TENURE IN MYSTERY: THE STATUS OF LAND UNDER WILDLIFE,
FORESTRY AND MINING CONCESSIONS IN KARAMOJA REGION,
UGANDA
Margaret A. Rugadya, Eddie Nsamba-Gayiiya and Herbert Kamusiime
Abstract
In the 1960s, 94.6 per cent of the region of Karamoja was allocated to wildlife conservation. In 2002, the Ugandan
Parliament approved the change in status of land use and tenure of about half of that land. More than a decade
later, the local communities remain very little the wiser about the changed status of their land rights. People find
their access to land is blocked and feel powerless against suspected land grabbing. Decisions on land – for
conservation or for exploitation of natural resources – are being taken over the heads of the communities who live
and work there and no adequate information is passed down to them. This article collates information on land
given over to conservation, forestry and mining to provide a factual basis for interventions regarding communal
tenure. Findings show that communities are vulnerable to internal and external loss of land and its resources – they
do not have the information that would otherwise empower them to protect, negotiate and participate in ownership,
use and management of their land.
Keywords: Karamoja, wildlife, forestry, mining, land tenure, pastoralism
Introduction
In the 1960s, approx. 94.6 percent of Karamoja’s total land area of 27,700km was gazetted for wildlife conservation. In
2002, the status of tenure and land use of approximately 54 per cent of the land area under wildlife conservation in
Karamoja was changed. That is roughly half of the land in the region. Information about the changes circulated amongst
the political elite and was disseminated to a selected few. While personal interests in those circles were secured and
protected, the rural communities in Karamoja who were supposed to benefit from the change remained largely
extraneous to it.
This article collates information from the relevant government departments and agencies concerned with wildlife
conservation, protection of forest reserves and extraction of minerals in Uganda. It details the changes generated by the
‘degazettement’ of conservation areas in Karamoja, and the current status of forest reserves in the region, with
community views on their existence and utilization. It also unravels the context within which mineral exploration and
mining concessions are operated under the current legal and policy framework. In all this, what ought to be the status of
community rights is clearly articulated. The security of tenure under customary land rights, the prevalent form of land
tenure within the Karamoja region, is looked at in more detail, showing the limitations arising from the duality of formal
and customary law in the ownership and use of land. Key issues emerging from this analysis and possible interventions
to address them are drawn out in the conclusion.
Data were collected through focus-group discussions with leaders at district and sub-county level. Interviews were
also conducted with key informants and the political leadership of the region. However, much of the information was
extracted from District Land Offices, the national data archive in the Geology and Mines Department, the Conservation
Coordination Office of the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) and the Directorate of Natural Forests at the National
Forestry Authority (NFA).
Wildlife Protected areas
The Years of Gazettement
At the turn of the nineteenth century, livestock cohabited with wildlife in Karamoja. Large herds of buffalo lived in
Dodoth, eland and zebras spread across the plains, and giraffes were common near Kadam. Topi and hartebeests were
present in large numbers in Jie and Bokora. During the wet season, herds of elephants crossed the region north–south
following the ripening of Borassus fruits, returning to the hills around Kidepo in the dry season. This richness made
Karamoja one of East Africa’s prime hunting areas during the 1920s and 1930s. By 1950, the wildlife population was in
decline, which led to the conversion of most of the pastoral land of Karamoja to national parks and game reserves.
Records available from the UWA1 show that, in 1962, the Ugandan Government established Kidepo National Park,
covering 1,436 km2. In 1963, three ‘controlled hunting areas’ were also established: Napak (196 km 2), North Karamoja
(10,820 km2) and South Karamoja (7,882 km2). These were followed in 1964 by three game reserves: Matheniko (1,573
km2), Bokora Corridor (2,145 km2) and Pian-Upe (2,152 km2). By 1965, 94.6 per cent of Karamoja’s total land area of
27,700 km2 was designated for wildlife conservation. Between 1972 and the early 1990s, protected conservation areas
were extensively encroached upon and settled due to government neglect and its inability to police large tracts of land.
In 1996, a UWA field survey found that over sixty-five thousand persons were illegally residing in Karamoja’s
protected areas. Local leaders and regional politicians claimed that these areas constituted Karamoja’s most fertile land
and persuaded the UWA that the areas were to be seen as expansion zones for crop farming and a means by which the
region could become self-sufficient in food production.2 Indeed, much of the Pian-Upe, Bokora Corridor and Matheniko
wildlife reserves lie on vertisolic soils that, although prone to waterlogging in the wet season, are fertile by the region’s
standards. None of the other soils are highly productive except for moderately fertile patches at the base of the Napak
and Kadam Mountains, which are better drained than the vertisols of the plains and were already under cultivation by the
encroaching communities.
Based on the results of the 1996 survey, the UWA moved to adjust several protected areas’ boundaries to exclude, as
much as possible, those parts that had been heavily encroached upon and no longer served any useful conservation
purpose. This move is said to have been backed up by extensive public consultations before the actual review and
degazettement.
[The] Uganda Wildlife Authority claims that a Karamoja conference was held in 1995, and the issue of
degazettement came up ... [. T]he political and technical leaders agreed and the community was consulted.
Consultations started at Sub-county level then [moved] to the district level and finally the Parliament. It is just that
the people who attended the meetings, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to hoard the information. 3
Land area under Wildlife Conservation in 2002 and 2010
In 2002, with parliamentary approval, the UWA reviewed the wildlife conservation areas and degazetted 14,904 km 2,
drastically reducing coverage from 26,204 km2 (94.6 per cent of Karamoja’s total land area) to 11,300 km2 (40.8 per
cent). Although ‘heavy encroachment’ was the stated criterion for degazettement, a number of heavily settled areas
considered to be water catchment areas or within sensitive ecosystems (for instance, forested patches or river beds,
especially at the foot of Napak and Kadam Mountains) were not degazetted. Table 1 illustrates the effect of the 2002
UWA revision, including the newly created ‘community wildlife areas’ in Iriri, Karenga and Amudat.
Kidepo Valley National Park
The park has retained its original 1962 territory of 1,436 km2, which accounts for 5.2 per cent of Karamoja’s land area.
To date, the park is still managed under the policy of strict protectionism. 4 This means that, unlike in other parks in the
country, there is no livestock grazing is permitted inside the park and infringement is punishable with arrest. However,
in disaster situations the minister responsible for tourism has statutory powers to permit controlled grazing. Accordingly,
access can also be granted for the collection of firewood, honey or herbs. This, however, requires that the community
enters into an agreement in the form of ‘a Memorandum of Understanding with the Park Authorities, so that specific
access gates are assigned for their use (both entry and exit) and the demarcation of specific passages to be adhered to,
especially with people in parishes nearby’.5
For this to work effectively, the communities surrounding the park need to be given information about the access
points. In Uganda, wildlife is legally owned by the state, for the benefit of its citizens (Uganda Wildlife Statute No. 14
1996, Section 4.1) and the access and use of areas that harbour wildlife are subject to:Table 1. Status of Wildlife Conservation Areas in Karamoja
Category
Before
2002 (km2)
National Park
Kidepo Valley
%
1,436
Total
1,436
5.2%
Area
degazetted
in 2002
(km2)
Area
gazetted
by 2010
(km2)
0
1,436
0
1,436
%
5.2%
Wildlife Reserves
Pian-Upe
2,152
109
2,043
Bokora corridor
2,145
312
1,833
Matheniko
1,573
180
1,393
Page | 2
Tenure in Mystery: The Status of Land in Karamoja
Total
5,870
21.2%
601
5,269
19.0%
Controlled Hunting Areas
North Karamoja
10,820
10,820
0
South Karamoja
7,882
7,882
0
196
196
0
18,898
0
Napak
Total
18,898
68.2%
0.0%
Community Wildlife Areas
Iriri
0
–1,030
1,030
Karenga
0
–1,540
1,540
Amudat
0
–2,025
2,025
Total
Grand Total
26,204
(%) of 27,700 km2
Karamoja
0
0.0%
–4,595
4,595
16.0%
24,094
94.6%
11,300
86.9%
40.8%
Source: Uganda Wildlife Authority (2010)
official regulations. However, through focus-group discussions and interviews, it was established that communities
surrounding this national park are not aware of such opportunities for access, especially during prolonged dry seasons
when such emergency measures are of vital importance.
