Introduction
Government announcements about the possible repossession of undeveloped land in resettlement schemes should catch your attention! The policy, while sounding drastic, is rooted in the economic and social factors affecting Zambia today. In our recent video we unpacked this issue in depth—examining both sides of the debate and proposing a more balanced approach. This blog post distills that discussion into a detailed look
at what’s really at stake.
The Government’s Policy: Develop Within 18 Months
The Ministry of Lands has made it clear that land allocated under resettlement schemes must be developed within 18 months. Development in this context doesn’t necessarily mean building a completed structure, it can be as simple as laying a foundation slab. The rationale is straightforward: Zambia’s population continues to grow rapidly, creating ever-increasing demand for housing and land. Since land is a finite resource, the government aims to ensure it’s put to productive use rather than left idle. This has made the question of repossessing undeveloped land a pressing and divisive issue.
Arguments For Repossessing Undeveloped Land
Those in favor of repossession present several key points
1. Land is a productive resource.
Zambia faces a significant housing deficit—estimated at 1.5 million units or more. With
such a shortage, allowing land to remain undeveloped for years appears wasteful.
2. Efficient land allocation.
The government has a duty to ensure land is used productively. If landholders are
unable to develop their plots, it prevents others—especially those capable of building
and contributing to the housing supply—from accessing it.
3. Clear expectations.
When individuals apply for land in resettlement schemes, they are informed about the 18-month development requirement. There are no surprises in this rule.
4. Curbing speculation.
Some landholders acquire land only to hold it until its value appreciates, then sell it for profit. This speculative behavior deepens income inequality between those who can afford to invest and those who cannot. From this perspective, repossession appears logical and even necessary to promote fairness and productivity in land use.
Arguments Against Repossession
However, not everyone agrees that repossessing undeveloped land is fair or effective. Critics raise several important counterarguments:
1. Building is expensive.
Constructing even the simplest structure can be financially demanding. Expecting every Zambian—especially those in economically vulnerable situations—to begin development within 18 months is often unrealistic.
2. Lack of infrastructure.
Many resettlement schemes lack basic infrastructure such as roads, electricity, and water. Transporting building materials becomes difficult and costly, discouraging timely development.
3. Transparency concerns.
Some citizens worry about how repossession will actually be implemented. Questions about corruption, favoritism and how repossessed land will be reallocated remain unresolved.
4. Alternative land use.
Not all undeveloped land is idle. Many people use their land for farming or seasonal activities—essential means of feeding their families and sustaining livelihoods. Repossessing such land could worsen poverty and food insecurity.
5. Environmental impact.
Undeveloped land often supports trees, green corridors, and wildlife. Rapid development may harm these natural assets, running counter to global and Zambian efforts to combat climate change.
6. Inequality concerns.
Wealthier Zambians can easily meet development standards, while poorer citizens risk losing the only asset they possess—their land. This could further widen the economic gap.
A Call for a Balanced Approach
This issue is far from black and white. While policy and regulation are essential for managing land use, compassion and context are equally important.
Rather than enforcing repossession as a first response, we advocate for it to be a last resort. A more balanced approach might include:
● Flexible development standards that reflect economic realities.
● Adequate notice and grace periods before repossession is enforced.
● Incremental fines or penalties to encourage gradual progress rather than immediate forfeiture.
● Transparency and accountability in the repossession and reallocation process.
These measures would ensure that land remains productive without punishing citizens who are struggling under genuine economic hardship
Join the Conversation
The debate over undeveloped land in Zambia’s resettlement schemes affects everyone—from landowners to aspiring homeowners, from policymakers to investors.
What do you think? Watch the video and share your thoughts, should undeveloped land be repossessed after 18 months, or should the government adopt a more flexible approach?
Share your thoughts in the comment section under this blog and be part of the national conversation.
No comment