lable at ScienceDirect

Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218

Contents lists avai

Habitat International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/habitat int

The urban land question in Africa: The case of urban land conflicts inthe City of Lusaka, 100 years after its founding

Horman Chitonge a, *, Orleans Mfune b

a Centre for African Studies, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, Cape Town, South Africab Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Zambia, P.O Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 September 2014Received in revised form9 March 2015Accepted 27 March 2015Available online

Keywords:Urban land conflictLusakaInformal settlementUrban planningLand invasion

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: horman.chitonge@uct.ac.za (H

com, orleans.mfune@unza.zm (O. Mfune).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.0120197-3975/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Pressure on urban land is growing in many cities across Africa and the developing world. This is creatingvarious challenges around urban land administration, planning and development. Growing pressure onurban land is manifesting in various ways including the mounting urban land conflicts. In this paper welook at the urban land question in Lusaka, focussing on urban land conflicts. What we have found in thisstudy is that the reportedly growing invasion of vacant or idle land in Lusaka is a more complex issuewhich involves not only the desperate urban poor looking for land to squat on, but also well-resourcedgroups, who sometimes hire poor people to invade the land on which they later develop residential andcommercial properties. We argue in the paper that the prevalence of these conflicts points to the gap inthe administration, planning and delivery of land and the accompanying services.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The orthodox land question in Africa has largely focused on therural land dynamics. In its classical formulation, the land question isstrongly (if not entirely) associated with issues of unequal access,distribution, ownership, use and administration of land in ruralareas. Urban areas are generally perceived as ‘regulated spaces’where various dimensions of the land question have been effec-tively negotiated through both the market and state intervention.Since the land question has been widely associated with thecountryside, there has been little attention in the literature devotedto the different dimensions of the urban land question (Obala &Mattingly, 2013). Debates on issues of land in urban areas areoften restricted to matters of planning, housing and informal set-tlement. Rarely are questions about equality of access, ownershipand distribution of urban land raised.

But as the pressure on urban land in most African cities buildsup, due to the robustly growing population as well as the currentepisode of sustained economic growth in most countries, the urbanland question is resolutely imposing itself on the urban spaces, invarious forms such as land invasions. In this paper we look at the

. Chitonge), omfune@gmail.

emerging land question in the City of Lusaka (the capital city ofZambia), focussing on one specific way in which the urban landquestion is manifesting itselfd informal urban land invasion andthe associated conflicts. In this paper, we show that while the landquestion in the City of Lusaka is an outcome of the makeshift andlope-sided nature of colonial social engineering, the post-colonialstate in Zambia has done little to decolonise both the conceptionand the structures of urban planning and settlement patterns. Inthis paper, we define urban land conflicts as social and legal ten-sionsmanifested in concurrent claims over a piece of land, disputedownership and other forms of contest around urban land (seeLombard, 2013).

2. Methodology

This paper draws mainly from face-to-face interviews withresidents of Mtendere East, conducted in January and July 2014. Wealso conducted interviews with leaders of different oppositionparties, as well as the City of Lusaka officials, including officers fromthe planning and housing department and the informal settlementunit. In total we interviewed 18 Mtendere East residents, randomlyinterviewed, since there is no list of residents to sample from. Inaddition to face-to-face interviews, we also conducted informalconversations with several residents in various sections of thesettlement. We also had interviews with two residents of thenearby low density suburb of Ibex Hill who have been living in the

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218210

area before the settlement began. The paper also draws from sec-ondary data and land conflict cases before the courts of law,particularly cases before the Lusaka High Court and the LandsTribunal.

3. The land question(s) in Africa

The land question in Africa is widely formulated as a by-productof colonial rule on the one hand, and on the other hand, the failureof the post-colonial African states to implement radical land re-forms which would effectively address colonial legacies aroundland distribution and administration. For some analysts the exis-tence of the land question in Africa today is a reminder of theincomplete process of decolonisation on the continent (Moyo,2008). In its standard formulation, the land question in Africa iswidely conceptualised in terms of inequalities regarding ownershipof, access to and control over land in the country side. For instance,it has been argued that, the land question and persistent ruralpoverty in Africa are fundamentally issues of social justice andequity (Moyo, 2004). This formulation of the land question, how-ever, is more prevalent in southern Africa and some parts of Eastand North Africa which had large European settler populationsduring colonial rule, resulting in large scale land dispossession ofindigenous African peoples (Moyo, 2008; Mafeje, 2003).

While land access and ownership is also skewed and unequal inmost urban areas in Africa, mainstream debates on the land questionhave often downplayed its urban manifestations (Obala &Mattingly,2013). There seem to be a widespread assumption that the landquestion is mute in an urban context. The idea of the land questionbeing a rural matter is implicit in the argument that there has beenno land question in Africa except in a few countries with large settlercommunities such as South Africa, Namibia, Kenya, Algeria andZimbabwe (Mafeje, 2003). But as some analysts have argued,

To assume that a land question in Africa can only arise out of aparticular generic social formation, such as feudal and semifeudal tributary systems of land inequities or widespread settlercolonial land expropriation, is to miss the salience of growingland concentration and inequality, and struggles to regain con-trol over land(Moyo, 2004: 1).