Wildlife (Game) Reserves
Before 2002, wildlife reserves accounted for 21.2 per cent of Karamoja’s land area. With degazettement, this proportion
changed only slightly, decreasing to 19 per cent. The 1996 Wildlife Survey – which formed the basis of the review and
re-adjustment of the reserves – revealed that the Bokora Corridor was heavily utilized on a seasonal basis, with between
sixty thousand and one hundred thousand cattle moving through the southern half of the reserve from Kangole and
Matany to Teso and back during the October–February period. In addition, dams along the Lochomon River were being
rehabilitated, which led to increased pressure on the wildlife reserve for grazing. Above all, there were human
settlements in the areas adjacent to and within the reserve, such as Apeitom, Kobuline and Kopopwa villages, with
populations of 600, 900 and 2,400 households respectively.
Within the Bokora Corridor Wildlife Reserve, the following changes were effected:
(i)
A section of the reserve south of Longirikipi Dam was downgraded to Community Wildlife Area status and
renamed Iriri Community Wildlife Area.
(ii) A wildlife corridor to northern Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve was maintained.
(iii) The area was extended to include the woodlands and thickets around Toror Hills, and westwards towards Labwor
to include the Combretum Woodlands, which were not adequately represented in the Protected Areas network. The
northward extension was justified on the basis of giving further protection to Uganda’s only breeding population of
ostriches.
By downgrading the southern section of Bokora Corridor Wildlife Reserve, the communities at Apeitolim and Kopopwa
(totalling about four thousand people)
Figure 1. Bokora Game Reserve after the 2002 Degazettement
were ‘legalized’ as users of the land in that area. At the time, there were no permanent settlements within the modified
Bokora Corridor Wildlife Reserve and therefore no communities would be affected (as shown in Figure 1). However,
communities that had fled due to earlier insecurity are now returning and claiming their land, which is an issue that needs
to be addressed.
The UWA made the changes to the reserves using aerial photography, and data from the wildlife survey and
biodiversity evaluations; but the actual, on-the-ground mapping and demarcation has never taken place. In addition, the
UWA lacks a physical presence to police the conservation areas throughout Karamoja (with the exception of the Kidepo
Valley National Park). The lack of clear demarcation created a breeding ground for conflicts between the communities
and the UWA (over land or wildlife). The plans for physical demarcation are said by the UWA to have been halted for
the last nine years due to regional insecurity.
The 1964 gazettement was done, but this gazettement remained on paper. Boundary marking was not done on the
ground. Today it is clear that the Wildlife Authority has not been on the ground in the past[;] its re-appearance
makes the Karamojong conceptualize the marking of boundaries as a fresh gazettement of land.6
Getting people to come and settle and therefore work in Karamoja was not possible … [T]hat is one of the reasons
why these boundaries were not marked then and therefore marking them now is facing resistance; but the
boundaries of for example Kidepo are not being disputed because they were marked long ago. 7
It needs to be understood, that unless specifically guided, most communities will not interact with the UWA in respect of
negotiations for access or use.
The 1996 Wildlife Survey revealed that the Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve was also utilized on a seasonal basis, with
twenty thousand cattle moving through the reserve during the October–February period to graze along Lake Opeta in the
south end of the reserve and in East Teso. In addition, there were twenty-two Pian settlements (making a total of
approximately three thousand people) within the reserve to the south of Namalu, and another 1,400 people settled around
the base of Napak Mountain inside the reserve, which seriously compromised the integrity of the Napak Forest Reserve,
due to high firewood demands, thus degrading the forest and reducing the catchment area.
In the Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve (Figure 2), the following changes were effected:
(i)
(ii)
A small part of Pian-Upe that was falling within Katakwi District was excised from the reserve, since it was no
longer serving any conservation function, because most areas had been settled.
The encroached area at Namalu (approximately 56 km2) was excised from the reserve.
Page | 4
Tenure in Mystery: The Status of Land in Karamoja
Figure 2. Pian-Upe Game Reserve after the 2002 Degazettement
(iii) It was proposed that from the illegal Pian settlements the 1,400 people established around the base of Napak
Mountain be relocated to a section of the Bokora Corridor Wildlife Reserve south of Longirikipi Dam that had
been downgraded to Community Wildlife Area status.
The UWA accepts that, even with the review process there are still overlapping issues that need to be addressed. For
example, ‘the issue of illegal settlements needs to be addressed in consultation with the NFA since Napak Forest Reserve
overlaps with part of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve where settlements are evident’.8 Over the last ten years, the human
population is said to have grown to about fifteen thousand persons in this location alone.
Livestock grazing, which is a key livelihood requirement for the agropastoral communities of Karamoja, is allowed in
wildlife reserves without permits, although crop cultivation is not permitted. Concurring, the Senior Warden of the
UWA revealed in an interview that
from time immemorial, grazing and watering of animals as well as accessing resources for domestic uses have
been allowed in the wildlife reserves. Access for domestic-related resources of building poles, craft materials,
grazing, medicinal plants etc. has always been allowed. What is not allowed is settlement and agriculture because
this disrupts the ecosystem of the whole area thereby defeating the logic of conservation. Actually it is because of
this that we have confrontations with the local communities.9
This basic right of use and access is unknown to the communities in most of the locations surveyed in this study.
Indeed, many community leaders involved in this survey doubted the prior existence of conservation areas to the extent
that today the demarcation of the degazetted areas is perceived as land grabbing. Even though it was common knowledge
that much of the land in the region was under protected status, without physical demarcation the communities had no
way of knowing where their rights started or ended.
There are other instances where communities feel they could be cheated, for example in Bokora where the 1996
survey found people had left due to the security situation and therefore marked the area as unoccupied.
There is also this corridor at the border with the Bokora people, which was taken by [the] UWA. This land was our
communal grazing land and we used to share it with the Bokora people; it was because of lack of security that we
stopped grazing from there and also abandoning our old villages; but the day this insecurity ends we shall return. 10
When we left, [the] UWA came and fenced off our land and that is the current Matheniko Corridor you hear about.
It crosses the road from Kotido to Moroto and on the upper side it goes up to Kaabong. The land that was gazetted
by [the] UWA was originally communal grazing land. We started hearing about the Matheniko corridor in 2009;
yet this was land which the people abandoned because of insecurity. 11
The wildlife authority states:
The only contentious area is Opopong Parish in Abim. When we were making these changes, people had run away
from this area because of insecurity and when security prevailed, they came back and started contesting … this
area. Actually there is proof to show that these people initially owned this area and we are thinking of
degazettement.12
In addition, the Matheniko claim that land now being demarcated as part of the gazetted areas is the site of their
ancestral heritage, with several religious and cultural artefacts that they use in their traditional religion. It is also their
sixmonth wet-season grazing area. There are claims by the Tepeth that Mount Moroto – a forest reserve – is their
ancestral land:
Our relationship with [the] UWA is hard to describe; when they approached the Sub-county, they said that
someone is coming to build a hotel and that the Sub-county will benefit from it. They carried out a baseline survey
and the local people were also involved in boundary marking; people were given jobs. As a community we did not
ask for compensation; but later on, when we called them for more talks and started asking questions relating to
compensation, they kept on saying ‘we shall see’. 13
In the case of [the] UWA, they surveyed the land without the consent of the people. [At] the meeting which sat at
the sub-county here, we totally refused, but they went ahead and surveyed the said land, they actually told us that
Parliament had given the order to close this land to the livestock. Yet this was the most fertile land and during the
rainy season the grass is very good for our animals. 14
With respect to the wildlife reserves, the UWA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with five districts –
Kaabong, Kotido, Abim, Nakapiripirit and Moroto – to jointly manage wildlife, and this was preceded by a consultative
process. In addition, tripartite collaborative management agreements with private-sector companies, local district
administrations and communities for the management of some of the wildlife reserves in Karamoja have been signed.
The private-sector companies participating in the co-management of the protected areas in Karamoja are: Karamoja
Safari Ltd and Karamoja Overland Safari Ltd. The basis for pursuing this arrangement is articulated as follows:
Since government is not a good businessman, the Districts, Communities and Wildlife Authority came together to
manage the Wildlife Reserves by involving the Private Sector through two companies. In September 2005
Karamoja Overland Safari, and in June 2009 Karamoja Safari, are some of the private companies that partnered
with the Districts and the local people in the management of wildlife in the region. 15
The idea in doing this was to allow government to manage these areas as a business that benefits all parties
involved, and the local community benefits financially from the existence of wildlife within their areas, as well as
accessing resources for domestic use in the protected areas …. We are actually trying to emulate people in the arid
Kalahari Desert who survive because of mixed ranching; that is, people privately owning cattle that coexist with
wild animals.16
However, most communities never actually get a share of the money from the management agreements, as this is
channelled directly to the local district governments. According to the UWA’s Community Conservation Coordinator,
communities are yet to form associations that can sign a MOU on behalf of their communities in order that money from
these arrangements can be paid directly to them. For the moment, the only money received by the communities is that
raised from sport hunting since that does not require the approval of an association.
