White Paper - Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica

White Paper on The Development of a Land Tenure Legislative and Regulatory Framework 

Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica 

GOVERNMENT 

OF 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA 

WHITE PAPER 

ON 

The Development of a Legislative and Regulatory Framework (White Paper) to 

Provide for Security in Tenancy Arrangements for the Commonwealth of 

Dominica and Drafting Instructions for Amendments to the Agricultural Small 

Tenancies Act, Title By Registration Act (1886) and Land Survey Act (1988) 

Email: caw@brown-co.com Final 

Web: www.brown-co.com Date: March 2011 

Page 1 of 55 Consultant - Brown & Co & Roythornes Solicitors



CONTENTS 

FOREWORD BY THE MINISTER ..............................................................................................................4 

1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS......................................................................................................5 

2 PURPOSE OF CONSULTANCY AND FINDINGS............................................................................9 

2.2 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................10 

2.3 MAIN FINDINGS..................................................................................................................11 

2.3.1 Agricultural Land Use and Production .......................................................................11 

2.3.2 Family Land....................................................................................................................13 

2.3.3 Land Use Policy and Land Use Controls.....................................................................15 

2.3.4 Reasons For Owning Land ...........................................................................................17 

2.3.5 Physical Planning Policy ...............................................................................................18 

2.3.6 Alien (Non National) Land Purchases ........................................................................20 

2.3.7 Reluctance of Landowners to Let ..............................................................................20 

2.3.8 The Landlord’s Needs...................................................................................................22 

2.3.9 The Tenant’s needs.......................................................................................................22 

2.3.10 Praedial Larceny...........................................................................................................23 

2.3.11 Communication and Interaction between GoCD Departments ..........................23 

2.3.12 Carib Land.....................................................................................................................23 

3 GOALS FOR REFORM OF LAND TENANCY ARRANGEMENTS .................................................26 

3.1 The Security of Tenure Dilemma......................................................................................26 

3.2 Management of Lands by the State..............................................................................26 

3.3 Development of the Tenanted Sector - The Land Bank..............................................27 

4 PROPOSALS .................................................................................................................................29 

4.1 The Approach ...................................................................................................................29 

4.2 Data Capture ....................................................................................................................30 

4.3 Legislation Amendments..................................................................................................31 

4.3.1 General Commentary..................................................................................................31 

4.3.2 Mortgage Reform .........................................................................................................31 

4.3.3 Caveats..........................................................................................................................33 

4.3.4 Adverse Possession .......................................................................................................33 

4.3.5 Strata Titles .....................................................................................................................34 

4.3.6 Survey Regulations........................................................................................................34 




4.3.7 Agricultural Tenancies and the Agricultural Tenancies Act....................................35 

4.4 Family Land........................................................................................................................36 

4.5 Physical Planning...............................................................................................................38 

4.6 Institutional Capacity and Organisation - National Land Authority or Agency .......39 

4.7 The Land Bank ...................................................................................................................41 

4.7.3 Methodology and Objectives of Delivery of a Land Bank .....................................43 

4.8 Praedial Larceny ..............................................................................................................46 

4.10 The Carib Territory .............................................................................................................49 

APPENDIX 1 - CONTRACT OF TENANCY UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ACT..........53 




FOREWORD BY THE MINISTER 

This White Paper is a culmination of the work undertaken under the Government’s Land 

Tenure Administration Reform Programme and, in particular, two consultancy assignments 

and studies that have been commissioned to review the Land Tenure arrangements in 

Dominica, recommend ammendments to and provide for reform of the Title by Registration 

Act, the Land Survey Act and the Small Agricultural Tenancies Act and the process and 

practices governing land tenure, land use and land transactions. 

The gaols of this body of work have not only been to consult and review with stakeholders 

to identify existing constraints, concerns and limitations, but also to introduce 

recommendations for reform to amend legislation to improve the transparency, efficiency 

and availability of the process of registering land title, improve the planning control of 

subdivision and the access to and availability of agricultural land to be utilised by those 

able and willing to do so. 

The Paper also seeks to address the growing issue over land held as “family land”, given the 

negative impact it has on the inability of those with an interest in family land to utilise or 

realise the value of their interest. There is significant value tied up within family land that no 

individual has access to and whether for business purposes to develop that land or build a 

home, or for private purposes, such as raising a loan for lending to educate one’s children, 

this is a constraint that impacts on many citizens of Dominica. 

Fundamentally, this White Paper also carries a desire to improve the access to agricultural 

land for farmers and growers in order to improve both the livelihoods of those who wish to 

be involved with farming and facilitate the utilisation of the land resources Dominica has 

available, much of which continues to slip out of production and lies idle. We see it as an 

important goal to develop agricultural business through providing improved access to land 

to farmers, (both landowners and tenants), so as to develop those individuals businesses in 

agricultural production, where tenancies are on formal contract terms and occupied from 

a position of certainty within a solid framework to deal with improvements, rent reviews, etc. 

The abolition of adverse possession together with a new Agricultural Tenancy Act is 

intended to encourage land owners to make their land available on a commercial 

business-like footing to prequalified and approved tenants both privately and through a 

Land Bank. 

While this Paper is not tasked with resurrecting the agricultural industry in Dominica, but 

instead focuses strongly on the legislation that surrounds the occupation, use and transfer of 

land, the issues of a physical planning, land use, land use controls, the ease/difficulty of 

owners to let land and tenants to take land are inextricably related. The lack of land use 

controls, ease and transparency of land registration, etc in a small state such as Dominica, 

with limited land resources, encourages all land to be seen as potential development land 

and directly discourages the development of our agricultural industry. In short, that fact 

facilitates land to become a speculative, long-term asset for ownership, acquired to be 

held for growth and development purposes, which in itself moves land ownership far 

beyond any agricultural economic use and makes it unavailable for that use in the short, 

medium or longer term. That is a concern which this White Paper seeks to address, through 

making fundamental improvements to the legislation governing aspects of land tenure 

within the Registry, Surveys and Planning divisions to facilitate greater access, certainty of 




title and improved systems to facilitate and guarantee property rights and promote 

effective and efficient methods of property transfer. 

1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS 

1.1 This White Paper is produced under the Government of the Commonwealth of 

Dominica’s (GoCD) Land Tenure Administration Reform Programme (LTARP). That 

programme carries the support of the STABEX EU funding programme directed 

towards enhanced rural employment and economic activity in the agricultural 

sector. The programme aims at:- 

1.1.1 The provision of a clear and transparent legal framework for land registration, 

ownership and tenancy. This includes:- 

a) The undertaking to bring all lands under the Title by Registration Act to 

ensure certainty of title, which is a prerequisite for development of 

property; 

b) Ensuring security of tenure for tenants and compensation for 

improvements made, while simultaneously ensuring the rights of 

owners to retain possession of their lands at the termination of 

tenancy. 

1.1.2 The adoption of improved systems to facilitate and guarantee property rights 

and effective and efficient methods of property transfers, thus making lands 

reliable collateral for investment. 

1.1.3 Strengthening of the capacity of, and linkages between, key institutions and 

agencies of Government involved in the administration of land. 

1.2 The particular focus of the Consultancy leading to the formulation of this Paper is 

the development of:- 

a) A legislative and regulatory framework to provide for security in 

tenancy arrangements for the Commonwealth of Dominica and: 

b) Provision of drafting instructions for amendments to the Agricultural 

Small Tenancies Act, Title by Registration Act 1886 and the Land 

Survey Act of 1988. 




1.3 The main recommendations of this Paper are :- 

1.3.1 The mandatory first Registration of Title on all land transfers or subdivisions to be 

introduced with immediate effect and accommodated within the Title By 

Registration Act. Assistance by waiving fees and costs will need to be provided 

by GoCD to facilitate the process (through a legal aid scheme, or means tested 

through availability to those registered for welfare support, or such similar support 

schemes). The scope of registration should be increased by requiring information 

as to access, current planning status, wayleaves, easements, etc. 

1.3.2 The principle of adverse possession should be removed from the TbyR Act – it is 

seen as a disincentive to let land and unfair. 

1.3.3 To encourage the use of Mortgage rather than caveats, the point of taxation 

should be made at judgement for possession, rather than at the original 

execution of a mortgage. 

1.3.4 The use of Caveats should be made more flexible. At present a caveat prevents 

any dealing with the property. The Act is to be amended to provide that 

dealings could take place where appropriate, but subject to the caveat. 

1.3.5 All subdivisions creating new land parcels to require a survey plan prepared to 

the Survey standards set out within Survey Regulations (2010) and approved by 

the Chief Surveyor. The survey Regulations to be finalised, published and 

adopted. The informal practice within the Registry of “hatching off” without an 

approved survey plan should cease. 

1.3.6 All subdivisions will require formal Planning Consent and the specific definition of 

subdivision to be more clearly defined. 

1.3.7 All proposed changes of use of land parcels from existing use as Agriculture or 

Forestry will require Planning Consent and there will be a general presumption 

against development on Agricultural or Forestry land, other than within published 

planning zones. 

1.3.8 The Unified Land Information System (ULIS) should be accessible to Registry, 

Lands and Surveys and Physical Planning and expanded to provide the basic 

land parcel attribute data for use within a new National Geographical 

Information System (GIS) to ensure that all parcels (private and state owned 

land) carry a unique, geo-referenced identifier, which clearly locates the centre 

point of the land parcel (so that all stakeholders will understand /interpret the 

location even without reference to ULIS or any associated GIS system). 

1.3.9 In order to resource the GoCD stakeholder agencies adequately to deliver the 

recommendations of this paper and other LTARP objectives, new orthophoto 

imagery (aerial photography) to be tendered and captured to 20cm resolution 




and as part of that delivery, check and densify the survey control network to 

provide new base mapping (in digital format) for use and to deliver:- 

a) A New National GIS – to which Registry, Lands and Surveys, Physical 

Planning, Forestry, Agriculture, and other relevant Ministries will have 

access and benefit from; 

b) The framework of a new Land Use Plan and Planning Policy and the 

means to monitor and control changes in land use and subdivision 

consent; 

c) New digital base mapping for Lands and Surveys to plot all new 

subdivisions and surveys and over time; populate a Land Cadastre 

and for publication and distribution on a fee paying basis; 

d) Upgrading of the local professional surveying capacity to move to 

operate within a digital survey environment to the newly stated Survey 

Standards within the Survey Regulations; 

e) The background framework for a spatial data base to be created by 

the Ministry of Agriculture for both the operation of a new National 

Land Bank; the registering of producers and production, and to 

support spatial data capture under a more rigorous and regular 

Agricultural Census. 

f) Access to private sector organisations and stakeholders who would 

pay to subscribe; 

1.3.10 A new Agricultural Tenancies Act (2010) to be produced to provide model 

clauses to encourage letting of land from landlords to tenants (a new draft Act 

has been produced under this programme). 

1.3.11 A National Land Coordinator be introduced to manage change and efficiency 

improvements through the Land Registration functions of the Registry, Physical 

Planning and Lands and Surveys, together with overseeing the introduction of a 

National Geographical Information System – considered important so as to allow 

the relevant department heads to focus on their own process delivery, but still 

facilitate capacity for change and development to be driven through across the 

range of topics covered within this white paper. It is envisaged that the 

appointment would be for an individual tasked with driving forward the very 

substantial changes envisaged in this paper. This is likely to be a demanding role 

in the immediate future, but there is a continuing role for a co-ordinating body 

between the various departments – perhaps to hold and be responsible for 

ULIS/a new National GIS system under the banner of a National Land Agency or 

Authority. 

1.3.12 The status of land held as Family Land is a major potential constraint to the 

social-economic development of the beneficiaries of the undivided shares 

themselves and to Dominica’s economic development as a whole. Steps to be 

taken to encourage division / distribution of individual interest in Family land, 

including waiving of stamp duty and seeking funding to provide a pilot to 

encourage applications for preferential surveying costs over a limited and 

specific time period. Ultimately family land which lies idle to be a candidate for 




mandatory inclusion in the Land Bank after a given time period and public 

awareness campaign to encourage division, or agreement to use. If, after 

implementation of a pilot scheme to encourage the utilisation or division of 

individual interests in Family land there is no change in the incidence of Family 

land, then some form of compulsion to be considered as set out in section 4.4.1 

v). Dealing with Family Land to be taken out of the court process and into 

Arbitration. 

1.3.13 The development of a commercially managed Land Bank both for State land 

and Private land is seen as an important driver for the delivery of greater activity 

in the agricultural tenanted sector; with the State taking a head lease from 

private land owners and letting to pre-qualified tenants. Greater use of 

technology and appropriate training will be important in both managing the 

Land bank, land use within it, the tenants that subscribe to it and the renewed 

vigour in registration of producers and sellers of produce to combat and stamp 

out Praedial Larceny. The Land Bank should seek to engage not only individual 

farmers, but those companies/corporations who may be in a position to provide 

new market access and production technologies to seek to reinvigorate 

Dominica’s agricultural sector. There are regional savings to be made in design 

and implementation given common requirements across the OECS region. 

1.3.14 There is a need for greater control of transfer of Title held within company 

structures, as it currently escapes vendors tax/stamp duty and avoids the 

registration and clearance of alien land holding / foreign interests. As land 

values for built development increase; there will be an increasing need to 

consider control and taxation of the transfer of shares of companies holding 

land/property in order to avoid the placing of land in corporate ownership and 

sale / transfer of those shares being an avoidance measure from the existing 

vendors tax or any future capital gains tax. 

