In a country where more than 80% of the population lives in rural areas ⁽²⁾ and depends on the land for its livelihood, dependable access to land is critical for the people. While Ethiopians are restricted from engaging in financial transactions relating to the land, their constitution provides unrestricted access to land for cultivators and pastoralists.⁽³⁾ Most of these farmers are subsistence farmers working off small plots of land. The security of land tenure is therefore an issue that gravely concerns the rural poor.

This CAI paper explores the current debate for privatised land ownership in rural Ethiopia, highlighting lessons from the ongoing land registration programme. Because many African countries are similarly composed of large rural populations involved in smallholder cultivations for their livelihoods and are in the course of implementing some form of new land legislation, this discussion on land tenure concerns many beyond Ethiopia.

Two sides of the debate

Since the early twentieth century, various political regimes in Ethiopia have implemented their respective system of land tenure, often in discrete coexistence (and contradiction) with customary forms of land governance.⁽⁴⁾ The common thread linking these systems is that land ownership remained vested in the community, state or ruler.⁽⁵⁾ The farmer, in turn, was awarded a varying bundle of usufruct rights, depending on factors such as ruling regime, location, ethnicity, etc.

Some of the lasting legacies from these land tenure systems are land degradation, fragmentation of holdings, tenure insecurity and population concentration.⁽⁶⁾ Retaining state ownership of land also cements the hegemonic authority of the government.⁽⁷⁾ The broad justification by the government for maintaining land ownership was to safeguard peasants from exploitation from wealthy individuals or corporations who may buy off their land and leave the rural poor without a source of livelihood.⁽⁸⁾

Advocates of privatisation, however, challenge the government’s stance by arguing that this situation leads to an acute lack of tenure security with implications for access to credit, persistent poverty, and inadequate investments in and sustainable care of land.⁽⁹⁾ Greater tenure security, they argue, leads to increased land-related investments with accompanying growth in agricultural productivity. The ability to use their land rights as collateral also improves farmers’ access to credit and hence increases their business opportunities. Arguably, the key benefit of issuing legal land rights to individual farmers is the reduction of scope for arbitrary interpretations of the Constitution by local bureaucrats leading to uncompensated land loss.⁽¹⁰⁾

With the rural population growing at an average rate of 2% over the past decade,⁽¹¹⁾ increasing interest in establishing large-scale plantations by commercial cultivators,⁽¹²⁾ and the demands created by urbanisation, the demand for land in Ethiopia has become more pressing. Against a background of increasing competition for land and a growing population to feed, the debate on how best to govern this asset for the sustainable and equitable livelihoods of smallholders takes on more urgency.

Does tenure matter?

It is often assumed that when farmers feel secure enough to live and work continuously on the same plot of land, they will make economically-productive investments, as well as environmentally-sound land management decisions. However, empirical evidence from various parts of Africa suggests that this assumption is overly simplistic to account for the reality smallholder farmers experience. Findings from separate studies conducted by various researchers with groups of farmers in Africa are discussed in this section to shed some light on their situations and concerns.

A study released in 2006 describes household surveys conducted by World Bank researchers in all the major agro-ecological regions of Ethiopia.⁽¹³⁾ The study found that government action to increase tenure security and transferability of land rights could significantly enhance farmer decisions to undertake land-related investments. The smallholder farmers surveyed indicated that increased tenure security would greatly encourage them to invest in the land infrastructure and plant more permanent crops.⁽¹⁴⁾ Analysis of the survey findings concluded that the transferability of land influenced Ethiopian farmers’ decision-making to a much greater degree than their West African counterparts.⁽¹⁵⁾ On aggregate, 61% of the farmers in Ethiopia approve of the land tenure system, with significant variations across regions.⁽¹⁶⁾ Although not keen on unrestricted freehold, most farmers want to have greater security over the land.⁽¹⁷⁾

