The Second-level Land Certification Program in Ethiopia: Perception, process and early lessons learnt
- 1. 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
- 2. 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 land registration 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 Land Certification (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
- 3. 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 integrated into GTP-I and GTP-II • Most notable ones include: DFID (LIFT), USAID (ELTAP/ELAP/LAND), World Bank (SLM-I/SLM-II), SIDA, Finland (REILA)
- 4. What’s new? Second-level land certification Basic bio/parcel data Vs. Digital maps Low-cost (pro-poor) vs. High-tech (more accuracy)
- 5. 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 level Land Certification? • Data used: • The study is based on Agricultural Growth Program (AGP) Survey data. The 2013 (mid-line) survey covered 7,500 farm households • The data covers 93 woredas: 61 treatment woredas selected by government of Ethiopia due to their high potential for agricultural growth and 32 comparable control from the four main region (Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and Tigray); • The data is analyzed at parcel & household level using descriptive and regression analyses;
- 6. Descriptive results: Level of tenure insecurity 45% 16% 59% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Perceived risk of private land dispute Perceived risk of land expropriation Likelihood of boarder dispute PERCENT(%) Percentage of households with various tenure insecurity indicators
- 7. Descriptive results: Households who have First Level Land Certificate (%) 68% Households interested in the 2nd Level Land Certification (%) 64% Parcel Characteristics Perceived risk of private land dispute No 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
- 8. 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
- 9. 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 via inheritance as compared to parcels via government allocation; • Parcels with natural boundary for boarder demarcation have higher risk of land dispute; • Tenure insecurity is found to be higher on parcels acquired recently as compared to parcels under household possession for longer periods; • Experience of Boarder dispute in the past are linked with higher perception of tenure insecurity
- 10. 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***
- 11. 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 land acquisition – rollout strategy of the program should avoid a blanket approach • Demand 2nd-level certification is positively associated with higher perception of tenure insecurity 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 against encroachment 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
- 12. • Rich dataset (household, plot and individual level) from 4 regions (3-wave panel data of 7500 farm households) • Rigorous impact evaluation with before and after data (especially, for LIFT and LAND programs) • Possibility of capture long-term impacts of older programs (SLM, ELTAP, and ELAP) • 4 major programs with various reform interventions: provide the opportunity to compare complementarity of programs (if combined impacts are greater than the sum of their individual impacts) Forward looking – further data analysis work
- 13. 13 Thank You!