1.3.15 There is a need to produce accurate and detailed farm management costings 

as guidelines to farmers to a specific and recognisable format if there is to be a 

serious effort to reinvigorate the agricultural industry; together with engagement 

with potential market access providers at both a private and a public sector 

level. 

1.3.16 The concept of Land Use Certificates appropriately named to be introduced as 

an instrument to improve the formality of land occupancy rights within the Carib 

Territories to seek to provide tangible land occupancy rights for use as security for 

a Carib Community bank/lending institution and indeed other lenders. It is 

appreciated that there is still discussion within the Carib community as to the 

extent of the requirement and flexibility and further consultation will be required. 

1.4 Detailed drafting amendments to the Title By Registration Act, Land Survey Act, 

Survey Regulations and a New Agricultural Tenancies Act and model Agreement 

are submitted as a separate submission arising from the work that has been 

carried out under this consultancy. 




2 PURPOSE OF CONSULTANCY AND FINDINGS 

2.1.1 This White Paper arises out of the work undertaken by the UK and Caribbean 

Consultant firm Brown & Co together with the Land Tenure Administration 

Reform Programme (LTARP), under a Consultancy for the development of:- 

i) a legislative and regulatory framework to provide for security in 

tenancy arrangements for the Commonwealth of Dominica; and 

ii) drafting instructions for amendments to the Agricultural Small 

Tenancies Act, Title by Registration Act 1886 and the Land Survey Act 

of 1988. 

2.1.2 This consultancy was set up under the revised Framework of Mutual 

Obligation signed in June 2006. Under that framework, the European Union 

(EU) and the Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica (GoCD) have 

agreed that the use of STABEX funds should be directed towards enhanced 

rural employment and economic activity in the agricultural sector. The 

specific objective for the use of these funds is the enhancement of rural 

development and diversification, through the improvement of a stable, 

enabling environment which will encourage the productive and sustainable 

use of land. 

2.1.3 It was accepted by all parties, that the Government of Dominica’s Land 

Tenure Administration Reform Programme (LTARP) is a sound strategy for 

achieving the agreed objective. This programme aims at:- 

1) The provision of a clear and transparent legal framework for land 

registration, ownership and tenancy. This includes:- 

c) The undertaking to bring all lands under the Title by Registration 

Act to ensure certainty of title, which is a prerequisite for 

development of property; 

d) Ensuring security of tenure for tenants and compensation for 

improvements made, while simultaneously ensuring the rights of 

owners to retain possession of their lands at the termination of 

tenancy. 

2) The adoption of improved systems to facilitate and guarantee property 

rights and effective and efficient methods of property transfers, thus 

making lands reliable collateral for investment. 

3) Strengthening of the capacity of and linkages between key institutions 

and agencies of Government involved in the administration of land. 




2.2 BACKGROUND 

2.2.1 Formal land tenancy arrangements in Dominica are constrained by the 

absence of an adequate framework. Despite its under-utilisation, land is 

generally unavailable to aspiring rural investors and those wishing to expand 

their present businesses. This occurs because landowners are generally 

reluctant to make their land available through lease agreements given their 

fear of losing their land to the tenant due to the principle of adverse 

possession enshrined in the Title by Registration Act. 

2.2.2 Equally, tenants are reluctant to develop their businesses because the 

Agricultural Small Tenancies Act, Chap 58:70 does not provide adequate 

protection against the fear of eviction and loss of investment. 

2.2.3 The purpose of this Consultancy and the resultant White Paper is to prepare 

the way for legislative, regulatory and administrative changes to improve the 

clarity, transparency and efficiency of the process of security in land 

tenancy arrangements. The end objective being to facilitate greater 

availability and in turn, utilisation of land for agricultural production and the 

economic and socio-economic benefits that will flow from that, together 

with the goal of improved efficiency and processes for Registration of Title, 

transfers of ownership and availability of land for use as collateral. 

2.2.4 This White Paper seeks to address these issues and provide 

recommendations to Cabinet for adoption and implementation to do so. 




2.3 MAIN FINDINGS 

2.3.1 Agricultural Land Use and Production 

2.3.1.1 Agriculture plays a significant role in the economy of Dominica, but this has 

been falling significantly over the last 20 years – the 1991 Census revealed 

31% (7,344) of employed persons within the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 

sector. This had fallen to 21% (19% in Agriculture/Forestry at 4,814) in the 2001 

Census. 

2.3.1.2 By way of background and as a caveat to the beneficial impact on the 

agricultural sector development that this element of the LTARP seeks to 

deliver, there are other, non land tenure related and very significant 

challenges that face agriculture in the Windward Islands (including 

Dominica) which are outside the scope of this paper but are evident from the 

project teams work in Dominica and the Windward’s and have been 

reported to the project through the consultations that have taken place – 

among those factors are:- 

i) The declining economic value of preferential market access to the 

EU and the decline of the banana industry as a result (banana 

exports from Dominica have fallen from a peak of 71,474 tonnes in 

1988, to just 10,934 tonnes in 2008 – with a value of EC$17m; During 

that same period, total Windward Island banana exports have 

fallen from 270,000 tonnes to 61,000 tonnes; 

ii) Cost and competition for labour from the tourism and 

development construction sector (that is perhaps up until the 

current (2009-11) recession and recent (2010-11) global inflation in 

soft commodities and food staples); 

iii) Increasing costs of production and general lack of macro 

improvements in productivity, or systems of production across the 

sector; 

iv) Competition for, and the increasing value of land; 

v) Increasing competition from imported goods as tariff barriers and 

customs duties reduce. 

vi) The advancing age of the farmers in Dominica; 

vii) How the sector is regarded at large and the negativity portrayed 

as a career or business; 




viii) Lack of commercial knowledge and agronomic/management 

expertise in the sector; 

ix) The very real threat of Praedial Larceny; 

x) Declining profitability of the sector (Ministry of Agriculture year to 

year digest results) – though in part, a product of all of the above 

challenges the industry faces. 

2.3.1.3 Given the reduction in bananas as the key revenue generator in agriculture, 

diversification of agricultural land usage and cropping is required. This has 

required changes in farming practice, marketing, technical skills, investment 

and a whole host of other issues which have proved and remain very 

challenging for Dominican farmers. 

2.3.1.4 These challenges should equally bring with them opportunity for an industry 

that is aiming to be suitably resourced, skilled, funded and technically 

developed, with scale and cooperation (within the public and the private 

sector) and importantly as far as this paper is concerned, with access to land 

resources to respond to:- 

i) Increased market opportunity within the Region’s traditional 

markets and further afield for higher value and added value food 

and related products (particularly relevant today given food 

commodity price inflation); 

ii) Greater desire from consumers, customers and funding agencies 

for linkages between tourism and agriculture; 

iii) Greater awareness of carbon footprint, food miles and other 

factors that will enhance Dominica producers’ ability to compete 

for market share on issues other than cost of production; 

iv) Technical development through investment in advanced 

production skills and resources – e.g. shade, drip and greenhouse 

production; 

2.3.1.5 There are significant areas of potentially and indeed once productive land in 

Dominica which are un-utilised, or idle. The Soil and land Use Surveys (No 21 

Dominica 1 ) and the Soil Technical data Sheets for Dominica (Report No 138 

FCO ODA 2 ) which were captured, as part of the Geographical Information 

System (GIS) of the Ministry of Agriculture in the 1990’s now lie inaccessible 

and remote from day to day use; but never the less illustrate (as can officers 

1 Soil and Land Use Surveys – No21 Dominica; University of the West Indies; David Lang 1967 

2 Soil Technical Data Sheets for Dominica – No 138 Miscellaneous Report; Foreign and 

Commonwealth Office Overseas Development Administration; David Lang 1972 




of the Ministry of Agriculture) the extent of land that is not currently utilised for 

agricultural production of any sort. 

2.3.1.6 Some of the larger tracts of land that have been reported during the 

consultation process as idle, or under utilised lands include; Harris Estate, 

Douglas Estate, Sylvania Estate, Blenheim Estate, Sugar Loaf Estate, Belle 

Vue/Chopin, Soufriere Estate and Melville Hall and others. 

2.3.1.7 This Paper is not tasked with resurrecting the Agricultural industry in Dominica, 

but as this Paper will demonstrate, the issues over Physical Planning, land use, 

land use controls, the ease / difficulty of owners to let land and tenants to 

take land (i.e. access to land for production) are inextricably related. Lack of 

land use controls, ease and transparency of land Registration, etc., in a small 

island state with limited land resources, facilitates all land to be seen as 

potential development land. In short, that fact facilitates land values to 

become a speculative, long term asset for ownership; acquired to be held for 

growth and development purposes which will move land ownership and land 

use far beyond any agricultural economic use. Indeed there is absolutely no 

incentive to produce from it as things stand today. 

2.3.2 Family Land 

2.3.2.1 The concept of land held in undivided shares by the descendent family (as 

family land), is widespread throughout the Eastern Caribbean including in 

Dominica. It should be made clear that the mechanism by which family 

land arises is not unique to the Eastern Caribbean – indeed the same situation 

could arise as a matter of Law in most jurisdictions based on English Law. The 

position is that land left by a Testator (either intestate or by Will) is left to a 

number of beneficiaries who choose not to physically divide the property left 

to them, but to continue as Tenants in Common of the whole. 

2.3.2.2 The last occasion on which the extent of this practice was statistically 

identified was in the 1996 Agricultural Census when it was thought to extend 

to between 10%-11% of the total area of Dominican farmland. On all 

enquiries that have been made, it is thought that this was probably a gross 

underestimate then, and certainly wildly understates the proportion now. 

There is, on the other hand, no definitive answer as to how much farmland is 

held under the status of family land. Estimates given have varied between 

40%-50%; but it is certainly very extensive. 

2.3.2.3 A key recommendation is that work should be done to clearly identify the 

extent and nature of family land holding. Any subsequent Agricultural Census 

should seek to do so within its data capture component. The new digital 

Unified Land Information System (ULIS) should also seek to maintain a record 

of lands that are held as “family land” and record that as a status of 

ownership/tenure for all First Registrations of Title, or transfers of Title. 




2.3.2.4 Family Land is highly significant in Dominican land holding structure – by way 

of proportion of land held under that status and the resultant restrictions 

placed on subsequent use and availability of that land, both as collateral; to 

the beneficial owners and to the Dominica economy as a whole. The issues 

may be summarised as follows:- 

i) Banks and other lending institutions are not prepared to treat undivided 

shares as security for loans. This very extensive asset is 

therefore not available as security for the improvement of farming, 

provision of working capital and for many objectives outside 

agriculture which are important for farmers and other landowners. This 

is as relevant to non agricultural economic development in Dominica 

as it is to the agricultural sector. To illustrate: using the 1978 DOS 

1:25,000 Estates Map (geo-referenced as a GIS layer by Lands and 

Surveys and corrected under this project); some 24,343 ha’s of Estates 

land existed at that time (and still exists today – in or out of agricultural 

production). On the broad assumption of 40% of land in Dominica 

being held as family land; some 9,738 ha’s (or 24,000 acres) at a 

conservative agricultural restricted land use value of only EC$25,000 

/acre; that would amount to some $600m of value that is not 

available as security/collateral to support any economic investment 

or development activity in Dominica. 

ii) The potential restrictive impact of family land cannot be over 

emphasised; the fact that it is growing in proportion and if not 

addressed, the extensive subdivision activities by a series of Govt’s 

over the last 30 years to redistribute land in Domincia will lead to a 

new generation of owners of family land; locked in common 

ownership without the economic means to unlock perhaps the only 

asset they possess. On repeated occasions the project team has been 

given anecdotal evidence of sizeable family land holdings (of over 

100 acres) where family members have, together with their fellow 

beneficial owners, given up any hope of any use of the land holding 

for them or their children, or dividing their proportion from it – 

effectively abandoning the land for the benefit of squatters or mother 

nature. The most common reasons stated for not seeking to divide 

their interest are:- 

a) The cost of surveying for subdivision and fees/stamp duties; 

b) a desire not to cause potential conflict within the extended family 

which often involves family members overseas who may have 

different aspirations to those dependant on their assets in 

Dominica for their income. 

iii) How far family land contributes to land going out of production is not 

proved and is uncertain. It is an area that merits research within the 

next Agricultural Census, recording within ULIS and on Registration of 




Title. However, this Paper concludes it is considerable and there has 

been considerable anecdotal evidence to confirm that view. In a 

number of cases, substantial areas (some of over 100 acres) have 

been abandoned by the joint owners and most of that land is now 

unused because of the perceived difficulty and expense of sorting out 

division, even though in many cases, most or all of the family are on 

good terms and agreeable to the process. It is this Papers general 

view that the end beneficiary of family land in many cases will be 

squatters. Clearly, that is not desirable. 

iv) Somewhat outside the immediate scope of this White Paper, but a 

further disadvantage arising out of family land holding, is that it leads 

to poor residential planning. For many people, the point of retaining 

a share in their family holding is the ability to build a house. Because 

it is not possible to raise money by way of mortgage, such houses tend 

to be of poor quality. They may often be built without consent and 

be, in theory, temporary. Whilst for many people housing acquired in 

this way may be better than no housing at all, from the stand point of 

Dominica as a whole, it is likely to be unplanned and poor quality 

development which will nevertheless require support by way of 

services, access, etc. 

