, one parish was identified and in the parish a village was
selected to carry out the household survey. The sub-counties, parishes and villages were
chosen based on key informant interviewees, who identified them as areas with the
highest level of land market activity in the respective districts.
1.4 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The original terms of reference for this Study reflect the desire of members of the PMA
Secretariat, the LSSP Task Force, and other policy makers to cover a broad spectrum of
4
issues related to land markets, land fragmentation, consolidation, and readjustment. The
consultants have attempted to address all these issues as thoroughly as possible within the
parameters established by the Terms of Reference and the contract. Given those
parameters, the consultants would like to note the following limitations of the Study:
The fieldwork, including the household surveys, could only be conducted in the three
sites of Wakiso, Mbale and Lira.. The sites were chosen after extensive
consideration, based on recommendations by representatives of the PMA Secretariat
and the MWLE. Although the areas were chosen because they were representative of
general conditions in Uganda, the Study results should be tested and verified in other
areas before being applied to the country generally. The Study did not include any
urban areas, as the primary focus was on issues related to agriculture.
The contract required that the fieldwork for this Study be conducted more quickly
than the consultants would have liked. This meant that scientific sampling procedure,
field-testing of survey instruments, and extensive training of researchers could not
occur. Nonetheless, the survey results are, for the most part, consistent with prior
studies and seem to constitute reliable indicators of general trends.
The literature review was as extensive and comprehensive as possible, but was
constrained to some extent by the time and resources allocated in the contract.
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PAPER
This paper is organised in three sections. The first section is an introduction to the Study,
including background, methodology and site selection. The second section presents the
findings and recommendations relating to land markets, and the third section presents the
findings and recommendations relating to land fragmentation, consolidation and
readjustment.
2 LAND MARKETS
2.1 BACKGROUND – THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In the period prior to colonialism, the different ethnic groups had land tenure systems that
were governed by their traditions and customary practices. In Buganda for example,
prior to 1900, there were four categories of rights of control over land (Morris Carter
1906):
1. clan rights - Obutaka

2. the rights of the King and his chiefs – Obutongole
3. individual hereditary rights of occupation – Obwesengeze
4. peasant rights of occupation – Ebibanja
These semi-feudal land rights also existed, though to a lesser extent, in other parts of pre-
colonial Uganda; namely Ankole, Bunyoro, and Toro.
5
The rest of pre-colonial Uganda was primarily egalitarian (Report of the Uganda
Constitutional Commission: UPPC, 1993, p.675). Although patterns of land holding and
land tenure rules varied throughout the country, land was regarded as a common heritage
where in essence a number of rules applied, namely:
1. The individual landholder held customary tenure rights that included the rights to use
the land as he thought best, to leave the land fallow, to lend the land for temporary
purposes, to pledge crops, to prohibit grazing near the homestead, and to dispose of
land according to the customary laws of inheritance.
2. The clan or family had the right to settle disputes within its area of control, to prohibit
sale of land by its members to undesirable persons, and to declare void any land
transactions that had not received its approval.
3. The general community had rights to graze communally over the whole area of clan
land but damage to crops had to be compensated. The general community had the
right to free access to salt licks, watering of cattle at running or open waters and
access to water from springs and other common rights.
Though there were individual rights to land, those rights were primarily obtained by
virtue of membership in a particular group or community. There is evidence of some
land market activity during this period, but land markets per se did not develop until the
colonial period.
The hallmark of the colonial period was the Uganda Agreement of 1900, which had far-
reaching and permanent effects on traditional land tenure systems in Uganda, for it
introduced individual ownership rights akin to freehold. According to the Agreement,
roughly half the land of Buganda, approximately 8,000 square miles, was allocated to
private individuals to be held in a freehold-like tenure known as mailo. The other half
was retained for the crown. The recipients of land under the Uganda Agreement were
primarily the king (Kabaka), his family, chiefs and other notables who were loyal to the
British protectorate government.
In addition to introducing individual ownership, the Uganda Agreement had another long
lasting effect on the land tenure system in Uganda, namely creating competing layers of
rights over the same land, those of the mailo owner and those of mailo occupants.
Reconciliation of the rights of owners and occupants has been a constant struggle since
1900. The pendulum has swung back and forth during various periods, sometimes
favouring the rights of owners and sometimes favouring the rights of occupants.
Aside from the introduction of the mailo system, and the granting of some freehold rights
in central Uganda, the colonial land tenure system did not result in serious changes to the
land tenure systems of most ethnic groups in Uganda. Most parts of Uganda outside the
central region continued to be characterised by clan and communal control over land with
limited rights granted to individuals.
6
With independence, the independence government carried on the land laws that were
introduced by the British. In addition, several other laws were put in place to strengthen
land management. Some of the new laws that were introduced by the independence
government included the Public Lands Act, which was promulgated to make provisions
for the vesting, control and management of public land in Uganda.
Land laws in Uganda remained largely settled until the 1975 Land Reform Decree, which
abolished private ownership of land and vested ownership in the Government of Uganda
under the administration of the Uganda Land Commission. With the stroke of a pen,
uniform land tenure was created in Uganda. All customary holders became tenants of the
state at sufferance. All interests in land greater than leasehold, including mailo and
freehold, were converted into 99-year leases for individuals and 199-year leases for
institutions. Tenants on titled land were made tenants at sufferance, who along with the
tenants on public land could be evicted with notice and compensation for the
developments on their land. This system of land tenure continued until the Land Act
1998.
The Land Act 1998 was intended to operationalise Article 237 of the 1995 Constitution,
which brought about fundamental reforms in land tenure, ownership and management,
including vesting all land in the citizens of Uganda. The Land Act has the following
salient features:
It reiterates the Constitutional provision that all land is vested in the citizens of
Uganda.
It provides for the recognition of four tenure types in Uganda: freehold, mailo,
leasehold, and customary.
It guarantees security of tenure to all land users in Uganda including tenants on
registered land and customary holders of former public land, and gives them full
powers to carry out transactions on that land.
It decentralises land management to the district level, and sets up a decentralised
system for dispute resolution.
It makes special provisions for the protection of women’s, children and other
vulnerable groups, including requiring spousal consent for certain types of land
transactions.
2.2 MARKET DYNAMICS IN UGANDA
One of the major objectives of the Land Act 1998 was to promote the creation and
operation of land markets throughout the country. The LSSP builds on the provisions of
the Land Act in aiming to create an enabling environment in which land markets will
develop. This Study was commissioned in part to facilitate the implementation of the
Land Act and the LSSP by focusing on the following key questions related to land
markets:
Who are the typical participants (buyers and sellers) in most land transactions?
7
How do land market participants find each other?

How are land prices determined?
How is due diligence carried out prior to conclusion of a sale?
How are transactions documented?
What are the costs of land transactions?
How are land purchases financed?
2.2.1 PROFILE OF MARKET PARTICIPANTS
The profiles of market participants and their motives for engaging in transactions vary
depending on whether land is located in rural or peri-urban areas. In rural areas, market
participants tend to be from within the community. In Dokolo and Erute counties in Lira
district, for example, there were many reported purchases and sales of land, but none of
them involved people from outside the community. There was a general reluctance
among the people in Lira and Mbale to sell land to people from outside their clan or
ethnic groups because they were considered outsiders. Outsiders were often required to
live within the community for a period of time before they were allowed to purchase land
and take up permanent settlement. The reluctance to sell land to so-called outsiders was
based on a fear of alienating clan land to outsiders who were perceived as a threat to the
survival of the community.
In the peri-urban areas in the districts of Wakiso, Mbale and Lira, market participants
were more diverse, consisting of both community and non-community members. There
was general agreement among respondents that people in peri-urban areas were much
more willing to sell to any buyer with money regardless of whether the buyer was from
the community.
Most of the people who sold land in rural areas did so in order to raise money for
particular family needs, including school fees, hospital bills, and marriage-related
expenses such as purchasing cows. Respondents in Lira reported that there were an
increasing number of sales in Otuke County by people who were leaving the area due to
insurgency and were seeking more secure places within the district especially in Lira
Municipality. Sellers of land in peri-urban areas were similarly motivated by the need to
raise money but tended to use the money for additional purposes like funding a small
business or constructing a residence.
Like sellers, buyers seemed to be motivated by different factors depending on whether

they were purchasing rural or peri-urban land. Most buyers in rural areas reported that
they bought land to meet the growing needs of their families especially where there were
polygamous unions. Others bought land in order to increase the amount of land to
bequeath to their children. Respondents in Mbale reported that they acquired additional
land parcels to bequeath to their children to reduce the likelihood of conflicts over land
on the death of the head of the household.
In peri-urban areas, most buyers reported that land acquisition was a form of investment.
Respondents in Wakiso and Mbale reported that they felt more secure investing in land
8
than in putting their money in a bank, which they feared could close any time and lead to
the loss of their money. In Lira and Mbale, respondents reported that they were reluctant
to buy cows because of raids by Karimojong warriors, so they preferred to invest in
buying land.
2.2.2 HOW BUYERS AND SELLER FIND EACH OTHER
The study examined the mechanisms whereby buyers and sellers found each other in a
typical market transaction. It was found that for untitled land, market participants most
frequently found each other through informal mechanisms such as word of mouth.
Landholders wishing to sell their land often told their neighbours, family members and
their local council officials of their intention to sell.
How do buyers and sellers find each other?

Mbale Wakiso Lira Total
Word of mouth 100% 77.5% 100% 91.3%
Local council or 7.5% 14.8% 6.7%
local official
Brokers 2.7% 15% 3.7% 7.7%
Other 3.7% 1.0%
Note: This was a multiple response question so responses may total more than 100%.
On titled land, buyers and sellers often use more formal mechanisms to find each other.
These include the use of brokers, and advertisements in newspapers and on radio. In
Wakiso, the research team talked to land brokers who had a board out by the roadside
advertising land that was available for sale in the area. The research team also
interviewed a land broker who was the chairman of Land Brokers Association in the area.
We were informed that land brokers not only help sellers and buyers find each other but
also often play a major part in the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the
transaction. In Lira and Mbale, there were well-typed advertisements posted on the
Public Notice Board in the Chief Administrative Office and other public areas. In
addition to the more formalised mechanism through which buyers and sellers of titled
land find each other, less formal mechanisms like those used by sellers and buyers of
untitled lands are also used.
The participation of brokers in the land market introduces added costs to land
transactions. It was discovered during key informant interviews that brokers normally
require the seller to pay a percentage of the selling price as a fee to the broker. The
percentage varies from broker to broker but normally ranges from 5% to 10% of the
selling price. These additional costs are sometimes transferred to buyers through
increased sales prices. Although this means that buyers may in some cases be paying
more than the appraised value of the land, presumably they are willing to do so to help
compensate brokers for their services in helping buyers and sellers find each other and in
facilitating the transaction.
Overall, the Study found that mechanism for buyers and sellers to find each other exist
and are functioning well. Sellers and buyers are able to find each other with minimum
9
difficulty and are able to conduct their transactions in a largely informal market that
meets their demands.
2.2.3 DETERMINATION OF PRICE IN LAND TRANSACTIONS
Respondents in the survey and participants in the focus group discussions were asked to
rank the most important factors in determining land prices. Most respondents chose soil
quality as the most important factor in determining price. The type of tenure of the land
was one of the least important factors in determining price according to both buyers and
sellers. The table below summarises the rankings that were given by the respondents
when asked the most important factor in determining the price of land.
Points for each factor determining price of land (by district)