Controlled Hunting Areas and Community Wildlife Areas
Controlled Hunting Areas representing 18,898 km2 (68.2 per cent of Karamoja’s total land area) were completely
degazetted in 2002. In their place, three ‘community wildlife areas’ were gazetted, representing 4,595 km 2 (16 per cent
of the total land area).
There is also what we call community-protected areas, especially in Karenga: they are managed by the community
members. In these areas, the people coexist with the wild animals, so the people do actually graze their livestock
but they are not allowed to kill an animal without a licence, although people are free to graze their cattle.17
Within Community Wildlife Areas, individuals who have property rights in land may carry out activities for the
sustainable management and utilization of wildlife, as indicated in the interview excerpt below.
With the Community Wildlife Areas and the sport-hunting programme, people are beginning to see the value of
wildlife because it has become a source of income. For instance, an animal sport-hunted can fetch around four
thousand U.S. dollars to the community. Clearly no cow, however big and fat, can fetch that amount of money! 18
Although game reserves are government land, the warden at the UWA’s Moroto office noted that ‘in controlled hunting
or community wildlife management areas our business is purely wildlife. It is only in the national parks and game
reserves where the government through the UWA owns the land. It is therefore on this basis that one can hold ownership
rights either customarily or through titles in controlled hunting areas. 19 There are still complaints that the land set aside
for conservation, even after the recent degazettement, remains the most fertile in Karamoja.
Land which has been set aside for conservation is some of the most fertile land in the area, such as the over forty
thousand square kilometres of very fertile land in the current Kidepo Valley National Park. Before its gazettement,
this area was a communal hunting and grazing ground but now all human activities have been suspended from this
area. Also, all the fertile slopes and plains are protected under conservation. Actually over 60 per cent of
Karamoja’s fertile land is protected, hence people have no access at all to it yet they live in rough and rugged
areas.20
Page | 6
Tenure in Mystery: The Status of Land in Karamoja
Given the scale of the 2002 revision, prompt and detailed information should have been given to the communities
about the opportunities raised by the initiative. The UWA readily gave this information – now nearly eleven years old –
to the research team, but within the district there is a clear absence of information, to the extent that the local
administrators and technical staff are themselves at a loss as to how to advise communities.
There is no clear ownership of land, and this makes its management a headache. We keep hearing that that land
has been offered to [the] UWA, [or the] UWA has demarcated a lot of land for its activities and this is being done
without the knowledge of the local people. When they gazette, they leave barren land only …. There are no
borders or boundaries between land belonging to the people and that of [the] UWA. There are very many rumours
considering the fact that [the] UWA has not talked to the people and clearly said which land is gazetted, and
therefore people are not allowed to use it, and … which [land] the people are free to use. Clan ownership is
reduced to ownership by word of mouth only. 21
Even though the majority of the civil society organizations operating in the area are involved in livelihood support, of
which land is a crucial component, few are addressing this aspect. Some of them are themselves victims of this
information gap: for example the Uganda Land Alliance pilot project on titling communal customary tenure in Nabawal
Parish came to a stop because – to everybody’s surprise – the area concerned in the project turned out to be located in the
Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve.
Forest Reserves
The history of gazettement of forests started in 1932 in Buganda region, then spread out into all the kingdoms and
districts of Uganda. This process involved negotiations with kingdom officials and district officials before boundary
plans could be agreed on in areas that had human settlement. In accordance with the Forest Ordinance of 1932, two types
of forests were gazetted: the central forest reserves, which are managed and controlled by central government, and the
local forest reserves, which are managed and controlled (but not owned) by local government.
The current legislation, the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (Republic of Uganda 2003b), has maintained this
status, with provisions for regeneration and sustainable harvesting under the National Forestry Authority (NFA). Within
Karamoja, the NFA is managing nineteen central forest reserves (there are no local forest reserves) with a total area of
3,222 km2. The gazettement of forest reserves in the region was in recognition of its important biodiversity and because
of their locations, which either protect water for production or help agriculture by protecting soil erosion. Over 95 per
cent of reserved forests are in conjunction with catchment areas.
The original reasons for protecting these areas within Karamoja have not changed, and encroachment, although
destructive, does not seem to be enough to instigate a review of their status, as Achaye Godfrey, the Director for Natural
Forests at the NFA, explained:
There is general destruction of forests as most of the forests are established on hills, and yet these hills have been
taken up by communities that went up there to protect their cattle either from cattle rustling or [from] civil wars.
The Tepeth on Mount Moroto have turned the reserve into an agricultural area; Tororo Cement is extracting some
of its resources from one of our forests. There are boundary problems even in Moroto Town itself: people have
built in the reserve and around. But all this does not change the need for preserving the integrity of water bodies
and water catchment areas.22
The recognition of community rights of access to resources in the forest reserves is a long-accepted tradition, which
Godfrey asserted was secured:
Right from the first forest ordinances of 1932 up to the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act of 2003, it is
clearly stated that local communities are free to enter and pick any forest produce as long as it is for domestic use.
Nobody has ever been denied that right.23
Private Investment and Protected Areas
The Ugandan Government’s aspiration for private sector-led economic growth has attracted several private investors into
the country, especially those interested in commercial agricultural ventures that require large tracts of land. These seek
the government’s support in acquiring land cheaply or at no cost in order to minimize their initial investment. In 2002,
Libyan investors sought the degazettement of Pian-Upe Wildlife Reserve for commercial agricultural purposes.
The permanent and seasonal wetlands of Lake Opeta, located in the southwest of the reserve, are the only permanent
wetlands in Karamoja. They are internationally recognized as a habitat of great importance for birds (including the
globally threatened Shoebill and Papyrus Gonolek) and are currently being considered for higher-level protection status
under the Ramsar Convention (World Bank 2003). Despite objections from the UWA, which also provided other feasible
alternatives, the Libyan investors were able to command the support of the President, who directed the authority to
devise a way in which the wildlife could be secured for the investor. Environmental and conservation organizations
vehemently opposed the proposal.24
One of the proposed activities of the company, for whose benefit the wildlife reserve was being degazetted, was the
development of infrastructure for irrigation and commercial scale farming on five hundred thousand acres of land (about
2,000 km2).25 However, this would heavily disrupt dry-season pastures and water resources offered by the reserve for
tens of thousands head of cattle from Nakapiripirit and Moroto Districts. After a prolonged campaign, the matter was
dropped.
Some so-called investors wanted all the land in this reserve but local opinion and political leaders refused because
they were already requesting … degazettement of that fertile land for communal use. We proposed some 400 km 2
towards Teso land but the investors said that acreage was small for their commercial activities and they left. 26
The Karimojong used to run away from fertile lands, claiming that their cows would contract foot and mouth
disease, so when the whites came they simply gazetted these lands, but most of them have been degazetted. If you
look at the areas of the Matheniko, most of them have been degazetted.27
Guidelines for assessing land for investment were only first proposed in the draft National Land Policy (Republic of
Uganda 2013) – these need to be nurtured and applied in subsequent land legislation to safeguard the interests of
communities such as the Karamojong.
Another example of investment was given by the Chief Administrative Officer of Kaabong:
In Karenga, an investor sidelined the district and entered into agreements with the local people through the Subcounty authorities, and one hundred acres were acquired by this investor. He started negotiations with these people
in 2007; as we speak now he is applying for a freehold title and he has restricted his operations with the Karenga
Sub-county officials and the Area Land Committee28 of Karenga. Ignorance is a very big problem in the district
and this is being manipulated. Any attempts to invite this man to the district to discuss how this land has been
acquired and try and explain to him the procedure of land registration are being ignored. 29
Such occurrences are isolated but seem to be scattered across the Karamoja region. Given the high levels of ignorance
about laws on minerals, wildlife, forestry and land registration, the communities are likely to lose out to such
unscrupulous individuals.
Minerals and mining concessions
The government has recently undertaken an airborne geological survey covering 80 per cent of the country, resulting in
the Mineral Assessment Map. The 20 per cent of the land area missed out by the survey is in Karamoja (regional
hostilities prevented the survey there). Therefore the official geological information for Karamoja is as old as 1960–61.
In practice, this means that the public administration depends on private companies for information on recent mineral
developments, although such information is itself scanty and its quality cannot be ascertained. 30
Almost one-quarter of the 27,700 km2 of Karamoja is covered by ‘exclusive mineral exploration’ licences and
location licences. There is just one mining lease in the whole of Karamoja, for 20 km2 of limestone mining in Moroto
District. As a region relying on the livestock economy, Karamoja faces problems with restrictions in livestock mobility
when extensive acreage is devoted to exploration and large areas of grazing land are cordoned off. Sealing exploration
areas after exploratory work is seen as a malicious denial of access to ancestral resources for the Karamojong.