2.3.2.5 It is recognised that family land holding is a deeply engrained part of the 

Eastern Caribbean Culture which has had the advantage of giving access 

to land to many people, encouraging many emigrants to retain links with the 

country and which above all, is very difficulty to change. However, it will be 

appreciated that it is an increasing influence from generation to generation. 

The long term effects referred to above if applied perhaps in time to over 

half the farming land in Dominica are very serious indeed. This has proved a 

very intractable problem throughout the region, but it is now considered to 

be potentially so serious, as to justify maximum effort to solve. 

2.3.3 Land Use Policy and Land Use Controls 

2.3.3.1 One of the most common issues put forward by policy makers and 

participants from the Agricultural, Physical Planning and Environmental 

sectors alike, is that Dominica lacks a coherent and publicised land use 

policy and the capacity to effectively control and implement any stated 

land use policy. Evidence of this exists through both informal subdivision that 

takes place through “hatching off” within the Registry; creation of new land 

parcels through subdivision which are not approved subdivisions (approved 

by Physical Planning or Lands and Surveys) and the informal drift of 

agricultural land to residential; particularly through the change of use of 

subdivided land parcels which were the focus of the land redistribution that 

took place through the acquisition and break up of the large Estates over 

the last 30 years – e.g. Castle Bruce, Melville Hall, etc. 




2.3.3.2 The adoption of the Unified Land Information System (ULIS) being 

implemented through the LTARP will, providing it is accessible to all three 

GoCD departments (which this report considers vital), greatly enhance the 

ability of Registry, Physical Planning and Lands and Surveys to provide a 

coordinated and systematic approach to creation of new subdivisions, 

change of use and Registration of Title. 

2.3.3.3 Currently, Physical Planning considers that the majority of individual 

subdivisions are not put forward to Physical Planning for consent (as 

confirmed by this project). 

2.3.3.4 The Planning and Development Control Authority Board operate a Technical 

Committee which meets twice per month to consider residential subdivisions 

and development. However, although Physical Planning have a GIS 

capability and probably the most comprehensive GIS data set with regard to 

land use and land capability, there is a lack of system resource, procedure 

and technical capacity to utilise this GIS data set within Land and Surveys, 

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Dept, etc to assist in both considering 

individual subdivision applications and generating a wider land use policy – 

and subsequently a land use plan. Indeed individual land parcel subdivisions 

do not necessarily get presented to Land and Surveys (as required under the 

Land Survey Act which requires all surveys to be approved by the Chief 

Surveyor) or to Physical Planning (not required currently under the Planning 

Act). 

2.3.3.5 There is a chronic requirement for new digital orthophoto imagery and base 

mapping to update the existing 1984 DOS hard copy map stock which is now 

approaching 30 years out of date (see recommendations within the Title By 

Registration Act and Land Survey Act report by this Consultant team of May 

2009) and to provide a starting point platform for a National Geographical 

Information System to :- 

i) View, verify and approve land parcel boundaries (many of which will 

be disputed due to the practice of “hatching off”) within ULIS and 

build a Land Cadastre of Registered Title to support the objective to 

insist on compulsory first registration on all transfers, or subdivisions of 

land. 

ii) Illustrate and manage a Land use policy and subsequently a land use 

plan together with relevant development plans (as exist currently); 

iii) Provide the means accurately and transparently to portray to the 

public and all relevant parties the status of individual land parcels with 

regard to such a land use plan (on line access to geo-referenced land 

parcels and land use plans is both deliverable and relatively 

inexpensive compared with the position just 10 years ago); 




iv) Provide the ability for all relevant departments to engage fully in their 

relevant function to approve subdivisions, grant or refuse consent for 

change of use on individual applications; verify relevant approvals 

prior to title registration, subdivision, or transfer of title. 

v) Make use of existing GIS data sets within both Lands and Surveys and 

Physical Planning to manage State land (and former State land that 

has been sold but not paid for) and to use as a tool to both plan, 

implement and measure land use policy implementation across the 

relevant agencies which should include the Ministry of Agriculture and 

Forestry. These agencies existing GIS resources (macro and micro 

land use data sets / controls) are currently either non-existent, or uncoordinated 

and poorly managed (incorrect projections, varying 

degrees of metadata integrity, etc). This has resulted from sporadic GIS 

data collection efforts over the years (as opposed to any criticism of 

staff members – all of whom are restricted through limited resources, 

lack of cross-departmental coordinated effort and no digital base 

mapping) and would benefit greatly from a common, coordinated 

National GIS with new base mapping and relevant training, controls 

and integration into a land use policy framework. This is likely to be a 

key deliverable if the LTARP is to arrive at coherent reforms which 

deliver beneficial change across both public and private sector land 

ownership interests in Dominica and a key tool in the engagement of 

all agencies involved in the implementation of land use policy and 

land management – from Agriculture, Forestry, Eco-Tourism. 

2.3.4 Reasons For Owning Land 

2.3.4.1 Land in an island such as Dominica is by its nature in limited supply. 

Moreover, in an island like Dominica where agriculture is a primary use (for 

which land is a primary requirement), it has been and remains of deep social, 

political and economic importance to its population. There are many 

reasons for people wishing to own land, which may be generally summarised 

as follows :- 

i) As a place to live. 

ii) In order to farm either at a subsistence level, or to make a commercial 

farming profit. 

iii) To develop for residential, commercial, touristic or for other reasons, 

with a view to either personally making a living in those activities, or to 

make a profit by selling it on to others to do the same; 

iv) As an individual reserve with a view to doing any of the above 

activities at some point in time. Effectively this often amounts to 




owning land for its own sake; i.e. effectively holding land for 

speculative purposes; which in itself may not be undesirable and 

performing a useful economic function; but if other circumstance 

ensure that it is not used (and that is the case in Dominica), that 

certainly exaggerates the problems that in part this paper seeks to 

address. 

v) A similar reason but in many people’s view, land in the Caribbean is 

widely held as security purposes (perhaps to support a loan for other 

investments) – but of course family land is not available to do so. 

2.3.4.2 The wish to own land for its own sake, without any articulated purpose, is a 

common human characteristic and is probably particularly strongly held in 

Dominica. To be fair, the ownership of land without any particular purpose, 

just in the hope that things will turn out well, has often proved well justified. 

Land has been a very good investment and its success is not so much 

dependent on whether it is used for agriculture or not. 

2.3.4.3 The point being that, people hold land and are not concerned with farming 

the land or not. 

2.3.4.4 Clearly an outcome of this White Paper is to provide land owners not utilising 

land, good cause to have their land farmed, or make it available to farm 

while they hold it for other purposes. This is particularly relevant in a small 

island such as Dominica. It is important to emphasise that holding land in itself 

is not an issue to discourage; the point being to put it to, or make it available 

for its productive and best economic use in the interim. This is where land use 

and agricultural seems to have fallen down in Domincia. 

2.3.5 Physical Planning Policy 

2.3.5.1 A strong planning regime informs the community about the possible future 

uses of an individual piece of land. It may be that the Planners identify a 

piece of land as suitable for development, whereas another piece they 

make clear unequivocally will not be used for anything other than agriculture. 

In such a regime, the values associated to the land reflect the planning that 

will be available. Developers seek only to buy land which has the support of 

planning. Under such a planning regime, the value of farmland, for the most 

part, reflects its farming capabilities rather than any future potential and is 

more likely therefore to be realistically funded out of an agricultural activity. 

2.3.5.2 In Dominica (and in the rest of the Caribbean) the primary point of planning 

control is by controlling sub-division. The proposition in the past has been, 

that if one has consent to subdivide, then one ought to have on that subdivision, 

permission for at least one house. Originally this may have been 

because there was a view that if farming were to be carried out on that land, 




then the owner needed to reside on it. Sub-division is sought primarily as a 

means of obtaining consent for a dwelling; or subdividing a parcel of land off 

a larger parcel to facilitate a “house spot” to be sold or transferred with a real 

or inferred value of a house spot. Subsequent sub-divisions seek to achieve 

the same. The result is that in many cases, what was former agricultural land, 

gradually falls into residential use. 

2.3.5.3 The consequence of this phenomenon is that land which might be thought of 

as agricultural is viewed by its owners as potential development land and is 

valued in financial terms on that basis. In the eastern Caribbean particularly; 

this has directly resulted in land values moving rapidly away from agricultural 

land being sold at say EC$15-30,000/acre; and instead subdivided land 

parcels (or even large land areas) being sold at residential values of several 

EC$/sqft (perhaps EC$6-12 /sqft in Dominica). 

2.3.5.4 In a world in which agriculture is not well structured or profitable, where (for 

reasons set out below) agricultural tenants are not freely available, there is 

little incentive to put land forward for farming use. Its owner’s primary 

concern is to have it readily available for development. 

2.3.5.5 In Dominica, this project team found that the planning regime is weak and 

suffers from the disadvantages of:- 

i) Sub-division issues are not automatically brought to the Planners 

attention. Indeed, the Registrar regards it as his legal duty to proceed 

with sub-division (“hatching off”) even without planning consent. 

ii) The Planning Department is under-resourced and physically some 

distance from the rest of the land based Government agencies. 

iii) There is no definitive land use plan, or policy. It is true that the Chief 

Planning Officer generally has a view about what should be permitted 

where and will base his/her recommendations for consent on that, but 

this view is not well defined and is not available to the public by means 

of a plan or otherwise. 

iv) Whilst it is important that planning decisions should be competently 

and technically made, they should also be transparent, certain and 

consistent. The Planning Committee needs to be strengthened and its 

decisions should follow policy; and if overturned, only in the full glare of 

public knowledge. 




2.3.6 Alien (Non National) Land Purchases 

2.3.6.1 During consultation, there were many complaints that land was not used and 

was unaffordable to the farming community because it was purchased by 

non nationals who were holding land for speculative purposes with a view 

ultimately to development. It is difficult to tell without further research how far 

this phenomenon is really the case, nor is it clear that local land purchasers 

would not have purchased land for exactly the same reasons had they been 

able to so; but did not, given the greater funds available to non nationals. It 

may be that the land in question would have been held for speculative 

purposes in any event. 

2.3.6.2 There are a number of readily identifiable examples where this is the case; for 

example the Everton Hall Estate, Sugar Loaf Estate, etc., where land is clearly 

held for higher value use and development and not available for agricultural 

use as a result. However, the issue here is not that of Non Nationals owning 

land and being able to afford or out bid local owners to do so (indeed in 

both of these examples there are Dominican owners involved (although they 

may be living abroad). The issue is one of Planning and Land Use policy that 

affords the opportunity and belief that to own land in Dominica, will result in 

subdivision and development value for what was once agricultural land – 

and hence substantial financial gains from turning land from perhaps 

EC$10,000 - 20,000/acre to EC$4-10/sqft. Indeed GoCD may quite properly 

suffer the same dilemma or requirements for quite proper long term built 

development reasons - e.g. the Cotton Hill Estate to the North East of 

Portsmouth. 

2.3.6.3 It is certainly true that the current rather vague Alien Land Licensing 

regulations, combined with weak Planning policy is conducive to attracting 

speculative land investment in an attractive part of the World on an Island 

where land supply is limited. However, who ever buys the land (returning 

Nationals, local business community, or well funded Non Nationals), it may 

be that the land in question would have been held for speculative purposes 

in any event; the issue is simply how much was paid for it. 

2.3.6.4 The point to consider in this paper, is not that of holding land for speculative 

investment value in itself (though as discussed later; if this becomes the sole 

reason for acquiring and holding land, there are implications for value and 

any ownership funded by agricultural returns), but its actual current use and 

why it is not used productively in the meantime; even if it is being held for 

speculative reasons. 

2.3.7 Reluctance of Landowners to Let 

2.3.7.1 The Terms of Reference on which this Consultancy and subsequent White 

Paper are based, makes the assumption that there was widespread 




reluctance of Landowners to let land, mostly for non-economic reasons. The 

consultations indicate that this view is correct and the reasons cited were :- 

i) Fear of Adverse Possession - Fear of letting a tenant onto land and 

being unable to recover it. For non-registered land in Dominica, the 

period to require possessory title (adverse possession) against an 

owner is 12 years. This is not a particularly long period of time in a 

country where many people are abroad for much of the time and 

where in any event, land is often inaccessible. Whether justified or not, 

many Landowners simply prefer to have no income from their land 

and see it fall into disuse, rather than accept a tenant who may in due 

course finish up the owner of that land through an adverse possession 

claim. 

ii) Landlords have argued that the main reason for many wishing to be 

an agricultural tenant is not actually to farm, but to obtain occupation 

which may in time lead to ownership. 

iii) Concerns of possible degradation of land through inappropriate or 

unpreventable use by tenants. 

iv) Lack of Confidence in the recourse to Law - The extreme difficulty of 

dealing with a recalcitrant tenant. There is a view, whether justified or 

not, among the landowning community that recourse to Law to obtain 

possession, recover rent, or prevent a tenant carrying out activities that 

are regarded as improper, is slow, expensive and uncertain. 

v) The risks of having to provide compensation for improvements, 

especially tree crops, which will not be reflected in the value of the 

land should possession be recovered. Clearly, if land is held in the 

hope of ultimate development, it is worth no more if it has a crop of 

expensive fruit trees for which compensation has to be paid. If that is 

a fear, such an owner may well think it is better to leave the land 

unused. 

vi) Lack of suitable tenants. It is remarkable that although the 

consultation process regularly heard that there is very little land 

available to let, many Landowners also reported that they were 

unable to find suitable tenants. There may be technical reasons for 

this, which are discussed below, but it is probably also because the 

market lacks transparency. Individuals simply do not know what is 

available and who would be prepared to farm it. There is, moreover, 

no obvious means at present of publicising those requirements. 




