COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LAND ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS: AFRICAN REVIEW With special reference to Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana, South Africa By Clarissa Augustinus WORK UNDERTAKEN FOR THE WORLD BANK, FUNDED BY DFID January, 2003. 1. Background This review is based on five case studies of countries in Africa, namely Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana and South Africa. These countries were chosen because it was considered that they had undertaken innovative land administration exercises and/or there had been important project interventions. The five case studies were undertaken using existing material and no new research was done specifically for the study, which has meant that there are numerous gaps in the data. However, five case studies were done, more than in the other regions, to try and fill these gaps and create an overall picture. The Africa review had to dovetail with the other regions as much as possible. This was somewhat problematic as the majority of tenure in Africa is outside of the conventional land titling system and the focus of new land laws has been on new forms of title and tenure security, rather than on extending the conventional titling system. This review therefore describes the conventional systems, the new tenure forms under development and that the majority of rights are currently outside of these systems. 1.1 Factors that Distinguish Land Administration in the Region Land administration in Africa consists of the conventional land administration systems based on land registration and; customary and/or informal land administration systems. As Table 1. illustrates, the vast majority of African countries’ populations use the customary land administration system, especially in rural areas. As most African cities are 30-80 percent informal (UNCHS:1990:4, 1991:3), most urban residents are also not using the formal land registration and administration system in urban areas. Table 1: Formal and customary coverage Title and customary Customary coverage Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana 62% of surface but about 68% of population Majority of population 90% transactions Title/deed coverage 12-15 % Majority of surface area but not majority of population 1-15% Unknown No. of registered titles/deeds 700,000 titles Unknown Unknown 11,383 titles /deeds unknown of 78% of total area South Africa 10-13% of area but about 2530% of rural former homeland population 80-90% of area but excludes at least 2530% of population 6,996,658 deeds Due to the complex nature of the cadastre and property rights, colonial land administration laws and regulations remain entrenched in many countries still to this day in Africa (United Nations:1997:4). In a number of countries, such as Uganda, Ghana, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa, new land registration laws have been or are being introduced and discussed. These laws are an attempt to move away from colonial forms of land administration on the one hand, but also to develop land administration systems and laws that more closely reflect the social land tenures on the ground (customary and/or informal). A review of the land registration, cadastral and land information management systems in Africa indicates that: Less than 1 per cent of sub-Saharan Africa is covered by any kind of cadastral survey (UNCHS:1991:3, 1990:4) and the case studies show that the vast majority of people in a country are instead using customary tenure forms (Uganda, Namibia, Mozambique, Ghana case studies). Most African countries do not have a national land information management system using LIS/GIS (UNCHS:1991,1993, Uganda, Namibia, Mozambique, Ghana case studies). Cadastral systems, generally in manual form, and with incomplete coverage, are supplying most of the available land information. (Okpala:1992; UNCHS:1991, Uganda, Mozambique, Ghana, Namibia case studies). Some of the major problems with land registration systems in Africa are: There is a general lack of financial, technical and human capacity throughout Africa. Because the systems are under-resourced many of them are out of date, expensive to maintain and inefficient. (Durand Lasserve: 1997:4-5,12,16; Ezigbalike:1996:350; Okpala:1992:93-4, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana, Mozambique case studies). “A World Bank study on Africa.. (showed that) ..if no dispute occurs, the process of land registration takes an average of 15 to 18 months, and that normally, a period of two to seven years is not uncommon. This lengthy and costly procedure.. (means that).. tens of thousands of land titles.. (are usually).. pending.” (UNCHS:1991:5, Uganda, Ghana, Mozambique case studies). Most of the systems are centralized (UNCHS:1993, Uganda, Ghana, South African case studies). Available information often relates only to the part of the city or rural area where formal legal procedures were used for planning (UNCHS:1998:4). Yet most decisions need to be made about the non formal and/or customary parts of the country, which are not covered by the cadastre (Okpala:1992:94, South Africa case study relating to former homeland areas, Uganda case study). “Despite numerous initiatives during the last decade in sub Saharan Africa to set up new land information systems or to modernize existing ones, limited results have been achieved.” (Durand Lasserve:1997:12, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana case studies). Where information exists, it is often spread among several government departments and accessing it is difficult. These institutions are usually public, highly centralized, not well managed, and have over-lapping responsibilities. (Durand Lasserve:1997:12, UNCHS:1998:4, Uganda, South Africa, Ghana case studies). Many of the parcels in the land registration systems are cloudy and hold ambiguous information despite attempts to create land registration systems with certain, highly accurate information (UNCHS:1996:11; Durand Lasserve:1997:2; UNCHS:1993, 1995,1991:3;1990:4; UNECA:1996, Uganda, Mozambique, Ghana case studies). To contextualise the information presented above and below further, a number of Africa’s characteristics that affect land administration are identified. 1. Customary tenure is generally secure and titling is unnecessary. However, customary tenure also transforms under certain conditions and becomes less secure for customary residents –these conditions include, urbanization, ribbon development, cash crops. Also, the formal land registration system is not neutral and where titling is implemented often customary tenure people lose their rights (women and overlapping rights holders are very vulnerable). 2. Land markets exist all over Africa, both in rural and urban areas. They are not a recent phenomena. They are not free land markets and the sale of land is limited to relatives (by blood and/or marriage), and/or ethnic/national groups, and/or religion in certain areas and/or to men. All of these sales generally take place outside of the formal titling system. There is an active rental market both in rural and urban areas, also to strangers who do not fit into the above categories. 3. Due to the general weakness of the central state in Africa, it is not possible to implement at scale a centralised titling programme, or land use controls, or enforcement. Most implementation is only in the cities, especially in the capital city, and ad hoc. 4. The patron-client relationship in relation to land can be very strong at national, ethnic, family, local government/politician levels. 5. Women’s rights to land are often nested in that of the family. In countries where there have been wars, genocides etc. women often struggle to obtain land rights when the men in their families are deceased, because society understands their rights in terms of family/men’s rights. 