The legal framework governing mining stipulates the ratios for sharing royalties but no person in Karamoja has ever
received his/her 3 per cent share. The explanation advanced for this is that under customary tenure, which pertains in
Karamoja, there is a lack of evidence of land ownership, so the community is unable to prove the basis of its claim to
negotiate with the companies for the acquisition of land or for compensation.
Additionally, the licensing procedure requires the applicant to show proof of ownership of exclusive rights over the
land covering the intended period of mining. Communities are unable to secure proof or formal recognition of their rights
to land in order to bargain for their involvement. Since rights are not formalized, communities are not able to secure
location licenses that would enable them to undertake mining by themselves or negotiate for compensation when private
companies acquire concessions over their land.
It would not be iniquitous to assert that the state of mining in Karamoja is covert and stealthy, as ‘investors’ stream in
without notifying any local leaders or communities. The fact that local communities have remained excluded from the
process of granting concessions for mineral prospecting and mining triggers apprehension and suspicion:
As Kaabong, we were never consulted; we do not know anything concerning minerals yet the land is ours. Before
Branch Energy came, this area was owned by the Dodoth. Nobody was consulted when Branch Energy was
commencing its operations; any attempts to enquire, they would tell you that ‘we are still sampling’ and yet they
are armed and every day you see planes landing and taking off. The gates to these entrances would be manned by
armed white men. There was nothing we - could do. There are people in the district who will tell you that guns
were drawn at them because of enquiring about the minerals.31
We are not opposed to mining: it brings development and opens up the area to other prospects …. What we do not
understand is why we agree to the mineral being taken and then the land is also taken …. This is like giving you
the food on my plate and instead of eating only the food you also take my plate …. [T]his is what the Tororo
Cement people at Kosiroi did …. [T]aking the minerals is OK but not our land. 32
Page | 8
Tenure in Mystery: The Status of Land in Karamoja
In 2009, fed up with such concealed occurrences, local leaders took matters into their own hands, accusing the
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development of grabbing land and exploiting natural resources without the knowledge
and acceptance of the local people.
Authorities in Katekekile Sub County in Moroto district on Saturday seized the keys of Tororo Cement’s Oruk
limestone mining site in Kosiroi village. A team of local leaders and elders led by Matheniko county MP Samuel
Abura and Special Presidential Adviser Michael Lokawu, stormed the mining site in a police vehicle …. This
follows the failure by the Tororo Cement officials to show up for a meeting earlier convened for them to explain
how they acquired a mining lease …. [T] he elders resolved to confiscate the company’s keys [and] accused the
company of despising the Karimojong. ‘We shall not rest until we get to know the person who sold the
Karimojong wealth’ …. [T]he leaders halted the company’s activities, demanding legal proof that they were
cleared to operate in the area. (New Vision, Kampala – Uganda, 28 April 2009)
The majority of the community members that researchers met during this survey were on the brink of similar direct
action, due to the absence of information from the government on the mining activities they witnessed within their
communities. While local government leaders are willing to share information, they themselves lack facts on the status of
mining in the region. Much as they are aware of the existence of natural-resource deposits such as gold and other mineral
deposits, they are not sure of the volumes involved. The Chief Administrative Officer of Kaabong District revealed the
level of omission from the information chain:
Companies have explored and prospected in Kaabong since 1997 [and] in all this time there has not been any
activity related to mining that the District is aware of. The District is never consulted on issues related to
prospecting: those are regarded or viewed or considered to be a preserve of the state. 33
Communities further allege that attempts at consultation are often not in good faith, manipulated by the local elite,
who convene meetings to rubber-stamp processes with the promise of sinking boreholes, building schools and hospitals
and so on. The implications of the mining concessions for the communities are never fully explained. The consultation is
thus neither constructive nor participatory, but aims more to silence any form of opposition that may arise and hoodwink
communities into submission.
Even when consultations are carried out, they are often a manipulation and confusion-creation tool that enables
investors to take advantage of the community’s ignorance, poverty and illiteracy. Often those who pose as wanting
to help the communities in engaging the investors often end up taking the land and the minerals in the name of
negotiations.34
Under the terms of the Mining Act (Republic of Uganda 2003a), all minerals are subject to the payment of royalties as
follows: 80 per cent to central government, 17 per cent to local government and 3 per cent to the owners or lawful
occupiers of the land in question. Despite government claims to the contrary, benefits are not reaching the communities.
The observance of land rights and interests of communities or individuals in areas where mining licences are in
operation is dependent upon the tenure system in the area and the type of licence issued which in turn details the
restrictions and obligations of both the licensee and the land-holder. With an exploration licence, a company has the right
to search for minerals but not to mine; thus it has a right to plant beacons showing the demarcation of the area under
exploration and is obliged to compensate the land-holder for any damage. Under the terms of a location licence a
Ugandan citizen, or a company in which Ugandan citizens hold the majority share, is granted mining rights to up to a
maximum of eight acres upon presentation by the licensee of a consent agreement from the land-holder for land owned
by a third party or a land title for individuals. In the case of Karamoja, however,
land-owners have no land titles as proof of ownership so they do not get this percentage ... [. I]n areas of
communal or customary land, we have begun relying on written proof from the district that people or communities
named in the document are the rightful owners of [the] land in question. 35
The Mining Act specifically provides for adequate compensation of the landowner or -occupiers at market value
(without consideration for any enhanced value due to the minerals), yet communities and their leaders are emphatic that,
since the commencement of concessions in the region, no form of compensation has ever been received.
If the land belongs to the people, why are we not consulted before mining concessions are given out? It means that
once the mining exercises take off, people forfeit their rights to land to the mining company yet there is completely
no compensation. There is completely no procedure of exchanging land rights. 36
The Department of Geological Surveys and Mines and politicians in charge at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Development argue that efforts are being made to ensure that the communities in Karamoja benefit from the mineral
resources:
We have arranged with the districts to certify ownership of communal land although most times it’s corrupted …
and district officials channel the royalties to their relatives. 37
We are telling people to form societies, have documented evidence of community or society ownership of land
thereby creating credible ways of receiving the money.38
Land in Karamoja is purely customary … [:] it is not surveyed at all. This therefore means that people do not have
any documentary certification that they own that land and in case of anything they can easily lose ownership of
that land. What we as leaders are doing right now is to ask individuals to survey their land …. [S]ome people like
me have private family land.39
Mining leases are issued for a minimum of eight up to a maximum of twentyone years. Companies, in addition to all
relevant legal documents as regards company registration, need to supply an Environmental Impact Assessment Report
from the National Environmental Management Authority and proof of capacity to carry out the intended activities. In
relation to land, the company is required to show proof of ownership of exclusive rights over the land covering the
intended mining period (such as a freehold or leasehold title) and a certified survey report that proves the existence of
minerals. However, should the company fail to secure land from the communities or individual land-owners then
ultimately the government can invoke powers of compulsory acquisition.
Local communities manifested perplexity regarding the intentions of the government. Some manifested fear that the
entire mineral wealth of Karamoja is just being sold out. Exploration areas are required to be sealed upon conclusion of
any exploratory work. To the local communities, this is considered malicious denial of access to ancestral resources for it
impairs their continued need for resource access and use.
Additionally, due to the extensive acreage devoted to exploration in Moroto and Nakapiripirit Districts, and large
acreages under mining concessions in Kotido and Kaabong Districts, communities complain that their livelihood options
are stifled in preference of the companies, as such mining concessions carry with them restrictions on animal movement
as large grazing areas are cordoned off:
Mining concessions, which sometimes take up as large [an area] as 50 km2, are unfortunately in the most fertile
areas that are suitable for grazing and human habitation yet there is zero tolerance of human activities in mining
areas.40
Exploration, however, has major consequences[:] … vast tracks of land are fenced off, limiting access … [and]
people do not get royalty payments because they do not have documentary proof of land ownership. 41
However, political leaders hailing from this region counter the community complaints by asserting that some dialogue is
beginning to take place that allows for better coexistence and mutual advantage from the minerals. In particular,
investors have been encouraged to secure mineral dealers’ licences, so that local communities can sell them what they
have mined:
We have sought guidance from the Ministry of Energy and Minerals and that of Lands and as I speak now, several
round-table discussions have taken place …. [M]ining companies that could not accommodate the land rights of
the Karimojong have left and those willing to accommodate coexistence with local people have remained. The
local people do the mining and sell to the licensees. The companies provide better tools and water and in that way,
they feel they are part of the process.42
On close scrutiny of licensing records, the researchers found that no such mineral dealer’s licence has been issued in
the whole of Karamoja region. The failure to secure royalties is also blamed on the inability of communities to secure
location licences that would enable them to undertake mining in their own right rather than await external investors and
then claim what is due to them as land-owners.