If the key element of the land question in Africa is aboutinequality and injustice in the way land is distributed, accessed,owned and controlled, then the land question cannot be restrictedto the countryside only. For instance, in the City of Lusaka, availableevidence suggests that more than 70 percent of the city's urbanpopulation reside on 10.5 percent of the land in unplanned/informal settlement while the remaining 30 percent of the popu-lation in planned and conventional suburbs occupy 11.4 percent ofthe land (LCC, 2000).1

3.1. The urban land question

Thus, if one takes unequal access to and control of land as thecore feature of the land question in Africa, then it becomes evidentthat struggles over access to and use of land are not only a ruralphenomenon. There are many, often, inaudible and suppressedstruggles over land currently occurring in urban areas among poorurban dwellers (Pithouse, 2014). But often, the urban land strugglesand conflicts are obscured by the dominance of the land question in

1 The land use figures are from the Lusaka Integrated Development Plan (LCC,2000) while the population figures are from the World Bank Country AssessmentReport (2002).

rural areas, which frequently attract public attention and galvanisewider political alliances (Obala & Mattingly, 2013). Consequently,

… when the land question is reduced to a question of thecountryside, or the agrarian questions, the urban land questioncan also be occluded. And when the urban [land] question isreduced to the housing question, which in turn is reduced to amatter of the number of houses that have been built, withoutregard for where they have been built, or what form they take,the urban land question is also silenced (Pithouse, 2014).

Although the urban land question has been widely conceived interms of challenges of squatter settlements and therefore, largely ahousing problem; current pressure on urban land is exposing thescandalously unequal distribution of and access to land, whichmany poor urban dwellers are increasingly becoming aware of.With this growing awareness of the inequality in access to land inurban areas, many landless urban dwellers are inventing ways ofmaking their voices heard, oftentimes through unconventionalmeans such as invasion of either private or public unoccupied oridle land. With little or no hope in the formal land delivery system,the urban poor are more and more,

… bypassing these alien, outdated and inhibitive formal/officialurban planning standards and regulations, constantly impro-vising, creating and adopting their own parallel indigenousstructures, procedures and institutions in order to tackle theirexistential problems, chief among which is the provision ofshelter/affordable housing (Fekade, 2000: 128).

One of the direct consequences of this scenario is an increase inland conflicts. For instance, the Lusaka City Planning Authority “hasreported a rise in the number of complaints that are put before thecourts involving allocation and ownership” (SOE, 2007: 29). Thereare several urban land conflict cases before the Lusaka High Courtresulting from illegal occupation of vacant land. One of the mostpopular cases involves a group of peoplewho invaded and occupiedthe land near the Libala Water Works. The Lusaka City Councilthreatened to evict the ‘squatters’ in 2012, but the group took thematter to court challenging the eviction. There are other casesinvolving the former Minister of Land who was allocating plots inLusaka illegally. The case that is similar to the Mtendere East situ-ation is the Sakala vs Lutanga Mulaka cases, in which the applicanthas been living on land belonging to an absentee land lord since the1970s. When the landlord recently re-surfaced threatening to evictthe current occupant, the latter decided to take the matter to court,and the case is still before the Lusaka High Court. In addition tocases before the Lusaka High Court, there are several urban landcases before the Lands Tribunal, which is mandated by the 1995Land Act to resolve land disputes.

3.2. Dimensions of the urban land question

One of the key dimensions of the urban land question is thestruggle to access land among the urban poor, which is oftencompounded by an inefficient and inequitable land delivery sys-tem. Evidence from Kenya suggests that because of an inefficientland delivery system, a small minority of the urban elite own thelarger proportion of urban land (Obala & Mattingly, 2013). Even incases where flexible land delivery systems such as “occupancylicence” in Zambia, “residence licences” in Tanzania, and “startertittle and landholder title” in Namibia, exist, not many residents inunplanned settlements have accessed land through these means(Gastorn, 2013).

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218 211

The other dimension of urban land question in the case ofLusaka City is the unplanned settlements. Although most of theunplanned settlements have been regularised (officially recognisedas legal settlements) and residents are allowed to obtain an occu-pancy licence which is renewable after 30 years, only 12% of theresidents have managed to obtain formal documents (LCC, 2000).2

One of the reasons cited for the low up-take of the occupancylicence is that many plot owners in unplanned settlements arescared that once the licence is issued, they will be required to payregular fees in the form of ground rent, which many cannot afford(Gastorn, 2013). Thus, access to land for most people in unplannedsettlements has largely remained outside of the formal land mar-ket. For the City of Lusaka, it is estimated that more than 60% ofurban land for new developments is delivered informally due tolack of capacity, inappropriate delivery framework, corruption andbacklogs (SOE, 2007). This was confirmed during interviews withthe Lusaka City council officials responsible for urban land planningand administration, who acknowledge the lack of capacity and poorland services delivery as enduring challenges.

Another common dimension of the urban land question is thefact that urban land is a closely regulated space, though not alwayswell-planned. Urban land, when compared to rural land, is oftenunder close scrutiny, with several laws regulating the forms of landuse, the type of infrastructure, the process of land allocation, forms ofvalidating land ownership, provision of services, expansion etc.Related to this is the fact that urban land is often inscribed andbounded by other land use forms. For example the City of Lusaka inZambia is bounded by land under traditional authorities on theeastern, south-eastern and northern sides of the city, and by privatesmall agriculture holdings to south. Although the city itself has beenexpanding in all directions, and in the process transforming thetraditional land uses, the sombre reality is that the expansion of thecity is limited by the finite nature of available land on one hand, andthe capacity of the urban land planning authorities on the other. Thebounded and restricted nature of urban land presents a challenge interms of planning due to the fact that urban land becomes availableas the land use changes from one form to anotherda process whichis often difficult to control and predict especially in cases where theplanning authorities have limited capacity and resources.

The third dimension of the urban land question is thecompactness of the spaces. The densification of the urban landspaces makes them attractive to many different actors includingyoung adults seeking employment, investors looking for skilledlabour, politicians seeking public office, rural dwellers looking formodern amenities. The fourth common feature of the urban landquestion in developing countries is the increasing pressure fromurbanisation (UN Habitat, 2013), especially for countries in Africawhich have experienced sustained economic growth for the pastdecade and half now. This becomesmore evident in the case of landin the City of Lusaka.