6. There are large scale problems around the flow of spatial information for land administration purposes both within government, between departments at national level, between national and lower level tiers, and between government and the private sector and users. Coordination is a critical issue. There are few comprehensive national digital systems in operation that contain land information for land administration purposes. Where they do exist they only include that part of the country covered by the cadastre, typically formal urban areas. 7. Most countries have colonial forms of legal evidence requiring high standards and professional inputs. There are few registered professionals –many countries have less than 30. 8. Many countries have started law reform to change the situation and introduce new forms of evidence and approaches, but the scale and comprehensiveness of change needed is huge and has not reached implementation at scale level. Systematic titling is not considered an option for most of Africa for a range of reasons. 9. Many of the existing titles are cloudy and require legal processes rather than just administrative processes to transfer. In defending their rights people will refer to both the paper and to customary evidence to protect their rights, sometimes this is legal, occurs frequently in the legal system, or forms part of land reform procedures. 2. Comparative Analysis The five countries reviewed have a range of tenure types, both colonial and introduced under new law. 2.1 Land Tenure Systems Table 2: Tenure types –formal and informal Tenure types Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa Yes Yes Yes Freehold Registered leases Customary (not necessarily legal) Occupancy rights Anti-eviction rights Group/family titles Modern ‘starter’ /provisional type titles Adverse possession/’squatters rights’ State land ownership Informal settlement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes pilot Unknown No No Unknown Not yet Yes No Yes in law No Unknown Unknown Yes Yes Unknown Unknown No Yes Yes Yes No – planned Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A few Yes Yes Tenants Yes Yes Yes –at least 30,000 individuals Unknown Unknown Yes Yes The new tenure types which are considered Best Practice include occupancy rights (generally critical for customary tenure rights if they are not protected specifically), anti-eviction rights, adverse possession, family/group rights, and modern ‘starter’/provisional titles, which can be upgraded. 2.2 Legal Framework Table 3: Legal systems Legal systems Legal legacy Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa RomanDutch British Portuguese & socialist English Title system Deed system Legal liability Yes No Yes –state South African/Roman Dutch No Yes Yes –private sector No freehold No freehold None No Yes Yes private sector Colonial forms of legal evidence used New forms of legal evidence also used Legal pluralism Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes –title system only (yet to be implemented) Yes Yes –pilot Not yet Yes Unknown No Yes Unknown Yes Yes Yes –former homelands – Yes 2.3 Technical arrangements and indications of functionality Table 4: State of conventional systems State of conventional systems Time taken for new registrations Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa Years –large backlog for first titling 3 years for first titling 6 months if no dispute Unknown Time taken for registration of transfers Geodetic Records Mapping Unknown Unknown 2-10 years (trying to implement 90 days) Unknown Unknown Poor Poor 30 years old Fair Fair Unknown Poor Poor 30 years old Coverage 12-15 % Majority of surface area but not majority of population 1-15% Fair Poor 30 years old majority Unknown No. of registered titles/deeds 700,000 titles Unknown Unknown 10 days once in the registry Good Good Good in 8790% 80-90% of area but excludes at least 2530% of population 6,996,658 deeds No. 5 million Unknown Millions of land 11,383 titles/ deeds unknown 15,000,000 Millions parcels still to be registered (if desired) Spatial data infrastructure for country Technical staffing Modern mortgage law Donor funding for conventional system Systematic titling schemes No –under development No No No Yes Insufficient – less than 20 professional land surveyors No Insufficientless than 20 professional land surveyors Partially Insufficient – less than 20 professional land surveyors No Insufficient Good Yes Small amount Small amount Yes Yes –title system only Yes No –systematic demarcation for spatial information (piloted) No –will be done per informal settlement No –sporadic titling and sporadic demarcation of communities Yes No –only for upgrading informal settlement projects None Wherever possible the costs related to the existing land registration systems and the new systems were identified and these are presented in Table 5 below. In general these figures were not available because some of the process is undertaken by the private sector, or public sector officials operated as ‘consultants’ undertaking private jobs, or new forms of titling had not yet started as a routine operation, or the accounting systems of the agencies were not yet capable of producing such information, and there are no systematic titling projects. Table 5: Costs USD Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana per Unknown Unknown Unknown Base US$ 4 + ad valorem scale Cost per parcel for state Cost of registered transfer to user Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown USD 4 Unknown USD 2.87 Unknown Base USD 13 + ad valorem scale Cost per survey Unknown Unknown Unknown Scale regulated based on size and location of parcel. Between USD 518 for USD 7,940 – USD 4,538 for USD 57,537 per property Unknown Costs Not Not Doing sporadic Unknown Total cost parcel for being being South Africa Unknown Not done systematic titling unit Percentage of national budget Running costs of registry Running costs of Surveyor General Running costs of land titling at local government level Annual funding by donors for land administration undertaken undertaken only Less than 2% for whole department Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown About USD 300,000 p.a. Unknown Unknown Unknown About USD 1 million p.a. Unknown Unknown Unknown Not applicable None Unknown Unknown About USD 2 million Varies None Less than 1% for whole department USD 19,907,940 p.a. About USD 8 million 2.4 Land market information Table 6: Land markets Land markets Formal –no. of registered transfers per year Unregistered transfers Occurring in customary Informal settlement transfers Uganda Unknown – about 300,000 current titles Namibia Unknown Mozambique Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes sporadically Yes Yes sporadically Yes Yes –some areas only Yes Ghana 216 titles (1999), 85 (2000), deeds unknown Yes South Africa 380,000 Yes Yes sporadically Yes Unknown Yes 3. The introduction of new approaches to land administration There are large scale problems both within the conventional land administration system and with the conventional system by users. As indicated, the majority of people in most African countries live outside of the formal land administration system associated with titling. What follows is firstly a description of user problems with conventional titling systems. Secondly, the best practices and lessons learned from five African countries are described with respect to transforming land administrations systems to be more user friendly and pro-poor. Finally, an attempt is made to draw cost components together. 