Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Day 1, Session 4: Stimulating and Meeting the Demand for Agricultural Inputs in Nigeria
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Day 1, Session 4: Stimulating and Meeting the Demand for Agricultural Inputs in Nigeria


Day 1, Session 2 of the 2012 Nigeria Strategy Support Program's

Day 1, Session 2 of the 2012 Nigeria Strategy Support Program's

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • FPDD - Fertilizer Procurement and Distribution Division (FPDD)
  • Cooperative society accounts for only small % in commercial
  • This is similar to LSMS survey -


  • 1. Fertilizer subsidy and private fertilizer marketing in Nigeria Hiroyuki Takeshima - Research Fellow (IFPRI) Ephraim Nkonya - Senior Research Fellow (IFPRI) Sayon Deb – Senior Research Assistant (IFPRI) NSSP National Conference 2012: ―Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda with policy analysis and research evidence‖ Abuja, Nigeria – November 13-14, 2012INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1
  • 2. Introduction Nigeria spends about 2% of government expenditure on agriculture Between 2001-2005, Nigeria spent 43% of its Federal agricultural budget on fertilizer subsidy (Mogues et al 2008). States added subsidies Despite the large public investment in fertilizer subsidy, Nigeria: • Average NPK application in Nigeria is 6 kg/ha compared to 6.2kg/ha for SSA (excl Southern Africa) • Is the second largest importer of rice in the world; largest importer of US red & white winter wheat; • Value of imported food is growing at an 11% annually (Adesina 2011). 2
  • 3. Research question Did old fertilizer subsidy scheme crowd out the commercial fertilizer sector? • Patterns of fertilizer sourcing • Effect of subsidy on open market fertilizer price • Size of crowding in/out • Policy implications 3
  • 4. Fertilizer subsidy Crowding out of private sector • 18-22% in Malawi (Ricker-Gilbert et al. 2011) • Smaller in Zambia (Xu et al. 2009) Crowding in – potential (Dorward 2009) • Farmers’ awareness of fertilizer benefit • Increased fertilizer demand => larger economy of scale Other studies • Duflo et al. (2011) – subsidy could stimulate fertilizer use in Kenya 4
  • 5. Crowding in / out Fertilizer subsidy crowding in / out T=G+C • T = Total fertilizer consumption • G = Quantity purchased thru gov’t subsidy • C = Quantity purchased thru commercial suppliers If > 0 → crowding in If < 0 → crowding out If = 0 → no effect 5
  • 6. Why this study? Government of Nigeria is implementing major fertilizer subsidy reforms • Hence it is important to set a benchmark showing the impact of the current fertilizer subsidy program on private fertilizer market development • These data will be used to assess the impact of the new fertilizer subsidy program on private sector fertilizer market development. • Determine the crowding-in / out of commercial fertilizer marketing by the fertilizer subsidy program 6
  • 7. Nigeria subsidy policy trend Years PolicyEarly Each State has separate fertilizer subsidy and distribution system1970s1976 Government creates FPDD to centralize fertilizer procurement. Actual subsidy 80%-85% and a fiscal cost over US$ 150 million.1982-86 Under pressure from donors and fall in oil prices, fertilizer subsidy reduced from 85% to 28%. Cost of subsidy reaches US$ 240 million1986-89 Nominal price fixed instead of inflation; subsidy rises to 80%.1994 Economic reforms reinitiated, devaluation, and fertilizer subsidies reduced.1997 Fertilizer subsidies removed and distribution liberalized.1999- Fertilizer subsidy re-introduced. FGN subsidy rate = 25%, each statetodate gives additional subsidy 7
  • 8. Fertilizer use trend in Nigeria & SSAregions 14 12Average NPK/ha 10 8 6 4 2 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Nigeria East Africa Central Africa Western Africa SSA, excl SASource: Presenters’ calculation based on FAOSTAT 8
  • 9. Old fertilizer subsidy scheme Subsidized fertilizerInternational Non-subsidized fertilizer market Fertilizer Contract Federal Submit requestmanufacturer State Open market ADP Farmer Source: Authors illustration based on literature and consultations with9 the local experts.
  • 10. Empirical methods Two household datasets • National survey on agricultural export commodities (NASC) – pseudo-panel data • Living Standard Measurement Survey – Integrated Survey on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) – cross section data Examine: 1. Patterns of sourcing 2. Effect of subsidy on fertilizer subsidy 3. Size of crowding in / out 10
  • 11. National survey on agricultural exportcommodities (NASC)Collected by NBS, CBN,FMARD and FM of Year of survey Sample sizeCommerce and Industry 2003 14,337(FMC&I) 2006 16,307 2007 15,286Export crop growers Source: NBS • Cashew, Cassava, Cocoa, Coffee, Cotton, Garlic, Gi nger, Groundnut, Gum Arabic, Kolanut, Oil Palm Rubber, Sesame seed, Sheanut, Sugar cane and Tea • In 2010 LSMS Data, these farmers account for  15 % of producers in Nigeria  30 % of fertilizer use in Nigeria 11
  • 12. Living Standard Measurement Survey –Integrated Survey on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) Collected by the NBS, World Bank Sample – 5000 households nationwide Approximately 3000 farm households with farm plots 12