4. Urban land in Lusaka: A 100-year overview

What is today Lusaka City, started as a railway siding in 1905,meant to provide rest to theworkerswhowere constructing the railway line from the South (South Africa and Zimbabwe) to the coppermines in the north (present day Copperbelt) (Williams, 1986: 72).3

2 The more recent Lusaka City Council Report on the Status of Unplanned Settle-ments in Lusaka (LCC, 2006) does not provide the exact number of residents inunplanned settlement who have obtained the occupancy license; it only states thenumber is estimated to be less than 50 percent.

3 The railway line, which was constructed by John Cecil Rhodes' British SouthAfrican Company (BSAC) from Cape Town, reached Lusaka Village in 1905 and theCopperbelt, on the border with Congo, in 1909.

Prior to the establishment of the railway siding, the area wasinhabited by the Soli people, under chief ‘Lusaaka’, who lived inscattered villages around the area (Williams, 1986). Within a fewyears, the railway siding, because of its centrality and geologicalprofile (huge underground water potential), attracted a number ofwhite settlers who in 1913 established the Lusaka Village Man-agement Board (LVMB, Williams, 1986). While the colonial regimeimposed strict control on the residence of Africans in urban areas(Collins, 1986), the independence era led to rapid urbanisationmainly as a result of relaxing the urban residence rules, but also thegrowing demand for labour for the booming copper industry.Abolishment of pass laws and the bourgeoning urban centresattracted many rural dwellers to urban centres to seek the “fruits ofindependence in town” (Seymour, 1975: 72). However most of thepeople coming from the rural areas could not find housing inconventional residential areas; because the colonial policy regar-ded the African population in Lusaka as being temporary (Collins,1986), and therefore did not envision the need for large scaleplanned settlements for Africans.

Because the urban labour force was regarded as temporary, theresponsibility for providing housing (for rent) was considered torest with the employers. These included the colonial adminis-tration itself, employers who built one room, ‘native huts’exempt from normal standards of building specified under thepublic health regulation … (Rakodi, 1986: 199).

This idea that the “towns (and Crown or State Land farmingareas) were for Europeans and that the rural were for Africans”(Collins, 1986: 106), and that urban residence for Africans should beregulated and strictly tied to employment (common during colonialrule in many countries in Southern Africa), influenced the model ofplanning and development of urban areas including the develop-ment of Lusaka Town. In the case of Lusaka City, the initial 1930plan by Professor S. D. Ashead (the President of Town PlanningAssociation in the UK), adopted the Garden City model, which wasin fashion in the UK, and planned a city for “8000 Europeans and5000 Africans” (Rakodi, 1986: 199). Although the initial and sub-sequent plans have not been implemented in any meaningful way,the evolution of Lusaka City is haunted by the ghost of the gardencity:

Modern Lusaka grapples with the challenges of density, housing,transportation, and infrastructure (among other issues) inheri-ted from the physical layout, segregation, and colonial enfram-ing of original planned city. In this way, the shaping of today'ssquatter settlements around Lusaka e and, indeed, the city'sentire physical forme can be traced back to the beginning of therelatively young city's colonial history (Gantner, nd).

As noted earlier, the colonial influence on Lusaka's subsequentdevelopment is not just in terms of physical planning, but more inthe enduring non-physical imprints of the misguided idea of agarden city, and its accompanying planning models, legislation,policy, institutions and administrative structures which have onlybeen partially decolonised.

In terms of land size, we see a city that has evolved from a 260-ha settlement in 1905, to a current 36,000 Ha (see Fig. 1).4

Evidence of the evolutionary land map of the City of Lusaka isthe massive increase of its land size between 1961 and 1971,

4 The Comprehensive Urban Development Plan adopted in 2007 indicates thatthe current size of Lusaka city is 42,337 ha and this is expected to increase by 100%by 2030 to 86,015 ha (CUDP, 2007).

Fig. 1. Evolution of Lusaka in Hectares 1905e2010.

Fig. 2. Population Growth in Lusaka 1964e2010.

5 Sites and services was a policy adopted during the 1970s to improve the livingconditions of people in the unplanned settlements after realizing that the settle-ment could not be eliminated as was initially thought (Seymour, 1975).

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218212

increasing by almost 4 times. This increase can be attributed topopulation growth due to relaxed residence rules after indepen-dence. For instance, it has been estimated that the total populationof Lusaka increased by 230% between 1963 and 1969 from 107,217to 246,291 (see Collins, 1986: 127; See also Wood, Banda, &Mundende, 1986: 165). This population pressure in subsequentyears has forced the city to expand further outwards as shown inFig. 2.

If we study Figs. 1 and 2 together, it is evident that the city's landis increasingly under pressure from the growing population. Thesustained economic growth that Zambia has recorded since themid-1990 has also contributed to the pressure on the city's land,and Lusaka as the capital city has had a significant share of thisgrowth in terms of commercial and industrial activities. This isevident from the population density which has more than doubledbetween 1990 and 2010 as Table 1 shows.

The population density for Lusaka in 2010 was reported to be4853.2/km2, which is extremely high compared to other Zambiancities such as Kitwe at 666. 1/km2; Ndola, 409.1/km2; Kabwe,128.7/km2 and Livingston, 200.7/km2. The increasing pressure on land inLusaka is partly due to the intra-urban migration which occurredsince the 1990s when the Copperbelt experienced low employmentdue to the privatisation of the mining and related industries.Pressure on the city's land resource is also evident from the numberof informal settlement which in 2000 were estimated to begrowing at the rate of 12% per year (World Bank, 2002).