3.1 Experience of conventional system by users Table 7: Poor users problems with conventional systems Poor user problems with conventional system Does not fit customary tenure Focus of land registration based on individual tenure only User access to information difficult/not decentralised Titling system too expensive Titling system not transparent Not gendered Does not solve land disputes/old adjudication approaches Registration system requirements of personal documents too onerous Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes –former homelands Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially Yes Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Yes Table 8: Types of disputes Type of Disputes Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana State/public land/customary Over-lapping customary rights Customary/ market sector Tenants/ landlord Customary/statutory Yes Yes Yes Yes South Africa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown No Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes No forms of evidence Ambiguous administrative information Yes Unknown Yes Yes –in former homelands Yes 3.2 Phases, sequences and activities for a new regulatory framework The transformation of a land administration system is a large undertaking in that it normally involves a number of separate agencies, it relates to power and patronage, and it requires extensive civil society debate at a national and local levels, it is cross-sectoral and considered key to poverty alleviation. In the 5 country case studies it took at least 8 years, and often 11 or more, for a country to get from discussing land policy to the point of implementing it at scale. There are a number of discrete pre-titling steps in this process identified in Table 9 below. Table 9: Phases and sequence for the development of a new regulatory framework Development of new Regulatory framework Multi-stakeholder consultation at every level of regulatory framework development Land Policy completed New land law/s Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa Yes Yes Yes Yes No –not private land professionals who guarantee land rights No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No -planned Regulations completed Administrative procedures completed Functions sorted out Training of officials Pilots undertaken Partially No Yes No No –in form No Partially Partially Yes No No No No Partially No No Yes Busy At least 8 years and still at pilot stage No yet Partially No Partially Yes-completed Streamlining planned No No 9 years and still not law At least 11 years –ready to roll out 17 years (1986 Titles Act) At least 9 years and still far from implementation No yet Not yet Yes (1986 Titles Act) No law yet Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Time taken to implementation of new forms of titling Court cases to test new laws and procedures Substantial donor funding for development new law policy/law law bill No No The new land laws that are under development or have been developed in these 5 countries have common characteristics. These are identified in Table 10 below. Table 10: Elements of new land laws Elements of new land laws Protects poor occupants Protects women’s rights Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana Yes Partially Yes Yes Not specifically Not specifically Strengthens decentralized land administration Improves governance, accessibility and transparency Information/media campaign Strengthens service delivery Strengthens land tax Addresses conflict over land between customary/ investors/state Form of dispute resolution mechanisms Yes Yes Nothing specific Yes South Africa Planned Planned Yes Yes Planned Yes Yes Yes Yes Planned Yes Unknown Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Unknown Yes Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Unknown Planned Tribunals, local government mediators Local property office land administrator working on site Local community structures/ local government structures Courts New adjudication approaches Affordability and sustainability Innovative cadastral/registration design Robust design including existing conventional system Convergence between design of general land law and technical procedures Alteration of technical process and restructuring of cadastral and registration system Yes Yes Yes Yes Planned Existing structures, courts, land courts, local leaders, Dept. Land Affairs, private sector Planned Yes Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesplanned No Yes Yes Unknown Unknown No Yes Yes Yes Unknown Partially – some procedures in place Yes Yes Unknown Partially pilot – Requires re-structuring of government to implement land titling etc Accuracy of parcels Rights obtained by poor Customary tenure titled Date when start new forms of titling Linked to PRSP/equivalent Yes Handheld GPS with local reference system Sale, lease, mortgage, inheritance, compensation if moved not as individual right but as family/group Yes 2002first pilot Yes awaiting law Yes Yes No Planned None for starter titles, lower for landhold title Unknown, but very low for community demarcation. High Unknown Right to perpetual occupation, sell, inherit, donate, form of family title Occupancy rights No rights for informal/squatters Use, occupation, transfer No Not yet No 2002/3 Yes 1986 titles act Unknown Not yet No Yes Unknown No The common characteristics in the new land laws being passed in Africa, identified above, are based on a number of themes. The first theme consists of the characteristics associated with the PRSPs which have become cross cutting themes also affecting land namely:- poverty alleviation, decentralization, governance and transparency, service delivery, protection of women. The PRSPs are critically important to African governments, and their Departments of Lands, because of the large scale donor involvement in their budgets, and that a key covenant of most donors is poverty alleviation. The PRSP characteristics when applied to land administration take the form of decentralized local land administration offices, cheap/free titles/rights and/or tenure protection for the poor, information campaigns at national levels about people’s land rights, transfer of information about land rights during titling and how to obtain them, adjudication procedures that also protect the occupants of the land not just those being titled or holding registered titles, removal of land professionals from routine operations to management, incremental upgrades over time, the adaptation of the conventional land registration system to accommodate the poor and other forms of legal evidence used by the poor to protect their assets, the protection of women’s land rights, no systematic titling, no rigid boundaries in customary areas, avoidance/delay of adjudication of individual rights, and the development of spatial information systems as a public good for the delivery of economic and social services. Gendered land administration also has a number of specific characteristics identified in Table 11. below. Table 11: Gender aspects Gender aspects Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana Yes Not yet Yes No Procedures implemented Legal systems allowing co-ownership No –pilot No Partial No Yes – English based Yes Yes – English based Co-ownership No No Roman Dutch based No Yes Yes Protection of women’s land rights Partial – can prevent transfers Yes – being piloted Unknown Unknown No specific procedures No Partial –in procedures but implementation problems No specific procedures New gender land law friendly Adjudication procedures to protect women – South Africa Yesfamily law applied to deed and planned new law Yes NoRoman Dutch based Yes – through family law applied to deed Yes No –ad hoc, planned protection The second set of characteristics relate to dispute resolution. This aspect was central to many of the discussions associated with the laws and their designs even if it was not always explicit in the law. This aspect became a significant cost factor for Uganda that led to an inability to implement at scale. An earlier draft of the South Africa’s law was considered too expensive in terms of the institutional structure required to deal with this issue. The third set of characteristics found in Table 10. above relate to the technical design of the land