For starters, minerals belong to the government but if they want to, they should look for areas that aren’t occupied
and apply for small-scale location licenses. They have not applied for any type of authority yet they claim others
are getting mining rights. Because nothing can come at no cost in the world, let them apply for location licences
which are for local people. The other licences are also charged per square kilometre so one can apply for what he
can afford to pay [for].43
In the review of literature it was found that two exploration and prospecting licences covering the whole of Rupa Subcounty in Moroto were issued in 2001. Local communities in Rupa resisted mining exploration by Rupa Investment and
Technology Ltd because it would block cattle movement from nearby villages to one permanent water point (Muhereza
and Otim 2002: 23). To protect this land, thirty-four elders from Rupa applied for a certificate of customary ownership
from the District Land Board in order to coerce the mining company to go into negotiations with the community. The
motivating factors were the deep pits dug in the exploration process, which were too dangerous for cattle to move
around, and the removal of much of the topsoil, which would make it impossible for grasses to grow.
A second example is that of Exploration Licence 4567, in the area north of the Karukochom Hills along the Ratha
River, which is the grazing route the Rupa cattle take in the dry season when heading up to Nakiloro. The risk was that
free access to water and pasture resources for people and cattle from Rupa would be blocked when more locations were
opened for exploration along the mountain foothills. Exploration was considered incompatible with the way in which
people perceive their rights to this land. Although the dispute is still open, the Rupa example shows that local
communities do try to formalize their ownership rights in order to protect the customary usage of the land.
Page | 10
Tenure in Mystery: The Status of Land in Karamoja
Land tenure issues
The evolution of the four main systems of land tenure – freehold, leasehold, mailo44 and customary – was mainly a
product of the way in which the British colonial administration interacted with Uganda’s pre-colonial tribal chiefs. The
colonial administration chose small-scale peasant agriculture under the prevailing customary practices as the dominant
economic structure. It was considered dangerous to modify customs, as the arbitrary imposition of change would alienate
the indigenous population. Therefore, the administration introduced polices which could accommodate customary tenure
as a non-registered form of land-holding, alongside mailo and leasehold tenures, which were introduced as registered
forms of land-holding (Rugadya 2010). This analysis focuses on customary tenure.
According to the National Household Survey (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2006), at least 70 per cent of households in
Uganda hold their land under customary tenure, under two broad systems:
(i)
(ii)
Communal holdings, which include grazing areas, burial grounds, sensitive ecosystems and hunting grounds under
arrangements of common property resources regimes with the management vested in clans. User rights are
guaranteed for farming and seasonal grazing, access to water, pasture, burial grounds, firewood gathering and other
community activities. No specific ownership rights of control are conferred on users.
Holdings by individuals, families or clans, with the household as the primary unit, holding land in trust for its
nuclear and extended members. Emphasis is placed on use rather than on ownership of land. Male elders are the
custodians who sanction transactions and determine distribution of land to members of the household.
In Karamoja, what ought to have been customary land was devoted to state use as gazetted areas for wildlife
conservation and forestry, in addition to exploring and prospecting for minerals. However, the government’s nonrecognition of customary tenure did not deter its continued traditional use and its practices are engrained in the socioeconomic character of the Karamojong society. Given that the communities are both agropastoralists and transhumant,
access by clans and households is based on agreements with other clans, permitting the movement of cattle during the
year to areas where pasture and water are available. Thus, households did not seek access to a piece of land in a
particular community on which to build shelter and plant crops, but rather access to land harbouring a range of resources.
At present, customary tenure has evolved into individualized and communal sub-tenures, each with distinct characters
and resource rights for individuals, households and the community at large. Within communal customary tenure, two
sub-tenure types are distinguished – the grazing lands and the shrine areas; within individualized customary tenure, the
two sub-tenure types are arable land and land used for homesteads, where manyattas45 are constructed.
Communal Customary Tenure: Grazing Lands
These are open-access areas that are communally held and constitute the stock of land that is continuously being
alienated into gardens and settlements. Individuals and communities are users and not owners of this kind of land. On
grazing land, authority rests with elders and kraal (cattle camp) leaders regarding resource use and regulation.
Communal grazing land is shared by everyone and therefore centrally owned and managed. No one person can
claim ownership over grazing land or a dam: these are community resources in a pastoral society. However, for
agriculture and settlement, land is owned by a family and it therefore manages its land. 46
Whereas elders derive authority from initiation into age-sets or groups, the kraal leaders’ authority is premised on
their ability to predict adversity likely to befall kraals in terms of diseases and raids and their courage or advice in
confronting such adversity whenever it occurs. As a result, the elders’ major responsibility is to determine pasture-use
patterns, including pasture banks for dry- and wet-season grazing, while kraal commanders decide herd numbers and
day-to-day grazing locations.
In Karamoja, we own customary land. …. [T]he clan leaders have knowledge on which land is suitable for either
settlement or grazing … because they know boundaries and demarcation of land. The leader is helped by elders
who have a lot of knowledge in land issues. Elders will know which land belongs to which family and they go
ahead to distribute this family into parts for cultivation, settlement, shrine areas etc. Land is managed by elders
who define it or apportion it according to functions. 47
Grazing lands do not hold definitive borders as they straddle local government administrative demarcations and
communities.
There are no fixed boundaries between the gardens and grazing land; there are instances when what was formerly
grazing land is converted into land for gardens; usually what happens is that the clan adjust[s] to the grazing land[:
it] will shift the boundaries of its gardens. This is usually fuelled by exhaustion of grasses. 48
Access rights to pasture and water resources in the region are mainly based on group membership, history and
opportunity (de Koning 2003). Security of access rests on the legitimacy with which one is able to move herds freely
within the tribal boundaries and occasionally beyond, based on a customary right of history of usage, and the accepted
strategy of tracking good-quality pasture.
Communal Customary Tenure: Shrine Areas
These are locations of sanctity where traditional religious worship takes place with strict rules of access, the breach of
which attracts severe sanctions from the elders and the community at large. The shrines are in numerous locations, with
each shrine having definitive boundaries often marked by particular trees or shrubs that community members can easily
identify but are prohibited from cutting or even picking for firewood. Although these are communal locations, they are
not open-access areas because of the rules in place.
Individualized Customary Tenure: Homesteads and Gardens
These are usually areas that were previously grazing land. In the most common practice, individuals seek permission
from the patriarchs or elders of neighbouring manyattas to locate their own settlements within the vicinity of existing
ones for increased security. The less prevalent practice is where individuals identify a location, occupy and use it without
approval or sanctioning from any authority, whether customary or statutory. Homesteads are not communal lands but
highly individualized settlements that are either clustered or scattered. However, the practice of scattered manyattas that
was once common is slowly changing, partly because of the collective kraal policy as a result of heightened security
concerns. Access to water is also a contributory factor.
Gardens are areas of cultivation adjacent to the manyattas. Garden plots have definitive boundaries marked by a
variety of features including trees, ant-hills and rocks. However, the most common boundary markers are strips or bands
(ekukoru) of uncultivated land between the plots:
Demarcations are very clear: we use trees, stones or both neighbours agree to leave a buffer zone where no activity
takes place. This practice is mainly in gardens and you both respect it. In case one of the people who agreed to use
stones violates the boundary, elders come in to settle the dispute. Currently we use a tree called ‘milk bush’ to
mark boundaries.49
The role of the elders is to protect the land because the elders know the boundaries. When a person tries to grab
land from children and the elders are on the side of the children you are permitted to perform a ritual where you
pick [up] soil from the disputed land and throw it on the person who is trying to cheat and they will die. 50
This type of land is in the realm of family authority and the head of the family holds conclusive rights over these
plots, even including the right to engage in various land transactions. It is thus no surprise that this is the type of land for
which registration into title is taking place across Karamoja. It is not uncommon for such land to be sold, share-cropped
or lent out:
As Matheniko, we inherited land from our ancestors …. [W]e also acquire land through grazing. There are people
who buy land. [As] for me, I have never sold land but I saw my neighbour sell land at 1.5 million (Uganda
shillings). [As] for me, I bought at 200,000 (Uganda shillings). It was half an acre in 2003. We also borrow land
and we pay for it maybe with one cow.51
I am not from here, I am from Turkana and I survive from renting land, 1.5 acres at 50,000 a year, but it also
depends on the demand for land. I got land through marriage: my in-laws gave land. [At] that time I had little land.
