a. Based on the findings presented, some farmers and opinion leaders suggested to the traditional
authorities to be careful when giving out land, releasing large portions of the land to strangers as the
consequences in future can be very serious.
b. The Choribang Family Lands Issue
As posited by Mr. Jeremiah (CLS Coordinator for Bole Traditional Area)
The issue of family lands in the Choribang community appears to have been misrepresented. There are
clear customary guidelines in the Choribong community as to who has the capacity to give out land, who
should sign and to whom revenues accruing thereof should go to. The customary arrangement relating to
the land in Choribang is that the local chief has the mandate to allocate land to members of the community
and give out various customary rights without recourse to the Bole Chief. However, in case any
documentation is to be done regarding such acquisitions, the Chief of Bole is the one to sign. Due to this
arrangement, all the lands that have been given out in Choribang have no documentation. The community
members settle with the oral arrangement with the local chief, even though Bole is not far off from
Choribing. The local chief at Choribong however, has no authority to give out leaseholds. Any acquisition of
leasehold will have to be transacted by the paramount Chief at Bole.
There appears to be an individual in Choribang who has taken control of all land in the Choribang area and
is allocating land without recourse to the Bole Skin. Due to the manner in which this individual gives out
land, the planning layout for Choribang has been messed up, causing so much trouble for the land users in
the community.
Clearly not happy with the information on Choribang provided in the assessment report, the Coordinator of
the Bole CLS emphasized that the fundamental question to be concerned with is to know if there is a widely
acceptable and recognized system of land acquisition in the various traditional areas and communities and
if so how effective are they in executing land administration? This line of questioning will help identify the
areas where the system has been messed up with and what is being done to rectify the situation. Without
this kind of analysis the team is likely to be given wrong information.
Reactions by the Facilitators to the Choribang Family Lands issue (Dr. John Tia Bugri and Mrs.
Nana Ama Yirrah)
Much as the enlightenment on the case of Choribang was acknowledged the following questions are worth
considering;
- Of all the communities in the Bole Traditional Area, why were the people of Choribang alone given
that authority to transact the land?
- When was this arrangement instituted? And is there any documentation on it?
- What will be the outcome for land users who have acquired leaseholds from the Choribang family
without recourse to the Bole paramouncy, especially at this point in time when the Bole Chief is
seeking to intervene in the situation.
- Lands Commission should be decentralized and made more visible to the people to facilitate
registration and make permit clearance in the rural areas easier and faster. One way to achieve
this is to train the staff of the CLSs to support the Lands Commission activities in the various
traditional areas.
c. Confirmation and validation of existing conditions for registration of usfructuary interest in land
Representatives from the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources confirmed the findings on
the truncation of the usufructuary interest to a leasehold interest if registration is desired by a
usufruct holder. It was indicated that the issue had been discussed at length during the design
stages of LAP I. The discussion centered on establishing appropriate terms and conditions that
will allow for the registration of the usufructuary rights to create marketable rights out of the
usufructuary interest. Traditional Leaders feared this might diminish their control over the
subjects and so did not support the discussion. This reaction by the traditional leaders affected
progress and eventually brought the discussion to an end. This is an important issue that
needs to be brought again for discussion if smallholder farmers are to benefit from
documentation of land rights.
d. It was suggested that the project team should clarify what is meant by land tenure security as
used in the project and widen the discussion on mechanisms for enhancing tenure security. It
can be defined in terms of the individual perception of the land rights and the extent of freedom
in exercising those rights. But of equal importance is the recognition that comes from the
community/society. It is therefore important to recognize that improving documentation on land
may not necessarily be the only strategy for enhancing land tenure security. The social
endorsement is very important and so it will be important to document the various social
mechanisms for securing land rights in the project area. Atonement of tenancy for example, is
also a means of securing tenure and so should be included in the report.
e. There were different comments on the relative position of women on the land. While female
participants thought women were disadvantaged, the representative from the Ministry thought
the description of women’s disadvantaged position should be contextualized as that is not the
case in all communities.
f. It is important to acknowledge the different decision making channels that exist in different
traditional areas in the Northern Region. Some communities have different layers of elders and
chiefs presiding over decisions on land while in other cases, it is the overlord who directly
presides over and takes decisions on every land transaction. It is important to document the
various decision making channels in the different traditional areas.
For many people in the northern region, there is confusion between compulsory acquisition
and vested lands. This confusion stems from the experiences the people in the northern region
had from 1902 when the colonial administration through the Administration of the Northern
Territories Ordinance vested all lands unto the Government. The vesting was in place until
1979 when under the Limann Government, the lands were de-vested, giving control of the land
back to the people. For many, the de-vesting implied government giving back every land that
had been previously taken over, including those that had been compulsorily acquired. This led
to widespread encroachment on state lands in the region. Some chiefs have also encroached
on state lands because they belief the state took more than needed for the public interest or in
other cases due to unpaid compensation. Other causes of conflict are non-utilization of
acquired lands and government acquisition.
g. There were comments also on the report that compensation amounts were inadequate and not
paid timely. It was explained that under the current compensation regime, valuation rates are
reviewed yearly and are made to reflect current economic values. Even in cases where
payment is arranged long after acquisition, valuation is expected to be done to reflect the
values at the time of payment and not the time of acquisition. When done correctly,
compensation amount should therefore reflect the true value of what is lost to the land user.
The challenge which the report should focus on is in the fact that the law does not allow for the
land itself to be valued for compensation. Only crops are valued and this affects the amount
the farmer gets.
h. The assessment presents the case of large scale land acquisitions as negative. While there
have been cases of negative socio-cultural effects of some large scale land acquisitions, the
report should be reviewed to present a balanced view of the economic benefits that come from
such large scale acquisitions, especially for the people in the northern region where large
tracts of land remain unused. Some of the challenges from large scale acquisition have
resulted from the unclear boundaries and resulting tensions between communities and the
limited capacity of traditional leaders in negotiating such large scale acquisitions.
i. The Land Sector Agencies also do manage land conflicts through ADR and so should be
acknowledged in the report.
j. Strengthening of CLSs to be financially sustainable and capable of managing lands under their
jurisdiction is critical in empowering customary land institutions to deal with government at
arm’s length and protect the local interest.
k. Recommendations on capacity development need to go beyond workshops and one-off
training programs. It should focus on a more sustained support delivered in different settings
continuously. It should also provide specific capacity requirements for the different actors and
not a wholesale capacity development program
l. There is evidence of the influence of political decisions on land tenure security in the northern
region. This has occurred in areas where political boundaries are re-demarcated for the
creation of new districts.
The assessment also need to acknowledge on-going government projects in the study area
that deals directly with land and the impact of such projects on the tenure security of
smallholder farmers as well as the livelihood of rural people. Recent land projects in the region
include the Savanna Accelerated Development Authority (SADA), which focuses on agriculture
and small holder farmers.
In document
ITINERARIO FORMATIVO ESPECIALIDAD: CIRUGÍA GENERAL Y DEL APARATO DIGESTIVO HOSPITAL NTRA. SRA. DEL PRADO
(página 33-42)