administration system –accuracy of parcels, type of rights allocated, designed in isolation or not from conventional system, adaptation of conventional system to new law. In regard to this, a range of cost avoidance characteristics can be found in the designs, identified in Table 12. below. Table 12: Cost and resource avoidance designs Cost and resource avoidance designs in new land law and procedures for poor Use of technicians for Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown routine operations not professionals Large scale new institutional structure for titling, dispute resolution etc. Lowering survey accuracies/equipment/no individual boundaries for poor Removal of lawyers from routine operations Plan for full conventional system upgrade Systematic titling Funding of titling Yesoriginal plan in law Yes No No Yes Unlikely Yes Yes Yes Unknown Yes Yes Yes No No -pilots Unknown Yes No No No –sporadics and target areas No Yes planned Unknown By user Unknown By investor State/World Bank Yes No – application driven Probably state One of the most critical issues to be addressed in the land administration designs relates to the fact that the design has to have national application, be affordable to the poor, and yet not over-ride customary (local) tenure where it is the tenure of choice, despite the fact that land titling has not been neutral and has often taken away the rights of occupants. Different countries took different approaches. Uganda chose systematic demarcation for spatial information and dispute resolution with voluntary titling only, and Mozambique opted for sporadic titling of investors and not to title the poor but to carefully adjudicate investor titling to ensure it does not infringe on the rights of the poor (see Best Practices below). Namibia opted for ‘starter’ titles unsurveyed within outside surveyed cleaned up boundaries for informal settlements. That is, innovative non conventional approaches to land administration had to be introduced and conventional systematic titling approaches following the rest of the world were considered to be unaffordable and not relevant to local requirements. Large scale adaptation and re-thinking had to take place of a technical nature to be able to implement the general new land law. The degree to which this rethinking was done by technical people working with land reformers was often an index of the success of the system (Mozambique, Namibia Uganda) and the degree to which the conventional system was linked to the new forms of title also became an index of the success of the system (Namibia, Mozambique). In terms of cost elements of land administration, which are outlined in Table 13. below, a key issue is that it can take up to a decade before the first titles are produced in terms of the new land law. This is because of the amount of capacity building that needs to be undertaken, as well as the multi-stakeholder negotiations that needs to take place in relation to the law. Also, the cost elements have to include elements usually associated with the conventional system in an adapted form, as well as elements associated with the new land law. 3.3 Cost elements for the new framework Table 13: Cost elements for land administration projects Multi-agency Registry Surveyor General Land use planning Land policy development Regulatory development Multi-stakeholder consultation at every level of regulatory framework development Workshops, training materials, trainers etc. Sensitization campaigns Land Policy New land law Regulations Administrative procedures Functions sorted out Pilots undertaken Training of officials Land tenure studies Development of additional laws e.g. mortgage law, land use planning etc. Capacity building of conventional systems Geodetic Records/registration Cartographic Cadastral Spatial data infrastructure for country Land use information Land use planning Technical staff training Accountancy Equipment Consultancies Management Recurrent costs of current system Revitalisation of current conventional system Revitalisation of current system to serve poor and investors Re-structuring for implementation Recurrent costs of institutional structure for decentralized land administration Recurrent costs of institutional structure of decentralized land dispute resolution Gender transformation Preparation adjudication procedures Institutional decentralisation Management of decentralized fiscal flows Setting up dispute resolution mechanisms on the ground Setting up dispute resolution mechanisms re ambiguous titles Development of SDI as Public Good for service delivery Development of Property Data Base, map and plan series for transformation Land tax system – administrative facilitation Information/media campaign Large scale training –technical, management, accounting, gender, new procedures etc. over a long time period Introducing participatory approaches and community consultation to adjudication and titling Establishing cost structures for innovative forms of titling Monitoring and evaluation for poverty reduction, efficiency and effectiveness 4. Best practices and lessons learned from case studies 4.1 Best Practices A number of Best Practices are described in the five country case studies in terms of both PRSP principles i.t.o. land administration, and sustainable pro-poor technical designs. 1. Use multi-stakeholder led process to discuss and implement new laws, it was not possible for Lands to lead on its own (Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia). 2. A guiding principle is that smallholder agriculturists should be empowered, through participation, in determining the procedures and processes through which rights in land are defined, exercised, changed or transferred; and how conflicts among parties holding an interest in a particular piece of land (owner, tenant, association, or the state) are objectively adjudicated rather than resolved in a discriminatory manner favouring those individuals or groups with the most influence and power (Uganda). 3. The formalisation of customary tenure. Customary owners may undertake the full range of transactions in land - both commercial (sale, lease, mortgage etc) and family (gifts). While the formalization of customary tenure exists elsewhere in Africa, Uganda has introduced the customary certification of these rights. Also, it is not individual certification, and a number of people and a range of rights can be registered such as the wife and husband and children, as well as those people with third party rights, such as people crossing the land, obtaining fire-wood etc. (Uganda). 4. Occupancy rights give some measure of tenure security, more especially if people have to be compensated if they are moved. This serves to protect customary rights holders against the state and against private investors acquiring title to public land that is already occupied by customary rights holders. (Uganda, Mozambique, South Africa). 5. Creation of an outside boundary recorded/registered in the Surveyor General, with the rights on the inside held locally/by local office protects people from land theft by the State or investors. Information on the land rights of investors, state and the poor must be kept on the same record (Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, South Africa). 6. Where there are large parcels of land owned by a landowner which land also has customary occupants, provision through law of occupancy rights. Encouraging better use and sorting out cloudy title through the use of a Land Fund, and the use of land re-adjustment and land swapping, together with the provision of infrastructure (Uganda). 7. New laws making provision for registration of group rights (Uganda, Mozambique, South Africa). 8. Protection of spouses through co-ownership laws (Mozambique) and joint estates through family law (South Africa). 9. Protection of spouses’ tenure security through requiring consent for the transfer of land (Uganda, South Africa). 