It is common for land to be given. It can also be asked for as bride price. 52
These landholdings are often of small size and are considered to be individual property. They can be transmitted to
kin either by inheritance or sub-division within families. ‘The parents show you which land belongs to you when it is
time to show you. Both girls and boys inherit land.’53 Table 2 summarizes the sub tenures on customary land in
Karamoja.
According to de Koning (2003), when a man gets married his parents give him land, often part of the land that his
mother used to cultivate. Upon death, the general rule is that ownership rights to land are passed on to sons. Secondary
rights are allocated to grandsons and tertiary rights go to the brothers of the initial male land-owner. Families thus always
make sure that land is not alienated from the patrilineal descent group. Use rights, and occasionally management rights
as well, can be attributed to a female spouse of the male owner, provided.
Table 2. Sub-tenures on Customary Land in Karamoja
Tenure
Type of land
Communal
customary
Grazing lands
(rural)
elders
Controlled by
Kraal leaders and
commanders; or
Shrine locations
(akereket)
(both rural and urban)
Elders
Rights thereon
Only use rights permitted.
Restrictions exist on access to
areas.
Only use
permitted.
rights
Resource-access
restricted.
rights
(grazing)
highly
Page | 12
Tenure in Mystery: The Status of Land in Karamoja
Individualized Gardens or cultivation Wives
customary
areas
Use rights (both grazing and
cultivation).
Usually allocated by patriarchs to
married women but the women
have ‘caveat rights’ on use/
reallocation thereafter.
Inherited by children (both girls
and boys) of the woman to
whom it is allocated, including
daughters-in-law to whom she
may give use rights while alive.
Manyattas
homesteads
or Men
Construction rights are mostly for
men; women have access rights.
Inheritable by male members of
the family.
Source: Field survey by study team, 2010
that she will transfer the land to sons born in marriage, whereas temporary user and management rights are allocated to
females. So, when a woman dies, her sons are the first to inherit the land their mother used to cultivate.
Most of the land is owned communally in clans and for us the land we are currently occupying and using belonged
to our ancestors; and we inherited it. The inheritance system follows generations; a mother will show the children
the land that her husband or father in-law gave her when she got married; and when the father or mother or both
are deceased; the children know which land belongs to them. 54
The Regulations around Customary Tenure
Customary tenure in Karamoja, as in other parts of the country, is governed under a legal dualism whereby the statutory
system is superimposed on the customary system of land tenure. The two legal systems are without clear hierarchy and
points of assimilation. Across the region, communities are organized using a caste structure on the basis of completing
initiation rites, which defines the hierarchy of authority in society. Elders in the upper caste wield conclusive authority
on nearly all matters in society. It is only disputes of a serious criminal nature that are taken to the formal statutory
institutions.
The elders plan grazing but also decide matters of inheritance and arbitrate any other issues, especially in relation to
divorce or the return of daughters married elsewhere. The authority of elders is recognized on all types of land, though in
varying degrees. On shrine locations they have conclusive authority of oversight and enforcing sanctions if the rules that
govern these areas are not adhered to. On grazing lands, elders’ authority focuses on pastoral resource access issues like
deciding pasture banks by delineating dry- and wet-season grazing areas. However, the kraal leaders decide herd
numbers and day-to-day grazing locations. It is important to note that matters concerning gardens and manyatta locations
are generally decided at family/clan level by patriarchs.
In Moroto, territorial groups are the social structures through which access rights to grazing lands are negotiated (de
Koning 2003). By being a member of a certain tribe, section, sub-section or ngereria (cluster of villages), individual
herd-owners acquire access to pasture and water resources. As a result of the separation of sections, each has tended to
appropriate rather exclusive user rights over certain pasture resources located close to the sectional heartland. Territorial
divisions of the tribe, the section and the sub-section are of great significance in allocating rights to pasture and water
resources in middle-distance and peripheral grazing areas.
The smallest unit of the Karamojong territorial organization is the ere, which ideally covers the semi-permanent
dwellings of one extended family, headed by an elderly man with several wives (and their children), as well as unmarried
children and possibly other related and non-related dependants. The next territorial division is the ngereria, consisting of
several (on average from six to twelve) cooperating ere spread over about one square mile. The ewae and the ekal are the
family units that hold, use and transfer agricultural land properties. Management rights, for example the right to lend out
land and divide land amongst children and other wives, often remain in the hands of the husband.
An interesting relationship exists between this traditional set-up and the formal land-management structures such as
the Area Land Committees and the Local Councils(LCs);
It is the elders who know how to deal with customary tenure. I am a member of the Area Land Committee so when
we get an issue we refer [it] to the elders, although the law does not recognize them …. [E]ven at sub-county level
when we need allocation of land for grazing it is the elders who decide and demarcate. Currently, the Area Land
Committees are only demarcating land for schools, health centres, sub-counties and other institutions that are
currently undertaking land registration.55
Formal and informal land-management systems operate concurrently in customary tenure. This study established that in
rural areas the Area Land Committees (ALCs) take no decisions over land, merely formalize the decisions of the elders.
For the Local Councils if land is needed to establish any community infrastructure – either schools, health units or even
administrative centres such as parish headquarters – the elders are approached with the request and then they make the
decision in consultation with the people occupying or using the land.
If the elders are convinced about the community-wide benefit of the development, they have powers to overrule any
land right that the occupiers or users may have in any specific location, in favour of the development. However, it was
also acknowledged in interviews in this study that the power of elders over land has been continuously eroding due to the
changing socio-economic situation:
You will note that the presence of the gun in the district has resulted in the erosion of the powers of the elders over
land. The elders have lost powers to control land issues to the youth because of the gunpower they wield. 56
Despite the occurrence of land sales, they are often not approved by the traditional institutions or elders supposed to be
responsible for sanctioning such land transactions.
Currently the boys have gone mad and they are selling land without the knowledge of the clan. You only see
people approaching you with papers saying that you are on their land and that they bought it. What the clan does,
first chase away the person who claims to have bought and then they cane the boy; in some instances you can be
stoned to death.57
Even so, elders still hold the central role in the resolution of disputes over land.
We do not want land committees in the villages dealing with disputes, because most of them are still young, they
do not know about boundaries, and people make statements like ‘Was the land committee there when my ancestors
were giving me this land?’.58
The Land Tribunals created after the 1998 Land Act were never sufficiently numerous to cover the entire country and
so those that did exist soon built up a massive backlog of cases. The administration of the Land Tribunals was
subsequently shifted from the Ministry of Lands to the Ministry of Justice and their work was formally suspended in
November 2006. The handling of land cases has effectively been handed back to the courts.
Formalisation of Customary Tenure
Until the Constitution of Uganda was passed in 1995, with the subsequent Land Act 1998 and the degazettement of
protected areas in 2002, it was impossible for land users and ancestral owners of land in Karamoja to obtain titles for
their land, as one or other state agency officially held the whole region as either protected or reserved lands.
The constitution provides all holders of customary land with the right to obtain a Certificate of Customary Ownership
(CCO) (Republic of Uganda 1995: Article 237(4)(a)) and the Land Act specifies the procedure. The act provides for the
issue of certificates of individual-, family- and communal-customary ownership. Once endorsed on the certificate,
customary rights and interests are to be taken as conclusively formalized (Republic of Uganda 1998: Sections 5 and 9).
In order to apply for a CCO, an applicant must first submit his or her application form, together with the required fee, to
the ALC where the land is situated. The committee is then supposed to survey the land in question and confirm its
boundaries. The committee should also post a notice, in a prescribed form, in a prominent public place in the parish in
which the land is situated. The notice should invite all concerned persons to a meeting, not less than two weeks from the
date on which it was posted, to consider the claim.
Claims of any other person affected by the land, for example through rights of way, must also be heard and the ALC
can adjourn its proceedings if necessary to carry out more detailed investigations. On conclusion of its hearing, the ALC
is required to write a report to the District Land Board setting out its findings with respect to the claim and its own
conclusions and recommendations. The ALC could recommend acceptance, rejection or conditional acceptance of the
application. On receipt of this report the District Land Board can then decide whether or not to issue a CCO. Once the
board has made a decision it must communicate this to the Recorder. Where the board recommends that a certificate be
issued the Recorder should do this, subject to any qualifications or restrictions required by the board (Republic of
Uganda 1998: Sections 5, 6, 8 and 9).
Despite these provisions, a high level of ignorance was exhibited in the field survey regarding the registration of
customary tenure. The low levels of registration are commensurate with the high costs of land registration, especially the
cost of cadastral survey, as well as the low capacity for statutory land administration including a lack of staff.