An earlier study conducted by Belgian academics in nine villages in rural Burkina Faso, concluded basic land use rights to be sufficient motivation for rural small-scale farmers to undertake land-related investments.⁽¹⁸⁾ The findings were contextualised by the active role of traditional village order and the fact that land markets did not exist in these villages.⁽¹⁹⁾ Conversely, in central Uganda, cultivators under various land tenure systems invested in commercial trees to a comparable degree, suggesting that their investments were not influenced by concerns over tenure security.⁽²⁰⁾ In northern Ghana, crop selection was found to be influenced by tenure security but not by transferability.⁽²¹⁾

Across these examples from West Africa, areas of more secure land tenures saw correspondingly greater occurrences of fallowing.⁽²²⁾ In the regional context, land rights are secure conditional upon use.⁽²³⁾ Leaving the land fallow, though in fact an investment in replenishing soil fertility, could easily be misconstrued as abandonment, undermining the farmers’ claim to that land. Land tenure security, then, appears to be as much of an environmental concern as it is a socio-economic one. These conflicting findings from various household surveys clearly indicate that the diverse African context, with its extensive networks of traditional and communal governance, does not serve to fit neatly into a dichotomous debate on whether state or private land ownership is best.⁽²⁴⁾

Certification as assurance

The Ethiopian Government recognises the importance of tenure security in improving land productivity ⁽²⁵⁾ and, in 2003, embarked on land administration reform efforts to address issues surrounding tenure security and land redistribution. This reform and certification programme is carried out regionally. Where the limited capacity of the regional governments to implement and monitor these reforms potentially threatened the effectiveness of the reforms, international assistance was enlisted to build capacity and fill the gap.⁽²⁶⁾ As part of the reform, certificates assuring farmers the continued use of land, subject to conditions, for the next 20 to 30 years are issued. Though not exempt from the threat of redistribution, registered land occupants are entitled to compensation if their land is taken. These certificates officially connected an individual to specific plots of land, with initial plot demarcation carried out using traditional methods.⁽²⁷⁾ Essentially, legal rights with regard to land ownership has not changed, but the rapid, low-cost exercise of issuing certificates to farmers vested a sense of security and legitimacy in them while establishing a database for regional governments to manage the land.

The first two phases of the certification programme (2005-2008 and 2008-2013) were supported by the United States Agency for International Development,⁽²⁸⁾ and there are plans to engage more international expertise in building up capacity of local officials and communities in rural land governance.⁽²⁹⁾ A survey of the early impacts of the land certification programme observed evidence of positive investment, benefitting the poor and women, without bias.⁽³⁰⁾ Economic benefits to the farmers outstripped the programme costs significantly.⁽³¹⁾ The widespread acceptance and support of the programme is due, in part, to its participatory approach in project design and implementation.⁽³²⁾ Extensive effort was also expended in the sensitisation of the public to their rights and responsibilities, and this awareness proved useful during mediations of land conflicts.

The promising start to Ethiopia’s land certification programme offers potential for the rural poor for a more secure and prosperous livelihood. However, advances made in the early phases of the programme need to be maintained through systematic updating of the certification records, synchronising information across regions, including house plots and common property resources, production of graphical maps illustrating boundaries, and the just implementation of land laws.⁽³³⁾

Concluding remarks

The Ethiopian land administration reform exercise has demonstrated that speedy, low-cost, participative processes to meaningfully improve tenure security and land governance are possible. This provides a critical model for other African nations that are working on enhancing agricultural productivity and food security through a programme of land redistribution, especially for the rural poor. Rather than legislating total freehold, which is a costly and contentious process, governments must explore hybrid forms of land governance, incorporating local contexts through engaging traditional systems and practices. There is not a one-size-fits-all template for African countries, and the Ethiopian example will not be suitable for every situation.⁽³⁴⁾ Rather, the Ethiopian success indicates the innovative approach needed for each country to devise creative solutions appropriate for their own context.