2.3.8 The Landlord’s Needs 

2.3.8.1 In common with other jurisdictions, before Landlords will let land, they 

therefore need to be sure that they are letting to an approved tenant on 

terms which will mean they can:- 

i) recover possession quickly should development ever be 

possible without payment of compensation and; 

ii) access to a speedy and safe means to ensure they retain 

possession and can recover the land as appropriate. 

2.3.8.2 Given the view of many owners (and certainly all the speculative owners) 

that the purpose of land ownership is ultimately for built development, this 

highlights the role of Planning. Planning Policy has to be stronger in order that 

the landowners view is that they will not be able to develop all land for 

change of use for development outside specific areas where development is 

to be, or likely to be encouraged (e.g. environmental, economic, social). 

2.3.9 The Tenant’s needs 

2.3.9.1 Unlike Landlords non-agricultural uses for land, an agricultural tenant’s needs 

should be entirely bound to the profitability of farming. He / she should have 

no other use for the land, other than to feed him / herself, or to provide the 

means to earn money from sales to others. Essentially, it needs to be a 

commercial arrangement for the tenant. The tenant therefore requires:- 

i) Land at a rent which will leave a margin for profit. 

ii) Sufficient security to justify the tenants investment. 

2.3.9.2 This leads to a particular difficulty for bringing land back into use (from a 

derelict state). If farmland is in good condition and capable of earning a 

profit immediately, then a tenant farmer might be happy to take it for a short 

period, perhaps even a single season. But if the land is in poor condition or 

derelict, it will take time, money and effort to bring it back into production. 

For that to be justified, the tenant farmer needs to know either that he/she is 

going to receive compensation for their work, or that he/she is going to 

occupy the land for long enough to recover the investment out of future 

profits. 

2.3.9.3 Just as Landlords have difficulty in finding suitable tenants, so there is regular 

complaint that farmland which might be available to rent is not in the public 

domain. Competent tenants have no easy route to access even to that 

land which might be available. They have to do so by word of mouth, 

private enquiring and extensive, time consuming and often very uncertain 

research. 




2.3.10 Praedial Larceny 

2.3.10.1 In recent years this issue has assumed greater importance. The project only 

gathered anecdotal evidence of it, but both farmers, the Ministry of 

Agriculture and the Police themselves confirm that they see it as a serious 

current problem. This is no longer just an issue of small scale theft, but in 

many cases, theft of whole crops. It is a direct disincentive to farm. 

2.3.10.2 The losses here are not just of the crop itself but there is considerable damage 

to the morale of the farming community, leading probably to land being 

given up and certain types of crops avoided. Certainly in the course of the 

consultations, it was raised as a major issue by all participants in the industry. 

2.3.11 Communication and Interaction between GoCD Departments 

2.3.11.1 By its nature, it is clearly difficult to demonstrate exactly how far 

communication is a fundamental problem in the management of land issues 

in GoCD, but it is certainly viewed as a problem by Stakeholders themselves 

(delays in issuing Title, etc) and as previously commented, the Consultancy 

suspected it is a major contributor to lack of efficiency in both policy creation 

and delivery (e.g. Planning, Subdivision approval, etc) 

2.3.11.2 However, it should also be pointed out, that it is not considered a result of any 

lack of goodwill on the part of the various GoCD offices and staff. The 

principal point of contact with Government Stakeholders in the round for the 

Consultancy has been at the Steering Committee meetings and separately in 

individual dialogue. The Consultancy team was particularly impressed with 

the enthusiasm and willingness to cooperate between the various Agencies 

at these meetings. Indeed, the meetings have been remarkable for the 

vigour, intellectual rigour and friendliness of the discussions. We believe 

therefore that the difficulties in delivering and developing policy arise out of 

physical location and resource / capacity limitations which this paper seeks 

to resolve. 

2.3.12 Carib Land 

2.3.12.1 Carib land has similar issues to family land. Ownership to the whole area now 

resides with the Carib Council,. Occupation of the vast majority of it has been 

held by individuals often for generations. They have no formally recognised title, 

or even lease or right of occupation which could be used as security. There is 

the additional difficulty in Carib land, that the right to share in ownership or 

occupation is restricted to Caribs. Moreover, as a result of these difficulties there 

is only limited history of debt management by Caribs and no evidence available 

to potential lenders of what the value of Carib land might be. 




2.3.12.2 Carib Territory illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of communally 

owned land. On the one hand there is no doubt that the Carib community has 

developed an admirable cohesion and community sense, at least partly as a 

result of communally owned assets. We believe there really is a sense that land 

is meant to support the whole community. 

2.3.12.3 On the other hand, the Carib community is denied its principal asset as a means 

for individuals to raise capital for development of all sorts. It is also true that 

although land is a community asset most of it has in practice been occupied by 

individuals for their own use for long periods, often many generations. 

2.3.12.4 A Carib farmer may expect to occupy his land without cost or interruption of 

occupation. He is entitled to pass it on to his successor. He may work it and 

develop it to make a profit. While he may not sell the title to property, he is in 

practice able to sell the crops and trees (which if the price is right might amount 

to the same thing) to anyone else providing they are a Carib. We also 

understand that where the community is recovering land for community wide 

developments, or for leasing to outside developers for the community’s benefit, 

then he may expect to receive compensation for the occupation he has just lost. 

To a large extent these are the functions of ownership, all that is lacking is the 

formal title and exact definition of what he owns both physically and legally. 

2.3.12.5 There is a second difficulty for a Carib using land individually as a mortgagable 

asset. It is little use to a Banker to have the entitlement to recover property from 

a defaulter if he cannot occupy it himself, or sell it to someone else to occupy. 

Repossession may be an inhibition to the owner, but of small use to the repossessor 

unless it can be turned into cash. It is clearly entirely against the spirit 

of the Carib community that land should be sold outside the community. 

Therefore, even if one can provide by fresh legislation a mortgagable title or 

similar, then value may be limited if the potential purchasers have to be Caribs. It 

does not necessarily follow that because the market is small, values are low; that 

depends on the relative supply and demand. This is not a matter of principle but 

more a matter of valuation and practical effect. 

2.3.12.6 There is still discussion within the Carib community as to how far these reforms 

should go. A good deal of flexibility is possible before final reforms are enacted. 

For example, it would not be necessary for all Carib territory land to be included 

in any scheme. The precise manner and nature of the private interests referred 

to in 2.3.12.4 could certainly be varied; nor is there any requirement to equate to 

freehold ownership; long leases might also be appropriate, but for any scheme 

to be effective the following characteristics are essential. 

i) The interests should be clearly defined both as to the rights they carry 

and their spatial extent;. 

ii) They must be transferrable for value and capable of being the subject 

of default. It is not necessary for these to be freely available for 

purchase outside the Carib community. After all, many regimes 

restrict potential purchasers perhaps by limiting purchase to people 

with licences or other qualifications, or by restricting purchase to 




nationals. Limiting the market may affect value and subsequently limit 

the amount of mortgage that could be raised, but those are issues of 

valuation rather than principal. 

2.3.12.7 These instruments of ownership are new and it is likely that they will not be 

acceptable to banking institutions until there is experience in their transfer, an 

open verifiable market has been established and experience by Carib farmers of 

debt management can be demonstrated. It is proposed therefore to establish a 

specialist Carib Bank supported by Government to manage Carib lending until 

these characteristics are achieved. 

2.3.12.8 It is crucial that this new institution should not be seen as a means of direct 

assistance to the Carib community, but rather that it should be rigorously 

commercially managed. 




3 GOALS FOR REFORM OF LAND TENANCY ARRANGEMENTS 

3.1 The Security of Tenure Dilemma 

3.1.1 The Terms of Reference seeks a regime ensuring security of tenure for tenants 

and compensation for improvements made, while simultaneously ensuring the 

rights of owners to retain possession of the land at the termination of the 

tenancy. There may certainly be cases where there can be a mutuality of 

interest between landlord and tenant. It is intended to set out in this White 

Paper, measures and legislative proposals which will achieve that, but it is also 

important to recognise that this is a genuine dilemma. There are very many 

cases where the landlord’s and tenant’s interests are not capable of easy 

agreement. It is therefore important to deal with these issues within a wider 

range of proposals which seek, at least partly, to remove some of the causes of 

that antipathy, and to offer possibilities to overcome it. 

3.1.2 It was widely noted during a number of the consultations, both by this team and 

by previous teams, that there is very widespread antipathy between the 

landowning community and the potential tenant farming community. 

3.1.3 In the past, there has been no tradition on the one hand of letting to good 

tenants and on the other hand, there is a general view that paying rent is one of 

the smaller of one’s obligations; indeed the States actions in non-rigorous 

commercial management of its own State Land interests over the last 20 years or 

so, give good cause to that view. 

3.1.4 There is a view held by many landowners that tenants seek to obtain land simply 

in order to eventually become its owners, rather than using it for farming. 

Equally, many farmers believe that landowners are withholding land from 

farming because they have no obligation to the community generally and are 

unconcerned about the lack of opportunities for their fellow citizens. 

3.2 Management of Lands by the State 

3.2.1 The role of State land ownership should not be neglected. There is a good deal 

of land formerly acquired by the GoCD from large private owners with a view to 

redistribution amongst the previous workers of the Estate – an understandable 

socio-political policy of the time; these land redistributions were significant in 

scale and the creation of a new sector of landowners within the population. 

3.2.2 However, these schemes have been only very partially successful for two main 

reasons:- 




i) They have been used by some of the former workers (now owners), as an 

access to residential development and financial gain through sale for 

residential use. The agricultural intention of the redistribution has often 

been lost in favour of seeking growth in land values out of subdivision and 

subsequent residential development. 

ii) The original schemes were usually on the basis of a sale on a mortgage (to 

the State). Very often these have not been commercially managed by 

the State. There are widespread arrears and until relatively recently (since 

2001), no concerted activity in recovering them. This has enabled people 

to retain access to ownership (if not actual title) without actually farming. 

3.2.3 There have even been examples where the State has positively encouraged 

people to squat (e.g. Cotton Hill Estate). 

3.2.4 The commercial management of rented or mortgaged land is important; as if 

rents or mortgage payments are not collected; and if someone who perhaps for 

good reason is going to give up farming (e.g. wishes to retire from farming, move 

away, etc); there is no incentive for that individual to give the land parcel up for 

someone else to farm it. 

3.2.5 Indeed where the State may have sold land at preferentially low values; as in the 

case of the redistributions for example at Castle Bruce; there is a direct incentive 

on those who have acquired land (subject to mortgage) to test the States 

resolve to stand firm on the 10 year encumbrance on sale post State grant. 

3.2.6 It is fair to say that in all of the farmer discussions that took place as part of the 

consultation process; there was a complaint that even when State land grants 

were fully paid; allocations of certificates of title were slow or not forthcoming. 

Clearly commercial and transparent arrangements are incumbent on the State 

whether as landlord or vendor of land subject to mortgage. 

3.3 Development of the Tenanted Sector - The Land Bank 

3.3.1 The model of a Land Bank is in principle, relatively simple. The concept is that 

land should be provided by the State, or private individuals, to a body which 

could be guaranteed and perhaps managed by the State with a view to the 

land being let (or perhaps ultimately sold) to private farmers who otherwise 

would not have access to land. 

3.3.2 It has been tried, often not very successfully, in many parts of the world including 

the Eastern Caribbean. Indeed, the redistribution regime set out above had 

some qualities of a Land Bank about it. The idea is again current in the Eastern 

Caribbean. There is a current FAO proposal to introduce a Land Bank model 

across the Eastern Caribbean (FAO TCP Project Facility TCP/RLA/3201). 




3.3.3 There is a widely held view especially among Government Stakeholders that 

“Land Bank” is an unhelpful name. Perhaps National Land Management 

Scheme might be better, or a return to the Land Management Authority title of 

the 1970’s. 

3.3.4 Whatever the title, key to success will be commercial management of the land 

portfolio; attracting private landowners to vest their land within it and certainly a 

presumption to let to tenants as opposed to sale. The objective being to make 

the land bank of “holdings” perpetually available to a commercial agricultural 

tenanted sector. 

3.3.5 Indeed there is also a wider goal here; to project and to make a reality of the 

view of agriculture (perhaps with the availability of starter tenanted units) as a 

business for profit and personal business development; as opposed to a 

subsistence activity for a certain sector of society. This paper does not seek to 

suggest that has been, or is the State’s objective. However, it is clear within the 

Eastern Caribbean as a whole and certainly in Dominica too, that there is much 

to do to raise the profile and standing of Agriculture as a business for financial 

reward to attract, train and develop young people to be the land managers 

and food producers of tomorrow. Indeed, to be part of an industry that seeks to 

embrace technology, collaborate, invest and develop markets and production 

processes to 1 st World standards, synonymous with a successful agricultural sector 

for the future. The role of the State in seeking to facilitate that delivery will go well 

beyond that of commercially managing a Land Bank, but access to land is a 

necessary first step. 