Soil quality Distance Rural or Land title Type of Other
from main urban tenure factors
road location
Mbale 206 175 169 87 95 26
Wakiso 178 214 214 159 115 21
Lira 124 64 6 32
Total 508 453 383 252 242 47
Overall ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6
Note: Points were awarded based on a ranking system in which the factor ranked first was given 6 points,
the factor ranked second was give 5 points, etc. The points for each district and for the entire sample were
then totalled. The factor with the highest number of points is therefore considered the most important.
2.2.4 DUE DILIGENCE FOR LAND TRANSACTIONS
In order for land markets to operate efficiently, buyers, lenders and other investors must
have reliable and cost-effective ways to conduct due diligence on land plots. They must
be able to verify that the seller in fact owns the land and has the right to sell, that there
are no mortgages or other encumbrances burdening the land, and that the boundaries are
accurately demarcated on the ground.
For titled land, the principal source of due diligence information is the Land Registry in
the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment. A search of the registry will disclose
whether the land is titled, whether it is registered in the name of the seller, and whether it
is encumbered. The files in the Land Registry also contain surveys of titled land plots
that serve to confirm parcel boundaries.
Since the Land Registry does not contain information on untitled land, the Study sought
to determine how buyers of untitled land conduct their due diligence. Buyers were asked
how they verified that the seller had the right to dispose of the land they were interested
in. They were also asked to explain how they verified that the land they were interested
in buying was not encumbered, and how they confirmed that the requisite consents had
been obtained. Finally, intending buyers were asked how they verified whether the
boundaries of the parcel of land that was on sale were as indicated by the seller.
10
The findings indicate that most of the verification concerning untitled land was carried
out informally. Buyers said that verification was mostly through neighbours and local
council officials in the area where the land was located. In Lira, the clan played a very
important role in land transactions and often showed the intending purchaser the land that
was for sale. All the respondents in the Study who had purchased untitled land indicated
that they were satisfied with the method of verification and were secure on their land.
The level of market activity on untitled land is a good indication of this security
perceived by land purchasers. (See paragraph 8 on Levels of Market Activity). All focus
group participants who had purchased land since passage of the Land Act indicated that
they felt secure on their land.
These findings are similar to findings in earlier studies (see, e.g., Troutt, 1994; Sebina-
Zziwa et al., 2000) which found that most people across the four tenure types in both
rural and urban areas felt secure on their land. A study conducted in 1994 by Elizabeth
Troutt (pp.83-85) found that holders of permanent tenure parcels, which included titled
land, perceived no insecurity on their land. The study concluded by stating that land
market activity does not have much impact on parcel holders’ perceived security of
tenure, the reason being that there is a high prevailing level of tenure security overall. It is
important to note that this study was conducted four years before passing of the Land Act
but the level of perceived tenure security across all tenure types seems not to have
changed after adoption of the Land Act.
2.2.5 DOCUMENTATION OF LAND TRANSACTIONS
The study sought to determine how land transactions for various types of land are
documented and conducted. The findings reveal that most land transactions involve
untitled land. For these transactions the buyer and seller typically enter into an
agreement that is witnessed by local council officials, and in some place, like Lira, by
clan elders. Neither the agreement nor the transaction itself is recorded or registered in
any way.
Respondents were also asked whether they felt that the procedures for concluding land
transactions were too complicated, or whether the costs involved in land transactions
were too high. For transactions involving untitled land, only 2% of the respondents had
complaints about the procedures being too complicated while 20% had complaints about
costs being too high. Generally, most participants in untitled land transactions expressed
satisfaction with the way in which the market is functioning, and did not perceive the
costs as being prohibitively high.
In Lira district, focus group participants said that the only costs involved in transactions
on customary land are the payment of 5000 shillings to the elders, and 10,000 shillings to
the sub-county chief. In Wakiso, it was reported that local council chiefs usually ask for
a 10% fee for witnessing a transaction, which is increasingly causing people to cut chiefs
out of land transactions.
11
With regard to transactions on titled land, there was a general perception that the costs
were too high. 57% of the respondents felt that the cost of transactions involving titled
land were too high.
Do you feel that the costs for land transactions are too high?
Titled Untitled Total
Yes 57.1% 20.3% 26.9%
No 42.9% 79.7% 73.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Respondents reported that the high costs for transacting on titled land are attributable in
part to extra payments that are demanded by officials in order to process leasehold and
other title documents. For example, a key informant in Wakiso reported that he had to
pay Ushs. 280,000 to get his leasehold title processed in the Ministry of Water, Lands and
Environment. Another reported that he had to pay Ushs.80,000.00. These payments that
are in addition to legally required fees increase the cost of transacting on titled land.
Increased costs, together with longer times required for processing documentation of
transactions on titled land, seem to deter some people who may want to acquire titles for
their land but simply cannot afford the additional time and money required. Although it
is impossible to quantify the extent to which people are deterred, the fact that less than
15% of the land in Uganda is titled is some indicator that people do not perceive titling as
a significant benefit in light of the additional costs.
There was also a strong perception among the respondents that there was corruption at
the Land Registry. This finding corroborates the Justice, Law and Order sector study
which ranked the Land Registry as the country’s most corrupt commercial justice
institution (see Justice, Law and Order Study, 2001).
It should be noted that transactions involving leaseholds on the Kabaka’s land are even
more complicated and costly than transactions involving leaseholds on public land. In
Wakiso, tenants on the Kabaka’s land who wanted to formalise their tenancy by
acquiring leaseholds said that the process of obtaining a documented leasehold title was
very frustrating in terms of the time and money it took to complete the transaction. The
following summary describes the steps in the process as they were described to us by a
leaseholder in Wakiso.
12
Procedure for Acquiring Leasehold Title on Kabaka’s Land in Wakiso
• Applicant obtains a letter of introduction from the LC1 to the Buganda Land Board stating that he is
the rightful occupant of the land
• Applicant purchases an application form from the Buganda Land Board for 11,000 shillings
• Applicant completes application and submits it to the Buganda Land Board with a picture showing the
developments on the land and a sketch plan of the land
• The Buganda Land Board commissions a survey of the land (applicant paid 300,000 shillings for the
survey)
• The Lease Committee of the Buganda Land Board meets and recommends to the Buganda Land Board
that a lease be awarded
• The Buganda Land Board meets and grants the Lease
• Applicant pays stated premium rate for the land
• Buganda Land Board prepares Lease Agreement for the applicant
• Lease Agreement taken to the Minister of Land in Kabaka’s government for approval
• Minister of Land in Kabaka’s Government submits Lease Agreement to Prime Minster in Kabaka’s
Government for Approval and for placement of a seal of the Buganda Kingdom as a sign of approval
• The applicant takes the Lease Agreement with the seal of the Buganda Kingdom together with the
letter of introduction to the Land Registry at the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment in
Kampala
• Land Registry in MWLE approves the leasehold title (applicant paid 280,000 shillings to get leasehold
title processed and had to pay an extra 80,000 to an official in the Ministry to expedite the process)
• Once the applicant receives his Leasehold Title from MWLE, he takes it back to Buganda Land Board
for registration of the leasehold in the Buganda Land Board’s Registry
• The annual ground rent was set at 5% of the agreed premium which was 5 million shillings
The applicant who described this process to us was obtaining his leasehold title in order
to engage in a commercial use of the land. Although the process was lengthy and costly,
he could not avoid it because of the relatively high profile of his business activities.
Being a businessperson, he had the money to make the formal and informal payments
necessary to expedite the transaction. It is clear, however, that the average citizen would
be completely overwhelmed by this process and, therefore, would not seek to obtain a
leasehold title.
2.2.6 FINANCING OF LAND PURCHASES
During the rapid rural appraisal and the household survey respondents were asked how
they financed their land purchases. The majority of the respondents stated that their land
purchases were self-financed. Some respondents also reported family support in
financing land acquisition especially from spouses. There were no respondents who
reported that they had obtained bank loans to finance their land purchases. There was a
general belief among focus group participants that a bank loan could only be obtained by
someone who already owned land but could not be used to finance a land purchase.
These findings corroborate the findings of an earlier study by the Uganda Law Reform
Commission on the Law on Secured Transactions, in which bankers reported no
financing for land purchases (Mwebaza and Akwii, 2001). Bankers also confirmed that
loans for land acquisitions are rare.
13
The table below illustrates the modes of financing land purchases among respondents in
the household survey.
How was land purchase financed?

Self 91.7% 83.3% 100.0% 90.7%
Loans from family friends 2.8% 5.6% 3.1%
Others 5.6% 11.1% 6.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Although approximately 6% of respondents indicated that they financed their land

acquisitions through means other than self-financing or loans from family or friends, they
did not specify what these other mechanisms were.
Although banks do not typically provide loans for land acquisitions, they are in the
practice of taking land rights as collateral for working capital and other loans. Most
banks will only take titled land as security, though the Centenary Rural Development
Bank accepts both undocumented bibanja and customary rights as collateral. In these
cases, the land rights tend to form only a small part of the collateral, which often includes
other security such as personal guarantees, personal property collateral, and post-dated
cheques. Centenary Rural Development Bank reported that the rate of recovery on loans
to holders of bibanja and customary rights was more than 95% thus making it a relatively
safe lending activity.
Banks were asked whether the foreclosure procedures under the mortgage decree
operated smoothly or presented obstacles to secured lending. Bankers expressed
unanimous satisfaction with the provisions of the mortgage decree, and said that the legal
procedures did not inhibit the taking of land as collateral.
Unlike bankers, most borrowers (mortgagors) were wary of the mortgage decree.
Currently, the lender has the upper hand and determines virtually all the terms and
conditions of a loan, including the interest rate, the principal amount, and the grace
period. Borrowers report that the main reason for their failure to repay loans is high
interest rates averaging 22%, which is 15% more than the official inflation rate, 18%
more than the average savings interest rates, and 12% more than the treasury bills rate.
High interest rates for borrowed funds, coupled with low saving rates do not encourage
borrowing or saving especially for rural dwellers whose only form of security is the land
on which they live and derive their sustenance.
It is also worth noting that most Ugandans are unfamiliar with the process and conditions
of borrowing from banks. Some borrow without realising that default can result in the
loss of their property. Inequities in the mortgage decree may ultimately discourage
borrowers from seeking credit, which can inhibit the growth of land markets. The
government is aware of this potential problem and through the law reform program
commissioned a study last year, which resulted in the drafting of a Mortgage Amendment
Bill now being subjected to public review (Mwebaza and Akwii 2001).
14
Although most bankers were satisfied with the mortgage decree, they almost
unanimously complained about the confusing and conflicting rights of mailo owners and
occupants under the Land Act. One banker stated that his bank no longer makes loans to
mailo owners because the Land Act effectively subjugates the owner’s rights to the rights
of occupants. He referred to mailo land as “lost land” because it is so heavily
encumbered with occupancy rights. According to this banker, the Land Act has had the
effect of rendering mailo land worthless for credit purposes. His statements about mailo
land may have been dramatic, but they appeared to represent the general attitude of
bankers towards the consent clause.
Bankers also unanimously complained about the consent requirements imposed by

Section 40 of the Land Act. They reported that it was impossible for them to verify that
all the required consents had been obtained prior to granting a loan. This was very
problematic especially in cases of polygamous unions with numerous children and
dependants who are hard to locate. Centenary Rural Development Bank had designed its
own consent form for purposes of ensuring compliance with Section 40 of the Land Act,
but like other banks still faced the problem of trying to identify all the individuals who
must consent. Most other banks were simply ignoring the requirements of the consent
clause because they considered it a Herculean task to try to ensure that all the requisite
consents had been obtained. One bank reported that it is currently being sued by the wife
of one of its borrowers for granting him a loan without her consent. The officials in that
bank looked to the case as an opportunity to get a court decision on the reach of the
consent clause and whether it violates any constitutional provisions, especially those
guaranteeing the right to own property (Constitution, Article 27).
2.2.7 THE CONSENT CLAUSE
Section 40(1) of the Land Act provides that no person shall transfer land without the prior
written consent of his or her spouse in the case of land on which the person ordinarily
resides with his her spouse and from which they derive their sustenance.
The Land Act further provides that no one can transfer land on which he or she resides
with his or her dependent children without the prior written consent of the dependent
children, or in the case of minor children, with the prior written consent of the land
committee. (Land Act, Section 40(1)(c)(ii) and (iii)). Additionally, no one can transfer
land on which a minor orphan ordinarily resides without the prior written consent of the
land committee. (Land Act, Section 40(1)(c)(iv)).
These provisions of the Land Act have a direct bearing on land transactions in Uganda
and accordingly, respondents were specifically asked if they sought the requisite consents
before concluding a land transaction. Most respondents reported that although they
talked to their spouses about an impending or concluded sale, the conversation was
primarily by way of information and not a means of seeking formal written consent. For
the most part, the requirements for consent under Section 40 of the Land Act were
ignored.
15
It is important to note in addition that there was general confusion and disagreement
among the respondents about the type of land covered by the consent clause. Most
respondents were not sure if the consent requirement covered all the land plots of a
household, just the plot on which the family actually lived, or plots that were used for
family sustenance.
As stated in the previous section, almost all bankers found the consent clause to be
problematic. They found it impossible to identify all the people who need to consent
especially in cases of polygamy that involve multiple children. They also found the
requirements for adult children to consent onerous and unnecessary. There was a general
recommendation that adult children should not have a role to play in the decision leading
to the sale of land by their parents as this creates an unnecessary burden on land markets.
Likewise, the banks felt that the requirement that land committees consent on behalf of
minor children was an unnecessary infringement on land transaction by a third party who
is an outsider and should have no role to play. There was a feeling within the banking
sector that in the case of a functioning marriage, parents should be free to decide what to
do in the best interest of their family without interference by the land committee on
behalf of minor, dependant children. Again, bankers felt that this was an unnecessary
obstacle to land markets.
2.2.8 LEVELS OF MARKET ACTIVITY
One of the major objectives of this study was to determine the levels of land market
activity in order to facilitate the planning and piloting of projects within the LSSP geared
towards the promotion of vibrant land markets in Uganda. Accordingly, in order to
measure the levels of market activity in the districts that were visited, respondents were
asked two questions: whether they had ever purchased or sold land, and whether any of
the parcels owned by the household had been acquired through purchase.
The findings indicate that 83% of all the respondents who participated in the study had
either bought or sold land.
Have you ever bought or sold land?

Yes 97.4% 93.2% 60.9% 82.8%
No 2.6% 6.8% 39.1% 17.2%
Total 100% 100% !00% 100%
The findings also indicate that purchase was the most common method of acquisition,
followed by inheritance, then gift. One significant finding is that markets in untitled land
(kibanja and customary rights) were quite active, with 72% of kibanja holders having
purchased their plots, and 44% of the holders of customary rights having purchased their
plots.
16
How was plot acquired (by type of tenure)?

Mailo Mailo occupant Freehold Leasehold Customary Total
owner (kibanja)
Purchase 59.5% 71.4% 20% 72.7% 43.8% 49.7%
Inherit 27.0% 16.3% 9.1% 34.2% 29.8%
Gift 13.5% 10.2% 20% 9.1% 19.2% 17.1%
Exchange 2.0% 2.3% 1.9%
Rent 9.1% .4% .6%
Other 60% .8%
Land markets appeared to be much more vibrant in Mbale and Wakiso than in Lira,
where only 34% of the plots covered by the survey had been acquired through purchase.
How was plot acquired (by district)?