As Table 2 shows, in 2010 there were about 37 informal settle-ments in the City of Lusaka, accounting for about 65% of the pop-ulation, occupying just 10% of the city's land. Apart from the a fewof these settlements which started as sites and services5 settle-ments during the 1970s, 28 of these settlements started as a resultof people who could not find or afford formal housing (See Collins,1986). Due to lack of affordable housing, most of the poor people(mostly new immigrants) had no option but to squat on farm land,rubbish damping areas, quarry land, and on vacant land.

The initial government attitude (immediately after indepen-dence) towards these squatter/unplanned settlements was notdifferent from the colonial approach, which saw these areas asessentially breeding ground for criminals, illegal dealings, disorder,and unemployed urban dwellers with nothing to contribute posi-tively to the development of the city. Thus, the expectation afterindependence was that these settlements would be eliminated asthe country developed (Seymour,1975). But the failure to copewiththe increasing demand for housing in conventionally planned set-tlements made the government to realise that the unplanned set-tlements were there to stay. Upon realising this, the governmentstarted to find ways of improving the conditions in the

Table 1City of Lusaka population profile, 1963e2010.

Year Population Mean annualgrowth (%)

Share in total nationalpopulation (%)

Share of total urbanpopulation (%)

Number ofdwellings

Dwellinggrowth (%)

Dwelling growthannual (%)

Populationdensity/Km2

1963 195,000 3.5 17.2 27061.0 5416.71969 354,000 13.6 6.5 22.0 37675.0 39.2 6.5 2546.81974 421,000 3.8 9.0 25.3 79434.0 110.8 22.2 3028.81980 535,830 4.5 9.4 21.9 94005.3 18.3 3.1 1488.41990 761,064 4.2 10.4 26.5 198254.2 110.9 11.0 2114.12000 1,084,703 3.6 11.0 31.7 215316.0 8.6 0.8 3013.12010 1,747,152 4.9 13.3 33.8 358871.0 66.7 6.7 4853.21963e2010 change (%) 795.9 5.8 281.3 96.3 1226.2 8.4

Source: Author based on data from CSO (1969, 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010).

Table 2Unplanned settlement in Lusaka 2000e2010.

Population Population Households Size (Ha) Legal status Initial Land

2000 2006 2000

Bauleni 19,212 4148Chainda 10,561 12,841 2484 66.72 Legal 1999 Farm landChaisa 24,656 29,980 5650 99.81 Legal 1979 Farm landChawama 52,679 69,405 10 908 115.99 Legal 1988 Workers CompoundChibolya 24,200 25,000 4500 47.32 Legal 1999 Dumping siteChazanga 14,602 17,755 2846 52.62 Not Legal Village landChipata 29,740 57,039 6364 243.08 Legal 1979 Crop fieldChipata Over Spill 9837 1900Chipata Site & Services 7333 1344Chunga 13,878 2608Freedom 6411 1406Garden Chilulu 7355 1516Garden Luangwa 3241 914Garden Mutonyo 4013 865Garden Site & Service 3618 716Gardern Site 4 4811 1130George 42,680 66,496 9012 248.92 Legal 1976 Farm worker quartersGeorge Soweto 12,005 2477Jack 4861 941John Horward 22,574 27,448 4593 71.52 Legal 1977 Quarry Worker quartersJohn Leing 38,959 47,371 9249 41.25 Legal 2004 Quarry landKabanana/Ngwerere 7652 1436Kabanana Site & Service 7333 1344Kalikiliki 11,830 14,384 2517 46.03 Legal 1999 Workers' CompoundKalingalinga 28,686 34,880 5864 68.24 Legal 1986 Farm landKamanga 7516 9139 1751 52.62 Legal 1999 Farm landKuomboka 4401 783Linda 8203 9974 1843 552.27 Legal 1999 Farm landMandevu 16,174 3587 75.2 Legal 1999Marrapodi 16,432 3433 65.5 Legal 1999Misisi/Kuku 46,601 56,663 10 832 44.2 Not Legal Farm landMtendere 50,448 61,341 10 155 209.47 Legal 1967 Reserved LandNew Ng'ombe 4143 927Ng'ombe 23,850 34,038 5117 93.32 Legal 1999 Cattle RanchOld Garden 20,348 42,506 4434 387.45 Legal 1999 Farm landOld Kanyama 62,933 103,381 14 812 36.67 Legal 1999 Farm landNew Kanyama 22,089 5183Total 695,865 719,641 149 589

Source: Author from various sources.

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218 213

settlementsdhence the upgrading of informal settlements whichstarted in the 1970s. The programme of upgrading informal set-tlement in Zambia is reported to be one of the earliest and largestupgrading programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2002).

There are a number of reasons why the government changed itsapproach to informal settlements. The most dominant one is thefact that these settlements, because of the high concentration ofpeople, turned out to be the major source of the urban vote(Seymour, 1975). However, there has been ambivalence when itcomes to the politics of unplanned settlements (Mulenga, 2003).While successive governments constantly issue threats to demolishany unplanned settlements, opposition politicians (mainly), often

campaign in these areas and promise the residents that their set-tlement would not be demolished once elected into power, and thatservices such as water, roads, electricity, schools, clinics etc., wouldbe provided (Resnick, 2011).

While most of these settlements have been regularised andgazetted as residential areas, there are still many people who find itdifficult to secure housing in Lusaka, and when these people get achance, they build shelters on vacant or idle land. In some casessuch land occupations are started and encouraged by the dominantparty cadres (fervent supporters loyal to a particular politicalparty), especially councillors who sometimes allocate land outsideof the city's planning and housing authorities (SOE, 2007). There

Table 3Examples of incidences of land conflicts reported in the media between 2013 and 2014.