3.3.6 The past policies of land redistribution and affording the opportunity for former 

plantation or land workers to become land owners and farmers in their own right 

may have delivered many benefits; but developing a dynamic, cohesive, 

efficient and profitable producer base that can withstand and adapt to the 

vagaries of the market and the decline of the preferential market access for 

bananas, was not one of them. 

3.3.7 A single level of rent across all holdings will not be appropriate (as condition, 

access, soils, nature of cropping permitted, etc will all vary); but typical levels of 

rent mentioned in consultations with farmers have ranged from $400-$1200/acre 

to 33% of output on banana share cropping schemes. 

3.3.8 The prime goal of this paper is to provide 

i) a legislative framework to facilitate the emergence of an agricultural 

landlord: tenant sector that operates commercially, with a Land Bank 

concept as the catalyst to do so; and 

ii) land use and planning policy creating clear definition between development 

of the built environment and agricultural land use to provide greater 

incentive to hold and utilise land for production (as a business and to 

develop the agricultural sector) as opposed to speculation alone for built 

development gains (i.e. for housing or commercial property use). 




4 PROPOSALS 

4.1 The Approach 

4.1.1 The approach to the background work and analysis to provide conclusions 

and recommendations for this project has been one of consultation and 

engagement throughout, both with the relevant GoCD agencies tasked with 

dealing with matters relating to land tenure, (Registry, Lands and Surveys, 

Physical Planning, Agriculture, and others) and also with the private sector 

stakeholders through meetings and dialogue with farmers, landowners, 

professionals involved with land tenure matters (lawyers, bankers, etc) and 

the community at large through a number of radio phone in sessions and 

community meetings. 

4.1.2 Those consultations have been used to gain understanding of the current 

process, procedure and practice, together with failings and the general 

views of stakeholders as to how matters might be improved; plus their 

reaction to the Consultant team’s early findings and conclusions. 

4.1.3 A review has taken place of the relevant Acts that fall to be considered 

under this project and impact on land tenure, together with a review of the 

work undertaken in 2009 by this Consultant team under the Legislation 

Review of the Title By Registration Act (1886) and the Land Survey Act (1988). 

4.1.4 The proposals divide into four broad categories:- 

i) Recommendations for ammendments to Legislation. 

ii) Practical steps to be taken to improve the “market place” for letting of 

agricultural land. 

iii) Institutional capacity improvements and changes to procedures. 

iv) The need for new orthophoto / imagery data capture to provide new 

base mapping and ensure that a GIS based application can be put into 

use across all relevant GoCD agencies which, with ULIS, will provide a 

complete system to unify the workings of the Registry, Lands and Surveys 

and Physical Planning (in all matters with respect to Land) to provide the 

efficiency and transparency improvements in those functions and 

controls that this paper raises. 




4.2 Data Capture 

4.2.1 Whilst the Consultant team is confident that this project’s findings make a 

proper background for these proposals, there is a lack of clear statistical and 

factual evidence available on which to base solid analysis. Views on land 

tenure, land use and ownership are deeply held in Dominica (as elsewhere) 

and It is important therefore, that ongoing research and records should be 

maintained to both establish and quantify changes in use, ownership, tenure 

and to provide solid evidence for any subsequent legislation changes that 

might be required. The ULIS system once in place and complete for all 

Registered Titles, and loaded with all surveyed land parcels (importantly as 

geo-referenced parcels which can be viewed on a GIS base mapping), will 

track changes in ownership, value on sale/transfer and make analysis of 

movements in land much easier to identify. However, without a change in 

the practice of leaving undivided shares in land as “Family Land” (public 

awareness and education). there will be no tracking of the extent of land 

held in this way and the potential damaging consequences for Dominica 

that have been described earlier in this report. 

4.2.2 We recommend therefore, a new Agricultural Census of the sort carried out 

in 1995/6, but on a broader basis accurately to gather data on land 

use/tenure and including use of GIS/GPS to assist in the use of Census data 

to guide policy decision making. In particular, it is important to establish the 

extent of family land holding, factually to discover exactly how much land is 

unused, where it exists and the nature of the various owners, potential 

tenants and so on. Given the advancement in GPS/GIS technology (and 

reducing cost) over the last 10 years; a regular Agricultural Census delivered 

in this way need not be hugely costly to deliver; but would provide base 

data to assist in fuelling the Land bank concept and also assist in guiding 

ongoing policy making if there is to be a coordinated effort to encourage a 

new approach to agriculture. 

4.2.3 Undoubtedly a mass Land Registration exercise (as carried out in St Lucia in 

1984-88) would be the ideal objective, but as set out within the TbyR and LS 

Review, the costs of doing so, without external donor funding, will be 

prohibitive and instead a compulsory first registration of title on any transfers 

or subdivisions is recommended (to adopted survey standards) so as to build 

a land cadastre within ULIS (or a GIS application loading ULIS data) over 

time. It is vital that the Lands and Survey department are stakeholders within 

that system and have the capacity to plot/load/digitise and approve survey 

plans for each and every surveyed land parcel and as a result, build a Land 

Cadastre that is of value to all stakeholders in the public and private sector. 

4.2.4 Both the delivery of an Agricultural Census and the creation of an Island 

wide Land Cadastre that is populated over time, will greatly benefit from the 

availability of new orthophoto imagery suitable for base mapping and will 




be significantly more difficult and expensive to deliver without it (if indeed it 

would be deliverable at all). 

4.3 Legislation Amendments 

4.3.1 General Commentary 

4.3.1.1 The review of the TbyR Act and LS Act included specific recommendations 

with regard to those Acts, the Survey Regulations and Registry procedures 

(detailed within section 6 and Appendices 2, 3 and 5 of that report and 

detailed within the legislation ammendments submitted alongside this White 

Paper). 

4.3.1.2 Those recommendations are repeated here (section 4.3.2 to 4.3.6) for ease of 

reference and in particular this paper seeks to draw attention to: 

i) There should be a process for the registration of land charges over 

unregistered land, especially easements; 

ii) The Registrar should not register a transfer (or transfer of part) until 

the Director of Planning has approved the subdivision and the 

Chief Surveyor has approved the new survey for the land parcel 

created – i.e. the informal process of transferring title through 

“hatching off” should cease. 

iii) The Mortgage Reform Process. 

iv) The importance of approved survey plans – in all cases. 

v) Greater controls and clarity over registration in respect of Non 

Nationals (aliens) – that is to say that the process should not 

necessarily be discouraged, but that land use and planning 

controls must be transparently and rigorously applied. 

vi) The registration process would be better handled by the Registrar 

without the need to refer to a Judge. Even in contested 

applications, the appeal should be to Arbitration and not a Judge. 

4.3.2 Mortgage Reform 

4.3.2.1 Lending Institutions currently complain that arrangements in Dominica are 

unduly slow, cumbersome and expensive, and that the business of providing 

mortgages is adversely affected. It is of course important that debtors are 

protected from unfair treatment, but the majority of borrowers who properly 

fulfil their obligations should not effectively be required to subsidise a minority 

who take advantage of a system to avoid their obligations. 




i) Caveats are a useful, simple and cheap device but they are not as 

flexible as a traditional mortgage and do not provide for second 

mortgages or other burdens and interests. They also slow the 

default process as an additional hearing is required to convert to 

mortgage prior to default proceedings being undertaken. It would 

be better if a mortgage could be completed initially. 

i) The principal disincentive to use a mortgage as the first line of 

security, is one of cost. Mortgages are potentially revenue raising 

instruments. Given that their use in the first instance is limited, 

revenue only flows at the time of caveat conversion usually as a 

result of potential default. Little revenue if any would be lost if the 

point of taxation recognised commercial reality and was made at 

judgement for possession rather than at the original execution of a 

mortgage. 

4.3.2.2 The present procedure for dealing with default is also slow by reason of the 

number of hearings required, often with repeated return to the Court to deal 

with reducing “upset prices” which are sometimes in excess of six. It is 

recommended that the procedure be simplified as follows:- 

i) A conversion from Caveat (if required). 

ii) A single hearing dealing with judgement and to settle the 

appropriate action for sale. 

iii) It is recognised that the present system provides opportunities for a 

defaulter to protect himself perhaps by winning time to pay, or to 

obtain a preferred purchaser. It is considered that such protection 

should not hide behind Court procedure but be transparent and:- 

a) There would remain a requirement for Notice of Default or 

Application for Judgement with an adequate time limit, of 

one month. 

b) The Court would be empowered to delay operation of the 

seizure and subsequent sale to give the borrower a 

reasonable opportunity to repay. 

4.3.2.3 It is of concern that the method of sale usually now employed may not 

always be the quickest or most effective way of selling. Although it is 

understood that other methods of sale can sometimes be used, the usual 

practice is as set out in the Act in considerable detail. It provides for a public 

auction and Tender subject to a Court approved upset price, which can, by 

returning to the Court, be progressively reduced should the tender fail. 




4.3.2.4 The need for an element of independent valuation is recognised and for 

transparency to protect the lender from charges of impropriety and the 

borrower from his property being sold too cheaply, but it is understood that 

the practice is for limited advertising and for the process to be a passive one, 

mostly using solicitors rather than a more active one perhaps using an Estate 

Agent. 

4.3.2.5 It is also recognised that property market conditions in Dominica may 

determine the most appropriate method, and may well justify the method 

currently used, but they are likely to vary from time to time and property to 

property. It should be possible to vary sale methodology to take into account 

these changes. 

4.3.2.6 The present rather prescriptive method of sale should be replaced by 

instructions to the Court allowing and encouraging a more proactive 

approach to sales and giving more flexibility :- 

4.3.3 Caveats 

a) Upset or minimum prices should be set at a level to give a 

reasonable prospect of an immediate sale. 

b) The lender/seizer should be required to provide marketing 

proposals including details of advertising, use of agents, 

proposed particulars, method of sale, etc., which should be 

judged on its suitability to achieve a sale within a reasonable 

time at a proper price. 

c) There should be no need to return to the Court to consider sales 

at a lower figure than the original upset or minimum price, but 

the Court’s approval would be required to accept such a price. 

4.3.3.1 Increased flexibility should be considered. At present a caveat prevents any 

dealing with the property. Reform should provide a more limited effect so 

that dealings could take place where appropriate, but subject to the 

caveat. 

4.3.4 Adverse Possession 

4.3.4.1 It is proposed to remove adverse possession as a means of obtaining title in 

Dominica. It is seen as a barrier to encouraging Landowners to let land and a 

direct incentive to squatting. Moreover it is clear that it certainly has not 

assisted at all in the use of land for agriculture and the avoidance of land 

becoming idle. Indeed, it is this projects conclusion that, in conjunction with 

an expectation that development is generally achievable on rural land in 

Dominica, it has directly contributed to land falling out of productive use. 

4.3.4.2 It is therefore recommended that it should no longer be possible to obtain 

title to registered land by possessory means. We recognise that in 




consequence it is possible that land might be sterilised in the long-term by the 

disappearance of an owner. It is suggested therefore that in the absence of 

an identified owner for a period longer than say 30 years, such land should 

revert to the State. This will not affect accrued squatter's rights, but will 

prevent owners being dispossessed in future. 

4.3.5 Strata Titles 

4.3.5.1 There should be a familiarisation process and the forms and process adjusted, 

especially if as it is envisaged, more development of this nature will occur. 

The Strata Titles Registration Act 56:52 and subsidiary legislation should be 

updated and more guidance issued as to its use. 

4.3.5.2 This may be particularly relevant as legislation which is to encourage more 

market related development to Dominica, operating of course within 

planning and physical development policy. 

4.3.6 Survey Regulations. 

4.3.6.1 The Land Survey Act provides for Survey Regulations to be laid down, 

although this has never been done. It is now vital that Survey Regulations are 

prepared and authorised as soon as possible to ensure that all new surveys, 

and sales of land with existing surveys, are accurate, delivered and 

performed to the new survey standards and capable of being automatically 

uploaded/integrated into the new unified land information system. For the 

avoidance of doubt, all future land transfers should be accompanied by a 

survey carried out to the standard of the Survey Regulations, and approved 

by the Chief Surveyor as required under the Land Survey Act. It is 

acknowledged that this will not lead to an immediate island wide cadastral 

survey, but it will populate it over time. Incentives, or new compulsory 

‘triggers’, could then be put in place for a period to encourage land owners 

to register land – again donor or grant assistance for Govt to facilitate those 

incentives might be considered (e.g. a period of assisted survey costs, 

waiving of fees, etc might be considered appropriate). The draft survey 

regulations produced by Lands and Surveys and recommendations on them, 

is included within the TbyR and LS Act Review report at Appendix 5. In 

addition, the adopted St Lucia Survey Regulations (amended 2001) are also 

illustrated there (with commentary by this project team) in case the Chief 

Surveyor wishes to adopt and amend those in conjunction with the existing 

draft. 

