AFRICAN LAND TENURE
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1099-162X.1956.tb01300.x |
| Published date | 01 October 1956 |
| Date | 01 October 1956 |
AFRICAN
LAND
TENURE
REPORT
OF
THE
CONFERENCE
ON AFRICAN LAND
TENURE
IN EAST AN]) CENTRAL AFRICA
FEBRUARY, 1956
1.
INTRODUCTION
1. During recent years problems connected with
the
evolution of systems of
land tenure have increasingly engaged
the
attention of those concerned with
African administration and
the
importance of their successful solution was one
of
the
main themes of the Report of
the
East
Africa Royal Commission which
was published in
the
summer of 19551.The Secretary of
State
for
the
Colonies
accordingly proposed to the Governors of
the
three
East
African territories
and
of Northern Rhodesia
and
Nyasaland
that
a Conference of representatives of
these Governments should be held in Africa to discuss these problems. This
proposal was welcomed by the five Governors and
the
Governor of Tanganyika
kindly agreed to provide facilities for
the
Conference to be held
at
Arusha.
2. The Conference accordingly took place there from
8th
to 22nd February,
1956, inclusive. In addition to the delegations appointed by each of
the
five
participating Governments, representatives from Swaziland
and
Basutoland
accepted invitations to
attend
the
Conference and the Government of Southern
Rhodesia was good enough to send two representatives so
that
the
Conference
would have the benefit of Southern Rhodesian experience. Mr. Gorell-Barnes
and Mr. Hudsonof
the
Colonial Officeacted respectively as Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of
the
Conference, which was also attended by Mr. Simpson,
the
Land
Tenure Specialist
at
the Colonial
Office.
The Tanganyika Government kindly
made available Mr. Craufurd-Benson, Principal Assistant Secretary to
the
Member for Lands
and
Mines, to be Secretary to the Conference
and
MissKnibb
and
Mrs. Matthews of the Tanganyika Government to assist him. A full list of
those attending the Conference is attached as Annex 'A' to this report.
3. Before
the
Conference the Colonial Office circulated a list of questions for
discussion together with a number of working-papers prepared in
the
African
Studies Branch. With some small amendments we adopted
the
former as our
agenda
and
the
latter
proved invaluable as a basis for discussion. To save space
we are not reproducing
the
working papers in our report;
but
much of the
substance of them has been incorporated in it and we wish to
pay
tribute to
the
good work done by the African Studies Branch in their preparation.
4.
For
the middle period
the
Conference divided into two committees. Much
of
the
detailed work of
the
Conference was done by these two committees which
sat
simultaneously, one under
the
Chairmanship of Mr. Hudson
and
the
other
under
the
Chairmanship of Mr. Pike of the Tanganyika delegation, and con-
sidered different aspects of land tenure policy referred to them by the main
Conference. The Secretaries of these two committees, Mr. Pinney of
the
Kenya
delegation
and
Mr. Winnington-Ingram of the Nyasaland delegation, were
probably
the
hardest worked members of
the
Conference
and
we wish to record
our appreciation of their work which was
the
basis of
the
greater
part
of this
report.
1East
Africa
Royal Commission, 1953-1955, Report; Cmd.
9475;
H.M.S.O., 1955 ;
175.6d.
.
2
SPECIAL
SUPPLEMENT
TO
THE
JOURNAL
OF AFRICAN
ADMINISTRATION
II.
THE
PRESENT
POSITION
5.
In
his
"Dual
Mandate in British Tropical Africa" Lord Lugard wrote
"In
the
earliest stage
the
land
and
its produce is shared by
the
community as a
whole;
later
the
produce is
the
property of
the
family or individuals
by
whose
toil it is won,
and
the
control of
the
land becomes vested in the
head
of the
family. When
the
tribal stage is reached,
the
control passes to
the
chief, who
allots unoccupied
land
at
will,
but
is
not
justified in dispossessing
any
person or
family who is using
the
land.
Later
still when
the
pressure of population has
given to
the
land an exchange value,
the
conception of proprietary rights
emerges,
and
sale, mortgage
and
lease of
the
land
apart
from its user is recog-
nised. These processes of
natural
evolution, leading up to individual ownership,
may, I believe, be traced in every civilisation known to history".
6. The earlier stages of this evolution are described loosely as those of com-
munal
rights
and
the
last stage as
that
of individual ownership. In by far
the
greater
part
of
the
East
and
Central African territories with which
the
Con-
ference is concerned grazing land is usually owned communally, while in
agricultural land each individual has a generally secure
and
sometimes heritable
right in
the
area of his own community to use a plot of land, subject to
the
con-
dition
that
if he ceases to exercise
that
right it reverts to
the
community. He
cannot sell
the
land
though he may sell
the
produce from it or, in some cases,
'lease'
the
use of it, usually subject to restriction. There is no ownership of
the
land
itself
but
tribal or clan authorities are custodians of it. When
the
land
is not
being used to grow crops other members of
the
community have rights to use it
for grazing or
other
purposes.
But,
as in so
many
other fields, in this field of
land
tenure Africa
isin
atransitional stage,
and
in some areas exclusive individual
ownership is beginning to emerge.
7. The arguments in favour of communal tenure are well known
and
are fully
stated
in F.A.O. Agricultural
Study
No. 172•The system ensures
that
every
member of a community shall have
the
right to a
patch
of
land
to cultivate
and
thus
the
fear of a landless proletariat is removed so long as there is enough land
to go round.
In
this way it gives every member of a community a sense of
security. He need never be destitute. In times of unemployment or old age he
can
always go back to
the
land
knowing
that
aplace will be found for him to
cultivate.
It
also has
the
great virtue of providing
that
unused land reverts to
the
community
and
is available for reallocation.
8.
But
where
land
is becoming scarce this very system
may
carry within it
grave dangers to
the
whole community
and
to
the
land
available to it.
It
may
be nothing more
than
a
not
very useful device for ensuring fair shares in a rapidly
wasting asset.
It
may, by its failure to provide adequate incentive to
the
indivi-
dual
to
put
effort or money into
the
land, militate against its conservation
and
improvement.
It
may, owing to
the
limitations to
the
form of security which it
provides, delay
the
introduction of permanent cash crops and, generally, of
better
farming methods.
It
may
make it impossible for
the
farmer to raise loans
on
the
security of his
land
for purposes designed to increase its productivity.
It
may, as scarcity enhances
the
value of
land
and
an exchange economy begins to
develop, place too great astrain on
the
public spirit of
the
traditional authorities
charged with
its
allocation.
9. To give a detailed account of
the
present tenurial situation in
the
terri-
tories with which we are concerned would be far beyond
the
scope of this report.
For
those who wish to obtain such an account
many
publications on
the
subject
are available,
but
a brief description of
the
background against which we fill
ｾ
2Communal
Land
Tenure,
by
Sir
Gerald
Clauson;
F.A.O.
Agricultural
Study
No. 17 ;
Rome,
1953 ;
2s.6d.
To continue reading
Request your trial