Name of paper Heading/Conflict issue Date

Lusaka Times Invasion of private land e reports that 300 cadres were arrested over invasion of private land in Lusaka West 26th September, 2013Post Zambia Illegal allocation of land e reports that 70% of land in Lusaka is in the hands of illegal owners e councillors and

mayors singled out as some of the actors involved in illegal land deals1st October, 2013

Lusaka Times Reports on land mal-administration in Lusaka and the shooting to death of Kapasa residents 18th June, 2013Tumfweko Revisits the shooting to death of two Kampasa residents over illegal occupation of land in June, 2013 March, 2014Zambian Watchdog Reports the violent confrontation between police and over 80 youths over land invasions in Lusaka West.

The confrontations lead to the shooting to death of one youth.25th March, 2014

Lusaka Times Reports the breaking out of riots over the demolition of houses built on illegally acquired plots in Garden House area 26th July, 2013.

Source: Author based on various sources.

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218214

are newspaper stories almost every week of councillors allocatingplots on land which is not designated for housing, especially duringelection time (Lusaka Times, 2009). At the beginning of 2014, theformer PF General Secretary and Minister of Justice, WinterKabimba, complained during a media briefing about the increasinglawlessness in the allocation of plots in urban areas, and instructedpolice to deal with anyone, including Patriotic Front(PF) partycadres, who were involved in illegal allocation of plots (LusakaTimes, 2014).

5. Types of urban land conflicts in Lusaka

5.1. Overlapping claims

Urban land conflicts in Lusaka occur in various forms (see Table3), though the most common form of land conflicts revolve aroundthe overlapping claims on a piece of land or plot. This often occursin cases where the land was acquired through an informal market,with two or more people in possession of some document indi-cating that they ‘bought’ the property or plot. Recently, incidencesof concurrent claims are increasingly being reported even on landbought through a formal land market (SOE, 2007). When suchconflicts occur, the matter is often reported to the police and theLusaka City Council Town Planning authorities. Within a 2 hourperiod when we were conducting interviews in the office of one ofthe city planning officials, we witnessed three cases of concurrentclaims reported by the residents from different parts of the city.

5.2. Land invasion

The other form of land conflict involves invasion of public orprivate land. This often happens in cases where the land has beenidle or undeveloped for some time. In such cases one of the con-tending parties has formal documents as evidence of ownership ofthe land. The case of Mtendere East, discussed in this paper is oneexample of such conflicts. Often, conflicts over invaded land involveviolent confrontation as the authorities or the title holder seeks toremove the ‘invaders’ from the land. In a number of cases, struc-tures have been demolished by the police, especially if the invadedland belongs to an influential person with political connections.

5.3. Community protest over land

The other form of urban land conflict that has become a popularoccurrence in Lusaka involves public protest of a particular com-munity. In most cases protests arise when the state threatens todemolish the structures which are classified as illegal settlements,either on private or public land. This type of confrontation has beenan enduring part of the history of Lusaka from the colonial era, butmore pronounced in the post-colonial time when every govern-ment in power attempts to get rid of what it sees as unsightly

settlement (Seymour, 1975). Protests over land also occur when acommunity in an unplanned settlement is displaced by the cityauthorities or private title holder to land. Examples of this includethe Kampasa case, Garden House, Twin Palm Road and Ibex Hill.The way the conflict is resolved depends largely on the nature ofthe community. Small and poor communities, often, do not havethe capacity to mobilise and sustain the protest to generate thepolitical muscle to ward off the evictions or demolitions (Jere,2007).

5.4. Boundary disputes

Though not very common in urban areas, disputes overboundaries are becoming a common form of conflict even in urbanareas. This involves the contest between the state and other in-stitutions or right holders over a piece of land. In the particular caseof Lusaka City, there have been claims of the city encroaching on theland bordering the traditional authorities. While some officialsfrom the Lusaka City Councils as well as opposition parties inter-viewed argued that the land problem in Lusaka is partly becausethe surrounding traditional leaders are refusing to release land forurban development, there are some who argue that the main issueis lack of the capacity to plan and implement the development andmanagement of land in Lusaka (Simatele & Simatele, 2009.

5.5. Inadequate shelter for the poor

The shortage of low-cost housing units for the poor is alsodirectly related to the urban land question in the City of Lusaka. Theproblem of housing in Lusaka is one of the important elements ofthe colonial urban planning legacies and a major source of urbanland conflicts. As mentioned above, the colonial planners werehighly limited in their perceptions of the housing needs for theAfrican populations (see Collins, 1986; Williams, 1986). Accordingto Collins (1986), a major defect of urban planning in the colonialera was a failure to recognize the fact that the towns of NorthernRhodesia would require an African population five times more thanthe European population. Due to the shortage of formal housingunits after independence, employers began to establish privatecompounds for their African employees, legally and illegally. Theseinitiatives have formed the nucleus of squatter settlements inLusaka. Currently, it is not just the unemployed poor that are nowfacing accommodation challenges in the city, but also those informal employment, especially new employees who do not havethe opportunity to buy houses.

6. Mtendere East case study

Mtendere East community is located on the eastern side ofLusaka City, borderingMtendere Compound to thewest, Ibex Hill tothe south, and the Natural Resource Development College (NRDC)

Fig. 3. Location of Mtendere East settlement.

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218 215

on the eastern side (see Fig. 3). According to one of the earliestresidents in the area, Mtendere East community started some timeback in 1991, when a few people invaded the then vacant landbelonging to a white absentee landlord who acquired the landduring colonial times.6 One informant who has been living in thearea for a long time now told us that when the invasions started,the building of houses were done at night to avoid attractingattention. As more and more people built houses, the invadersmobilised and fought with police who attempted to demolish thestructures. Confrontation with police often resulted in violent en-counters, and in one incident a police officer was killed (MetendereEast Interview, 2014). The Mtendere East case is now before theLusaka High Court, and has not yet been resolved.