The land office at the district lacks personnel and the sector is not financed as well and therefore not in a position
to carry out any activities. This has made statutory land administration a challenge. The district was created in
2005; the first land board was created in 2007 but the outgoing secretary and chairperson did not hand over so
when we assumed office we started keeping records afresh. We will provide the books but that is the problem with
them.59
Other districts in the region exhibited similar problems, and legal illiteracy by both the district technical staff and the
local people has greatly contributed to the low levels of registration.
Page | 14
Tenure in Mystery: The Status of Land in Karamoja
As a former member of the tribunal [I] would find it difficult to interpret the laws. I would always notice a conflict
between the law and customary practices and norms.60
They have just recruited a Surveyor, Registrar of Titles, and Records Officer...but still you find one officer holding
three positions: the Physical Planner is the Acting Land Officer and the Secretary to the Land Board. The board
itself is not well remunerated and facilitated, so things like public awareness and education are greatly lacking;
most of the time the board is not working.61
Every Sub-county has an Area Land Committee in place although these have never been trained. Most of the
positions in the district land office are vacant; the district service commission has advertised but there has not been
any response.62
To ascertain the extent to which land has been changed to registered tenure from customary forms, records were
obtained from Moroto Land Office regarding applications for registered titles for the period 2007–2010. The findings
show the highly sporadic nature of applications, the majority of which are for leasehold titles in urban areas (Figure 3).
The Land Act also provides for the formation of Communal Land Associations (CLAs) for the purposes of ownership
and management of land owned or used communally (Republic of Uganda 1998: Sections 16–17). A CLA may own land
under a CCO, leasehold or freehold. Members of the association can also hold some or all of the land within the
Communal Land Association area in an individual capacity while other parts are set aside for common use under a
common Land Management Scheme. It should, however, be noted that the registration of communal interests or group
rights in natural resources and other pooled resources is not in the names of the CLAs but rather in those of the
management committees under the Common Land Management Scheme.
Source: District Land Office Records – Moroto District, extracted in May 2010
Figure 3. Title Applications Received at Moroto Land Office
‘The issue of communal land associations has not been embraced because the people are ignorant of them.’ 63
Attempts have previously been made to form and register CLAs but without much success because of the absence of
personnel in the district land office and the hefty survey costs. Additionally, the would-be beneficiaries were also very
ignorant of the intent of the associations, as shown in the following example from Kaabong District.
With the help of Oxfam, a proposal to constitute two communal land associations was undertaken. We planned a
total of five meetings to conclude the process, [but] in the end had held only three meetings … [A] study was
carried out in preparation for these associations and the clan leaders embraced the idea … . However, we have
been disorganized by things like the land office not being operational for the past thirteen years. 64
Conclusions
The degazettement of more than half of Karamoja’s land area in 2002 and its return to community access, use and
ownership has not had a tangible impact on those communities. The information remains the preserve of a small elite, a
number of whom have used it for political ends and self-aggrandizement, securing for themselves hectares of land and
personal interests in entities investing in either tourism, mining or commercial agriculture within the region.
The investment potential is being exploited by the UWA with the involvement of five local district governments. For
instance, MOUs for the licensing of private companies to manage the three wildlife reserves of Pian-Upe, Bokora
Corridor and Matheniko have been executed at district level, although the law says that it should be done at community
level. Benefits are supposed to accrue directly to the communities, rather than to the local district governments.
Communities are yet to form associations for this purpose. No entity is involved to help with information and capacitybuilding.
Since the degazettement in 2002, physical demarcation has yet to be achieved, to enable communities to distinguish
their returned lands from the new conservation areas. Information on the changes has not reached the communities.
Regarding of the nineteen central forest reserves in Karamoja, the Forestry Authority recognizes the need to shift to
collaborative management, involving communities in line with the provisions of the National Tree Planting Act 2003.
Even in this case, the information gap means that the communities living adjacent to the forest reserves are not yet
sufficiently prepared to negotiate their engagement in ways that could effectively be beneficial in terms of access and use
rights. They need help to organize themselves and seek management arrangements with the NFA.
There is a serious paucity of information on mining and a lack of respect for human rights in the region. The
government claims that Karamoja is home to deposits of valuable minerals (gold, marble and phosphates among them).
However, official information dates back to the early 1960s, as the recent geological survey did not include Karamoja.
People see mineral exploration and mining taking place around them, often on land they depend upon for their
livelihood, without having been consulted or informed 65. Tensions arise with the mining companies. Local leaders are
accusing the government of conniving with mining companies to grab land from the Karamojong. In this context of
partial and confused information, unscrupulous investors are in the best position to pursue their interests at the expense
of the community.
Reforms in land administration and dispute resolution articulated in the 1995 Constitution and the Land Act, 1998
have not been implemented. At district level, the system lacks capacity to recruit and retain qualified staff. The
respective roles of customary institutions and the formal statutory institutions concerned with land tenure remain
confused, especially with regard to the ‘customary tenure’ which is the most widespread in Karamoja. Although the
newly appointed ALCs depend in practice on the customary authority of the elders for their activity, the relationship
between the two institutions has not been formalized officially. Communal Land Associations, intended to formalize the
communal holding of land and its resources in common, have not been embraced.
Pockets of registered tenure are beginning to emerge, but these are concentrated in gazetted urban centres and town
councils. While the constitution and the Land Act provide avenues for obtaining CCOs and communal holding of land
under CLAs, neither of these avenues have been utilized in Karamoja (with the exception of the project by the Uganda
Land Alliance in Nabwal). This is mainly due to lack of awareness of the existence of these options and lack of staff in
the district offices supposed to support their realization.
Today’s Karamoja’s land tenure and natural resource tenure are poorly documented and poorly researched. The
official approach to the region remains characterized by an enduring negative view of ‘nomadism’ despite the abundance
of contrary evidence and good examples from other countries with much -larger pastoral populations.65 The lack of indepth and up-to-date information hinders the design of adequate development policies and programmes.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Records were consulted from the office of James Omoding, Community Conservation Coordinator, Uganda Wildlife Authority,
April 2010.
Noted in the UWA brief on the current status of wildlife conservation in the Karamoja region (Status of Protected Areas in
Uganda) prepared by James Omoding, Community Conservation Coordinator, April 2010.
James Okware, Senior Warden, Uganda Wildlife Authority – Moroto Office, April 2010.
Interview with James Omoding, Community Conservation Coordinator, Uganda Wildlife Authority, April 2010.
James Okware, Senior Warden, Uganda Wildlife Authority – Moroto Office, April 2010.
James Okware, Senior Warden, Uganda Wildlife Authority – Moroto Office, April 2010.
James Okware, Senior Warden, Uganda Wildlife Authority – Moroto Office, April 2010.
Interview with James Omoding, Community Conservation Coordinator, Uganda Wildlife Authority, April 2010.
Interview with James Omoding, Community Conservation Coordinator, Uganda Wildlife Authority, April 2010.
Focus-group discussion with community elders at Panyangara Sub-county, Kotido District on 20 April 2010.
Nakapelimoru Sub-county council meeting, April 2010.
Interview with James Omoding, Community Conservation Coordinator, Uganda Wildlife Authority.
Nakapelimoru Sub-county council meeting, April 2010.
Nakapelimoru Sub-county council meeting, April 2010.
James Okware, Senior Warden, Uganda Wildlife Authority – Moroto Office, April 2010.
Interview with James Omoding, Community Conservation Coordinator, Uganda Wildlife Authority.
Interview with the Chief Administrative Officer, Kaabong, May 2010.
Interview with Lokeris Peter Aimat, MP Chekwii County, Nakapiripirit District, Minister of State for Energy and Minerals, May
2010.
James Okware, Senior Warden, Uganda Wildlife Authority – Moroto Office, April 2010.
Page | 16
Tenure in Mystery: The Status of Land in Karamoja
20. Interview with Reverend Father Lokodo Simon, MP, Dodoth County, Kaabong District and Minister of State for Industry and
Technology, May 2010.
21. Round-table discussion with district officials, 21 April 2010, Kotido District.
22. Interview with Achaye Godfrey, Director Natural Forests, National Forestry Authority, April 2010.
23. Interview with Achaye Godfrey, Director Natural Forests, National Forestry Authority, April 2010.
24. It is a common trend for government to degazette land for investors’ interests. In 1997, the Government of Uganda degazetted
1,006 hectares of Namanve Forest Reserve (1,816 hectares of peri-urban forests planted to supply poles and firewood) for the
development of an industrial estate. In 2000, the government attempted to degazette more than half of the 6,500-hectare protected
forest estate on Bugala Island for the development of an oil palm estate by BIDCO Oil Refineries Ltd. In 2001, the government
degazetted Butamira Forest Reserve for the benefit of commercial sugarcane growing by Kakira Sugar Works Ltd. In 2008,
attempts were made to degazette Mabira Forest for the benefit of commercial sugar-cane growing by Lugazi Sugar Works.