4.3.6.2 Survey Guidance. It is considered that it is appropriate to leave detailed 

technical issues to a set of guidance notes which can be updated on a 

regular basis without necessarily being incorporated within the Survey 

Regulation. These should be produced by the Survey Board in conjunction 

with the Chief Surveyor. Guidelines for Surveyors should be introduced as a 

supporting document produced and revised regularly by the Survey Board in 




conjunction with the Chief Surveyor. This would cover such topics as the 

national control network, calibration procedures for instruments, references to 

the latest GNSS techniques and equipment, materials for survey marks, etc. 

4.3.7 Agricultural Tenancies and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 

4.3.7.1 The current Small Tenancies Act has many merits but could be improved through 

amendment, or as a model for a new act to be included for all agricultural 

tenancies. 

4.3.7.2 Proposals for a new draft Agricultural Tenancies Act are set out in detail within 

the drafting instructions submitted alongside this White Paper. A format for a new 

contract of tenancy also appears in the First Schedule of the Agricultural 

Tenancies Act submitted for drafting and is included for reference at Appendix I 

of this document. 

4.3.7.3 It is intended that the First Schedule (illustrated at Appendix I) will become the 

short form tenancy agreement and be widely available for use between all 

landlords and tenants; including those tenants of the State, or a Land Bank. 

4.3.7.4 It should be noted that particular proposals are:- 

a) There should be a fall back position for all tenancies, that this Act 

applies as though it were a written agreement and that therefore all 

tenancies whether written or oral within Dominica, can look to a body 

of specialist law from which the terms on which they are held can be 

clearly known to both Landlord and Tenant. The fall back position for 

all agreements will include freedom to determine the term, 

compensation provisions and the basis on which rent is calculated, but 

the Act will also provide model clauses available to provide 

alternatives for longer terms, or for those with particular needs for 

compensation or rental provision; i.e. model clauses will apply to all 

oral agreements. 

b) Currently disputes in land matters fall to the High Court. This is 

regarded by most people as slow, expensive and time consuming. 

Moreover, the Court has limited resources and providing additional 

resources is not only expensive, but actually physically difficult. It is 

proposed therefore that disputes arising out of this Act should have 

recourse to law only on matters of law and that disputes in general 

should be referred to Arbitration. There has been a suggestion that 

rather than arbitration, a Land Court might be established. This Paper 

puts aside this proposal primarily on the grounds that it would require 

establishment of a new organisation itself and that there is a danger 

therefore, that it will simply duplicate bureaucracy. The nature of 

arbitration is that the parties themselves provide the dispute framework 

and it is within their power to determine the time, expense and way of 




proceeding. However, some rules are required and indeed are 

provided within the current Dominica Code of Arbitration but it is 

believed in these circumstances the code should also provide for:- 

i) Disputes to appear before either a single Arbitrator or a panel of 

Arbitrators either by agreement between the parties, or upon 

appointment by the Minister of Agriculture or perhaps National 

Land Co-ordinator, who will draw the Arbitrator/Arbitrators from 

a pre-populated panel of suitably qualified people, for example, 

lawyers, surveyors or agricultural experts. 

ii) In order that the process can proceed in a finite time and to 

avoid the opportunity for delay, it is proposed that the Act 

should provide strict time limits for appointment and settlement 

of Arbitrations. 

4.3.7.5 Standard form Rent Review and Break Clauses should be incorporated within 

the new Agricultural Tenancies with a rent review clause as follows:- 

4.4 Family Land 

a) The rent payable shall be the rent at which the Holding might 

reasonably be expected to be let on the open market between a 

willing landlord and a willing tenant taking into account the terms of 

the tenancy and disregarding:- 

i) any improvements provided under an obligation which are 

imposed on the Tenant by the terms of the Tenancy; 

ii) any dilapidation or deterioration to the Holding caused or 

permitted y the Tenant; 

but including any improvements for which any allowance or benefit 

has been given by the Landlord or for which compensation has been 

paid by the Landlord. 

b) Either the Landlord or the Tenant may determine the Tenancy by 

giving to the other notice in writing of not less than …………….. months 

expiring on …………….. 

4.4.1 It is proposed to make the rectification of family land situations easier and 

cheaper by:- 

i) Issues to be dealt with by Arbitration, as in disputes under the 

Agricultural Tenancies Act (rather than Law run by the Courts). We 

believe that generally family land issues are about the physical 

separation and valuation of assets. There are not often major issues 

of law and accordingly, to take out of the Courts and put into a 

practical disputes procedure has merit. 




ii) It is believed that this is such a major issue, that this is an occasion 

when Government should be prepared to provide a “carrot” as well 

as simply enabling opportunities. There should be a Stamp Duty 

Holiday to encourage rectification for a given period of time – 

perhaps 5 years (i.e. waiver from the 2% stamp duty and 10% vendors 

tax).. Such a concession would require a publicity campaign and 

delivery mechanism (i.e. formation of an arbitrators panel, etc). The 

end objective being to encourage partition of family land and to 

raise public awareness of the importance of doing so in dealing with 

family affairs and estates. 

iii) It is clear that the principal unavoidable costs of land rectification 

arise out of the practical business of division. Surveying a 

complicated multi-owned site, perhaps with different topographical 

features or different points of access is bound to be a difficult and 

expensive job for a surveyor. Accordingly it is considered that this is a 

sensible area for subsidy/support. It is believed that grant aid, or 

technical assistance for a pilot project from one of the Donor 

Agencies (e.g. EDF, or CDB) may be available given the impact on 

both Dominica and the potential to improve individual’s access to 

their land assets (currently locked up and inaccessible for any 

productive economic or personal benefit). Such aid / assistance be 

sought, potentially as a pilot, to meet some of the surveying costs as a 

means of freeing up family land and the subsequent land tenure 

position in Dominica. 

iv) It is believed that a major reason for the continuance of the family 

land situations is lack of incentive and lack of available funds to start 

the process of division. Either by guarantee to the Aid Bank, or 

directly from Government, seed funding be made available (secured 

against the holding). Given that funds advanced in this way can be 

recovered out of the property at a later date, we do not think this 

need be an onerous provision by Government if properly managed. 

Again publicity to raise the public awareness of why it is an issue and 

the opportunity of assistance to rectify will need to be a specific 

activity, together with capacity to deliver arbitration; surveying 

capacity (at reduced rates reflecting the workflow anticipated), etc. 

v) If, post a properly implemented pilot, the above measures of 

encouraging change to the practice of leaving land in undivided 

shares indefinitely; (i.e. as “Trusts for Sale” which is the technical 

vehicle under which family land is actually held); is not successful in 

achieving a tangible change to the practice of leaving undivided 

interests, or the existing family land status (measurement of the extent 

of land held this way will and should be measurable under ULIS); then 

some form of compulsion may be required. These might include 

measures such as:- 




4.5 Physical Planning 

a) A time limit for retaining within trust for sale before resolution is 

adopted. For example the possibility that all trusts be wound up 

within 5 years of creation, or in the alternative, that upon failure to 

wind up, Government might have the ability to undertake the task, 

recovering costs out of subsequent resolution (including the 

possibility of a sale). 

b) The beneficiaries be required to divide the interest, or to move 

ownership into a company structure within a given time frame; the 

benefit of the company structure to facilitate movement of 

shareholdings to improve the flexibility for outgoing beneficiaries 

and division of value for long term holding of land within the 

“family” if that is an objective, as opposed to the default option of 

“doing nothing” as exists at present. Though not resolving all the 

issues; a company structure may make changes easier to 

implement and facilitate a formal structure for decision making 

and actions. 

4.5.1 It is proposed to increase the prestige, resources and authority of the 

Planning Department. Public education is required to emphasise the 

importance of planning and indeed the need to obtain consent for all 

subdivisions and change of use of land. 

4.5.2 The provision of a tested and consulted land use plan is both difficult, time 

consuming and expensive, but there is no reason why an indicative plan 

setting out Physical Planning’s intentions should not be available. Such a 

plan should support a clear, unambiguous specific land use policy which 

among other things should include a presumption against development on 

agricultural land or within the Forest Reserve/National Park. 

4.5.3 The TbyR Act and the LS Act already carry provision for all surveys to be 

approved by the Chief Surveyor (though this is largely ignored). The Physical 

Planning Act should be amended in order that all sub-divisions require 

consent and that a separate application will then be required in order that a 

sub-division can be used for even one residential permission. The granting of 

a single residential permission on a sub-division should not be taken as 

automatic. 

4.5.4 Strong Government support should continue to be given to the Planning 

Department for exemplary enforcement of planning decisions. Indeed, it 

should do so with maximum publicity. It is strongly felt that if the community 

feels that planning will not be enforced, then the public will not respect it. 




4.5.5 The Technical committee will be strengthened by additional technically 

qualified members including those representing agriculture, development, 

public and commercial interests. As a result of their wider representation, the 

Committee’s decisions should only be overturned either at committee, or 

subsequently in Cabinet after public consultation. 

4.5.6 A single, but important amendment to the Physical Planning Act is 

recommended – primarily to ensure that planning consent is required for all 

subdivisions – i.e. to ensure that the process actually takes place, is 

documented and recorded (under ULIS) so that there will be data capture 

and full Planning knowledge of subdivisions taking place (and subsequent 

change of use – where currently there is none and certainly no means of 

controlling it). 

4.5.7 In Clause 2(1) of the Physical Planning Act, the definition of "development" 

should be amended by deleting paragraph (e) relating to the use of land for 

agriculture or forestry. Presently, this is an exclusion but, it is considered that 

sub-division should clearly be regarded as development, or the 

commencement of potential development/change of use and it is 

important that Physical Planning has both knowledge and control over the 

development process. 

4.5.8 Change of use of land from Agriculture or Forestry should also be regarded 

as development for which Planning Consent is required and this should be 

included within the Act. 

4.5.9 The need for improved data capture and recording systems has been 

discussed – it is considered essential that there is the ability to record 

consents referred to at 4.5.7 and 4.5.8 within ULIS and to upload approved 

survey plans of those subdivisions / land parcels in question in georeferenced 

digital format to a National GIS system correctly projected (in 

WGS 84) and accessible to Physical Planning and Land and Surveys, The 

National GIS (probably hosted by Lands and Surveys) will create a land 

cadastre, compiled over time and ensure that the relevant authorities of 

Lands and Surveys and Physical Planning have some control over the 

process of land use change. 

4.6 Institutional Capacity and Organisation - National Land Authority or Agency 

4.6.1 The difficulties of delivering the overall Land Administration objectives from 

existing resources should not be under estimate. Indeed this Paper (as did 

the Title By Registration Act and Land Survey Act review) strongly 

recommends going further to acquire new imagery to create digital base 

mapping as a tool to assist in the process of Land Administration. In addition, 

to overcome key communication challenges (due to office resource and 

location) recommendations are made towards achieving the goal of a 




National Land Authority or Directorate, embracing Lands and Surveys, Land 

Registry and Physical Planning with the adoption of the Unified Land 

Information System, within a GIS framework on new digital base mapping to 

deliver a systematic and process led approach to survey approval, granting 

of planning consent for all subdivisions and change of use, and mandatory 

1 st registration of title on all transfers/subdivisions on approved surveys, with 

consent, within an adopted broad Land Use Policy (or statement). 

4.6.2 It is therefore proposed to establish an over arching authority for land based 

departments within Government, under which the divisions of Lands and 

Surveys, Land Registry, Physical Planning would sit. It is important that this 

should not be another layer of bureaucracy, but simply a co-ordinating 

organisation to seek to drive delivery with a single land based focus. It is 

considered important, given the need for coordination of effort in delivering 

change / reforms and for technical advancement across all of these 

departments within areas such as : 

i) Compulsory First Registration of Title on all transfers/subdivisions; 

ii) Planning consent for all subdivisions and change of land use; 

iii) Family Land division; 

iv) New Base Mapping and introduction of a National Geographical 

Information System. 

4.6.3 Delivery through a single agency is likely to remove significant time and 

delay for the public (the customer) in dealing with land issues and provide a 

management focus with capacity outside and above the regular workload 

of the individual departmental heads and their staff to assist in delivering 

change and technical advancement, training, etc. and to ensure that 

departmental policies and plans are compatible. It is thought important 

that there should be an individual tasked with heading the new body and it 

is perhaps sensible in order to avoid inter-Ministry competition that this person 

should, if only temporarily, be from outside Government to push through 

delivery – ie a private sector approach to management and delivery. 

4.6.4 It is believed that ideally such land based authority, which perhaps might be 

called The National Land Authority or Agency; together with all the various 

land based departments should be in a single building. However, if this is not 

practically possible, then linkage of depts. through ULIS and a National GIS 

system would provide the connectivity to departments and the data they 

use and hold on a daily basis. The move from ULIS to a National GIS need not 

be a huge financial burden; quite the reverse, it will save time and costs in 

the medium term and improve accessibility to deliver the land title, survey 

and planning functions in a more timely fashion for the benefit of the public – 

and fees for the process will rise over time; particularly if speed and 

efficiency become synonymous with delivery – to replace the complaints of 

time consuming, uncertain delivery which was picked up in many instances 

from the public. 




