ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Household Perception and Demand for Better Land Rights Protection in the Era of Agricultural Transformation in Ethiopia

By: Hosaena Ghebru, Bethelhem Koru, and Alemayehu Seyoum TaffesseIFPRI ESSP-II

15th Annual Conference, Agricultural Economics Society of EthiopiaMarch 27, 2015

1

Back ground

• The Ethiopia constitution states that all land belongs to the state and individual households aregiven user rights but no right to sell.

• Ethiopia implemented one of the largest, fastest and cheapest land registration andcertification reforms in Africa. About 6.3 million out of 13 million households have received theFirst Stage Land Certification (FSLC) in the four major Regional States

• Each region arranges the process of land certification with in the framework of its own regionalproclamation

• Certification in Tigray took place soon after the redistribution in 1997/98 EC and certification inthe rest three region took place in the year 2003/2004 EC

• This first land certification is weak on the description of the land plots, which neither include amap nor any kind of spatial reference

Literature review

• Feder and Nishio (1998) reviewed successful land registration and titling programs in Asia andLatin-America where positive investment, credit access, land productivity and land valueeffects were detected

• Studies in Africa; Minten and Jacoby (2007) in Madagascar found that land registration had nosignificant impact on land productivity, land investment or credit access

• (Holden et al. 2009; Deininger et al. 2011) in Tigray region showed that land certificate increaseduse of external inputs and soil conservation

• Ghebru and Holden (2014 ) Efficiency and Productivity Differential Effects of Land CertificationProgram in Ethiopia :- farms without a land use certificate are less productive than those withformalized use rights

Rationale for a second stage land certificate

No updating mechanism in First Stage Certification Program

Probability of border related disputes

- Erosion corrodes natural boundaries (eg. river, tree, plant)

- Number of witnesses diminish - moved away or no longer live in the area

Population growth

-Increases demand for land and

-Further pressure on border demarcations

Tenure insecurity

- Affects urbanization and labor mobility: land use right can be lost if the holder leaves the kebelefor more than two years

Research questions

• This study strives to answer the following research questions in relation to the Second Stage LandCertification:

• What are the factors that determine the level of tenure insecurity in Ethiopia?

• What is the demand for the Second Stage Land Certification ?

• What are the factors that determine the demand for the Second Stage Land Certification?

• How do household perceive the Second Stage Land Certification?

Data

• The study is based on Agricultural Growth Program Survey data. The 2013 Survey covered 7,500farm households and was conducted by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) in collaboration withInternational food policy Research institute (IFPRI);

• The data covers 93 woredas in the four main region (Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and Tigray) selectedby government of Ethiopia due to their high potential for agricultural growth;

• A community (or Kebele)-level survey that brings a wealth of information on community assets,infrastructures, access to markets and price information was also administered to complementhousehold-level data;

• The data is analyzed at parcel and household level using descriptive and regression analyses;

Methods

• Assessment on tenure insecurity of the household is analyzed using generalized ordered logitmodel;

𝑃 𝑌𝑖 > 𝑗 =exp(∝𝑗 +𝑋𝑖𝛽𝑗)

1 + 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝛼𝑗 + 𝑋𝑖𝛽𝑗, 𝑗 = 1,2, … .𝑀 − 1

𝑌𝑖= Measure of tenure insecurity

The study uses logistic model to analyze those factors that determine the demand for further landdemarcation

The dependent variable takes the value of 1 for the household that needs further land demarcationand zero for those who do not;

Indicators of land tenure insecurity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perceived risk of privateland dispute

Perceived risk of landexpropriation

Likelihood of boarderdispute

Pe

rce

nt

(%)

% of HH with different tenure insecurity variables

Descriptive results: Household level

Total

Household characteristics

Household size 4.9

Sex of Head (1=male) 70

Age 45

Number of parcels 3

Households who have land certificate (%) 68

Demand for 2nd Stage Land Certification (%) 64

Descriptive Analysis: Parcel level

Significant variation between Tigray and SNNP in terms of the predominat mode of land acquisition 78.5 % of the

households in SNNPR obtained all of their parcels through inheritance and parental gift and 79 % of the households in

Tigray region obtained all of their parcels through government allocation

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: Determinants of tenure insecurityVariables dy/dx

Farm size(ha) 0.009*

-0.004

Natural boundary for boarder demarcation (1=yes) 0.023**

-0.007

Has certificate(1=yes) -0.018*

-0.008

Number of years since land acquisition -0.002***

0.000

Dispute before registration(1=yes) 0.246***

-0.016

Regression result: Determinants of tenure insecurity

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

• Level of tenure insecurity is lower when both household head and the spouse has equal right oftransferring/ giving out their parcel to other person;

• Households who used natural boundary for boarder demarcation feel more insecure;

• The level of tenure insecurity is found to be lower for the household who have had landcertificate in the previous round ;

• Boarder dispute in the past are linked with higher perception of tenure insecurity

Regression Result: Logistic model (ME)

Explanatory Variables Model - 1 Model - 2 Model - 3

Perceived risk of Gov't expropriation (1=yes) -0.011 -0.014 0.002

Perceived risk of private dispute (1=yes) 0.047* 0.052* 0.062**

Expenditure on new house (1=yes) 0.077*** 0.082*** 0.076***

Area proportion rented out 0.000 -0.047 -0.107*

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

Boarder dispute experience (1=yes) 0.069*** 0.066***

Protect against encroachment (1=yes) 0.153*** 0.150***

Land predominantly acquired via inheritance -0.043* -0.041*

Number of years since first parcel acquisition -0.002** -0.002**

Distance to market (km) 0.001 0.001**

Tigray region 0.113*

Amahara region 0.041

SNNP region -0.124***

Conclusion

• Results from the econometric and descriptive analysis revealed that demand for further land demarcation ispositively associated with higher perception of tenure insecurity - perceived risk of private dispute andexperience in border disputes

• HHs who believe land certificate provides better protection against encroachment are more likely to beinterested in the second-stage certificate

• Furthermore, results show that HHs with boarder dispute experience are at higher risk of tenure insecurityand are more likely to demand new formalization of land

• HHs who acquired their land through inheritance and households with longer years of land acquisition areless likely to demand for the Second Stage Land Certification

• Findings indicate that there is significant variation among regions in terms of the predominant mode of landacquisition. In reference to Oromia, there is generally higher demand in Tigray and lower demand in SNNPfor the Second Stage Land Certification

Policy Implications

• Generally, perceived risk of private dispute, perceived risk of government expropriation, likelihood of borderdisputes and the demand for land demarcation are still high in Ethiopia

• As there is a variation between regions in terms of the extent of their need for the Second Stage LandCertification, the rollout strategy of the Second Stage Land Certification need not be considered as a blanketsolution for the entire nation but it needs to be with more caution and pragmatic approach

• The implementation of the Second Stage Land Certification need to be implemented in a gradual fashionwhile giving priority to dispute pro area and possibly based on need

• Households’ awareness about the added values of Land Certification calls for the need for sensitization orknowledge dissemination campaign to maximize the impacts of the new intervention

• Thus policy makers should take in to account different factors before the implementation of the secondround certification