10. Creation of new independent machinery for land administration and dispute resolution. Land administration and dispute resolution at highly decentralized levels (Uganda). 11. Pilots used as a first step to implementation, with a strong monitoring and learning component to feed into subsequent planning (Uganda, Mozambique). 12. The development of ‘starter’ /provisional type titles with only the key land rights provided (sale, inheritance, donation) (Namibia, Uganda -partially). 13. The creation of an ownership title deed which contains all the main elements of ownership (inheritance, donation, sale, mortgage) without the complex elements used by the middle class and commerce also found in ownership (Namibia). 14. The removal of land surveyors and property lawyers from routine operations while at the same time using them for management operations (Namibia, Uganda, Mozambique). 15. Different forms of evidence, and not necessarily titling evidence, can be used to protect the land rights of the poor, such as occupancy rights and the delimitation of community land, providing titling itself is done with rigorous adjudication taking into account these other rights (Mozambique, Uganda). 16. The role of land professionals is to sort out the larger underlying titles/investor titles within which/relative to which, the lesser titles can be allocated and managed by less skilled people, thereby protecting third party rights, not frightening away investors, creating cheaper options for the poor which are still secure and contain all the instruments they require to manage their land (Namibia, Mozambique, Uganda). 17. Development of local government level property offices at local government level for transfers and information to the public (Namibia, Uganda). 18. A deed system which uses local witnesses and a local property office makes it possible to record different types of customs in the registry system, which is especially important for inheritance transfers (Namibia). 19. Involvement of local committees in adjudication. To overcome conflict, adjudication must include participatory approaches, community meetings, report backs and a transfer of knowledge to the community, and it must be gendered (Mozambique, Uganda). 20. Giving title and tenure security without full adjudication for a site within a larger area (surveyed outside figure) and then using a local land administrator to prepare people for adjudication over time (information, documents etc). Full adjudication required at first transfer only and/or when upgraded to ownership (Namibia). 21. Avoiding adjudication of customary rights when titling an investor, only adjudication of the outside boundary of the customary rights, not individual, family or ethnic claims (Mozambique) 22. Demand driven sporadic titling for investors accompanied by rigorous adjudication of the rights of those in occupation and paid for by the investor can protect the tenure security of the rural poor (Mozambique). 23. Guaranteeing the land rights of the poor by using government officials to guarantee the rights, but within limited conditions, and in terms of a privatepublic partnerships for the management and creation of such guarantee able rights (Namibia). 24. Use of computers and digital information to facilitate central government management and supervision and supply capacity short at the local level (Namibia, Mozambique). 25. The hierarchy of evidence used by the courts must include both titling evidence and other evidence, with the former not automatically over-riding the latter (Mozambique, Uganda). 26. A property data base, and plan and map series is a useful tool for land administration of chiefships. It should start with identifying governance structures and then move to land tenure and not the other way around (KwaZulu-Natal – South Africa). 27. Property data bases, using procedures from cadastral and titling systems, can be used as a work in process to manage disputes and clean up cloudy title, rather than as a finished product, and can include on the same system less accurate information, overlaps and duplication in information and rights, titles, claims, registered and unregistered, data of different integrity (KwaZulu-Natal –South Africa). 28. Under certain conditions land administration systems should be created in two phases. The first phase should focus on the production of a foundation for the purposes of land management and spatial information management at scale, also to address the land management issues of the day. The second phase should use this foundation to increase the tenure security of individuals (KwaZulu-Natal – South Africa, Uganda). 29. While systematic titling is not a Best Practice, Best Practice involves the systematic collection and display of spatial and land record information for all decision makers, and the systematic cleaning up of titles and solving of ambiguities/disputes in preparation for individual titling on demand (KwaZuluNatal –South Africa). 30. Systematic demarcation, not titling, undertaken of a whole local government area on demand by the area, with all parcels being fully adjudicated. The spatial information created at demarcation of the parcels used as a public good for the delivery of economic and social benefits. Those people who have been demarcated who want titles can apply for customary certificates. This process is cheaper because it is systematic, and it deals with all disputes in an area at one time, thereby protecting the rights of the poor (Uganda). 31. Boundaries surveyed for cadastral purposes but not used as legal evidence, can be used as spatial information for a range of purposes such as the delivery of economic and social services (KwaZulu-Natal –South Africa, Uganda). 32. The development of a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) based on both cadastral and non cadastral parcels such as sketch maps as foundation data (Uganda). 4.2 Lessons learned A number of lessons have been learned during the transformation of the land administration system in these five countries namely:1. It can take a decade to implement a new land policy in regard to titling because of the participatory aspects, as well as the capacity building requirements (Mozambique, Namibia, Uganda, South Africa). 2. Systematic titling is not sustainable, affordable or appropriate for customary systems and cannot be extended to the entire country’s rural customary families (Uganda, Mozambique). 3. To obtain certain boundaries between chiefs can take more than 15 years. Adjudication of chiefships for titling rather than spatial information/parent property purposes, can be a major constraint to development (KwaZulu-Natal South Africa). 4. Where there is ambiguity and a historical legacy of different rights/titles/administrative descriptions, obtaining clarity and certainty is complex and takes time and it is not just about cleaning up underlying titles or individual titling (KwaZulu-Natal -South Africa). 5. Stakeholder consensus needs to be reached, also among donors, as to the hierarchy of evidence used in court (Mozambique, Uganda). 6. Using the private sector to do land delivery, prepare documentation for registration and supply legal liability lowers the costs of land registration to the state dramatically. It also makes the system unaffordable to the poor if land professionals undertake routine rather than just management operations (South Africa). 7. Democratic structures forming part of new land laws, which are meant to make land administration transparent, solve conflicts over land and bring good governance at the local level, can be too costly to implement in terms of the institutional structure required (Uganda, South Africa). 8. Mistakes made during policy development, by not tying policy development sufficiently closely to technical implementation strategies, and costing this implementation properly, can derail the entire land reform process (Uganda). 