While the fact that the case is still before the courts explainswhy the police are no longer threatening to demolish the houses,there are also reports that some of the police officers and city au-thorities have bought houses and plots in the areas and thereforeare not keen to pursue anything that can jeopardise their interests.When we conducted interviews in the area, we noticed that

6 Mtendere East Residents observed that the initial owner of the land (whichused to be a farm) passed away long time ago, but left the land with his son whomigrated to Australia and has never been seen in the area. Residents also reportedthat sometime back, the land owner sold part of the land to the former Archbishopof Lusaka Emmanuel Milingo, who has a title over part of the land.

electricity supply lines have installed in the area, and some resi-dents reported that electricity was provided to certain housesbefore the matter went to court. When we asked about why theelectricity company (ZESCO) decided to provide electricity to asettlement that was declared to be illegal, some respondentsmentioned that ZESCO did not care about whether the settlementwas legal or not; “all they wanted was money, so they connectedus” (Mtendere East Interviews, 2014).

6.1. Reasons for invading the land

During interviews, we could not establish the actual size of theinvaded land since no one has official documents, but from the sizeof the settlement, the land is quite large and the settlement is stillgrowing. Although the initial invaders, mainly from MtendereCompound, started to build houses during the 1990s, it was only in2006 when the size of the community grew.

One of our key informants reported that the land was invadedbecause it was vacant and also because most of the initial invaderswere people who could not afford to buy land through the formalland market. As one respondent put it, “I decided to invade landbecause it is impossible to get land though the normal processwhich require having sufficient funds in your bank account tosupport the application for land” (Mtentere East Interviews, 2014).During interviews we discovered that although the first group in

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218216

the area was from the nearby Mtendere Compound (which alsostarted as an informal settlement), there are now people fromdifferent parts of Lusaka who have built or ‘bought’ houses in thearea.

6.2. Status of the settlement

In terms of the law, these plots are still illegal because they aresituated on private land which is not gazetted as a residential area.Technically the area is still private land categorised as a farmingarea and the city authorities have not re-classified the area as res-idential. However, the fact that the land is still not legalised forsettlement has not stopped people from buying plots and finishedhouses in the area. Most people we spoke to during interviewswere of the view that eventually the issues around the legality ofthe settlement will be resolved and they will be able to get titledeeds. Many residents indicated that the two land owners havenow stopped pursuing the eviction route; instead they are askingthose who have built houses on these plots to pay K15,000 (US$3000) for the land. It is not clear if any of the people who have builthouses or bought plots in the area have decided to pay the K15,000.Some of the residents we interviewed told us that they are notgoing to pay; “this land was vacant and idle when we startedbuilding, sowhy shouldwe pay?” (Mtendere East Interviews, 2014).

6.3. Who are the invaders?

From the structures of the houses that have been built in thearea, it was apparent that not all the people who invaded land inthis area are poor. As one respondent put it, “Not all invaders werepoor; some of the invaders include policemen, civil servants, poli-ticians, business men, people working for embassies and manypeople in formal employment” (Mtendere East Interviews,February 2014). The quality of houses being constructed in thisarea suggests that the people who are building these structures arenot the usual poor squatters who often invade land in order to buildshacks. The structures that we saw at the time we conducted in-terviews in the area where solid structures built from conventionalbuilding materials fromwalls to roofs, and the plots are well orders(unlike the case of most unplanned settlement in Lusaka whereplots are laid out haphazardly). Some of the houses are actuallyhuge with four bed rooms or more, surrounded by a high concretebrick wall-fence. When we further investigated, it became clearthat most of the initial invaders were poor people who then soldthe plot to relatively well-off people, who are now building thehouses.

6.4. Mobilisation

We also asked the residents of this area if they are organised insome form of a social movement or a lobby group to assert therights on the land they occupy. Most respondents reported that atthe beginning they operated as separate individuals without anyform of organisation. But later when many people moved into thearea, they established some form of structure and elected leaders,who are responsible for mobilising the residents in times of need,such as when the police move in the area threatening to demolishhouses. Unfortunately, we could not speak to any of these leaderssince most of them were reported to be staying in other suburbs;they only come to the area to inspect their properties.

6.5. Informal urban land market

We also further explored how people sell plots when they donot have titles. Most of the residents we spoke to indicated that

people buy the plots or houses hoping that later the court case willbe resolved and they will be able to get a title for their property.While conducting interviews in the area, we were approached bytwo different menwho told us that they could organise a plot for usif we were interested. Whenwe asked themwhether we would geta tittle if we bought the plot, one of them said, “Do not worry aboutthe title; that will come later. The important thing is to make surethat you involve neighbours when you are buying” (Mtendere EastInterviews, 2014).

Based on the information gathered during fieldwork, it isapparent that a vibrant informal land and property market exists inthe area.Whenwe asked residents who have ‘bought’ or ‘own’ plotsin this area why they paid for a plot without a title, they explainedthat ordinarily, they would like to buy land on the formal marketwhere they are issued with a title deed, but buying land throughthe formal process presents several hurdles including the exorbi-tant prices of land in Lusaka. Some indicated that they do not haveanything to offer as collateral to enable them access loans from thebanks. Some respondents argued that buying land through theformal process involves a lot of corruption such that only connectedpeople manage to get land. While people are aware of the risks ofbuying land through an informal market, they say that they have nooption since the formal land market only favours the well-connected and wealthy people who can navigate the processsuccessfully.