Purchase 52.3% 65.5% 33.9% 49.3%
Inherit 12.9% 20.7% 57.9% 29.8%
Gift 31.6% 11.5% 2.5% 17.1%
Exchange 3.2% 1.1% .8% 1.9%
Rent 1.1% 2.5% 1.1%
Other 2.5% .8%
The findings of this Study corroborate those of earlier studies of the levels of market
activity in various parts of Uganda. Mukwaya (1953) and West (1964) reported that
market transactions were actively taking place in Buganda and that they together with
inheritance had played a big role in leading to the subdivision of large blocks of mailo
land. Kigula (1992) reported that the most commonly transacted land tenure was the
mailo tenancy in the central region and customary land on former public land outside the
central region (study covered all regions of the country except the Northern Region
where there was insurgency). Troutt (1994) discovered from her study in the Buganda
region that there was an active land market and that most of the transactions were on
mailo tenancies. In a more recent study Sebina-Zziwa et al. (2000) discovered that the
most common mode of land acquisition was through purchase and that the level of
market activity was higher in rural areas than in urban areas.
2.3 ISSUES AND RECOMENDATIONS
The issues that have been identified in this Study fall into two broad categories: those that
relate to imperfections in land markets; and those that relate to systematic demarcation as
envisaged in the LSSP.
17
2.3.1 IMPERFECTIONS IN THE LAND MARKET
2.3.1.1 MULTIPLE LAYERS OF RIGHTS TO SINGLE LAND PLOT.
The Study results suggest that the Land Act has been successful in defining clearly the
legal rights of all landholders under the four different types of tenure. Landholders seem
to be aware generally of their rights and feel that their rights are clear and secure, though
they are not necessarily aware of their rights to formalise or convert their rights to other
forms. Land markets are vibrant in most areas of the country, across all tenure types.
Land market activity is threatened to some extent by the Land Act’s recognition and
formalisation of multiple layers of rights over a single land plot, especially on mailo land.
On one hand, the Land Act clearly grants landowners the right to exercise all of the
powers of ownership, including the right to use and develop the land, the right to take and
use all the produce from the land, the right to engage in any transaction with the land, and
the right to bequeath the land (Land Act, Section 4). On the other hand, the Land Act
also recognises the rights of tenants and other lawful occupants of land to occupy that
land in perpetuity for as long as they continue to pay the annual ground rent of one
thousand shillings to the registered owner (Land Act, Section 32(2)). Lawful occupants
have the right to transact on the land in the same way as the registered owner. A lawful
occupant has the right to assign, sublet, pledge, subdivide, bequeath, or create third party
rights in the land (Land Act, Section 35 (1), (2)).
The Land Act attempts to reconcile the overlapping and conflicting rights of owners and
lawful occupants by putting in place various consent requirements and rights of first
refusal. For example, a lawful tenant must seek the owner’s consent before undertaking
any transaction permitted by the Land Act (Land Act, Section 35(3)). Moreover, a tenant
by occupancy may not assign the tenancy without offering the owner the first option to
purchase the tenancy (Land Act, Section 36).
As a practical matter, mailo tenants are buying, selling, and otherwise transferring their
rights without obtaining the consent of the mailo owner as the Land Act requires. They
also seem to be ignoring the owner’s right of first refusal. It is only because they are
ignoring the Land Act’s requirements that purchases and sales continue to occur. If the
requirements of the Land Act were strictly enforced, they would create a major obstacle
to market activity.
The likely result of enforcement would be similar to the situation currently faced by
bankers. Faced with trying to comply with the requirements of the Land Act they will no
longer take mailo land as collateral. They refer to mailo land as “lost land” precisely
because of the conflicting rights of owners and tenants.
Conflicting rights are further complicated by Section 40 of the Land Act, which requires
spousal and other consents prior to carrying out transactions on household land. Section
40 creates problems in identifying all the people with the right to consent, especially in
18
cases of multiple marriages. In addition to spouses, minor and adult dependent children
(including those born out of wedlock) also have consent rights under Section 40.
Although these rights are not proprietary, they do give people the power to approve or
disapprove a transaction with the result that any transaction that is carried out without
their consent is void (Land Act, Section 40(4)).
Bankers expressed concern over the need for all the different consents and complained
that it is impossible for them to verify that all the necessary consents have been obtained.
They were particularly concerned with the requirement that adult dependent children
consent to transactions, which they thought created unnecessary obstacles to land
transactions. There was also concern over the requirement that the land committee
provide consent on behalf of minor children. Bankers argued that there was no reason
that the land committee should be included in a transaction involving a functioning
marriage in which the spouses are legally required under the children statute (provide
section) to provide for their minor children and to act in their best interest. Strict
enforcement of this provision of the Land Act would be likely to severely inhibit market
transactions.
The Land Act’s protection of the rights of lawful occupants, women, children and other
disadvantaged groups was a deliberate policy decision taken after extensive study and
public debate. Therefore, it is not recommended that these protections be eliminated.
Rather, government policy makers must be aware of the burdens these protections put on
the market, and attempt to identify ways to lessen the burdens without negating the
protections. As an example, in conducting systematic demarcation, the focus should be
on clearly identifying the holders of all rights, ideally including the holders of consent
rights, and documenting those rights so that potential buyers of land, bankers and other
investors can more easily obtain all necessary consents. Similarly, procedures for
obtaining certificates of occupancy and certificates of customary ownership should be
streamlined so that the overlapping rights of different holders can be more efficiently
documented.
2.3.1.2 TRANSACTIONS ON TITLED LAND ARE TOO COMPLICATED
There was some feeling among holders of titled land that procedures for transactions
were too complicated. Of all the respondents who felt that procedures were too
complicated, 67% were holders of titled land. It was also discovered that 57% of the
respondents thought that the costs and fees involved in transacting in titled land were too
high. It is therefore very important that the procedures involved in transacting on titled
land be streamlined in order to facilitate the functioning of land markets. The following
recommendations for streamlining the process should be considered:
Focus group participants reported that the process of acquiring a title or transferring
land requires them to move from one government office to the next in order to ensure
that the transaction is approved and registered. Most respondents said that this is not
only time consuming but also costly. It is therefore recommended that government
institutions facilitate the exchange of documents and information in order to reduce
19
on the time and costs that market participants have to incur as they move from one
office to the next.
Government should continue to pursue realistic decentralisation as envisaged in the

LSSP with the ultimate aim of ensuring that services are brought as close to the
people as is practically possible. The Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment
should continue with the efforts to distribute all land records to the districts. The
PMA Secretariat should support the provision of a budget within the LSSP to
facilitate the decentralisation of land records and land related services to the district.
Decentralisation should begin with the areas in which the demand is highest in order
to make it more realistic and cost effective.
It is important that steps are taken within the Ministry of Water, Lands and
Environment to address the public’s perception of corruption at the Land Registry.
The Land Registry is very important to the functioning of a land market and will
become more important as more land it titled. If the perception that the Land
Registry is very corrupt continues among the public, this will have a negative effect
on transactions on titled land. Whereas titling is not a prerequisite for market activity,
(the study has shown that this is functioning adequately) the absence of a land registry
that is perceived to be efficient and devoid of corruption will of necessity impact
negatively on other government plans especially those relating to systematic
demarcation as envisaged in the LSSP. Most people will be reluctant to participate in
a systematic demarcation exercise even if it is just a pilot if they feel that the
government institution that is responsible for conducting the exercise lacks integrity.
2.3.2 DISTRESS SALES AND LANDLESSNESS
Focus group interviews indicate that there are a growing number of landless people due
to distress sales. Widows and orphans are particularly vulnerable to becoming landless
after being dispossessed of their land by other family or clan members. Whereas no
focus group participants said they themselves were landless, they all said they knew
people in the community who were landless and whose only access to land was either
through borrowing or renting.
Although distress sales result in land being made available through the market to buyers
who can potentially put it to better use, they present a problem if left unchecked.
Landlessness as one of the unintended consequences of land markets is a growing issue
that the government must continue to monitor.
It is not usually very effective to attempt to legislate against distress sales, so the only
way for government policy makers to address this problem is to take measures aimed at
alleviating the underlying causes of the distress. As indicated earlier in this Study, two of
the most common causes of distress sales are the need to raise money for school fees and
medical bills. The government could help reduce the frequency of distress sales by
enacting programs that make schooling more affordable, which it has started doing for
lower education by providing universal primary education. Programs that provide the
20
poor with assistance for obtaining affordable health care will similarly reduce the
frequency of distress sales.
In addition to government plans that lessen the costs of education and health care,
programs that create employment opportunities will also reduce the need for people to
engage in distress sales. The Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture attempts to do this in
various ways, including by promoting agro-processing industries, which will improve
market access for farmers and create off land employment opportunities, which are
especially important to those who do not own or cannot access land (see PMA, p. 84).
Although plans like this are long term and do not directly address the problem of distress
sales, they reflect the government’s acknowledgement of the problem and represent a
sound strategy for attempting to deal with it. Government should continue to create an
enabling environment that will promote the growth of the private sector and provide off
farm employment opportunities.
2.3.3 PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND

CERTIFICATE OF CUSTOMARY LAND TOO COMPLEX
The Land Act provides for an elaborate procedure for the acquisition of a certificate of
occupancy (Land Act, Section 34) or a certificate of customary ownership (Land Act,
Sections 6 to 9). A holder of a certificate of customary ownership has the option to
convert it to a freehold title (Land Act, Section 10 to 15) and the holder of a certificate of
occupancy has the right to purchase the land from the owner. The intent of these
provisions of the Land Act is clearly to facilitate market activity by permitting a lawful
occupant of land to formalise his or her tenure by obtaining a certificate and by
converting it to freehold.
To date, no certificates of customary ownership or certificates of occupancy have been

issued, largely because the necessary institutional structures have not been established at
the local level. These structures must be put in place if the provisions of the Land Act are
to be implemented. If the necessary institutions cannot be established, the Land Act must
be amended to permit occupants to obtain certificates from existing institutions.
Even if the institutional issues can be addressed, consideration should also be given to
streamlining the process for obtaining certificates of occupancy and certificates of
customary ownership. The procedures as they exist now are too lengthy and probably too
costly for the average occupant. It should be possible to shorten waiting periods and to
consolidate approvals of different institutions. Failure to address these issues will inhibit
implementation of these provisions of the Land Act even after the institutional issues
have been solved. The consequence will be that land market activity, especially on mailo
land, will continue to be hampered by the existence of inconsistent rights of owners and
occupants.
21
2.4 SYSTEMATIC DEMARCATION
The LSSP calls upon the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment to undertake pilot
systematic demarcation of all land rights within selected areas as a means of contributing
to poverty reduction, good governance and other government goals (LSSP, p.36).
Systematic demarcation is envisaged to contribute to the establishment of a
comprehensive spatial database of every plot of land in an administrative area thus
adding to government inventory of land (LSSP, p.36). The spatial information will also
enable government to plan more efficiently for the location of infrastructure, reduce the
cost of and increase the accuracy of the national census, and could improve the
estimation and collection of local government taxes, VAT and PAYE. (LSSP, p.37).
The process of identifying and demarcating rights is likely to lead to further

individualisation of land holdings. Under classical neo-colonial economic theory it is
argued that increased individualisation will strengthen security of tenure, and, therefore,
lead to increased market activity. Individualisation and documentation of land rights, it is
argued further, will also stimulate credit markets.
The findings of this Study do not necessarily prove or disprove the classical economic
theories relating to individualisation of land rights and titling, and their effects on land
markets. They do, however, show that markets in untitled land are active and vibrant
despite the absence of formal titles and registration. In Lira, Mbale and Wakiso,
occupants of customary land have clearly established their rights over particular land
plots and are able to transfer their rights through sale, inheritance, gift, and exchange
even without formal titles. It is clear that titles and registration are not prerequisite to
land market activity.
Our findings reaffirm Kigula (1992), Troutt (1994) and Sebina-Zziwa et al. (2000) who
concluded that there was an active market on untitled land. They also affirm the assertion
by Migot-Adholla et al. (1991) that indigenous land tenure systems are dynamic and tend
to adopt to spontaneous individualisation of land rights over time, which enables farm
households to acquire broader and more powerful transfer and exclusion rights over their
land (p.155).
The important issue that these finding raise in relation to the LSSP and PMA is that
systematic demarcation is not prerequisite to establishment of land markets. 1 Markets in
undocumented land rights already exist and may be more active than markets in
documented land rights. Therefore, for systematic demarcation to be justified it must be
aimed at more than simply tilting land as a means of stimulating land markets. It should
also attempt to alleviate the market imperfections identified above. In other words,
systematic demarcation should focus on reconciling the conflicting rights of owners and
occupants on mailo land, and on identifying the holders of consent rights so as to
facilitate market activity.
1
That not withstanding, government may continue to pursue a land titling programme if it is intended for
other purposes such as more effective land management or better administration of other government
programmes.
22
One of the potential pitfalls of systematic demarcation programs is spending too much
time and money on developing very precise and expensive maps and surveys. Policy
makers in Uganda have attempted to avoid this problem by adopting relatively pragmatic
and low technology approaches to mapping and surveying (See Land Regulations 2001,
Sections 25-39). In the household survey we asked respondents whether they felt that
their boundaries were clearly marked and agreed upon by all their neighbours. Despite
evidence from prior studies that boundary disputes are very common (Land Act
Monitoring Exercise I 2000, p.57), approximately 97% of respondents in our household
survey said that their boundaries were clearly marked and agreed upon. This suggests
that systematic demarcation should be able to proceed rather quickly as long as an
inordinate amount of time is not spent on developing precise maps and surveys. This also
suggests that the emphasis of systematic demarcation should be on identifying the holders
of rights, rather than on defining the boundaries of land plots.
Another issue for policy makers to consider with respect to systematic demarcation is that
survey respondents who held untitled land were more satisfied with land market
mechanisms than holders of titled land. Transactions in untitled land are common and
are concluded efficiently and inexpensively with minimal governmental interference. By
contrast, transactions in titled land are relatively complicated and expensive. The
implication of these findings is that titling land and imposing formal registration
procedures on transactions could have the unintended effect of stifling rather than
stimulating land markets and investment in land. This suggests that streamlining of
procedures and reduction of costs for transactions in titled land will become even more
important as more land is titled.
3 LAND FRAGMENTATION, CONSOLIDATION AND READJUSTMENT
3.1 BACKGROUND
Land fragmentation describes the situation where a single landowner or farmer possesses
more than one non-contiguous plot of land. Fragmentation, by definition, means a farmer
must travel between or among land plots rather than being able to farm them as one
contiguous unit.
Fragmentation is related to, and often occurs in conjunction with, the phenomenon of
subdivision, which describes the process of dividing a single plot of land into two or
more separate plots. Excessive subdivision may eventually lead to plots that are too
small to be economically viable. It is often the case that high levels of fragmentation
(i.e., households possessing more than one land plot) occur in areas with low average plot
sizes (i.e., plots that have been excessively subdivided).
Fragmentation and subdivision are frequently viewed as detrimental to agricultural

productivity, and as obstacles to the modernisation of agriculture. The “Final” Draft
LSSP), dated November 30, 2001, identifies both fragmentation and subdivision as
specific areas of concern affecting Uganda’s land sector and agricultural production.
23
(LSSP, p. 14) The LSSP identifies “land readjustment” as one of the priorities to be
implemented to address the issues of subdivision and fragmentation. Key informants at
the national level identified fragmentation and subdivision as obstacles to the
modernisation of agriculture, specifically citing excessive fragmentation in four districts
of the country: Mbale, Kabale, Kisoro, and Rukungiri.
The discussion of land fragmentation, consolidation and readjustment in this paper is

divided into three sections. The first section, based on a review of the international
literature, describes:
the generally recognised causes of fragmentation;

the disadvantages and advantages sometimes associated with fragmentation (both
from the macro-economic and social perspectives, and from the individual farmer’s
perspective); and
land consolidation programs attempted in other countries and the components of such
programs that are thought to contribute to their success or failure.
The second section focuses on fragmentation, consolidation and readjustment in Uganda.