9. Designing new land titling approaches without taking into account the conventional system. Land registration systems operate at national scale and are implemented parcel by parcel. Every time a registered right is created the existing registered rights have to first be checked, whether it is from the conventional system or in terms of the new law. Therefore a one off survey of a cheap title cannot be done without first checking if there are registered rights in place and this can be as expensive as the creation of an expensive title (Uganda, Namibia). 10. For laws to be capable of implementation there must be convergence between the technical design for implementation and the general law passed. Without convergence the general law cannot be implemented and/or the intentions of the law can be skewed by the actual titling process (Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, South Africa). 11. Affordability issues are critical in designing new sustainable approaches (Uganda, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa). The costing of implementation cannot be done without a technical process describing the steps from application to first titling. The costing of implementation has to take into account the institutional structure required for dispute resolution. 12. Decentralized implementation requires inter-agency co-ordination between lands, local government and (sometimes) justice, as well as vertical coordination with Lands taking the role in new policy, regulations and administrative procedures development, but with implementation resting at local government level. This has fiscal implications requiring new fiscal arrangements. This need for coordination across government and/or budget at local government levels can delay implementation (Uganda, Mozambique) 13. Need to avoid large scale confrontation with the land professions who can delay implementation for years. System design should extend the existing land registration system and not wipe out existing ownership, it should use the existing system to give land rights to the poor in new and innovative ways (Mozambique, Namibia, Uganda). 14. If there are no surveyed boundaries for individual rights, group cohesiveness is an important component of tenure security for the individual/family (Namibia, Mozambique, Uganda). 15. Solving land conflict is not just about solving the allocation of land rights, but even more about the allocation of land use rights (Mozambique, Uganda). 16. Due to the way donors and/or politicians operate, it is possible for only one agency in a land registration system to be developed and the other left moribund, or for there to be a focus on delivery without capacity building in the land registration system, or for their to be a focus on land policy development and no reform of the technical processes associated with land registration, all of which delays the delivery of registered rights to the poor (Mozambique, Uganda, South Africa). 17. Adjudication, transparency and good governance is facilitated when the registry and its information is accessible to users (Rehoboth-Namibia). 18. Tenure security in a local registry can be undermined. Administrative checks need to be built into the registry system to ensure the integrity of information and safeguard against the conflation of functions (Rehoboth-Namibia). 19. Conventional registries do not assist the public with legal advice. Registries for the poor need to also assist the poor with legal advice about their land rights and their options (Rehoboth-Namibia). 20. The corporate culture of registry offices needs to be more user friendly to non legal and poor people (Rehoboth-Namibia). 21. Titles do not have to be surveyed, providing they can be linked to the boundaries of larger blocks of land for land management and spatial information purposes, and the underlying title has been cleaned up (Rehoboth-Namibia). 22. Customary practices in relation to marriage, divorce and inheritance should not be codified for the purposes of a land registration system, because even a superficial overview of the different customary systems indicates the variations in approaches in existence, let alone the modifications because of the pressure of urbanisation, the legal framework of the country in relation to gender etc. (Namibia, Mozambique, Uganda). 23. Registry systems have to be drastically adapted to be able to register customary type tenures, not just by decentralization and transparent procedures and a userfriendly culture. Procedures have to be created which can move uncertain customary information about inheritance etc. to certain information on the registry record (Namibia). 5. Indicators Based on the above, and indicators being used in Uganda and Mozambique, a number of indicators for tenure security in Africa are suggested. While a range of indicators for formal land administration systems already exist (FIG: 1995), indicators for land administration in Africa need to be re-thought, both to deal with the pre-titling phase of the first decade while capacity is being built to implement new land laws; as well as for the extension of the land administration system to customary areas in new ways outside of formal titling. Four types of indicators are suggested depending on the phase of the country 1/Before the development of new land policy/law 2/In the decade during development of new policy/law and procedures 3/After full roll out of new titling system 4/For customary tenure outside of the titling system. The indicators suggested in the first phase are not about the measurement of statistics but rather the qualitative assessment of processes related to the development of a new regulatory framework. Only after the first phase is it possible to move to statistical indicators. Also, land administration is not just about titling in Africa but also covers customary tenure, which is the majority of tenure in most countries. A range of indicators are required specifically for this customary tenure, few of which are statistical. 5.1. Titling indicators prior to the development of a new land policy/land law 1. Land registration system and technical process has not been altered to protect occupants’ rights. If no new policy/law has been developed and/or there is no form of occupancy rights and the land registration system has not been altered, this indicates that the majority of the population are vulnerable to investors obtaining their land through land grants/titling; and that their tenure security is unprotected by the state. 5.2 Pre-Titling indicators for the first decade when introducing new approaches 1. The process and principles conform to the principles outlined in the country’s PRSP (also critical for funding). 2. Multi-stakeholder debate and participation (awareness campaigns, number of workshops, number of meetings, every level, for each step etc). 3. A national land policy and a national land use policy. 4. A new land law with the required elements (pro-poor, customary tenure security, occupancy rights, anti-eviction rights, adverse possession, gendered, decentralization, good governance, transparency, land dispute resolution, sustainable, affordable, simple titles). 5. Regulations for the new land law with the required elements. 6. Local forms of legal evidence in new law and not just colonial forms of legal evidence of land rights. 7. Sustainable and affordable design in new law (institutional structure, use of technicians for implementation of professionals only for management, lower accuracy requirements etc). 8. Administrative procedures for the new land law down to technical process level all with the required pro-poor elements. 9. Adjudication procedures developed which are rigorous with customary rights, occupants, women’s rights, the poor being taken into account and include the transfers of knowledge to occupants. 