The issues raised in this case touch on the key point raised in theliterature about the need to have a more flexible and responsiveurban land tenure system that carters for the different contexts andneeds (Payne, 2001; Fekade, 2000; Gastorn, 2013). Evidence fromthis case study confirms the view that the larger portion of land inLusaka City (more than 60%) is delivered through the informalmarkets (SOE, 2007). It is also apparent from this case study thatthe people in the area have relied on what has been termed the“numerical strength” to assert their security of tenure (See Payne,2001). It is the presence of a large mass which gives them a senseof security, and not a piece of paper (see Fekade, 2000).

6.6. The enduring challenge of the urban land question in Lusaka

If it is true that the invaders are not the poor who are strugglingto find adequate shelter, then the Mtendere East case does notaddress the land question; the poor still remain without access toland and affordable housing. This situation is expected to worsen ifthe reports that most initial invaders (who were poor) are sellingthe plots to well-off people from outside the community, are true.What this suggests is that the poor people will continue to findalternative shelter by invading idle and vacant land, therebyperpetuating the urban land question and conflict. It is onlythrough an innovative and flexible urban land tenure policy anddelivery system that the urban land question can be addressed tominimise land conflicts.

7. Causes of the urban land conflict in Lusaka

7.1. Shortage of land

As it may be apparent from the discussion above, there areseveral causes of land conflict in Lusaka City. One of the mostobvious causes is the shortage of land due to the increasing pop-ulation and the expanding local economy both of which requireadditional land. In the case of Lusaka City, it has been observed thatthe pressure from the growing population and economic activitiesin the last ten years has led to an increase in the conversion offormerly agricultural land into residential land (SOE, 2007). In-terviews with the city planning officials also revealed that Lusaka

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218 217

city has run out of land and is in need of more land to avert a landcrisis. Although the land use report suggests that there are largetracts of unutilised land within the city's boundaries, what appearsas unutilised land has either been earmarked for development or isalready under a leasehold title (LCC, 2000). Thus, unless more landis brought under the city's boundary, the land conflicts seen in thepast decade are most likely to intensify.

7.2. Vacant, undeveloped, idle land

Existence of vacant and idle land is also cited as one of thefactors responsible for the increasing conflicts over land in Lusaka.The existence of land that is not utilised (even if it belongs tosomeone) when many people are struggling to find land for shelterencourages land invasions and the emergence of informal settle-ments which often lead to land conflicts. In the case of MtendereEast, the invasions occurred because the land was not being usedfor a long time and it appeared as though it was abandoned land.The prevalence of idle pieces of land suggests that the city has notbeen regularly auditing land within its boundaries.

7.3. Poor land delivery system

Conflicts over land in urban areas are also caused by the poorland delivery system as noted above, where 60% of the land isdelivered through informal markets. Often the inefficient land de-livery systemwhich involves long waiting periods at every stage ofthe process from surveying to the issuing of a title, forces people toadopt other means of accessing land including invasions, informalmarkets and corruption as highlighted in the Mtendere East case.This results in conflicts as the rights in land may not be clearlydemarcated through these alternative means. In the context wherethe value of land is appreciating rapidly due to the increasing de-mand for land (as is the case for Lusaka) an inefficient land deliverysystem can lead to conflicts due to the failure to allocate andadminister land rights and interests properly.

7.4. Political interference of party cadres

One of themost frequently cited causes of urban land conflicts inLusaka is the issue of party carders and councillors allocating land.All the politicians we interviewed cited what they referred to ascadre-ism as one of the main sources of land conflicts, since theparty cadres allocate land outside of approved town planning landuse. Not only that, when one political party is voted out of power,the new ruling party comes with its own cadres who begin to re-allocate the plots and this often leads to conflicts. As many re-spondents noted, cadres often allocate land that is already allocatedto someone or reserved for a specific use under the city's devel-opment plans. Interviews with the Lusaka City town planningofficial confirmed that party cadres are a major problem when itcomes to implementing the city's urban planning and developmentpolicy (Lusaka City Council Interviews, 2014).

7.5. Lack of affordable housing

The shortage of affordable housing in Lusaka and other townswas also frequently mentioned as one of the causes of urban landconflicts since most of the poor who have no access to adequatehousing have no alternative but to settle wherever they can. Relatedto this is the issue of poverty. Most of the poor in urban areas,including Lusaka, cannot afford to build their own houses, andbecause there are no affordable options for them, they tend to takedesperate measures to survive (Simposya, 2010). Almost all the re-spondents indicated that urban land conflicts arise due to the fact

that many poor people see the current urban land tenure as unjust,favouring the rich. Nationally, the urban poor feel left out and theonly way for them is take any land that seems idle (Simposya, 2010).

8. Conclusions

It is apparent from the case study presented above that the ur-ban land question has different dimensions. Although the urbanland question takes different forms in different contexts, thecommon origin across cities is the inability of the city authorities tomeet the demand for land and housing in a fair and sustainablemanner. In the case of the City of Lusaka, the situation is com-pounded by the rapidly growing population and a steadilyexpanding economy as evident from the population density whichdoubled between 2000 and 2010 (see Table 1). Inefficient andinadequate planning and development systems in the city make itdifficult to respond effectively to the challenges of the urban landquestion in Lusaka and in other cities. This leads to the emergenceand growth of the informal land markets and the associated con-flicts over land. The flourishing of the informal land markets inLusaka is evidence of the lack of capacity on the part of the city tomanage and administer land more effectively. This has resulted notonly in the emergence of unplanned settlements all over the city,but also the conflicts over land. Going forward, pressure on land inthe City of Lusaka will increase and this will require more effectiveand long-term planning, to address the looming urban land crisis.