Based on information from previous studies in Uganda, and data gathered in key
informant interviews, focus groups and the small household survey conducted as part of
this Study, this section of the paper:
defines the extent to which fragmentation and subdivision are occurring in Uganda;
identifies the causes contributing to fragmentation and subdivision in Uganda;
describes the advantages and disadvantages of fragmentation and subdivision
identified by Ugandan farmers in our household study; and
evaluates the appropriateness of various land consolidation and readjustment
activities that might be attempted in Uganda to alleviate excessive fragmentation and
subdivision.
The final section contains a discussion of conclusions and recommendations for

consideration by the PMA Secretariat, the LSSP Task Force and other policymakers and
legislators.
3.2 FRAGMENTATION, CONSOLIDATION AND READJUSTMENT
3.2.1 CAUSES OF FRAGMENTATION
The causes of fragmentation identified in the literature can be divided into two general
groups: (1) those thought to be involuntary or imposed on farmers by exogenous factors
(so-called supply-side causes); and (2) those resulting from voluntary farmer choice (so-
called demand-side causes) (Blarel et al 1992; McPherson 1993).
The involuntary, supply-side causes of fragmentation that are identified in the literature
include:
24
1. Inheritance laws and customary practices. Laws and customary practices can lead to
fragmentation as people divide their holdings or purchase additional holdings
attempting to achieve equitable distribution of property among their heirs. Single
inheritor systems (primogenitor, ultimo genitor or right’s holder’s choice) are
sometimes adopted to prevent division and fragmentation, but may result in less
equitable distribution.
2. Population pressure and increasing population densities. Land scarcity is said to lead
to fragmentation as farmers who desire to increase their land holdings are forced to
accept any available land within a reasonable distance from their home.
3. Land markets. Some authors assert that land market activity contributes to
fragmentation by enabling households to purchase additional land plots to add to their
land holdings.
4. Imperfect credit markets. The unavailability of credit is said to inhibit the ability of
farmers to finance large-scale land acquisitions, or to consolidate fragmented
holdings.
5. Land reform measures. Land reform policies that enhance the rights of tenants,
occupants or squatters over the rights of owners of large plots can contribute to
subdivision and fragmentation.
6. Communal desires for equitable land distribution. The desire for equitable
distribution of land holdings within a tribe, clan or community may contribute to
division and fragmentation of land holdings.
7. Breakdown of communal property systems. Common property systems sometimes

break down under pressure of population growth and land scarcity. This breakdown
is said to lead to increased fragmentation.
8. Imperfect land markets. Laws that prohibit land transactions, or other factors that
make such transactions too difficult or costly, may prevent attempts at land
consolidation.
9. Nature. Nature itself may limit the boundaries of land plots (for example waterways
or extensive wetlands). If large arable plots are not available, farmers must purchase
fragmented land holdings in order to increase farm size.
These causes are “external” in nature in that they attribute fragmentation to legal,
economic, social, environmental, or cultural factors imposed on farmers, rather than to
farmers’ choices.
Fragmentation may also be based on an individual farmer’s preference for multiple plots
over a single plot, presumably based on the belief that the private benefits of
25
fragmentation exceed the private costs. These “demand side” causes of fragmentation
include:
1. Specialised crop production. Fragmented plots that have different characteristics

such as soil quality, water retention, slope, elevation, and agro-climatic location may
allow farmers more efficiently to diversify their crops across different growing
conditions.
2. Risk spreading. Scattering of land plots allows farmers to spread the risk of total loss
from localised calamities such as flooding, fire, pests, and drought. The risk-
spreading aspect of fragmentation is thought to be particularly prevalent in places
where other risk-spreading mechanisms such as insurance, storage, and credit do not
exist or are not easily accessible.
3. Inefficient labour markets. If outside labour is unavailable, farmers may be forced to

rely on family labour, and to spread that labour temporarily over different parcels
rather than trying to work a single larger parcel. This is most prevalent where
different plots are suitable for growing different crops so that planting, working and
harvesting can be staggered over different times on different parcels.
4. Commodity market failures. Failure of commodities markets may lead farmers to a

subsistence mode in which several crops are grown on separate plots for family
consumption. This occurs where farmers are not confident that they will be able to
sell cash crops to generate cash with which to purchase other crops, or where desired
crops are unavailable for purchase. Farmers will resist specialising in cash crops if
there is a risk that they will not be able to purchase sufficient amounts of essential
foods at the market.
3.2.2 DISADVANTAGES OF FRAGMENTATION
The costs of continued fragmentation tend to be better known, and more widely discussed
and accepted than the benefits. Like the causes of fragmentation, the detrimental effects
of fragmentation are often grouped into two general categories: those resulting in
inefficiencies or production losses; and those hindering the modernisation of agriculture.
The most often cited inefficiencies caused by fragmentation include;
1. Inefficient management and supervision of the farm. Management and supervision of

non-contiguous plots can be more difficult and time-consuming than management and
supervision of a single plot.
2. Waste of time travelling between plots. If a household’s plots are distant from each
other, the travel costs associated with cultivating those farthest away may be
sufficiently high to cause a household to leave them idle, leading to decreased
agricultural production.
26
3. Increased security costs. The cost of securing distant plots is higher than the cost of
securing one nearby plot.
4. Loss of usable land. Small, scattered holdings require the use of more land for
boundary demarcation through fencing and other means of indicating boundaries
resulting in the loss of arable land.
5. Inefficient or wasteful use of labour. Operation of non-contiguous plots can

contribute to inefficient use of labour as workers are forced to travel from one plot to
another.
Fragmentation is said to inhibit the modernisation of agriculture by:
1. Interfering with economies of scale. A farmer who operates multiple plots instead of
one larger plot is unable to achieve economies of scale through mechanisation and
other large-scale agricultural practices.
2. Inhibiting the availability of credit to farmers. Banks are sometimes reluctant to take
small, scattered land holdings as collateral, which prevents farmers from obtaining
credit to invest in modernisation of their farms.
3. Hindering farm mechanisation. Small, irregularly shaped plots are difficult or

impossible to farm using agricultural machinery.
4. Discouraging soil conservation practices. Conservation practices are less likely to be

implemented across several non-contiguous parcels as they would be on one large
plot.
5. Discouraging infrastructure development. The presence of small, scattered plots is

said to prevent development of transportation, communication, irrigation and other
infrastructure.
6. Hindering agricultural planning. Agricultural planning is more complicated when it

involves many small plots and many farmers instead of one, large plot and one owner.
7. Inhibiting use of modern inputs. The use of certain fertilisers, manures and
insecticides is made impractical when land holdings are too small and scattered..
3.2.3 ADVANTAGES OF FRAGMENTATION
In contrast to the list of drawbacks associated with fragmentation, the list of its beneficial
effects is relatively short, though increasingly recognised in the literature. The
advantages of fragmentation described in the literature include:
Allowing farmers access to plots with different qualities (soil quality, slope, aspect,
micro-climactic variations, varying proximity to water, roads or other farm operations
27
Ability to spread the risk of crop failures due to localised hazards such as micro-
climate variations, floods, pests, diseases or fires
Facilitates crop rotation and the ability to leave some land fallow
Separate plots are easier to bequeath to multiple family members
Multiple plots are easier to farm using family labour where other labour is
unavailable or difficult to obtain.
The advantages of fragmentation closely resemble the demand-side causes of

fragmentation. If fragmentation does offer some benefits to individual farmers then those
benefits will cause farmers to increase fragmentation.
3.3 LAND CONSOLIDATION AND READJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
3.3.1 THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
The overriding perception of fragmentation as a negative phenomenon has lead to

numerous consolidation and readjustment efforts around the world. The Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) considers land fragmentation as
one of the major obstacles to achieving sustainable rural livelihoods, especially in
transition countries (Riddell and Rembold). Land consolidation ranks among the highest
priorities for the FAO Sustainable Development Division.
Land consolidation and readjustment programs range from very large-scale, mandatory,
government-sponsored programs that amalgamate farm holdings and relocate all the
farmers in a large consolidation area to small-scale, voluntary efforts of extended family
members to pool their land resources into one farming unit, either formally or informally.
The large-scale programs tend to require government intervention and frequently involve
government or international donor funding. They are sometimes associated with
construction or rehabilitation of agricultural infrastructure such as roads and irrigation
systems.
Smaller-scale consolidation programs sometimes focus on consolidation of use rather

than consolidation of ownership. In these cases, the ownership structure of the land plots
is left intact, but owners are encouraged to pool their plots for use purposes, perhaps
allowing them to obtain credit, make larger investments, and move to mechanisation of
farm operations.
Between the large-scale and the small-scale programs are an infinite variety of
consolidation and readjustment interventions with varying levels of formality and
government involvement. Examples include programs that facilitate voluntary parcel
exchanges, programs that readjust plot boundaries based on family size, or the desire to
provide essential services, and programs that encompass a large area but are voluntary.
The international experience with land consolidation and readjustment has been mixed.
Full-scale, mandatory programs have tended to be very expensive, and very time-
28
consuming. Voluntary programs have taken even longer to implement, and often fail to
entice the requisite numbers of farmers to result in meaningful consolidation. Even
“successful” programs have not necessarily resulted in demonstrable increases in
productivity. Some programs initially considered successful have failed to address the
underlying causes of fragmentation so that consolidated holdings have been re-
fragmented. In some cases, government or donor-funded infrastructure improvements
have fallen into disrepair when farmers who are responsible for maintenance are unable
to generate sufficient capital from farming activities to fund the required maintenance.
The reasons given for unsuccessful programs include:
The government did not have the political, social and economic will to carry the
program through to completion.
The government took a macro-economic perspective that failed to acknowledge
farmers’ legitimate production decisions and farmers’ perceptions of the benefits of
continued fragmentation.
Farmers resisted the program based on suspicion that the government was using it as
a means of taking their land, or of providing them with less land or land of inferior
quality.
Farmers resisted readjustments because of strong ancestral or other historical ties to
the land.
The institutional capacity necessary to carry out a successful program was lacking
(surveying and mapping, valuation, and registration).
3.3.2 OBSERVATIONS REGARDING SUCCESSFUL CONSOLIDATION

PROGRAMS
Although consolidation programs can be designed in an infinite number of ways, there is

a growing consensus regarding what must be done to achieve success.
The process should begin with a serious examination of the goals to be accomplished. Is
the goal to increase labour or technological efficiency, to achieve food security, to create
a more organised physical environment for transportation, irrigation or other
infrastructure, to facilitate the transition to mechanisation and other modern farming
techniques, or to increase the availability of credit? Once the goals have been identified,
consideration should be given to whether land consolidation or readjustment is the best
way to achieve those goals. Only in such cases should consolidation or readjustment be
undertaken.
The process should also include a comprehensive examination of the environment of the
village or region that will be the focus of the consolidation effort. The examination
should include the physical, social, cultural, economic and psychological environment.
Specific causes of fragmentation in the area should be carefully researched. Is
fragmentation the result of inheritance practices, previous government reform efforts, or
other causes? It may be more efficient and effective to address the causes of
29
fragmentation rather than trying to reorganise the landholdings of an entire village or

region.
Community support or opposition must be carefully assessed. A program is unlikely to

be successful in an area where the main causes of fragmentation relate to farmers’
choices rather than supply-side causes. In such cases, individual farmers and the
community at large are unlikely to support the program. Similarly, community support is
unlikely to occur in areas where there are strong ties to individual plots of land either for
historic or other reasons.
Assessment must also include an examination of the costs and benefits that will result
from consolidation or readjustment. This should include examination of the activities
attendant to establishing the infrastructure necessary to conduct a successful
consolidation or readjustment. The costs of developing the required maps and records
may be significantly higher than the productivity benefits that may result from
consolidation or readjustment.
There is general agreement that stakeholder and beneficiary participation in decision-

making processes is absolutely essential. Where possible, existing processes and
governance institutions (whether formal or informal) should be incorporated into the
process.
3.4 FINDINGS REGARDING LAND FRAGMENTATION, CONSOLIDATION AND

READJUSTMENT IN UGANDA
3.4.1 BACKGROUND - FINDINGS FROM PRIOR STUDIES
Previous studies conducted in the Buganda region of central Uganda concluded that
fragmentation was not a problem. In a 1966-67 study conducted by Hougham (see
chapters 5 and 6 of Richards, Sturrock and Fortt 1973), only 38% of the 74 rural land
holdings sampled comprised more than one land plot. Of those, 75% comprised two land
plots, and the remaining 25% comprised three land plots. Field observations by West in
the early 1970s also suggested that fragmentation was not a problem in Buganda. These
findings were reaffirmed in a 1992 study (Troutt, Marquardt, Kisamba-Mugerwa and
Barrows) in which the data suggested that fragmentation was not a problem in Uganda’s
central region. Most respondents in that study said that their land holdings comprised a
single plot. The largest number of household plots was three. In areas where two plots
comprised the household’s landholdings, it was often the case that one of the plots was
for the house and the other was for cultivation. The study concluded, “fragmentation of
land holdings is not a problem in the central region since in the majority of cases a
family’s cultivation is confined to one parcel, or at most two.”
In contrast, previous studies of the central region have concluded that subdivision either
already was a problem or was becoming a problem (Troutt et al 1992, p. 21). Parcels on
average were small, ranging from two to 15 acres, with the majority of sub-counties
interviewed reporting two to three, or at most five acres as the size of the average land
30
holding. That study attributed continuing subdivision to traditional attitudes toward

inheritance that favoured providing some of the father’s land holdings to all children or at
least all sons. It was feared that such subdivision, if continued, “could have dire
consequences for households two or three generations from now.”
In a later study, Troutt concluded that it was unclear whether fragmentation and
subdivision in central Uganda had reached levels that impeded agricultural activity or
restricted household income below subsistence levels (Troutt 1994, p. 58).
3.4.2 PLOT SIZE FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
The median plot sizes for parcels included in our household survey were 1 acre in both
Mbale and Wakiso and 6 acres in Lira. The fact that parcel sizes in Mbale and Wakiso
were smaller than those in Lira is not surprising given that Mbale is an area in which
fragmentation is generally perceived to be a problem, and Wakiso is a growing peri-urban
area with active land markets. Lira on the other hand is an area in which individual land
rights are less well developed, which would tend to discourage division of plots. 2
Plot sizes also varied somewhat across the different tenure types, with leasehold parcels
being the largest (median 7.2 acres) and mailo occupants (bibanja) being the smallest
(median 1 acre). The median size of customary plots was 2 acres. Variation in plot size
by tenure type is probably more a reflection of the fact that leasehold, freehold and mailo
plots tended to be larger at their inception, and does not necessarily suggest that tenure
type somehow causes or contributes to subdivision.
3.4.3 NUMBER OF PLOTS PER HOUSEHOLD FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
Our survey results confirm the generally held perception that fragmentation is more
pronounced in Mbale than in the other two survey areas. The median household in our
survey held 5 plots in Mbale, as compared to 4 in Lira, and 2 in Wakiso. Although
median plot sizes in Mbale and Wakiso were roughly the same, the average number of
plots per household in Mbale was double that in Wakiso. This confirms the perception of
most key informants that Mbale is an area of relatively high fragmentation, though it also
suggests that the average household in Mbale possess roughly twice as much land as the
average household in Wakiso.
In assessing the impact of fragmentation on production, it is also important to consider