Written by Christina Cheong ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Christina Cheong is a Research Associate with CAI, with an interest in food security and urban poverty issues. Contact Christina through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Enviro Africa unit ( enviro.africa@consultancyafrica.com). Edited by Liezl Stretton. Research Manager: Angela Kariuki.
(2) The World Bank Data, http://data.worldbank.org.
(3) The right to ownership of rural and urban land, as well as of all natural resources, is exclusively vested in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia. Land is a common property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or to other means of exchange. Article 40, ‘Constitution of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia’, 8 December 1994, http://www.servat.unibe.ch.
(4) ‘Land tenure in Ethiopia: Continuity and change, shifting rulers, and the quest for state’, CAPRi Working Paper No. 91, September 2008, http://www.capri.cgiar.org.
(5) Ibid.
(6) ‘Agriculture and social protection in Ethiopia: The politics of land and ‘graduation’, Future Agricultures Policy Brief 029, March 2009, http://www.future-agricultures.org.
(7) Rahmato, D., 2003. Access to resources and livelihood insecurity. Forum for Social Studies: Addis Ababa.
(8) Witten, M.W., 2007. The protection of land rights in Ethiopia. Afrika Focus, 20(1-2), pp. 153-184.
(9) De Soto, H., 2000. The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. Basic Books: New York.
(10) ‘Ethiopia land policy and administration assessment’, Associates for Rural Development Final Report, May 2004, http://pdf.usaid.gov.
(11) Index Mundi website, http://www.indexmundi.com.
(12) ‘Land and power: The growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investments in land’, Oxfam Briefing Paper 151, September 2011, http://www.oxfam.org.
(13) Deininger, K. and Jin, S., 2006. Tenure security and land-related investment: Evidence from Ethiopia. European Economic Review, 50(2006), pp. 1245-1277.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Ibid.
(16) ‘Land tenure and agricultural development in Ethiopia’, Ethiopian Economic Association/Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, 2002, http://www.mokoro.co.uk.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Brasselle, A., Gaspart, F. and Platteau, J., 2002. Land tenure security and investment incentives: Puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Economics, 67(2002), pp. 373–418.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Place, F. and Otsuka, K., 2002. Land tenure systems and their impacts on agricultural investments and productivity in Uganda. The Journal of Development Studies, 38(6), pp. 105-128.
(21) Ibid.
(22) Fenske, J., 2011. Land tenure and investment incentives: Evidence from West Africa. Journal of Development Economics, 95(2011), pp. 137–156.
(23) Ibid.
(24) Platteau, J., 1996. The evolutionary theory of land rights as applied to Sub-Saharan Africa: A critical assessment. Development and Change, 27(1), pp. 29-86.
(25) ‘Ethiopia: Sustainable development and poverty reduction program’, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2002, http://www.imf.org.
(26) ‘Ethiopia land policy and administration assessment’, Associates for Rural Development Final Report, May 2004, http://pdf.usaid.gov.
(27) Ibid.
(28) ‘Land tenure and property rights’, USAID Program Brief, February 2010, http://usaidlandtenure.net.
(29) ‘Government of Ethiopia partners with the G8 to improve land governance’, USAID Press Office, December 2013, http://www.usaid.gov.
(30) Deininger, K. et al., 2008. Rural land certification in Ethiopia: Process, initial impact and implications for other African countries. World Development, 36(10), pp. 1786-1812.
(31) ‘Impacts of land certification on tenure security, investment, and land markets – Evidence from Ethiopia’, The World Bank Policy Research Paper 4764, October 2008
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org.
(32) Haileselassie, A., ‘Ethiopia’s struggle over land reform’, World Press Review, April 2004, http://www.worldpress.org.
(33) Deininger, K. et al., 2008. Rural land certification in Ethiopia: Process, initial impact and implications for other African countries. World Development, 36(10), pp. 1786-1812.
(34) ‘Can land registration serve poor and marginalised groups?’, IIED Research Report 1, November 2005, http://pubs.iied.org.