This paper has also found that the reported invasion of vacantand idle land in Lusaka is a more complex issue which involves notonly the desperate urban poor looking for land to squat on, butinvolves other well-resourced groups, who sometimes hire in-vaders to invade the land on which they later develop residentialproperties. However, the reported cases of the initial invaders ofland in Mtendere East selling land to well-resourced businesspeople is compounding the urban land question in Lusaka, raisingquestions about the city's ability to serve the poor sections of theurban society. To address these complex urban land issues, a moreflexible and responsive approach to urban land tenure and housingis a prerequisite.

References

Central Statistical Office (CSO,1969). (1969). Census of population and housing.Lusaka: CSO.

Central Statistical Office (CSO,1980). (1980). Census of population and housing.Lusaka: CSO.

Central Statistical Office (CSO,2000). (2000). Census of population and housing.Lusaka: CSO.

Central Statistical Office (CSO,2012). (2010). Census of population and housing.Lusaka: CSO.

Collins, J. (1986). Lusaka: the historical development of a planned capital city, 1931-1970. In G. Williams (Ed.), Lusaka and its environs: A geographical study of aplanned capital city in Tropical Africa. Lusaka: The Zambia GeographicalAssociation.

CUDP. (2007). Ministry of local government and housing(MLGH) and Japan interna-tional cooperation agency(JICA). The study on comprehensive urban developmentplan for the city of Lusaka in the Republic of Zambia. Lusaka: MLGH/JICA.

Fekade, W. (2000). Deficit of formal urban land management and informal responseunder rapid urban growth, an international perspective. Habitat International,24, 127e150.

Gantner G., Garden city settlements: The lingering effects of urban design policy inLusaka, nd, Boston, MASS.

Gastorn, K. (2013). Effectiveness of flexible land tenure in unplanned urban areas inthe SADC region: a case study of Tanzania and experiences from Zambia andNamibia. SADC LAW Journal, 3(2), 160e181.

Jere, D. (2007). Homeless zambians face grim winter after demolition. Agence FrencaisPresse, 13.5. 2007.

Lombard, M. (2013). Urban land and conflict in the global south. http://citiesmer.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/urban-and-conflict-in-global-south (Retrieved13.05.14).

Lusaka City Council. (2000). Lusaka Integrated Development Planning. Lusaka: LCC.Lusaka City Council (LCC) and Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) (SOE). (2007).

Lusaka City State of Environment Outlook Report. Lusaka: LCC/ECZ.

H. Chitonge, O. Mfune / Habitat International 48 (2015) 209e218218

Lusaka City Council (LCC). (2006). A report on the status of unplanned settlements inLusaka.

Lusaka City Council Interviews. (2014). Interviews with Officials at the Lusaka CivicCentre.

Lusaka Times. (2009). Graveyard refurbished into residential area. http://www.lusakatimes.com.

Lusaka Times. (2014). Winter kabimba directs policy to firmly deal with PF cadresinvading private property. http://www.lusakatimes.com.

Mafeje, Archie (2003). The Agrarian question: access to land and peasantresponse in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Civil Society and Social MovementProgramme, Paper No. 6. United Nations Research Institute for SocialDevelopment (UNRISD, 2003).

Moyo, S. (2004). African land question, the state and agrarian transition: Contradic-tions of Neo-liberal land reforms. Available at http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0000692/P763-Moyo_Land_May2004.pdf Accessed 06.03.15.

Moyo, S. (2008). African land questions, agrarian transition and the state: Contra-dictions of the Neo-liberal land reforms. Dakar: CODESRIA.

Mtendere East Interviews( 2014).Mulenga, C. (2003). Urban slum report: The case of Lusaka Zambia” in understanding

slums: case studies for the global report on human setlement 2003 (pp. 1e16).Geneva: UN Habitat.

Obala, L., & Mattingly, M. (2013). Ethnicity, corruption and violence in urban landconflict in Kenya. Urban Studies, 20(10), 1e17.

Payne, G. (2001). Urban land tenure policy options: titles or rights? Habitat Inter-national, 24, 415e429.

Pithouse, R. (2014). The urban land question. Polity.04 April, 2014 availaible at www.polity.org.za, 12.04.14.

Rakodi, Carole (1986). Colonial urban policy and planning in Northern Rhodesia andits legacy. TWPR, 8(3), 193e217.

Resnick, D. (2011). In the shadow of the city: Africa's urban poor in oppositionstrongholds. Journal of Modern African Studies, 49(1), 141e166.

Seymour, T. (1975). Squatter settlement and class relations in Zambia. Review ofAfrican Political Economy, (3), 71e77.

Simatele, D., & Simatele, M. (2009). Evolution and dynamics of urban poverty inZambia. In T. Beasley (Ed.), Poverty in Africa (pp. 177e192). Washington, D.C:Noval Publishers.

Simposya. (2010). Towards a sustainable upgrading of unplanned urban settlementsin Zambia. In A Paper Presented at the Conference: Rethinking Emerging LandMarkets in Rapidly Growing Southern African Cities, August 31 to November 3rd2010, Johannesburg.

UN-HABITAT. (2013). The state of the world's cities report 2012/13. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.

Williams, G. (1986). The early years of the township. In G. Williams (Ed.), Lusaka andits environs: A geographical study of a planned capital city in tropical Africa (pp.72e94). Lusaka: The Zambia Geographical Association.

Wood, A., Banda, G. P., & Mundende, D. C. (1986). The population of Lusaka. InG. Williams (Ed.), Lusaka and its environs: A geographical study of a planned capitalcity in tropical Africa (pp. 164e188). Lusaka: The Zambia Geographical Association.

World Bank. (2002). Upgrading low income urban settlement: Zambia countryassessment report. Available at: www.