how far a household’s land plots are from its home. According to our survey, the median
distance between the home and the household’s other land plots was 1 kilometre both in
Wakiso and Lira, whereas median distance was 0.25 kilometres in Mbale. Although land
holdings in Mbale are more fragmented than in the other two study areas, the land plots
tend to be much closer to the home in Mbale than in the other two areas, which suggests
2
Our findings are consistent with the findings of the Land Act Monitoring Exercise I in terms of the
relative plot sizes in the three study areas though LAME I found median land size in Mbale to be 2.25 acres
and 3.75 acres in Lira. It is unclear whether LAME I figures are for individual land plots or for all
household land.
31
that the effect of fragmentation in terms of time spent travelling between parcels is
relatively minimal. This is consistent with the findings of Troutt who concluded that the
average distance between home and other parcels was not large enough to prevent the
household from cultivating them (Troutt 1994, p. 124).
3.4.4 OPINIONS REGARDING CAUSES OF FRAGMENTATION IN UGANDA
The prevailing opinion expressed in key informant interviews and focus group
discussions was that the principal causes of subdivision and fragmentation in Uganda are
(1) market transactions in which households carve off a portion of a land plot and sell it
to raise needed money; and (2) traditional inheritance practices that reflect the desire to
bequeath land plots to multiple family members, causing families to purchase multiple
plots, or to divide their large plots into smaller plots for eventual distribution to multiple
heirs. According to Mukwaya (1953) and West (1964) inheritance and market
transactions on mailo land played a major role in subdividing the large tracts of mailo
land that were originally allocated.
The survey results tended to support these opinions and findings of prior studies. We
found that approximately 50% of the plots included in the survey had been acquired
through purchase, 30% through inheritance, and 17% through gift. Purchase was by far
the most common mode of acquisition in Wakiso (65%, compared to 21% through
inheritance, and 12% through gift) and Mbale (52%, compared to 32% through gift, and
13% through inheritance), whereas inheritance was the most common mode of
acquisition in Lira (58%, compared to 34% through purchase and 2.5% through gift).
These results are consistent with the peri-urban character of Wakiso (where market
transactions would be expected to be common) and the more traditional, customary
character of Lira (where market transactions would be expected to be less common).
3.4.5 OPINIONS REGARDING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

OF FRAGMENTED HOLDINGS
We attempted in the household survey to gain insights into farmers’ perceptions of the
costs and benefits of fragmentation. Our results indicate that farmers themselves feel that
there are both advantages and disadvantages to fragmentation. Overall, 77.2% of the
respondents identified some benefits to fragmentation (94% in Mbale, 52% in Wakiso,
and 82% in Lira).
The advantages that were cited most frequently were the ability to grow different crops
based on different soil fertility (45%), the ability to use different plots for different
purposes (39%), and the ability to avoid inter-cropping (20%).
The disadvantages most frequently identified were difficulty of managing fragmented

holdings (58%), and waste of time spent travelling between plots (54%). Difficulty in
maintaining security at distant plots was also identified as a concern by a significant
number of respondents.
32
One interesting observation regarding these results is that almost all respondents in Mbale
(94%) saw some advantage to fragmented land holdings. This suggests that
fragmentation (or lack of consolidation) in Mbale is attributable at least in part to farmer
choice rather than to supply-side causes.
3.4.6 OPINIONS REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
There is a widespread belief among officials at the central level that consolidation of
fragmented plots is necessary in certain areas of Uganda, particularly Mbale, Kabale,
Kisoro, and Rukungiri. This belief seems to be based on the feeling that excessive
fragmentation in some areas is negatively affecting agricultural productivity, and is
inhibiting agricultural modernisation.
Our survey results showed that parcels in Mbale were about the same size as parcels in
Wakiso, though holdings were in fact more fragmented in Mbale than in Wakiso or Lira.
Somewhat surprisingly, the desire to consolidate plots was stronger among respondents in
Wakiso, (67%) than respondents in Mbale (51%) or Lira (48%) despite the fact that the
fragmentation problem seems to be least acute in Wakiso.
The majority of respondents (67% overall) expressed the opinion that consolidation of
their fragmented holdings would make their plots more productive (70% of respondents
in both Mbale and Lira, and 58% in Wakiso).
3.4.7 OPINIONS REGARDING OBSTACLES TO CONSOLIDATION
We attempted in the household survey to identify the most significant obstacles to

consolidation. We asked all respondents who expressed the desire to consolidate, why,
despite their desire, they had not consolidated their land holdings. By far the most often
cited obstacle to consolidation was the complicated ownership structure of most plots
(cited by 84% of the respondents). 42% of the respondents said that although they would
like to consolidate their holdings, they did not have the financial resources to do so.
Key informants, especially bankers, felt that another important obstacle to consolidation
was the presence of overwhelming risks in the agricultural sector that created strong
disincentives to consolidation. Among the risks identified were lack of markets where
produce could be bought and sold, poor transportation infrastructure making it costly to
transport produce to markets, lack of adequate storage facilities in which to store produce
pending sale, and imperfect information flows that make it difficult for farmers to make
rational production decisions. These risks are exogenous to land markets, but must be
addressed before farmers and investors in the agricultural sector will attempt, on their
own initiative, to consolidate land holdings.
33
3.4.8 OPINIONS REGARDING GOVERNMENT-MANDATED

CONSOLIDATION
We did not find strong support for a mandatory government consolidation program
among our survey respondents. 72% of respondents overall said they would oppose such
a mandatory program. Strong ancestral ties to the land were cited as the principal reason
for opposition to a government consolidation program. Many respondents did not trust
the government to implement a consolidation program equitably, or feared they would
end up with less land, or land of inferior quality.
There was even resistance to a mandatory government program among those who
expressed a desire to consolidate. Of the 55% of the respondents who favoured
consolidating their holdings, only 43% said they would support a mandatory government
consolidation program.
3.4.9 READJUSTMENT UNDER THE LSSP
The LSSP describes land readjustment as involving “the formulation of partnerships for
consolidation or land swapping for the good of a range of stakeholders – occupants,
owners, Government and service providers.” (LSSP, p. 32.) It would also involve “the
readjustment of rights through a process of negotiation and transfer, and must be
carefully carried out to ensure all parties consent and are satisfied with the outcome.”
The LSSP further describes the range of possibilities that might be piloted under different
circumstances. In cases of layered rights (i.e., where titled land is occupied by tenants
who are using scattered portions of the land), it may be possible to promote land sharing
between the owner and the occupants whereby the occupants surrender some of their
occupied land in exchange for other land of the owner. In this scenario, the Government
might fund infrastructure and/or the technical services to facilitate the exchange
(surveying, valuation and registration).
In cases where land holdings are fragmented and uneconomical the Government would
facilitate negotiations between owners in order to encourage the formulation of
partnerships or land swapping. Market mechanisms would also be used to encourage
consolidation, and Government might fund infrastructure (in partnership with the private
sector) and/or technical services.
Finally, in urban or peri-urban informal settlements, readjustment would be used for

planning and servicing and area, and would consist of boundary adjustments that would
enable services to be provided.
34
3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CONSOLIDATION

OR READJUSTMENT
The conclusions and recommendations regarding fragmentation, consolidation and

readjustment are divided into four sections. The first section presents conclusions and
recommendation regarding a pilot readjustment program as contemplated under the
LSSP. The second section contains recommendations for legislative changes to curtail
continued subdivision and fragmentation. The third section presents recommendations to
eliminate land market imperfections that inhibit market-driven consolidation. The final
section focuses on issues related to the agricultural sector generally that inhibit voluntary,
farmer-initiated consolidation.
3.5.1 PILOT READJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Our findings suggest that policymakers should approach any consolidation or

readjustment program cautiously, even if it is only a small pilot program. Many of the
components essential to a successful consolidation or readjustment program are currently
lacking in Uganda, which would make implementation very challenging.
There is widespread opposition to a mandatory, government-sponsored program even in

Mbale where policymakers perceive fragmentation to be a problem. Even survey
respondents who said they would otherwise like to consolidate their fragmented holdings
did not necessarily support a mandatory program. In the face of this initial opposition,
any consolidation program would require a comprehensive and sustained period of public
education and sensitisation. An effective public outreach program would require
significant human and financial resources.
The opposition to government intervention reflects strong ancestral ties to specific land
plots, and the pervasive feeling that land belongs to past, current and future generations.
It also stems from historical distrust of government when it comes to land matters. Since
ties to specific plots are based on reasons having nothing to do with agricultural
efficiency or productivity, it is unlikely that appeals to increased efficiency or production
would be enough to overcome the strong opposition.
Although 67% of the survey respondents felt that consolidation would lead to increased
productivity, there is no empirical evidence to support that claim, and this Study lacked
the time and resources to study adequately the relationship between fragmentation and
productivity. A study of the economics of farm fragmentation in Ghana and Rwanda
found that consolidation programs would be unlikely to significantly increase land
productivity and could actually make farmers worse off (Blarel, Hazell et al. 1992). That
study did not find a significant relationship between farm size and farm yield. It also did
not find a significant relationship between distance to plot and farm yield. Like in Ghana
and Rwanda, distances between the home and other household parcels in the study areas
covered by this Study are relatively short, particularly in Mbale where fragmentation is
the most severe. It should be possible to walk the median distance of .25 km in Mbale in
less than 15 minutes, which is not a significant inefficiency.
35
It should also be noted that most farmers in Uganda do not have access to tractors or
other mechanisation and, therefore, the advantages usually associated with consolidation
would not necessarily be available to them, especially in the short run.
One of the overriding challenges to implementation of the LSSP is the lack of

institutional capacity to carry out the priority activities. This lack of capacity, especially
at the local level, would be a major obstacle to implementation of a consolidation or
readjustment program. Most successful consolidation programs start with a complete and
accurate cadastre, or inventory of land plots and their owners and occupants. Such an
inventory does not exist in Uganda where an estimated 85% of the land rights are
unsurveyed, undocumented and unregistered (Land Sector Strategic Plan p.34).
Moreover, the capacity to create an accurate inventory does not currently exist at the
local level.
The lack of an accurate land register is further complicated by the system of layered
rights in many parts of Uganda, particularly those areas where mailo land is prevalent.
The layered rights and the lack of clarity regarding the consent clause present significant
obstacles to relatively straightforward market transactions such as purchases, sales and
mortgages. They would also complicate any land transfers attempted as part of a
consolidation or re-adjustment program.
Although the Land Act envisages putting in place various mechanisms for clarifying or
formalising customary and occupancy rights, those mechanisms have not been
implemented because of the absence of the necessary institutions such as parish land
committees and district land boards. In the absence of these institutions, there would be
no mechanism for processing certificates of occupancy or certificates of customary
ownership, let alone mechanisms for resolving disputes that are bound to arise in any
readjustment effort.
Some of the challenges to successful implementation of a consolidation or readjustment

program can be overcome with financial resources. In the case of Uganda, there are so
many activities to be funded under the LSSP that it is unclear that adequate financial
resources for land consolidation or readjustment would be available.
In light of all these challenges, it is not clear that a pilot readjustment program should be
the highest priority under the PMA or LSSP. It is doubtful that readjustment would be
successful without a substantial investment of time and money. The costs and benefits
should be examined carefully in light of the findings described in this paper, and the
limited resources available to the land sector. Limited resources might be best deployed
on interventions addressing issues other than fragmentation, or on maximising the use of
market forces to facilitate consolidation.
Policy makers should also be mindful of some of the economic and demographic risks
associated with consolidation or readjustment. Our key informant interviews and focus
group discussions indicate that many sellers sell their land plots because they need money
36
for school fees, health care and other needs. There is a risk that a consolidation or
readjustment program would have the effect of facilitating distress sales, which could
inadvertently contribute to the growing problem of landlessness. Subsistence farmers
who are poor now, but who are producing enough food for their household needs might
sell their land and move to cities where they will not necessarily have the skills necessary
to find employment.
3.5.2 KEY COMPONENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A READJUSTMENT

PILOT
If a readjustment program is undertaken, it should include the following components.
3.5.2.1 COMPONENT ONE – CAREFUL SITE SELECTION
The first step should be choosing a site in which readjustment is likely to be successful.
This means designating an area where all of the institutional infrastructure and other
components necessary to ensure the success of the program are already in place or can be
put in place quickly. This may require delaying implementation of the readjustment pilot
until the latter stages of Phase I or until Phase II of the LSSP. Regardless of timing, the
area chosen for the pilot should be selected very carefully with particular attention to the
following criteria:
1. Area has undergone systematic demarcation. The first pilot readjustment should be
carried out in an area that has already undergone systematic demarcation. The
systematic demarcation process will help build the institutional and human capacity
necessary for readjustment in the pilot area. Systematic demarcation will yield a
complete and reliable register or inventory of land, which is one of the essential
components of a successful readjustment program. The demarcation process could
also be used as a time for polling community receptivity to readjustment, and to test
whether the area meets the other selection criteria listed below. Systematic
demarcation will familiarise local authorities and residents with land issues, and
procedures under the Land Act and begin to Sensitize them to issues bound to arise
during readjustment. A successful demarcation program would also help alleviate
some of the current scepticism regarding land reform programs.
2. Other institutional infrastructure in place. The area chosen should be one in which
the local institutional infrastructure is relatively strong (i.e., all the necessary
institutional players (committees, boards, and tribunals) have been constituted and are
functioning smoothly).
3. Small area. Regardless of when and where the first readjustment pilot is carried out,
it should encompass a very small area that can be easily managed. The pilot will be
challenging for many of the reasons discussed elsewhere in this paper, so it should
not be further complicate by being too large or too diverse.
37
4. Strong public support for program. Attempts should be made to choose an area
where there is relatively strong support for consolidation or readjustment. This would
mean choosing an area where farmers themselves perceive fragmentation to be a
problem and express a desire to consolidate. It should also be an area in which the
mailo owner supports consolidation and is willing to make compromises and incur
costs.
5. Other complicating factors. There are many factors that could further complicate
consolidation or readjustment. The pilot should attempt to minimise these factors by
selecting a site in which:
ancestral ties to land are relatively weak

variations in soil quality and other qualitative aspects of land (e.g., slope,
elevation, microclimatic conditions, access to roads, water retention) are minimal
polygamy is relatively uncommon (to minimise the complications presented by
the consent clause)
plots are primarily used for agriculture and not residential purposes (it is always
more difficult to get people to leave their homes)
only one type of tenure predominates (to minimise complications presented by
asking farmers to exchange one tenure type for another).
3.5.2.2 COMPONENT TWO – COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