4.6.5 Installation and Implementation of ULIS, including suitable GIS functionality is 

necessary for the compilation of island wide cadastral data and to facilitate the 

improved functionality of Physical Planning and Lands and Surveys as set out 

within this paper. The National GIS system must be capable of: 

4.7 The Land Bank 

i) supporting checks on digital surveys (positional accuracy, size of parcel, 

scale, etc); 

ii) the storage and manipulation of scanned images of maps and plans; 

iii) the storage and manipulation of large scale digital aerial or satellite 

images; 

iv) the viewing and overlay comparison of several of these inputs 

simultaneously; 

v) the sharing of all such information with other departments (with 

appropriate controls as to levels of user access, etc) – the Land Registry 

and Physical Planning Department as a minimum. 

4.7.1 This concept is regarded as one which, if properly implemented, could 

provide the vehicle for much improvement in how land, particularly 

agricultural land, is managed in Dominica. It is possible that the expression 

Land Bank itself is not one which is regarded favourably and an alternative 

title might be necessary, but the principle that the State and private 

individuals can provide land to the Land Bank and obtain a guaranteed 

return and good management from it, so that the Bank can let, or in some 

cases sell, to approved and qualified farmers, is a sound one. Nevertheless 

this is an aim which has not been regularly achieved and which unless it is 

properly run and managed, can become an embarrassing failure. To avoid 

this, it is proposed that :– 

i) State land, or land recovered by the State from failed mortgage 

arrangements must be engaged in the scheme and must be seen by the 

private sector to be properly and commercially managed before the 

private landowners can be expected to include their private property on 

a regular basis. 

ii) Managers of the scheme must be :- 

a) Appropriately trained and qualified. The management of Landlord 

and Tenant relationships is a specialist field. It involves much more 

than simply collecting rent and passing it on. Inevitably there are 

personal, difficult and often complicated management decisions 

to be made; so the staff must have skills in agriculture, personnel 

management, law, accountancy, etc. The staff need to be able 




to make judgements and take action; if tenants are delinquent in 

paying rent, or not managing the holding within the terms of the 

tenancy; then the appropriate notice needs to be issued and the 

position remedied, or the tenancy needs to be brought to an end. 

The idea that adequate management can be made by I.T. 

investment alone (which much of the FAO proposed project 

design focuses on), important though that is to aid recording of 

data, rent collection and a GIS system to aid identification of land 

parcels and boundaries, record inspections and use, etc. is very 

dangerous. 

b) Independent and neither subject to political pressure nor give the 

impression this is possible. It is crucially important that 

management be seen to be independent and not subject to 

political or personal pressure. The Land Bank is seeking to provide 

an opportunity for tenants to use land parcels that would 

otherwise not be used, on the basis of a formal occupancy and 

within the terms of an agreed tenancy (under the Agricultural 

Tenancies Act) to produce crops/livestock and generate profits 

for the tenant and rent for the landowner. This objective needs to 

be paramount and not confused with the politics of seeking to 

find favour with individuals within the electorate through 

overruling, or corrupting management’s professional judgements 

and actions. 

c) Adequately resourced. Modern technologies (e.g. use of GIS and 

GPS for recording and monitoring land use and creation of an 

Estate Terrier system) can improve the ability of management to 

look after a property portfolio properly and it is important that the 

Land Bank be properly resourced. 

iii) Retention of Purpose of the Scheme. Many schemes have been used as 

vehicles for land redistribution and giving land to those who would 

otherwise not get it, almost on a social engineering basis. It is recognised 

that this is a proper function of Government, but it is crucial that this be 

kept separate from the Land Bank management, since:- 

b) Management cannot be effective if it has also to second guess 

social requirements rather than purely commercial considerations. 

The opportunity to fudge commercial decisions and to apply 

political pressure becomes overwhelming. 

c) If the rents to be charged are either to be less than market rents, or 

tenants given support of a non-commercial nature, then this 

scheme will require permanent subsidy and will collapse if that 

subsidy is no longer available. It is considered doubtful that a 

private landowner will subscribe his/her land to the scheme if there 

is any risk of that. 




d) Accordingly, while the value of using a Land Bank as a means of 

not just improving agriculture, but of helping individual farmers is 

recognised, it is crucial that those ideas are managed separately 

from the commercial operation of the scheme (perhaps in specific 

starter units which are let with that stated objective and are 

separate from the commercial land bank). 

4.7.2 The Land Bank and the management of it could also provide a useful 

agency for qualifying and publicising both agricultural land to sell and let 

(even if not included in the scheme) and for qualifying, training and 

publicising potential tenants; i.e. to become established as an active 

agency in dealing with land letting and sale in the agricultural sector. 

4.7.3 Methodology and Objectives of Delivery of a Land Bank 

4.7.3.1 This paper is not tasked with setting out the detailed workings of a Land Bank 

project. However, it is seen as such an important step in changing attitudes 

and approaches to both land utilisation and providing an opportunity for 

renewed vigour in the Agricultural sector and a route to utilise idle land, that 

it warrants a skeleton framework within this report. 

4.7.3.2 The responsibility for setting up and administering the Land Bank should fall 

under the Ministry of Agriculture who are best placed to provide either 

themselves, or through retention of consultancy/additional staff capacity, 

the technical knowledge and capacity required as to land selection for 

inclusion, pre-qualification of tenants, associated extension services, market 

analysis and engagement etc. 

4.7.3.3 Objectives – to promote and provide the opportunity for entrepreneurs and 

farmers to rent land under the Agricultural Tenancies Act on commercial 

rents and encourage private landowners to make their land available to do 

so to collectively boost the profitable agricultural production of Dominica to 

increase employment opportunities, displace imports and provide additional 

export revenue. 

4.7.3.4 Land Use and Land Tenure 

i) Head term leases to be taken by Govt from private land/estate 

owners (with guarantees of rent and rental payments) and subleases 

entered into by the Land Bank with pre-qualified tenants. This 

paper does not envisage sub-tenancies being solely restricted to 

small farmers, or new entrants (important though that sector will 

be); but to include and promote the possibility of larger tracts of 

land being available to potential tenants of scale – perhaps even 

to include the likes of WINFRESH or external farmers/production 




companies who may bring expertise, market access and a desire 

to promote the successful agricultural production in “The Nature 

Isle” through organics, fair trade, and other higher value markets. 

Clearly the ability to both market and deliver scale and associated 

infrastructure of post harvest storage, processing, transport, market 

access, etc., will be vital successfully to commercialise land use on 

a worthwhile scale in Dominica beyond that taking place currently. 

Those larger commercial concerns maintain that they require 

additional production to meet market demand – the opportunity 

to encourage them to invest and take risk in production and 

employ labour (as opposed to pass all production risk to local 

farmers) should not be missed, or be viewed as secondary to 

empowering all labourers as individual farmer businesses – both 

objectives can and should be pursued concurrently, both to share 

risk and provide depth and breadth to land use, productive 

agricultural effort and market opportunities – some successful 

regional examples exist; e.g. the Cocoa revitalisation in St Lucia 

and non-nationals role in that. 

ii) Leases being taken by pre-qualified tenants direct from private 

landlords, or the State should also be encouraged. The concept 

being heavily to promote the use of land for agricultural production 

and end the wholesale holding of idle land for speculative reasons, 

or fear of informal occupation/loss of title/degradation of land, etc. 

iii) As previously commented, there will be cost and investment issues 

in bringing land into production that will not be recovered in a 

single year and therefore, as provided within the Agricultural 

Tenancies Act, leases will need to take this into account on an 

individual basis with regard to term of the lease, rent payable, etc. 

It is not envisaged that one rental level will apply to all lands as they 

will vary in productive capacity, land quality, costs to bring into 

production, etc. However, rents will need to be set at market levels 

which should encourage tenants to take land and landlords to 

make land available (taking into account all relevant factors).. 

Rental and other issues can be determined by Arbitration (in the 

absence of agreement) and envisaged in new Agricultural 

Tenancies Act. 

4.7.3.5 Identification of Suitable Land - the Ministry of Agriculture Extension officers 

and Land and Surveys / State Lands officers will be able to identify from their 

own knowledge suitable lands that are not currently being used at all. Both 

State land and privately owned land should be identified and canvassed in 

the first instance. A sensible starting point will be the “Estates and 

Settlements” digital data sets / boundary maps and other soils and physical 

characteristics data (from the David Lang Soils survey work) that are already 

digitised and held in GIS format by Planning and Lands and Surveys (see 

figure 1). Those private landlords should be approached as to their 




willingness (or otherwise) to participate, but it is envisaged that the Land 

Bank will act as a catalyst to encourage landowners to let land given that 

subdivision and change of use will be more tightly controlled to operate 

within a broad Land Use Policy and that an opportunity to generate revenue 

from idle land will exist without fear of loss of ownership or degradation. 

4.7.3.6 Management - The starting point for a system of identification of lands 

already exists in a spatial GIS context; over which the relevant subdivided 

survey parcels (from previous land redistributions) can be overlaid with 

details of ownership and land use from the State Lands Register held by the 

State Lands department of Land and Surveys and some ground survey work 

with low cost hand held PDA GIS data capture devices. This need not be 

expensive or hugely time consuming if tackled in a systematic and process 

driven manner. This will also provide details of defaulters on mortgage 

payments against whom action can be taken to recover possession and 

submit that land to the Land Bank. The establishment of a data base 

(preferably on a GIS platform) to manage landlord and tenant data by 

agricultural holding, rent demand and collection, applicants, etc will be a 

prerequisite; but as previously commented will be secondary to the 

appropriate staffing and resourcing of the Land Bank administration and 

delivery. 

4.7.3.7 Day to Day Management – the day to day management of the scheme is 

crucial to its success. Public lands should of course be efficiently managed 

in the interests of the body of citizens as a whole not just those actually 

occupying publicly owned land but in the long-term the scheme will only 

succeed if private landowners are prepared to subscribe land to it. They will 

only do so if they are confident that their proper commercial interests are the 

priority of its managers. The managers must therefore be – 

i) Well informed – i.e. the importance of data concise and efficient 

data management system. 

ii) Well trained – the management of Landlord/Tenant or 

mortgagor/mortgagee relationships is a specialist skill. It requires 

much more than administrative or even agricultural knowledge. 

Law, accountancy and above all personal management skills are 

crucial. Specialist training will be required. 

iii) Be independent and clear as to the scheme and their objectives.. 

4.7.3.8 Publicity and Public Awareness – the promotion of the Land Bank concept, 

an application method and pre-qualification criteria for suitable tenants 

should be developed and include potential promotion further afield to those 

who may be in a position to facilitate higher value market access; 

technology transfer, etc. The local public awareness should promote both 

the opportunity for potential farmers to expand their existing business and to 

landowners to make their land available. 




4.7.3.9 The FAO discussion paper on the concepts of a land bank (across the OECS) 

sets out useful background as to a Land Bank project – but this Consultant 

team considers it will be more likely to succeed if based on local delivery 

requirements and challenges; albeit in the interest of saving costs and 

speeding up delivery using an overall GIS ready software package (should 

one be made available), and a unified approach to changes to legislation. 

But the success of a Land Bank will be driven by local promotion of the 

concept to landowners and tenants and professional and commercial 

management of the land bank holding thus created, together with 

facilitating profitable agricultural production to meet identified local and 

export market needs; or the successful generation of an agricultural industry 

capable of adapting to and meeting those market requirements itself. This, 

combined with legislation and policy changes will clearly signal through 

actions and policy that allowing land to sit idle and speculating on change 

of use to development is not a commercially worthwhile approach for all 

land holdings will, we believe change landowner behaviour over time. 

4.7.3.10 A specialist GIS individual should be added to the National Land 

Authority/Directorate and made available to assist Lands and Surveys and 

the Ministry of Agriculture to set up the mapping and data capture for the 

Land Bank. 

4.7.3.11 If agriculture is to encourage new entrants and be regarded as a worthwhile 

business for profit and personal business development; there is a need for 

greater attention to production of farm management net margin costings 

and guidelines on a regular basis to disseminate to farmers and growers and 

new entrants. There should be expertise and resource within the Ministry of 

Agriculture and other organisations (such as CARDI, Fair Trade, IAICA) to 

develop suitable models / a data base to ease regular production of such 

data and act as a tool to benchmark production and producers 

(particularly those of the land bank) to seek to improve production 

standards and profitability of the sector. 

4.8 Praedial Larceny 

4.8.1 It is proposed that there be a twin track approach to addressing the 

concerns and the real threat of Praedial larceny. 

4.8.2 It is clear from enquiry that the Police have difficulty in enforcing the law 

under the Sale of Produce Act (Chap 82:02) primarily as a matter of 

evidence. There is a system of licensing the registration of producers and 

vendors and indeed the Sale of Produce Act makes provision for issuing of a 

Licence to each of the following categories:- 

i) To Licence to Sell produce as a producer; 

ii) To Licence Peddlers of Produce; 




iii) To Licence Hucksters of Produce and; 

iv) To licence Dealers of produce. 

4.8.3 It is proposed the register of licensed producers and re-sellers as defined 

under the Act be re-enforced with the need for annual registration; 

declaration of the holding on which produce is being grown and 

importantly, all re-sellers of produce be required to produce evidence of the 

purchase of that product from a licensed producer on a Ministry produced 

pro-forma sales invoice. 