10. Enough technical and adjudication people trained to address the demand (statistics of trainers, training courses developed, trained people in technical, mediation, management, accountancy, staff development etc). 11. Pilots completed with the required pro-poor elements. 12. Re-structuring of government with new land administration functions set up at all levels of government. 13. Dispute resolutions forums (different options customary, local government, central government line function etc.) discussed, designed and set up. 14. Land conflict resolution procedures developed and accepted. 15. Sufficient funding at local level to implement land administration (different options such as conditional grants, local government revenue, land tax etc.). 16. Development of a property data base for routine statistical data base collection such as numbers of titles etc, number of disputes, number of solved disputes, number of women with titles, or co-ownership (see below). 17. Court cases completed indicating robustness of new land law. 18. Multi-stakeholder acceptance of hierarchy of evidence relating to land rights (different government departments, users and state, donors) –this indicates agreement and not divergence between major stakeholders. 19. Land titles of all types guaranteed, with either the private or public sector accepting liability. 20. Full linkage of land use right allocation with land right allocation. 21. Land administration processes such as application, recording, adjudication, transfer, land use regulations and distribution of benefits are becoming clearer, better known and more used. 22. Authority in land administration processes is becoming clearer, better known and more used. 23. There are more and increasingly accessible places to go to for recourse in terms of land administration processes, and these are becoming better known and more used. 24. Land administration processes are becoming less unfairly discriminatory against any person or group. 25. Bridges are being built that span the gaps between actual practice and legal requirements. 26. Benefits and services are becoming as available to people living under all forms of tenure as they are to people living under freehold tenure systems. Some of these indicators can be measured prior to the first title being delivered, while some of them may be measured as the new system is being put into place at an early stage, prior to full roll out, and some may only be put in place after roll out has started. 5.3 Indicators after title/deed roll out 1. Fee structure of agencies published, with affordable approaches for the poor. 2. Average cost of different types of titles to the state. 3. Number of title applications of different types of titles. 4. Number of titles of different types registered. 5. Number of new registrations in previous 12 months. 6. Number of transactions/transfers per year (parcels sold). 7. Number of households with land disputes in previous 12 months. 8. Number of land disputes solved in previous 12 months. 9. Average cost of solving disputes. 10. Number of titles owned by women. 11. Number of titles co-owned. 12. Number/hectarage of poor titled/demarcated. 13. Percentage of country covered by titles. 14. Percentage of land holdings titled, or demarcated, or described in the Spatial Data Infrastructure. 15. Length of time for an average technical process from application to final titling. 16. Number of local government level offices opened, fully staffed and functioning for transfers, information on land rights and complaints. 17. Number of information requests by the public, other government departments, private sector at local government offices by category. 18. Revenue from spatial information sold. 19. Land sector revenue. 20. Types of land information used/required at local government level for the delivery of economic and social services. 21. Number of complaints or disputes about land sector staff per office. 22. Number of private sector surveyors, valuers, at all levels of qualification registered. 23. Routine mechanisms for distributing information to the public and users (maps available, brochures describing land rights, knowledge transfer when titling/demarcating, media campaigns, client access through local offices etc). 24. Development of a state asset register (to separate the state’s rights from community land rights and to manage state facilities). 27. Land administration processes such as application, recording, adjudication, transfer, land use regulations and distribution of benefits are clear, known and used. 28. Authority in land administration processes is clear, known and used. 29. Accessible places across the country at local level to go to for recourse in terms of land administration processes, and these are well known and used. 30. Land administration processes are not unfairly discriminatory against any person or group. 31. Bridges exist to span the gaps between actual practice and legal requirements. 32. Benefits and services are available to people living under all tenure systems and not just people living under freehold tenure. 5.4 Indicators concerning the extension of the land administration systems to customary areas in new ways outside of formal titling. 1. Law protecting occupancy rights. 2. Law providing measures for the prevention of eviction and the payment of compensation. 3. Law for the registration of family/group rights and not just individual rights. 4. Law making it possible for a spouse to prevent the transfer of land rights. 5. Law for the co-ownership of spouses. 6. Implementation of laws 2,3,4,5.6. above. 7. A Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) which has cadastral and non cadastral parcels as foundation data, as a public good, to be used by decision makers for the delivery of economic and social services, and not for individual titling in the first place. 8. A Spatial Data Infrastructure as a record of land rights used as first evidence in a court case of customary occupancy rights. 9. Local government level land administration offices where people can obtain information about their land rights, complain about infringements. 10. People’s rights are becoming clearer, people know better what their rights are and they are more able to defend their rights. 11. There are more and increasingly accessible places to go to for recourse in terms of land administration, and these are becoming better known and more used. 12. Land administration is becoming less unfairly discriminatory against any person or group. 13. Bridges are being built that span the gaps between actual practice and legal requirements. De facto customary tenure behaviour is also to a large extent de jure (different mechanisms can be used such as occupancy rights, titling, family law etc.). 14. Benefits and services are becoming as available to people living under customary tenure as they are to people living under titled tenures such as freehold. Bibliography Alberts, R., Fourie, C., Latsky, J. and D. Palmer (1995) Discussion paper on options for parallel interchangeable property registration systems, Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Namibian Government (unpublished). Alberts, R., Fourie, C., Hojgaard, P.D., Shitundeni, J., Corbett, A. and J. Latsky (1996) Discussion paper on land management and local level registries, Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Namibian Government (unpublished). Asiama, S.O. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems –case study Ghana. Augustinus, C. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems –case study Namibia. Augustinus, C. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems –case study Mozambique. Augustinus, C. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems –case study Uganda. Augustinus, C. (2002) Comparative study of land administration systems –case study South Africa. Bosworth, J. (2002) Integrating land issues into the broader development agenda: Uganda country case study, presented at Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Africa, 29 April-2 May, 2002. Cambaco, S.V. (2002) Impact of new legislation in Mozambique, Paper presented at Symposium on Land Redistribution in Southern Africa, Federation of International Surveyors, Pretoria, November, 2002. Christensen, S.F., Werner, W. and P.D. Hojgaard (1999) Innovative Land Surveying and Land Registration in Namibia, Working Paper No. 93, Developing Planning Unit, University College of London. Cousins T. and D. Hornby (2002) Notes from Legal Entity Assessment Project, Association for Rural Advancement, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Dambiane, S.J. Rovicene (1997) An investigation of land adjudication procedures to increase tenure security by incorporating local customary land rights, Msc. Thesis, Department of Land Surveying, University of Natal (Durban). Deininger, K. and R. Castagnini (2002) Incidence and impact of land conflict in Uganda, The World Bank. Ezigbalike, I.C. (1996) Integrated ‘cadastre’ for rural Africa, South African Journal of Surveying and Mapping 23(6). Federation of International Surveyors (1995) The FIG statement on the cadastre, FIG Publication No. 11. Fourie, C. (2000) Land and the cadastre in South Africa: Its history and present government policy. Guest lecture presented at the International Institute of Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands, 1st November,2000. Fourie, C. and J. Sharpley (2000) Working Draft Land Sector Strategic Action Plan, Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, Government of Uganda.. Fourie,C. (2003) Altering Regulatory Frameworks in Namibia: Merging Informal and Formal Land Tenures, Paper presented at Lincoln Institute of Land, Harvard University, Policy workshop on Comparative Perspectives on Urban Land Market Reform in Latin America, Southern Africa and Eastern Europe, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 7-9th July,1998. Hillermann, R. (2001) Development of a state asset register, including state domestic facilities, Department of Traditional and Local Government Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Hillermann, R. (2002) Opportunities in land reform: experience with customary tenure in South Africa, Paper presented at Symposium on Land Redistribution in Southern Africa, Federation of International Surveyors, Pretoria, November, 2002. Kasanga, K. (2002) Integrating land issues into the broader development agenda: The case of Ghana, Paper presented at World Bank Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Africa, Kampala, Uganda, 29 April -2 May 2002. Land Act Implementation Study (1999) U. Blackshaw and L.Eturu (summary report), J. Leatherdale and D. Palmer (Technical Appraisal), A.Rae and P. Nyaika (Financial Appraisal), R.Purcell and A.Babumba Kyeyune (Land Fund Appraisal), E.Marsh and C.Kego Laker (Social Appraisal), P. Oates and J. Ecaat (Environmental Appraisal), P.McAuslan and R.Mwebaza (Legal Appraisal), U.Blackshaw, L.Okech Abe, P.Ngorok (Institutional Appraisal) and D.Hunt and L.Eturu (Economic Appraisal), for Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, Government of Uganda. Land Equity company (2002) Email notes from T.Burns and C.Grant on Ghana’s land administration system. Nichols, S., Fourie, C. and M. Mejias (1997) Sida Support to DINAGECA in Mozambique 19911996, An evaluation of Sida support to national surveying and mapping, Department for Natural Resources and the Environment, 97/15. Quadros, C. (2002), Country case study Mozambique, Paper presented at the World Bank regional workshop for Africa and the Middle East, Kampala, Uganda, Apr. 29-2 May, 2002. Okpala, D.C.I. (1992) Land survey and parcel identification Data for effective land management, Land use policy, 92-98. Republic of Mozambique (1998) PROAGRI Sectorial Programme Investment, Land Component, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Republic of Mozambique (1998) National Directorate of Geography and Cadastre, October, 1998 report. Republic of Mozambique (2000), Ministerial Diploma No. 29-A/2000, of 17 March 2000, Technical Annex to the Land Law Regulations. South African Government (1937) Deeds Registries Act No.47 of 1937, Statutes, Deeds office. South African Government (1976) Rehoboth Self-Government Act, No. 56 of 1976, Statutes, Coloured Persons. South African Government (1976) Registration of deeds in Rehoboth act No. 93 of 1976, Government Gazette, No.5183. South African Government (1996) White Paper on Land Reform, Department of Land Affairs. South African Government (2001) Deeds Registries Act, 1937 (act No. 47 of 1937) Amendment to regulations, Government notice no. R208, Department of Land Affairs. Sunday Tribune (2002) Budget before buying by James Brennen, Property Guide, 17/12/2002. South West African Administration (1976) Regulations in connection with the registration of deeds in Rehoboth in terms of the registration of deeds in Rehoboth Act, 1976 (Act 93 of 1976), Government Gazette No. 5347, Windhoek. South West African Administration (1985) Deeds Registration Amendment Act, No.26 of 1985, Official Gazette Extraordinary, No.5146. Tanner, C. (2002) Comments Paper presented at the World Bank regional workshop for Africa and the Middle East, in session ‘The Legal Basis for Land Administration in the African context’, Kampala, Uganda, Apr. 29-2 May, 2002. United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1990) Guidelines for the Improvement of Land Registration and Land Information Systems in Developing Countries, Nairobi. United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1991) Report of the Workshop on Land Registration and Land Information Systems, Nairobi, Kenya (15-18 October 1990). United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1993) Ameliorer les Systemes D’Immatriculation Fonciere et de Reconnaissance des Droits sur le Sol Dans les Villes D’Afrique Sub-Saharienne Francophone, Serie Gestion Fonciere No.3. United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1995) Gestion Fonciere Urbaine, Politiques de Regularisation et Developpement Local en Afrique et Dans les Etats Arabes, Serie Gestion, Fonciere No 5, Conclusions de L’etude et du Seminaire (Abidjan, 21-24 Mars 1995). United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) (1996) New Delhi, Habitat II Global Conference on Access to Land and Security of Tenure as a Condition for Sustainable Shelter and Urban Development, New Delhi, India (17-19 January, 1996). United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) 1997 Global Urban Observatory Monitoring Human Settlements with Urban Indicators (Draft) Guide. United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) 1998 Informal Settlements, Security of Tenure, Urban Land Management and Local Governance, Experiences in Implementing the Habitat Agenda, Land Management Series No. 7 (Draft version: Nairobi, June 1998). United Nations Economic Commission for Africa 1996 Sub-Regional Workshop on Land Tenure Issues in Natural Resource Management in the Anglophone East Africa with a focus on the IGAD region, Addis Ababa, 11 to 15 March 1996. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa 1998 An integrated geo-information (GIS) with emphasis on cadastre and land information systems (LIS) for decision-makers in Africa, Working document for meeting of Group of Experts at United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, 23-26November,1998. Van der Berg, A. (2002), History of Settling Southern Africa, Paper presented on behalf of Dr. N. Mkgalamele, at Symposium on Land Redistribution in Southern Africa, Federation of International Surveyors, Pretoria, November, 2002. Van der Berg, M. (2002), Survey methods and data management for the demarcation and management of informal rights in South Africa, at Symposium on Land Redistribution in Southern Africa, Federation of International Surveyors, Pretoria, November, 2002.