AND SENSITIZATION
The pilot will need to include a strong public education program designed to increase
public awareness of the costs of continued fragmentation and the advantages of
consolidation or readjustment. The program will have to address fears of some farmers
that they may receive poorer land they currently have, and other scepticism about
government land reform programs. All participants will have to be assured that they will
have adequate input into the process, and that the procedures will be transparent and
equitable.
3.5.2.3 COMPONENT THREE - SUPPORT TO PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS AND

PROFESSIONALS
Even if the necessary institutions are already in place in the pilot area, they will need
strong support to meet the needs of a consolidation or readjustment program. Financial
support will be necessary to ensure that institutions at the local level have adequate
supplies and equipment to conduct the activity. Training of professionals (especially
valuers, surveyors, and mediators) will also be required.
3.5.2.4 COMPONENT FOUR - STREAMLINED PROCEDURES
The Land Act and Land Regulations establish many of the procedures that will be
included in a readjustment program. These include the procedure for obtaining a
certificate of customary ownership or a certificate of occupancy. The procedures as they
are currently designed are quite complicated (requiring documents and information to go
38
back and forth among the owner, occupant, the land committee and the district land
board), and contain extended waiting periods (such as the 6 month waiting period for an
owner to consent to an application for a Certificate of Occupancy) (Land Act, Section
34(7). For a readjustment program to be successful, these procedures will have to be
simplified, and the waiting periods will have to be shortened. This may require
enactment of specialised legislation to be tested in the pilot areas.
3.5.2.5 COMPONENT FIVE – SUBSIDIZED OR FREE SERVICES
Although the ultimate goal is to design a process that is replicable and sustainable, it may
be that the first readjustment program requires some degree of subsidisation to ensure
that farmers are able to afford the required services. The services of some professionals
(like valuers, surveyors, and mediators) may have to be provided for free to entice
farmers to participate in the process. Similarly, costs of issuing of certificates of
occupancy or certificates of customary ownership may have to be subsidised.
3.5.3 LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
One of the challenges of dealing with fragmentation and consolidation is that some of the
causes of fragmentation in Uganda appear to relate to traditional inheritance practices,
and to farmers’ preferences for having more than one land plot. Adopting or amending
legislation that contradicts these long-held customs and preferences is unlikely to be
successful. Nonetheless, there are some legislative changes that should be considered
during the legal review to occur in Phase I of the LSSP. Legislative changes would have
to be accompanied by public education and sensitisation in order to be successful.
3.5.3.1 LAND ACT, AND TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT.
The Land Act currently grants the holders of all types of tenure the right to subdivide
their land plots (Land Act, Sections 4(2)(b)(iii), 4(4)(c)). The right to subdivide is
regulated to some extent by the Town and Country Planning Act, which allows local
governments to adopt regulations regarding subdivision and to subject subdivisions to
local approval. Although the Act gives local governments these regulatory powers, the
Act does not seem to be very effective in controlling subdivision. The Act does not, for
the most part, apply to rural land so subdivision of rural land is practically unregulated
and uncontrolled. In urban and peri-urban areas, local governments may have developed
subdivision regulations and approval procedures, but those regulations and procedures do
not seem to be implemented or enforced, with the possible exception of very limited
implementation in Kampala and other large cities.
The virtually unregulated subdivision of plots is resulting in ever decreasing plot sizes
and seems to be contributing to increasingly fragmented land holdings as farmers have no
choice but to purchase non-contiguous plots in order to increase their land holdings.
Troutt, Marquardt et al. noted that some communities on their own initiatives were taking
steps to curtail subdivision (Troutt, Marquardt et al. 1992, p. 21). Policy makers and
legislators should investigate these methods to determine whether any of them might be
39
appropriate for broader application. If so, they should be incorporated into the Land Act,
the Town and Country Planning Act, and the Succession Act.
3.5.3.2 NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY – ZONING AND LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
One of the priority action areas in the LSSP is the development of a national land use
policy. Although the Town and Country Planning Act already empowers local
governments to adopt restrictions on subdivision, and procedures for getting subdivisions
approved at the local level, very few local governments seem to focus on this issue. In
developing the new National Land Use Policy, policymakers should consider ways to
encourage local governments to establish minimal plot sizes for certain types of use,
taking into consideration local conditions. Perhaps a town that already has such
restrictions could be designated as a pilot area in which subdivision regulations could be
more actively publicised and more aggressively enforced. Experience in the pilot town
could then be tried in other localities. In any case, there is no point in adopting
subdivision regulations unless local governments will have the resources necessary to
educate residents about them, and to enforce them if they are violated.
3.5.3.3 SUCCESSION LAWS AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES
The Succession Act and current customary practices do not discourage division of
property among heirs, and may actually encourage division. Consideration should be
given to amending the Succession Act so that land and other real property would be
passed to heirs as common or joint property that could only be divided pursuant to
applicable subdivision regulations. Legislative changes would have to be accompanied
by attempts to influence customary practices through public education regarding the
benefits of preserving plots of a certain minimum size.
3.5.3.4 MARKET MECHANISMS TO FACILITATE CONSOLIDATION
If farmers themselves see consolidation as a desirable goal, they will eventually take
voluntary steps to consolidate their land holdings. In order to facilitate this process, the
market imperfections identified in Section II of this paper should be addressed so that
farmers can engage in market transactions without undue complication or cost. The
recommendations regarding market imperfections will not be repeated here, but
addressing them should ease the way towards farmer-initiated consolidation.
4 MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE RISKS IN AGRICULTURE – LINK TO

PMA MISSION
The Mission of the PMA is “eradicating poverty by transforming subsistence agriculture

to commercial agriculture. Improving the welfare of poor subsistence farmers will
require that they re-orient their production towards the market. More of their production
must be marketed to enable them to earn higher incomes.” (PMA, p. vi.)
40
The PMA describes two types of constraints to achieving the transformation from
subsistence to commercial agriculture: (1) productivity related constraints; and (2)
constraints related to governance. Productivity related constraints listed in the PMA
include: “lack of sufficient food, lack of land, soil infertility, lack of proximal water
sources, lack of inputs, pests and diseases, lack of skills and knowledge, lack of capital
and access to credit, market problems (low prices, lack of markets), poor roads and
transport networks, lack of storage and processing, insecurity where it exists, and loss of
oxen due to insecurity in areas where they are used.”
Governance constraints identified in the PMA include “insecurity of persons and

property, corruption, lack of accountability and transparency, poor delivery of basic
public services, and weak local leadership.”
Time and again during the conduct of this Study key informants and survey respondents
made reference to these constraints as the main difficulties in agriculture. They were
aware of land-related constraints as well, but the productivity and governance constraints
were at least as prominent, and usually more so. The prevailing attitude, especially
among those who wanted to make the transition from subsistence to commercial farming,
was that the overall constraints in the sector made investment in agriculture too risky.
Bankers repeatedly identified overall uncertainty in the agricultural sector as the primary
constraint to lending. They acknowledged land-related issues (especially concerns
relating to the consent clause), but seemed to think those issues could be overcome if
other constraints could be eliminated.
Land consolidation essentially requires farmers to feel sufficiently confident about the
agricultural sector to invest in consolidating their land holdings. The PMA and LSSP
must recognise that subdivision and fragmentation are in part caused by (and
consolidation is inhibited by) factors other than land tenure and land markets. These
other causes must be addressed in parallel with the land-related causes before market-
driven consolidation will occur and before the mission of the PMA can be achieved.
41
5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Studies and Articles
Adams, Martin and Michael Aliber. 2001. Land Sector Strategic Plan: Analysis of
Economic Rationale and Investment Programme, draft report October 2001,
Mokoro Ltd.
Binns, B.O. 1950. The Consolidation of Fragmented Agricultural Holdings, FAO

Agricultural Studies No. 11.
Blarel, Benoit, Peter Hazell, Frank Place and John Quiggin. 1992. The Economics of
Farm Fragmentation: Evidence from Ghana and Rwanda, 4 The World Bank
Economic Review 233.
Government of Uganda. 1999. Report of the Land Act Implementation Study, Main
Report and Annexes 1 - 9.
Jian-Ming Zhou. 1999. How to Carry out Land Consolidation – An International

Comparison, EUI Working Paper No. 99/1.
Kigula, John. 1993. Land Disputes in Uganda: An Overview of the Types of Land
Disputes and the Dispute Settlement Fora, prepared for Makerere Institute of
Social Research and the Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin.
Law & Development Partnership Limited and Steadman Research Services. 2001.
Uganda Commercial Justice Baseline Study.
Lusho, Sherif and Dhimiter Papa. 1998. Land Fragmentation and Consolidation in
Albania, Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Working Paper No. 25.
McPherson, Malcolm F. 1993. Land Fragmentation in Agriculture: Adverse? Beneficial?

And for Whom?, Development Discussion Paper, Number 145, Harvard Institute
of International Development.
Muhereza, Frank Emmanuel. 1998. Mailo Land Tenure System, Customary Land Rights
and Claims in Buganda: A Case Study of Nakasongola, Centre for Basic
Research, Working Paper No. 51.
Mukwaya, A. B. 1953. Land Tenure in Buganda: Present Day Tendencies, Eagle Press,
Nairobi.
Mwebaza, Rose. 1999. How to Integrate Statutory and Customary Tenure: The Uganda
Case, paper for DFID Workshop on Land Rights and Sustainable Development in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
42
Nguyen, Tin, Enjiang Cheng and Christopher Findlay. 1996. Land Fragmentation and
Farm Productivity in China in the 1990s, 7 China Economic Review 169.
Nsamba-Gayiiya, Eddie. 1999. Implementing Land Tenure Reform in Uganda: A

Complex Task Ahead, paper for DFID Workshop on Land Rights and Sustainable
Development in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Ovonji-Odida, I., Muhereza, F.E., Eturu, L., Wily, L.A., 2000. Land, Gender and Poverty
Eradication, Is There a Case for Spousal Co-Ownership of Primary Household
Property? Land Act Implementation Project, Kampala, Uganda.
Place, Frank, Joe Ssenteza and Keijiro Otsuka. 2001. Customary and Private Land
Management in Uganda, Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: A
Comparative Study of Agrarian Communities in Asia and Africa, Edited by
Keijiro Otsuka and Frank Place, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Riddell, Jim and Fritz Rembold. 2001. Farm Land Rationalisation and Land
Consolidation: Strategies for Multifunctional Use of Rural Space in Eastern and
Central Europe, http://www.ddl.org/figtree/pub/proceedings/prague-final-
papers/riddell-rembold.htm.
Rock, June. 2000. The Land Issue in Eritrea’s Reconstruction and Development, 27
Review of African Political Economy 221.
Sebina-Zziwa, A.J.N. 1995. Gender Perspectives on Land Ownership and Inheritance in

Uganda. Access to Land and Other Natural Resources in Uganda: Research and
Policy Development Project, Research Paper 16. Makerere Institute of Social
Research, Kampala University and the Land Tenure Centre, University of
Wisconsin.
Sebina-Zziwa, A.J.N. 1999. The Paradox of Tradition: Gender, Land and Inheritance
Rights Among the Baganda. Uganda: Makerere University.
Sebina-Zziwa, Abby et al. 2000. Land Act Monitoring Exercise I, Department for
International Development (DFID) and Ministry of Water, Lands and
Environment (MWLE).
Troutt, Elizabeth, Mark Marquardt, W. Kisamba-Mugerwa and Richard Barrows. 1992.