4.8.4 The Ministry of Agriculture wish to re-enforce both registration of producers 

and knowledge of levels of production and the development of an active 

data base populated and updated with regular data collection by 

extension officers is not a huge burden and should carry the full support of 

the law abiding industry to establish; i.e. a digital/paper trail of all product 

from “field to fork” or sale. If at anytime along the marketing trail that 

product cannot be sourced back to the production point / producer; then 

reasonable grounds for prosecution under the Sale of Produce Act and Theft 

Act will exist. 

4.8.5 This is another application where investment in a robust data base operated 

by the Ministry of Agriculture; including use of GPS ready hand held data 

loggers for field staff to capture producer information and upload to a GIS 

platform where both location and scale can be recorded regularly and 

painlessly is a requirement. 

4.8.6 We accept that one of the difficulties is perishable produce being produced 

or evidence gathered fast enough post suspicion, or post the actual event 

of loss occurring is a challenge; the advancement and reduction in cost of 

data recording and particularly spatially recording data systems is such that 

the requirement to record origin of each consignment of produce is no 

longer an impossible ambition for all commercially produced product that is 

offered for sale. If the registered vendor/supplier cannot produce evidence 

of purchase from a registered producer (or his/her own production); or if the 

data implies un-realistic levels of production (to avoid favoured sellers being 

used to account for all stolen produce) then prosecution should follow with 

meaningful levels of fines. If Dominica is serious about moving its agricultural 

sector forward then this methodology not only seeks to drive out praedial 

larceny; but also to provide a link which requires proactive involvement 

between the extension service and the producer. 

4.8.7 As a result; as has been brought into the banana industry through the 

requirement for producer protocols by the end export market (and by 

WIBDECO/WINFRESH), produce should only be sold on the basis that it came 

from a registered producer to a registered vendor who can provide proper 

provenance of the produce for sale. 




4.8.8 It is appreciated that there are difficulties for small scale transactions and 

some exemption should therefore be required. But it should be possible for 

evidence to be available to be obtained by the Police and such evidence 

on which prosecutions are possible to include failure to be able to 

demonstarte to the satisfaction of the Chief Agriculture Officer, or such 

person/persons as he /she nominates the source of produce in 

possession/offered for sale. 

4.8.9 On the basis that evidence can be obtained, the Police should be 

encouraged to make a particular issue of Praedial larceny and it should be 

followed by routine prosecution and by exemplary fines and penalties. 

4.8.10 Public awareness of the recording and licensing requirements should be relaunched. 

4.8.11 There is a danger of creating a layer of bureaucracy; but the issue has 

become so important; that it is considered necessary; at least until the 

awareness has been raised to the point of some high profile prosecutions to 

deter the criminal element engaged in this activity. 




4.10 The Carib Territory 

4.10.1 The policy objective of reform in relation to the land legislation aspects of the 

Carib Territory can be summarised:- 

i) to retain the community ownership of land with all its advantages to 

Community cohesion. 

ii) to retain land occupation within the Territory within the Carib 

population. 

iii) To make it possible for the land asset to be available as security for 

individual Caribs to borrow money for business development and 

other worthwhile purposes. 

4.10.2 On the face of it, objective (iii) appears to be in direct conflict with objectives (i) 

and (ii) but we propose a scheme which we believe would go a long way to 

achieving all three. 

4.10.3 Carib land occupiers currently enjoy in theory, only occupation at the will of the 

Carib Council, but in practice their occupation has many of the characteristics 

of ownership. 

i) They have in many cases had long undisturbed occupation and have 

managed and improved properties enjoying the fruits of occupation 

undisturbed and without payment. 

ii) Occupations in many cases have been for several generations and it 

has been possible to devise these effective rights. 

iii) The Council currently is considering recovering occupation for public 

purposes of some areas but expects to pay compensation to those 

occupiers. 

iv) They have been able to transfer their holding to other Caribs, although 

there appears to have been no payment other than for crops and 

trees 

v) The only obvious property right lacking has been to mortgage. 

4.10.4 This is not so much because the rights have no value, but because these rights 

are not defined and recorded. The nature of all property ownership is a basket 

of rights. What we usually regard as ownership contains most, but not 

necessarily all the range of possible rights to use, manage, sell property, etc. 

We consider that a Carib occupier in practice has most of those rights already. 

What is proposed is that they should be recognised. 




4.10.5 It should be recognised that there is a trade-off between the extent to which a 

Carib’s property rights are circumscribed by the rights of the Community and the 

ability of the land to be used as security. The more rights one retains for the 

Community (however desirable that might be), the less the property is likely to 

be usable as security. Again, the more rights retained for the Community, 

almost certainly the lower the value will be of the rights the individual Carib has. 

How this division should be exactly made is a matter of political judgement, but 

we have based our recommendations on the proposition that the rights 

currently in practise enjoyed, are those that should be recorded and included in 

any ownership scheme, subject only to the obligation to resell or devise, etc to 

another Carib. 

4.10.6 It is put to us that what should be used are Land Use Certificates. We do not 

think the actual name used, whether Land Use Certificate or Kalinagohold 

matters much if the reality of their content is the same. 

4.10.7 We therefore propose a form of ownership not certainly quite like freehold 

ownership in the rest of Dominica, but real nevertheless. We take the view that 

lending authorities are more likely to take this ownership seriously the more it 

looks and feels like traditional freehold ownership, and such ownership may 

perhaps therefore be called Caribhold, or it the Community prefers 

Kalinagohold. 

4.10.7.1 To make Kalinagohold recognisable it will be necessary:- 

i) to define the rights of ownership conferred by Kalinagohold. These 

should be all those listed above but would be restricted in that 

alienation would only be permitted to a qualifying Carib. It would be 

possible if thought prudent, to restrict it in other ways, e.g. to restrict 

the right to take minerals or to sub-divide. 

ii) to define who qualifies as an owner. Long occupation and 

membership of the Carib Community would clearly be good criteria, 

but provision could also be made for new ownerships of land cleared 

from the forest. In these cases it might be thought necessary to have 

obtained Council approval before the event (rather than as now post 

event) and perhaps to have managed and occupied for a qualifying 

period. 

iii) for the individuals property rights to be recorded physically as well as 

legally. To be available as mortgage security, lenders will require 

publicly accepted documentary evidence usually demonstrated by a 

deed and a plan. Both may be in paper form stored in a registry, or 

digitally available for public inspection and copying. 

iv) In this aspect, these proposals mirror those for the island as a whole. It 

is in the long-term desirable for the whole territory to be given a full 

cadastral survey. If sufficient grant aid were available it would be 

possible to carry one out as a single event, but a gradual approach is 

still feasible. 




v) for an occupier wishing to alienate or mortgage his property to seek 

from the Registry maintained by the Council a declaration or deed of 

his Kalinagohold rights and have a survey made and approved by the 

Council and lodged with the declaration or deed at the Registry. 

Such a survey would conform to the standards proposed for the island 

as a whole and would be positioned on the base map of the whole 

island which will include the Territory. 

vi) for a Registry to be established. It may be administratively and 

financially convenient for it to use the resources of the Registry in 

Roseau, but with a division in the Territory. With the use of digital 

information, a facility in the Territory would give convenient remote 

access. 

4.10.7.2 These steps will give individual Carib occupiers a real ownership capable in 

principal of being used as collateral for borrowing. It does however not follow 

that lenders will be prepared to accept them. We suspect that financial 

institutions will only lend when they are satisfied that other criteria have been 

achieved:- 

i) that the borrowers have a history of good credit management. 

ii) confidence in these proposals. 

iii) Evidence of a market in Kalinagohold land. They will need to know 

that there is a likelihood of finding a Carib purchaser for land where 

the owner has defaulted. They will also require evidence of the likely 

price in order to be able to calculate how much they can lend. 

iv) All these things should come in time but in the short-term, perhaps 

medium-term, these difficulties represent real restraints. 

4.10.7.3 We therefore support the proposals being considered by the Community for a 

Carib financial institution or Carib Bank and consider its characteristics should 

be:- 

i) to be able to raise grant aid; 

ii) to be guaranteed by the Central Government; 

iii) be able to raise money by its own activities, e.g. sale of development 

opportunities to outsiders; 

iv) to have revenue raising capacity; 

4.10.7.4 Some or all of these sources would enable it to lend its own funds and obtain 

a line of credit to be passed on to its Members. 

4.10.7.5 The Bank would have the advantage of local knowledge but it will be very 

close to its customer base. The pressure not to be ruthlessly commercial will 

be enormous. We suggest it uses a subscribing bank as its agent for 

administrative purposes and manages its lending business with a lending 




committee, with a substantial independent element, perhaps including an 

independent chairperson, including from the subscribing bank. Its Members 

should not be required to come up for re-election, although it might be 

possible for some to be on the Committee by initial election. 

4.10.7.6 There is no reason why the bank should have a monopoly of lending or 

necessarily be a permanent feature. If individual Caribs can persuade 

individual lenders to deal with them direct that would be their right – it would 

be part of the characteristics of ownership of Kalinagohold. 

4.10.7.7 Appendix 7 of the Title By Registration and Land Survey Act review report 

provides an overview of how some other countries have dealt with similar 

issues and problems to those identified within the land tenure system in the 

Carib Territory. Examples given are from New Zealand, Australia and Vietnam. 




APPENDIX 1 - CONTRACT OF TENANCY UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ACT 

AN AGREEMENT made the day of 20 between 

of (hereinafter called the Landlord which 

expression wherever the context so allows includes his heirs, personal representatives 

and assigns) of the one part and of 

(hereinafter called the Tenant which expression wherever the context so allows 

includes his heirs, personal representatives and assigns) of the other part 

WHEREBY the Landlord agrees to let and the Tenant agrees to take all that parcel of 

land with/without buildings thereon (hereinafter called the Holding) containing 

acres/hectares or thereabouts situated at 

in the State of Dominica and bounded as follows, that is to say:- 

Northerly; Southerly; Easterly; and Westerly or alternatively as delineated on the 

attached plan edged in red 

Or howsoever otherwise the same may be abutted or bounded, known, 

distinguished or described together 

SUBJECT to the following terms and conditions:- 

1. The Tenancy shall be for a term of one year from the date hereof and shall continue 

thereafter unless and until determined by six months’ notice in writing on either side 

to expire at the anniversary of the said term. 

2. The rent shall be $ _______ per year payable half yearly in advance which shall be 

recoverable whether demanded or not at any time after the same becomes due 

and payable by action or distress 

or 

a) The consideration for this contract shall be a share of the crop / 

livestock or of the gross proceeds of the sale of the crop / livestock derived 

from the Holding and rendered to the Landlord. 

b) The Tenant shall render to the Landlord his share of the crops / livestock or of 

the gross proceeds sale of the crops / livestock as soon as they are in a fit 

condition for sale or shall pay to the Landlord his share of the proceeds 

immediately after each separate transaction has been concluded. 

3. The Tenant agrees: 

a) To pay the rent whether demanded or not in the manner aforesaid or to 

render such share of the crops / livestock or proceeds thereof as may be 

have been agreed upon as the consideration of the contract. 




b) Not to assign or sublet the Holding or part thereof, or part with or share 

possession of the Holding without the consent of the Landlord in writing. 

c) To maintain the standards of good husbandry as defined in the Agricultural 

Tenancies Act. 

d) Not to make charcoal, not to burn bush or any form of vegetable matter 

without the consent of the Landlord. 

e) Not to remove or allow to be removed from the Holding any fodder grass, 

compost, manure, vegetable waste, wood, rock, soil or stone without the 

consent of the Landlord. 

f) Not to cut down damage or destroy any of the trees growing on the Holding 

without the consent of the Landlord in writing. 

g) To keep under control on the Holding such animals as may be approved in 

writing by the Landlord. 

h) To pay all existing and future rates, tax assessments and outgoings of any kind 

charged or imposed upon the Holding or upon the owner or occupier 

thereof. 

i) To maintain the Holding at all the times in good repair and condition. 

j) To insure the fixed equipment (if any) against damage or destruction by such 

risks as the Landlord from time to time shall reasonably require to the full cost 

of rebuilding and reinstatement. 

k) Not to commit waste of any kind. 

l) Not to plant any trees without the consent of the Landlord in writing. 

m) Not make any alterations or additions or improvement without the consent of 

the Landlord in writing. 

n) At the Tenant’s expense to do everything in relation to the Holding to comply 

with any statutory or other obligations. 

o) To take all reasonable steps to prevent any right over the Holding being 

acquired and to prevent trespass or the Holding. 

p) Not to cause soil erosion or redirection of any watercourse on the Holding 

without the prior written consent of the Landlord. 

q) To keep drains and tracks in good and serviceable repair. 

r) Not to cause deforestation or removal of tree crops present at the outset of 

the Tenancy without the prior written consent of the Landlord. 




4. The Landlord should have the right of entry at all reasonable times for any 

reasonable purpose (including inspection). 

5. The Landlord agrees to permit the Tenant paying the rent or consideration hereby 

reserved and fulfilling the obligation on his part herein contained peaceably and 

quietly to hold and enjoy the Holding during the term hereby created without any 

interruption by the Landlord or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust for him. 

6. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancies Act including 

those in respect of improvements and dispute resolution. 

Note to the Schedule: Where the rent or other term of this agreement is disputed between 

the Landlord and Tenant and the Schedule is silent the matter shall be referred to 

Arbitration under the Act.

White Paper - Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?