25. Karamoja Agro Company Limited (KACL), 2002, quoted in Manyindo 2003.
26. Interview with Lokeris Peter Aimat, MP Chekwii County, Nakapiripirit, Minister of
State for Energy and Minerals, May 2010.
27. Interview with Lokeris Peter Aimat, MP Chekwii County, Nakapiripirit, Minister of State for Energy and Minerals, May 2010.
28. The Land Act 1998 (Section 64) provides for the appointment of Land Committees in each parish, gazetted urban area and city
division. The Area Land Commitee (ALC) is located at the sub-county level and consists of five members, one of which is
mandatorily a woman. The ALC functions in an advisory role to assist the District Land Board (DLB), which is the institution
mandated to handle applications for the registration of customary and freehold land at the district level. In this role, the main
responsibility of the ALC is to determine, verify and mark land boundaries when an application for a Certificate of Customary
Ownership is made. The ALC is also to advise the public on procedures of obtaining land titles or certificates and advise
disputants about how to resolve conflicts over land. The committee is expected to carry out its tasks in collaboration with
traditional institutions.
29. Interview with the chief administrative officer of Kaabong District, April 2010.
30. Interview with Vincent Kato, Acting Assistant Commissioner (Geology) and Principal Geologist (Exploration), Department of
Geological Surveys and Mines Entebbe, Ministry of Energy and Minerals, May 2010.
31. Round-table discussion with Kaabong District technical staff in April 2010.
32. Community focus-group discussion, Singila, Moroto District, May 2010.
33. Interview with the chief administrative officer of Kaabong District, April 2010.
34. Round-table discussion with technical staff of Kaabong District, April 2010.
35. Interview with Vincent Kato, Acting Assistant Commissioner (Geology) and Principal Geologist (Exploration), Department of
Geological Surveys and Mines Entebbe, Ministry of Energy and Minerals, May 2010.
36. Interview with Reverend Father Lokodo Simon, MP, Dodoth County, Kaabong District and Minister of State for Industry and
Technology, May 2010.
37. Interview with Vincent Kato, Acting Assistant Commissioner (Geology) and Principal Geologist (Exploration), Department of
Geological Surveys and Mines Entebbe, Ministry of Energy and Minerals, May 2010.
38. Interview with Lokeris Peter Aimat, MP, Chekwii County, Nakapiripirit District, Minister of State for Energy and Minerals, June
2010.
39. Interview with Reverend Father Lokodo Simon, MP, Dodoth County, Kaabong District and Minister of State for Industry and
Technology, May 2010.
40. Reverend Father Lokodo Simon, MP, Dodoth County, Kaabong District and Minister of State for Industry and Technology, May
2010.
41. Simon Levine, independent consultant, April 2010.
42. Reverend Father Lokodo Simon, MP, Dodoth County, Kaabong District and Minister of State for Industry and Technology, May
2010.
43. Interview with Lokeris Peter Aimat, MP, Chekwii County, Nakapiripirit District, Minister of State for Energy and Minerals, June
2010.
44. The mailo tenure is a quasi-freehold tenure system going back to the Uganda Agreement of 1900 between the British colonial
government and the Kingdom of Buganda. A core part of the agreement was a land settlement consisting in the granting of about
one thousand estates, measured in square miles and already occupied by peasants, to the royal family and local chiefs
(McAusland 2003). The mailo remains a relatively secure and well defined system of tenure, particularly in the central region. An
important feature of mailo systems is that much of the land is used by tenants who are restricted in their security of tenure on the
land they farm.
45. A manyatta is a semi-permanent village, as distinct from a kraal, which is a cattle camp.
46. Community elders at Panyangara Sub-county.
47. Round-table discussion with Kaabong District technical staff, April 2010.
48. Kotido District round-table discussion with district officials.
49. Focus-group discussions with community elders in Kotido District, May 2010.
50. Round-table discussion with technical staff, Kaabong District, May 2010.
51. Focus-group discussions with clan leaders and elders, both women and men, at Rupa Sub-county, April 2010.
52. Focus-group discussions with clan leaders and elders, both women and men, at Rupa Sub-county, April 2010.
53. Focus-group discussions with clan leaders and elders, both women and men, at Rupa Sub-county, April 2010.
54. District community elders at Panyangara Sub-county, April 2010.
55. Focus-group discussions in Kaabong District, May 2010.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Interview with the chief administrative officer of Kaabong District, April 2010.
Community elders at Panyangara Sub-county, Kotido District, April 2010.
Round-table discussion with local government staff in Kaabong District, April 2010.
Round-table discussion with local government staff in Kaabong District, April 2010.
Round-table discussion with Kotido District technical staff, April 2010.
Round-table discussion with local government staff in Kotido District, April 2010. 62. Round-table discussion with local
government staff in Moroto District, May 2010.
Round-table discussion with local government staff in Kaabong District, April 2010.
Round-table discussion with Kaabong District technical staff in April 2010.
Indigenous peoples have the rights to “own, use, develop, and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by
reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired” and
to determine their own development priorities and strategies, In order to realize these rights, states are required to give legal
recognition and protection to these lands, territories, and resources, with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure
systems of the indigenous peoples concerned (the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and
the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). States have a duty under international law to consult and
cooperate with indigenous peoples through their representative institutions in order to obtain their fee and informed consent prior
to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and their resources particularly in connection with the
development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources (UNDRIP), art.32.2)
See for example the African Union Policy Framework for Pastoralism in Africa (African Union 2011) or the policy document on
the development of arid and semiarid lands recently adopted in Kenya (Republic of Kenya 2013). For a recent overview on the
public image of Karamoja, see Krätli (2011).
References
African Union 2010. Policy Framework for Pastoralism in Africa: Securing, Protecting and Improving the Lives, Livelihoods and
Rights of Pastoralist Communities. Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture, African Union, Addis Ababa.
de Koning, R. 2003. People in Motion: An Entitlements Approach to Karimojong AgroPastoralism. Occasional Paper 113, Centre for
International Development Issues Nijmegen, University of Nijmegen.
Krätli, S. 2010. ‘Karamoja with the Rest of “the Rest of Uganda”’. Nomadic Peoples 14(2): 3–23.
Manyindo, J. 2003. Conflicting Interests: Land Use Change in Protected Areas for Private Commercial Benefit. Wildlife Series No. 3,
Uganda Wildlife Society, Kampala. http:// www.uws.or.ug/wp-content/uploads/PUWR%20Brief.pdf
McAuslan, P. 2003. ‘A Narrative on Land Law Reform in Uganda’. In Urban Land Markets in Transition (CD-ROM), ed. A.J.
Gareth. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge MA. https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/809_McAuslan.pdf
Muhereza, F. and P. Otim 2002. Pastoral Resource Competition in Uganda, Case Studies into Commercial Livestock Ranching and
Pastoral Institutions. International Books, Utrecht.
Omoding, J. 2010. Status of Protected Areas in Uganda. Uganda Wildlife Authority, Kampala.
Republic of Kenya 2012. Sessional Paper No. 8 of 2012, on National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and
other Arid Lands, ‘Releasing Our Full Potential’. Ministry of State for Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands,
Nairobi.
Republic of Uganda 1995. Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Government of Uganda, Kampala.
Republic of Uganda 1996. Uganda Wildlife Statute No. 14. Government of Uganda, Kampala.
Republic of Uganda 1998. Land Act. Government of Uganda, Kampala.
Republic of Uganda 2003a. Mining Act. Government of Uganda, Kampala.
Republic of Uganda 2003b. National Forestry and Tree Planting Act. Government of Uganda, Kampala.
Republic of Uganda 2013. National Land Policy for Uganda. Government of Uganda, Kampala.
Rugadya, M.A. 2010. Report on National Land Policy Consultations. Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development,
Government of Uganda, Kampala.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2006. Uganda National Household Survey. Government of Uganda, Kampala.
World Bank 2003. Implementation Completion Report (26179). On a Credit in the Amount of SDR 9.1 Million (US$12.37 Million
Equivalent) and a Grant in the Amount of SDR 1.5 Million (US$2.0 Million Equivalent) to the Republic of Uganda for an
Institutional Capacity Building for Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use Project. Environmental and Social
Development Unit, Africa Regional Office, World Bank.
Page | 18