The Dynamics of the Land Market and the Issue of Compensation in Uganda,
prepared for Makerere Institute of Social Research and Land Tenure Center,
University of Wisconsin.
Troutt, Elizabeth. 1994. Rural African Land Markets and Access to Agricultural Land:
The Central Region of Uganda, Makerere Institute of Social Research and Land
Tenure Centre, University of Wisconsin.
43
West, Henry W. 1964. The Mailo System in Buganda: A Preliminary Case Study in
African Land Tenure, Government Printer, Entebbe, Uganda.
West, Henry W. 1971. The Transformation of Land Tenure in Buganda Since 1896,
African Social Research Documents Vol. 2, African Studies Centre, University of
Cambridge, Great Britain.
West, Henry W. 1972. Land Policy in Buganda, The University Press, Cambridge.
Government of Uganda, Laws, Regulations and Plans
Constitution of Republic of Uganda 1995
The Land Act, July 2, 1998.
The Land Regulations, 2001, Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 9, 23 March 2001.
The Registration of Titles Act, 1924, with amendments.
The Succession Act, 1906, with amendments.
Town and Country Planning Act, 1951.
Land Sector Strategic Plan, “Final” draft dated November 30, 2001.
Government of Uganda, Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture: Eradicating Poverty in

Uganda, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, and Ministry of
Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
44
6 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE LAND MARKET, LAND

CONSOLIDATION AND LAND RE-ADJUSTMENT
1. Background
The Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment (MWLE) is developing a Land Sector
Strategic Plan (LSSP), with the aim of providing a strategic framework for co-ordination
of Land Sector use and management. The ultimate aim is contributing to the achievement
of the overall Government policy goals, including poverty eradication, agricultural
modernisation and good governance.
The Land Sector Mission is to “create an enabling environment for the participation of
all stakeholders in effective use and management of Uganda’s land resources”. The
missions will be achieved by pursuing six strategic objectives, namely:
i. to create an inclusive and pro-poor legal and policy framework for the land
sector;
ii. to put land resources to sustainable productive use;
iii. to improve livelihood of poor people through a more equitable distribution of
land access and ownership and greater tenure security for vulnerable groups;
iv. to increase availability, accessibility and use of land information in planning
and implementing developing programmes;
v. to establish and maintain transparent, accountable and easily accessible
institutions and systems for decentralised delivery of land services;
vi. to mobilise and utilise public and private resources efficiently and effectively
for the development of the land sector.
Purpose of the consultancy
Strategic Objective 2 aims, amongst other things, at supporting the land sale and land
rental markets. The purpose of the consultancy is therefore to address directly the
implication of certification, titling and demarcation on the land market, with particular
attention to the opportunities offered by vibrant land markets for land consolidation
mechanisms, and land re-adjustment.
Tasks
The consultant will carry out detailed analysis and review of:
1. Documenting, to the extent possible from field data, how land market transactions
actually take place in selected regions of Uganda (3 case studies targeting mailo,
communal and individualised customary tenures). In particular, empirical information
on how prices are determined between contracting parties, what documentation is
used to close transactions, what are the most common financing mechanisms for land
45
sales, etc. It would also be useful if the consultant can elaborate a profile of buyers
and sellers of land.
2. The existing status/working of the land market, in relation to geographical
distribution, prevailing tenure types and ownership types, land use, etc., with
particular attention to the implication of systematic demarcation and certification.
3. The theoretical and empirical risks associated with a free and unregulated land
market, coupled with incomplete credit and insurance markets (e.g. land speculation,
increase in distress sale, …), and potential measures to reduce these risks.
4. The link between efficient land markets and access to credit (land as collateral),
assessing the likely impacts of the Land Act and Land Sector Strategic Plan with
respect to credit access for different groups (e.g. small vs big holders, female headed
households etc.). Particular attention should be given to the expected implications of
the consent clause under the Land Act 1998.
5. The theoretical link between security of tenure and functioning of the land market
accompanied by an empirical assessment of the current and projected situation in
Uganda.
6. The potential ways to use land sale and rental markets for land consolidation and land
re-adjustment.
Outputs
The consultant is expected to produce:
1. an empirical report outlining the scope and methodologies to use land markets for
purposes of land consolidation and land re-adjustment in the context of Uganda. The
report should indicate the most appropriate regulatory measures on the land market to
be considered as part of the broader regulations to the Land Act 1998, and
institutional framework to be established.
2. The report should also address issues of concern emerging from the analysis of land
markets implications, suggesting mitigation measures for the adverse impacts of
unregulated land markets, and mechanisms to enhance the positive ones.
3. Specific recommendations for the design of pilot investment projects aimed at
addressing land consolidation and re-adjustment issues through more effective and
transparent land markets, focusing on pilot project design features such as funding
arrangements, institutional mechanisms, legal/regulatory provisions for pilot
implementation, etc.
Methodology
Literature review on the theoretical underpinnings of the study.
Literature review on land tenure, land sale and rental markets in Uganda.
Data collection, empirical analysis of linkages between land transactions, access to
credit and insurance, land holding size and productivity
The consultant is expected to liase with the principal stakeholders, especially with
respect to they policy aspects of the study.
46
Reporting
The consultant will report to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Water, Lands and
Environment/Chair, Land Act Implementation Steering Committee. Working closely with
the Land Sector Strategic Plan Task Force and PMA Sub-Committee on Natural
Resources, the Private Sector, and the consultant on common property regimes.
Team
One international consultant (preferably a land economist with previous knowledge of
Uganda) for three weeks and two local consultants for 5 weeks.
47
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES, AND ATTENDEES AT

ROUNDTABLES, WORKSHOPS AND KEY INFORMANT MEETINGS
Name Affiliation Contact Information

Parish Chief, Bushinyakwa, Mbale
1. Abasi, Mayeku Wayira
2. Abillo, Tom Kirombe North, Lira
3. Acai, Anyelo Tom Moses Lira
Manteniko Development Forum
4. Achia, Peter Edison 009270167; fax 045-35099
(MADEFO), Moroto
5. Achia, Terrence Sodium LC5 Chairman Moroto District
Chief Manager, LIME, Uganda
6. Acigwa, Joyce 041-257380
Commercial Bank
7. Acuku, C.O.A Secretary, Uganda Land Commission 077-422556; 041-235885
8. Adupa, Abass Lira Municipality
PMA Subcommittee on Natural
9. Ahimbisibwe, Michael
Resources, NEMD
10. Ajok, Dennis Assistant CAO Lira District
11. Aloi, Christine Lira Minicipality
12. Amuge, Rose LC1 V/Chairperson, Adag Mog Parish
13. Anyaru, Tom Kirombe North Lira
14. Aol, Norah
Chm. LC1 Kirombe North, Lira
15. Arongo, Peter
Municipality
16. Assiimwe, Elizabeth CARE International 077-611298
District Environmental Officer
17. Balaba, Paul 077-460327
Kayunga
18. Basangwa, Sarah Kulata MWLE
19. Bitwayiki, Constantine MOLG 041-342854
20. Bosworth, Joanne MWLE 077-446557
Assistant Chief Adminstrative Officer,
21. Bwanika, Mathias 077-524064
Mpigi District
22. Bwiragura, J.A. Asst. Commissioner Land Inspectorate
041-320531; fax 041-
Asst. Commissioner Lands and
23. Bwogi, Justin 320810;
Survey, MWLE
maps@infocom.co.ug
24. Deininger, Klaus World Bank 001-202-473-0430
25. Dutki, Geo
Resources, Forestry Secretariat
26. Ecaat, Justine NEMA 041-251064/5
27. Edopu, Peter Uganda Land Reform
28. Egwau, Alfred Kirombe North
29. Gumonye, Issa Ministry of Local Government
30. Hezin, Buyi Secretary Finance, Mbale District
Secretary Finance and Administration
31. Hezinby, __
Mbale
077-700038;
32. Ireland, Claire PMA Secretariat
claire.ireland@infocom.co.
48
ug
33. Jacinta, Agang Kirombe North Lira
Faculty of Forestry and Conservation,
34. Kabogozza, J.R.S. 041-543647
Makerere University
35. Kaggwa, Dorothy Environmental Alert 266048
36. Kaksru, Willy Wetlands Division 251375
077-507100,
37. Kalemba, Monica CAO Wakiso District
mkalemba@yahoo.com
38. Kalule-Sewali, J.B. 041-320363
Resources, MAAIF
General Manager, Credit and
39. Kansiime, Edward K. Collections, Uganda Commercial 041-257772
Bank, Ltd.
40. Kasajja, Edith Kateme MWLE
41. Katsigaire, S. MWLE 077-471922
42. Keene Mugerwa, L Land Tenure Reform Project Office
43. Kibaden, M. Abdallah 077-525959
44. Kironde, Ashraf Kisimbiri Zone Wakiso
041-343138; fax 041-
Project Coordinator Land Act
45. Kiwanuka, D.K. 231701;
Implementation Unit
dfidland@infocom.co.ug
46. Kyamanywa, Charles Senior Town Planner, City of Kampala 077-508744
47. Laker, Carelie Kego PMA Secretariat 077-428718
077-691557;
48. Lister, Stephen Mokoro – Local Government Study
slister@mokoro.co.uk
49. Lubega, John Agricultural Extension Office Mpigi 077-424692
50. Lwanga, Victoria MWODET, Mpigi 077-445273
51. Magera, Paul MWLE 07180299, 258191
52. Magunda, __ NARO 041-567696
53. Majory, Apollo Dan Komatheniko, Moroto
Director Gender and Community
54. Mpagi, Jane
Development
55. Mubbala, K.S.B. Director Lands, MWLE 041-341875
56. Mubiru, F.R.
Resources, NAADS
041-320123/630, 077-
57. Mugisa, Tom PMA Secretariat
436683
58. Mukasa, Matte Acting Secretary, Uganda Land Board 075-656814
59. Mukasa-Kintu, Catherine District Land Office Wakiso 075-61344
60. Mukumba, Amos DeputyAssistant L.CV,Mbale
61. Mukumba, Kitutu Eputy Speaker, Mbale
62. Mulindwa, Monica Mowin Properties 075-690411
63. Muramira, Telly Eugene
Resources, NEMA
District Environmental Officer
64. Musoke, Solomon
Mukono
65. Mwaka, C.A. Judicial Service Commission
66. Namaia, Fred Parish Chief, Bumushiso, Mbale
67. Name unknown Chief Administrative Officer Mpigi
49
68. Ngategize, Peter MFPED 041-349806

69. Nokanko, Juliet Mentor Consult 077-601558
Chair, PMA Sub-Committee on 075-755500/041-341071;
70. Nsamba-Gayiiya, Eddie
Natural Resources, MWLE Fax 041-230891
71. Ntale, Paul Manager Leases, Buganda Land Board
72. Obol, Thomas Ag. Lands Officer, Mbale
73. Obura, Peter Chairman Adag Mog Parish
74. Ochen, Hussein Lira Municipality
75. Odongo, Benard Kirombe North Lira
76. Odongo, Moses Kirombe
77. Odwedo, D. CAO Lira District
78. Odwongo, W. PMA Secretariat 077-461163
79. Ogwang, Alfred Lira Municipality
80. Ojede, Andrew M.U.K. 071-849708
81. Okello, Joshua Kirombe North Lira
82. Okello, Martin Lira Municipality
83. Okello, Serafino Lira Municipality
84. Okelo, Felly Kirombe North Lira
85. Okii, George Kirombe North
86. Okite, Stella Lira
87. Okodo, Tony Lira Municipality
88. Okullo, Patrick Kirombe North Lira
89. Oloi, Christine Researcher, Lira
50
World Bank, Rural Development

90. Oloya, J.J. 041-230094
Specialist
91. Onyanga, Constantine Land Officer Lira
92. Opio, Albion Kirombe North Lira
93. Opio, Celestino Secretary District Land Board Lira
94. Opio, Emmanuel Kirombe North lira
95. Opio, Robert MWLE 041-341667
Land Tenure Reform Project Office,
96. Oput, Richard 041-343138;
MWLE
97. Otille, Edwin Chair, DLB, Lira
98. Otille, Edwin Chairman Land Board – Lira
Head of Loans Department, Centenary
99. Ruhabuka, Charles Rural Development Bank, Entebbe 041-251276/7
Road Branch
100. Ruyooka, D. Makerere University 077-492274
101. Salongo, Walakira Chmn.LC1 Kisimbiri Zone Wakiso
102. Santa, Apio Kirombe North Lira
103. Sebaduka Manager Buganda Land Board
Environmental Economist, Ministry of
041-234700/2/3, ext. 216;
104. Sgobbi, Alessandra Finance, Planning and Economic
fax 041-251793
Development
105. Sozi Buganda Land Board O71 806921
Senior Research Fellow, Makerere
106. Ssebina-Zziwa, Abby
Institute of Social Researchers
Commissioner of Physical Planning,
107. Ssekandi, H.
MWLE
108. Ssesanga, Ruth Women’s Council Leader Mpigi
Commissioner for Land Registration, 071-801995; 041341667;
109. Tibisaasa, Jonathon
MWLE fax 041230891
110. Waiswa, Dauda Makerere University
111. Wasajja, Dirisa Land Broker Kisimbiri Zone Wakiso
Secretary to District Land Board
112. Weasa, Anthony
Mbale
113. Yanyai, Kenneth Deputy CAO Mbale District
51
APPENDIX 3
SURVEY RESULTS
TABLES FOR LAND MARKETS, LAND FRAGMENTATION AND LAND

CONSOLIDATION
Introductory note
The data presented in tables below was collected using structured question. The questionnaires
were checked for consistency and completeness, coded and entered in to the computer. The data
was cleaned and analyzed using SPSS/PC ver 8.0. Three districts of Uganda were selected for
interview, namely: Lira in the north, Mbale in the east and Wakiso in the central. A total of 133
respondents were successfully interviewed. Responses on each of the questions asked are
presented in the tables below.
Please note the following:

The tables are based on valid responses.
Where % - sign is not presented, the figures in the tables should be considered as numbers
There are cases of multiple responses. This means that the entries in such tables may not add up to 100
%
In order to ease analysis, the main question for which a table is developed is presented as the heading
to the respective table.
The tables are presented following the order of the questions in the questionnaire.
Table 1: Number of respondents by gender and district

District
Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Male 36 35 28 99
Female 3 9 22 34
Total 39 44 50 133
Table B: What do you do (occupation)?

Occupation Mbale Wakiso Lira Total
Peasant/farmer 84.6% 50.0% 86.0% 73.7%
Artisan 9.1% 2.0% 3.8%
Business person 2.6% 22.7% 2.0% 9.0%
Teacher 5.1% 4.5% 6.0% 5.3%
Trader 2.3% .8%
Driver 4.5% 1.5%
Civil servant 2.6% 4.5% 4.0% 3.8%
Retired 5.1% 2.3% 2.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table C: How many people live in your household (averages)?

District N Mean Median Minimum Maximum
Mbale 39 9.41 9.00 1 23
Wakiso 44 6.30 6.00 1 15
Lira 50 6.80 6.00 2 15
Total 133 7.40 7.00 1 23
52
Table O: Have you ever bought or sold land?

