The Second-level Land Certification Program in Ethiopia: Perception, process and early lessons learnt

Hosaena Ghebru, Bethlhem Koru, and Alemayehu S. Taffesse International Food Policy Research Institute - IFPRI

Presented at a symposium on “Transformation and vulnerability in Ethiopia:New evidence to inform policy and investments” organized by the Ethiopia

Strategy Support Program (IFPRI-ESSP)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

May 27, 2016

1

Background• The Ethiopia constitution states that all land belongs to the state and

individual households are only bestowed with user rights (no right to sell).

• Ethiopia implemented one of the largest, fastest and cheapest landregistration and certification reform in Africa.

• Launched first in Tigray in 1997/98 followed by three other major regions(Oromia, Amhara and SNNP) during 2003/04-2005/06

• About 6.3 million rural households have received the First Stage LandCertification (FSLC) in the four major Regional States

• This first-level land certification relied on the use of general boundaries,which neither include a map nor any kind of spatial reference

• Vast body of evidence shows positive impact on productivity, investment,market participation, dispute resolution and women empowerment

Hypotheses: Rationale for a 2nd-level land certificates

1. Lack updating mechanism in First-level Certification Program

2. Prevalence of increasing boundary-related disputes- Erosion corrodes natural boundaries

- Number of witnesses diminish - moved away or deceased

3. Social and economic transformation

- Population pressure, migration, urbanization and economic vibrancy

increase scarcity and values of land increase ownership/border disputes

Mega money land administrative reform projects now integratedinto GTP-I and GTP-II• Most notable ones include: DFID (LIFT), USAID (ELTAP/ELAP/LAND), World

Bank (SLM-I/SLM-II), SIDA, Finland (REILA)

What’s new? Second-level land certification

Basic bio/parcel data Vs. Digital maps

Low-cost (pro-poor) vs. High-tech (more accuracy)

Research questions and Data• What do we (think) know?

– What are the factors associated with household perceived tenure insecurity?

– What is the level of demand for the Second Level Land Certification ?

– What are the factors associated with household demand for the Second levelLand Certification?

• Data used:

• The study is based on Agricultural Growth Program (AGP) Survey data. The2013 (mid-line) survey covered 7,500 farm households

• The data covers 93 woredas: 61 treatment woredas selected by government ofEthiopia due to their high potential for agricultural growth and 32 comparablecontrol from the four main region (Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and Tigray);

• The data is analyzed at parcel & household level using descriptive andregression analyses;

Descriptive results: Level of tenure insecurity

45%

16%

59%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perceived risk of privateland dispute

Perceived risk of landexpropriation

Likelihood of boarderdispute

PER

CEN

T (%

)

Percentage of households with various tenure insecurity indicators

Descriptive results:

Households who have First Level Land Certificate (%) 68%

Households interested in the 2nd Level Land Certification (%) 64%

Parcel CharacteristicsPerceived risk of private

land disputeNo Yes Sig

The parcel is registered with the 1st Level Certificate (in %) 69.3 67.5

Demand for 2nd level Land Certification (%) 59.2 67.3 ***

Farm size owned (in hectare) 0.44 0.47 ***

The parcel is acquired through allocation (in %) 53.2 55.1 **

Parcel level

Household level

Descriptive Analysis: Parcel level

Variables Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP

Mode of land Acquisition

Allocated 79.0 60.2 51.2 13.1

Purchased 1.9 1.6 2.6 8.4

Inherited/Parent's gift 19.0 38.1 46.1 78.5

Mortgaged 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

Total 100 100 100 100

Regression result: Factors explaining tenure insecurity

• Larger farm size is associated with higher level of tenure insecurity;

• tenure insecurity is negatively associated with parcels acquired viainheritance as compared to parcels via government allocation;

• Parcels with natural boundary for boarder demarcation have higherrisk of land dispute;

• Tenure insecurity is found to be higher on parcels acquired recently ascompared to parcels under household possession for longer periods;

• Experience of Boarder dispute in the past are linked with higherperception of tenure insecurity

Regression Result: Demand for SLLC- Logistic model

Explanatory Variables Model - 1 Model - 2 Model - 3

Perceived risk of Gov't expropriation -0.011 -0.014 0.002

Perceived risk of private dispute 0.047* 0.052* 0.062**

Border dispute experience 0.069*** 0.066***

Economic Vibrancy: % of hhs in a village with expenditure on new housing 0.067*** 0.078*** 0.067***

Land adjustment indicator: Av. # of years in a village since recent parcel acquisition via PA allocation -0.002** -0.002**

Interaction term (Rented out * Gender) -0.131** -0.119 -0.064

Awareness: Certificate protect against encroachment 0.153*** 0.150***

Land predominantly acquired via inheritance -0.043* -0.041*

Tigray region 0.113*

Amahara region 0.041

SNNP region -0.124***

Conclusion• Generally, perceived risk of tenure insecurity & demand for land demarcation are still high

• Significant regional variations in revealed demand for further formalization, and mode of landacquisition

– rollout strategy of the program should avoid a blanket approach

• Demand 2nd-level certification is positively associated with higher perception of tenureinsecurity and economic vibrancy

• program sustainability could be enhanced if implementation prioritizes high potential

as well as dispute prone areas and if tailored in a pragmatic fashion (piloting)

• Demand is higher for those who believe land certificate provides better protection againstencroachment disputes

– bundling program with awareness creation campaign could enhance uptake rate

• Tenure risk and demand are hugely associated with parcel-specific properties/attributes

– parcel-based approach could be more suitable in maximizing positive economic and

social outcomes of the program

• Rich dataset (household, plot and individuallevel) from 4 regions (3-wave panel data of7500 farm households)

• Rigorous impact evaluation with before andafter data (especially, for LIFT and LANDprograms)

• Possibility of capture long-term impacts ofolder programs (SLM, ELTAP, and ELAP)

• 4 major programs with various reforminterventions: provide the opportunity tocompare complementarity of programs (if

combined impacts are greater than the sumof their individual impacts)

Forward looking – further data analysis work

13

Thank You!