District
Ever bought or sold land? Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Yes 97.4% 93.2% 60.9% 82.8%
No 2.6% 6.8% 39.1% 17.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table N1: Who makes decisions on the use to which parcels should be
put by gender?
Decision maker Gender of respondent
Total
Male Female
Husband 63.6% 11.8% 50.4%
Wife 3.0% 58.8% 17.3%
Both 33.3% 29.4% 32.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table N2: Who makes decisions on the use to which parcels should be put by
district?
District
Total
Decision maker Mbale Wakiso Lira
Husband 51.3% 59.1% 42.0% 50.4%
Wife 7.7% 13.6% 28.0% 17.3%
Both 41.0% 27.3% 30.0% 32.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table P: If yes, how did buyers and sellers find each other
District
Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Local council/ local official 7.5% 14.8% 6.7%
Word of mouth 100.0% 77.5% 100.0% 91.3%
Broker 2.7% 15.0% 3.7% 7.7%
Other 3.7% 1.0%
Note: This is a multiple response table.
Table Q1: Rank most important factors in determining price (with 1 as most important
and 6 as least important)
Distance
Type of Rural/ Other
Rank Soil quality from main Land title
tenure urban factors
road
First 45.2% 19.6% 1.1% 10.7% 23.8%
Second 22.1% 41.2% 6.0% 36.3%
Third 15.4% 30.9% 8.6% 9.5% 31.3%
Fourth 10.6% 3.1% 46.2% 21.4% 5.0% 5.1%
Fifth 6.7% 5.2% 36.6% 51.2% 3.8% 10.3%
Sixth 7.5% 1.2% 84.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
53
Table Q2: Total points score for each factor determining price of land
District Soil quality Distance from Rural/urban Land title Type of Other factors
main road location tenure
Mbale 206 175 169 87 95 26
Wakiso 178 214 214 159 115 21
Lira 124 64 6 32
Total 508 453 383 252 242 47
Overall position 1 2 3 4 5 6
Note:
Points were awarded based on the rank given to each factor. For example, a factor ranked first was
given 6 points, factor ranked second was give 5 points, etc.
The points obtained are then total for each district and for the entire sample.
A factor with the highest number of points is considered the most important.
Table R: How do buyers verify seller has right to sell?

District
Total
Method of verification Mbale Wakiso Lira
Local council/ local official 10.8% 60.5% 96.4% 52.8%
Land office/ Registration department 4.7% 7.1% 3.7%
Neighbours 75.7% 46.5% 100.0% 70.4%
Broker 2.3% .9%
Surveyor 7.1% 1.9%
Site visit 2.7% 50.0% 13.9%
Others 18.9% 9.3% 10.2%
Table S: How do buyers verify that there are no occupants on the land?
District
Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Land office/ Registration department 2.3% 20.7% 6.4%
Neighbours 75.7% 20.5% 69.0% 51.8%
Broker 2.3% .9%
Site visit 8.1% 54.5% 20.7% 30.0%
Others 18.9% 2.3% 7.3%
Table T: How do you verify that there are no mortgages or encumbrances?

District
Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Land office/ Registration department 6.3% 7.1% 10.7% 7.8%
Neighbours 93.8% 40.5% 82.1% 68.6%
Site visit 2.4% 3.6% 2.0%
Others 6.3% 9.5% 5.9%

54
Table U: How do you verify location of boundaries?

District
Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Land office/ Registration department 10.3% 2.7%
Neighbours 62.2% 25.0% 93.1% 55.5%
Broker 2.3% 3.4% 1.8%
Surveyor 6.8% 10.3% 5.5%
Site visit 64.9% 79.5% 13.8% 57.3%
Others 2.7% .9%
Table V1: Was spousal consent obtained (by gender)?

Gender of respondent
Total
Male Female
Yes 77.8% 55.6% 72.2%
No 22.2% 44.4% 27.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table V2: Was spousal consent obtained (by district)?

District
Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Yes 91.9% 48.8% 80.0% 72.2%
No 8.1% 51.2% 20.0% 27.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table W: Do you feel that procedure for land

transactions are too complicated?
Yes 26.1% 9.2% 12.7%
No 73.9% 90.8% 87.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table X: Do you feel that fees and taxes for land transactions are too high?
Yes 56.5% 19.8% 27.5%
No 43.5% 80.2% 72.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table Y: How was land purchase financed

Self 91.7% 83.3% 100.0% 90.7%
Loans from family friends 2.8% 5.6% 3.1%
Others 5.6% 11.1% 6.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
55
Table AA: What are the obstacles to obtaining credit?

Frequency
Do not know the procedure for acquiring a loan 10
Do not have viable business 6
High interest rates 6
Fear risking land as security for loan 4
Banks ask for land title which I do not have 3
Very shot period to pay back the loan 3
Do not have asset to put as security for the bank loan 2
Bank requires you to operate an account with them 1
Table AB: If household has more than one plot, why?

District
Why do households have more than one plots Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
To have enough space for grazing 13.9 3.6 7.4 8.8
To have enough land to grow food and cash crops 13.9 17.9 14.8 15.4
Inherited from deceased father 5.6 28.6 40.7 23.1
Wanted land for the second wife 3.6 1.1
Gift from the father 8.3 17.9 25.9 16.5
It is an investment 8.3 28.6 7.4 14.3
Wanted plot to do business 2.8 7.1 7.4 5.5
It is difficult to get plot at one place 58.3 22.2 29.7
Table AC1: Are there advantages of having separate plots?

District
Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Yes 94.4% 51.7% 81.5% 77.2%
No 5.6% 48.3% 18.5% 22.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table AC2: Advantages of having separate plots (figures in percent)

To avoid intercropping 16.7 36.4 19.4
It is possible to grow crops based on fertility of the s 53.3 46.7 31.8 44.8
Each woman would own plot incase of polygamous 6.7 1.5
marriage
Rent out and get money 6.7 9.1 4.5
You give plots different uses at the same time 36.7 46.7 36.4 38.8
It easy to divide land among your children 6.7 9.1 4.5
56
Table AD2: Are there disadvantages to having separate plots? If yes, explain.
Difficulty to manage 54.2 64.3 57.9 57.9
Time wastage in moving from one plot to another if
58.3 28.6 68.4 54.4
they far
You deal with many landlords 4.2 7.1 3.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table AE: Would you prefer to combine the plots?

No 48.6% 33.3% 51.9% 45.1%
Yes 51.4% 66.7% 48.1% 54.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table AF: If you would prefer to combine plots, why don’t you do it?
Ownership structure too complicated 85.0 100.0 73.1 83.9
Registration procedure to complicated and expensive 6.3 11.5 6.5
Lack of money 10.0 92.3 41.9
Connection to ancestral land 10.0 11.5 8.1
Others 3.8 1.6
Table AG: Do you think consolidation would make your plots more productive?
No 29.4% 42.3% 29.6% 33.3%
Yes 70.6% 57.7% 70.4% 66.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Preference for land consolidation in the village and by government

Would you support the government if it instituted Would you prefer to
a mandatory program of land consolidation in combine the plots?
Total
your village?
No Yes
Yes 12.9% 43.3% 27.9%
No 87.1% 56.7% 72.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Preferences for land consolidation by disadvantages of having separate plots

Would you prefer to
Disadvantages of having separate plots combine the plots? Total
No Yes
Difficulty to manage 52.6 60.5 57.9
Time wastage in moving from one plot to
57.9 52.6 54.4
another if they far
You deal with many landlords 5.3 3.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
57
Do you feel that procedure for land transactions are too complicated?
Yes 14.3% 1.6% 3.8%
No 85.7% 98.4% 96.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Do you feel that fees and taxes for land transactions are too high?
Yes 57.1% 20.3% 26.9%
No 42.9% 79.7% 73.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Average statistics on plot numbers per household, plot size and duration of
purchase
Plots per Duration of
District Plot size (acres)
households? purchase (in days)
N 155 84 153
Mean 6.75 19.14 1.2908
Mbale Median 5.00 7.00 1.0000
Minimum 1 1 .25
Maximum 35 365 5.00
N 87 83
Mean 2.48 1.3193
Wakiso Median 2.00 1.0000
Minimum 1 .25
Maximum 6 7.50
N 122 40 121
Mean 3.33 237.17 16.0702
Lira Median 4.00 75.00 6.0000
Minimum 1 7 .50
Maximum 6 3650 720.00
N 364 124 357
Mean 4.58 89.47 6.3067
Total Median 4.00 7.00 2.0000
Minimum 1 1 .25
Maximum 35 3650 720.00
58
How was plot acquired?

District
How was plot acquired? Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
Purchased 51.6% 65.5% 33.6% 48.9%
Inherit 12.9% 20.7% 58.2% 29.9%
Gift 31.6% 11.5% 2.5% 17.0%
Exchanged 3.2% 1.1% 1.6% 2.2%
Rent 1.1% 1.6% .8%
Other .6% 1.1% 2.5% 1.1%
If plot was purchased how long did it take to complete the purchase process (in
days)?
Type of tenure held by
N Mean Median Minimum Maximum
the respondent on plot
Leasehold 8 616.50 242.50 7 3650
Customary 116 53.13 7.00 1 730
Total 124 89.47 7.00 1 3650
Note: Table show figures for respondents who answered the question.
Average plot sizes (in acres) of titled and untitled plots

Titled N Mean Median Minimum Maximum
Yes 29 8.1069 4.0000 .50 72.00
No 243 2.1508 1.0000 .25 50.00
Total 272 2.7858 1.2000 .25 72.00
Is plot mono-cropped or multi-cropped?

District
Total
Mbale Lira
Yes (mono) 10.1% 22.4% 15.5%
No (multi) 89.9% 77.6% 84.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
59
What is plot used for (by district)?

District
Total
Mbale Wakiso Lira
House 4.0% 75.0% 41.0%
Crops: food and cash crop 100.0% 92.0% 18.1% 54.5%
Rent to others 4.2% 2.2%
Others 4.0% 2.8% 2.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
7 PLOT SIZE (ACRES) BY TYPE OF TENURE

Type of tenure held by the
N Mean Median Minimum Maximum
respondent on plot
Mailo owner 33 1.3333 1.5000 .25 4.00
Mailo occupant (Kibanja) 49 1.1888 1.0000 .25 3.00
Freehold 5 2.8000 1.2000 .50 7.50
Leasehold 11 84.4727 7.2000 1.20 720.00
Customary 258 4.6570 2.0000 .25 72.00
Total 356 6.3117 2.0000 .25 720.00
What is plot used for (by type of tenure)?

Type of tenure held by the respondent on plot
Mailo Mailo Freehold Leasehold Customary Total
owner occupant
(Kibanja)
House 5.6% 100.0% 85.7% 46.0% 40.7%
Crops: food 87.5% 94.4% 14.3% 49.0% 54.8%
and cash crop
Rent to others 3.0% 2.2%
Others 12.5% 2.0% 2.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
How was plot acquired (by type of tenure)?

Mailo Mailo occupant Freehold Leasehold Customary
Total
owner (Kibanja)
Purchased 59.5% 71.4% 20.0% 72.7% 43.5% 49.4%
Inherit 27.0% 16.3% 9.1% 34.2% 29.8%
Gift 13.5% 10.2% 20.0% 9.1% 19.2% 17.1%
Exchanged 2.0% 2.7% 2.2%
Rent 9.1% .3%
Other 60.0% .4% 1.1%
Are the boundaries for each plot of land well marked and clear to all
neighbors?
Mbale Lira Total
Yes 100.0% 92.2% 96.7%
No 7.8% 3.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
60
How far is the plot from your home (in kms)?

District N Mean Median Minimum Maximum
Mbale 132 .5625 .2500 .00 3.00
Wakiso 43 2.9570 1.0000 .00 16.00
Lira 103 1.8155 1.0000 .05 15.00
Total 278 1.3971 .5000 .00 16.00

Land Market, Consolidation and Readjustment Component

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Market, Consolidation and Readjustment Component

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL REPORT

The Government of the Republic of Uganda

LAND SECTOR ANALYSIS

GRANT NO. PHRD/02/04

Rural Development Institute

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3.5.2.2 Component Two – Comprehensive program of public education and sensitization........................ 37

Task two consisted of an examination of the issues related to land fragmentation,

i. Profile of Market Participants and Their Motives

Like sellers, buyers seemed to be motivated by different factors depending on whether

ii. How Buyers and Sellers Find Each Other

iii. Most Important Factors Determining Price

iv. Due Diligence Mechanisms

v. Documentation of Land Transactions; Cost and Procedures for Transactions

vi. Financing of Land Transactions

vii. The Consent Clause

viii. Levels of Market Activity

B. LAND MARKETS: ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

i. Multiple Layers of Rights to Single Land Plot

ii. Transactions on titled land are too complicated

 Government institutions facilitating the exchange of documents and information in

 Government continuing to pursue realistic decentralisation as envisaged in the LSSP

iii. Distress Sales and Landlessness

iv. Procedure for Acquiring Certificate of Occupancy and Certificate of

To date, no certificates of customary ownership or certificates of occupancy have been

C. LAND FRAGMENTATION, CONSOLIDATION AND READJUSTMENT

D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING

i. Approach consolidation/readjustment with caution

If consolidation or readjustment is attempted, it should be designed and implemented

 Opposition to mandatory program

ii. Components of a Successful Consolidation/Readjustment Program

If consolidation or readjustment is attempted, it should include the following

 Careful Site Selection

iii. Legislative changes

There do not appear to be any significant legal barriers to market-based attempts at

iv. Adopt Measures to Reduce Overall Risks in Agriculture – Link to PMA

1.1 BACKGROUND TO LAND MARKETS STUDY

 the gender/family issues and land rights study; and

Task two consisted of an examination of the issues related to land fragmentation,

At the local government level, interviews were conducted with:

 District Land Boards

The Study also included a small household survey of approximately 50 respondents in

1.3 SITE SELECTION

 provide a comprehensive representation of the four different tenure regimes in the

Lira is an area of predominantly customary tenure where individualisation of land rights

1.4 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PAPER

2.1 BACKGROUND – THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

1. clan rights - Obutaka

2.2 MARKET DYNAMICS IN UGANDA

 How do land market participants find each other?

2.2.1 PROFILE OF MARKET PARTICIPANTS

Like sellers, buyers seemed to be motivated by different factors depending on whether

2.2.2 HOW BUYERS AND SELLER FIND EACH OTHER

How do buyers and sellers find each other?

2.2.3 DETERMINATION OF PRICE IN LAND TRANSACTIONS

Points for each factor determining price of land (by district)

2.2.4 DUE DILIGENCE FOR LAND TRANSACTIONS

2.2.5 DOCUMENTATION OF LAND TRANSACTIONS

Procedure for Acquiring Leasehold Title on Kabaka’s Land in Wakiso

2.2.6 FINANCING OF LAND PURCHASES

How was land purchase financed?

Although approximately 6% of respondents indicated that they financed their land

Government institutions facilitating the exchange of documents and information in

Government continuing to pursue realistic decentralisation as envisaged in the LSSP

Opposition to mandatory program

Careful Site Selection

the gender/family issues and land rights study; and

District Land Boards

provide a comprehensive representation of the four different tenure regimes in the

How do land market participants find each other?

Government should continue to pursue realistic decentralisation as envisaged in the

the generally recognised causes of fragmentation;