  • 13. Fertilizer purchase sourceDefinitions of commercial / public – subsidized sources Commercial Public - subsidizedNSAEC data • Cooperative society* • Ministry (Extension services) • Local market • Agro service center • Other source • Farm service centerLSMS data • Market (local / main) • Government • Friend / neighbor • Political Leader • All the other • All free fertilizer (regardless of the source)Source: Consultations with the local experts and literature 13
  • 15. Share (%) of farmers by sources of fertilizer 2003 2006 20.4 21.5 18.1 18.979.6 78.5 1.7 1.9 0.6 0.7 2007 LSMS No Com only 25.0 20.469.7 30.3 75.3 24.1 Sub only 2.1 3.3 3.2 Both 1.0 Only one type of source (usually) Some indication of crowding-out Source: Authors 15
  • 16. Why use only one source?Potential reasons Small demand for fertilizer High transaction costs (information) Trust in particular source (quality)=> Characterize the interaction between commercial and subsidized market Affect the nature of crowding-out Determine our estimation approach 16
  • 18. Fertilizer transportation cost Table 6. Transportation costs from Lagos to major fertilizer destinationsa Source: Informal communication with major fertilizer manufacturers in Nigeria. Destination Zone Transportation costs Naira / USD / ton 30 ton Kano NW Sokoto NW 380,000 82 Katsina NW Maiduguri NE Yola NE 450,000 98 Jalingo NE Abuja NC 320,000 71 Ilorin NC 220,000 49 Ibadan SW 200,000 44 Oshogbo SW 220,000 49 Calabar SS 400,000 87 Enugu SE 280,000 61 Source: Major fertilizer manufacturers in Nigeria (Tak International)Source: Generated by Renato Folledo using ESRI World Street Map 18(
  • 19. Fertilizer prices – theoretical, actual(commercial / subsidized) - 2010 (US Dollar / Ton) 689 666 695 668 650 653 585 553 585 520 520 527 424 325 312 273 NW NC NE SW SS SE Theoretical (NPK and Urea) Open Market SubsidizedSource: Authors’ calculations.Open market and subsidized prices are median of each region in LSMS data.No subsidized price was obtained for the South West region.• North => lower subsidized price, though slightly higher theoretical price• Open market price < Theoretical price => Subsidy depressed open marketprice 19
  • 20. Lower subsidized price (highersubsidy) => lower open market priceCorrelation between open market and subsidized price at the LGAlevel NSAEC data LSMS data 2003 2006 2007 All LGA Sub- SampleCorrelation coefficient .391*** .163* .565*** .014 .261**Sample size 135 114 83 70 68p-value (H0: correlation .000 .083 .000 .907 .031coefficient = 0)Source: Authors.• Positive correlation at the LGA level between open market price andsubsidized price Greater subsidy may be depressing open market fertilizer price aswell Another indication of crowding out 20
  • 22. Estimation challenge 1. Data restriction – we can only use 2 groups to estimate crowding- out effect Obtain Obtain Obtain fertilizer from fertilizer from fertilizer fromDoes not use fertilizer commercial subsidized both types of source only source only sources Single-source users Dual-source users 2. Subsidized fertilizer quantity – endogenous, censored at 0 22
  • 23. Estimation method1. Bivariate probit - control for self-selection (ΠC, ΠG) = f (x) => Obtain λ (inverse mills ratio)2. Endogenous Tobit – crowding out among single-source usersCensored regression (Tobit)1: G* = f (xG, λ)Censored regression (Tobit) 2: C* = f (xC, G*, λ)3. OLS – difference in fertilizer use between single- and dual- source users T* = f (xG, xC, δ)δ: probability of being dual-source users – estimated from bivariate probitCorrelated Random Effects: Interact variables x with year dummies – to minimize bias from 23 pooled cross section data
  • 24. Other variables in the modelsCategories VariablesFarmer characteristics Age, gender, household sizeEducation Primary, secondary, post-secondaryLand tenure Size of land owned Land tenureAccess to market, Distance (nearest town, all-weatherinfrastructure road, market, ADP) at LGA levelAgro-ecological factors Rainfall (mean, variation) 4 Agro-ecological zonesPolitical factors 6 Geo-political zonesUse of modern inputs / Improved seedcredit* Motor plow Pesticide Credit 24
  • 25. Share of farmers using subsidized fertilizerShare of farmers using subsidizedfertilizer - by LGA Share of farmers using subsidized fertilizer - by state 25
  • 26. Household level analysis Estimated crowding-out (mean of all sample) = 19 ~ 35% Adding 1 ton of subsidized fertilizer => increase total fertilizer use by only 650 ~ 810 kg => reduces the demand for commercial fertilizer by 190 ~ 350 kg Using both sources (commercial & subsidized), instead of one, => no increase in fertilizer use 26
  • 27. Beneficiary characteristics as cause ofcrowding outKey characteristics that are statistically significant in bothdatasets Farmers using more Recipients of subsidy commercial fertilizerDistance to nearest town near nearHousehold size large largeHousehold head age olderPost-secondary education yesSource: Authors’ estimation.For farmers with large household size, residing closer to thetown=> More subsidy was given to them although they were morelikely to buy fertilizer at commercial price even in the absenceof subsidy 27
  • 28. Implications Old fertilizer subsidy was more likely displacing commercial fertilizer market, than stimulating Government’s goal, increasing fertilizer use in Nigeria under the ATA, can be achieved more efficiently through improved targeting to reduce leakages • Ex-ante assessment to identify demand • Targeting mechanisms – index-based targeting Monitor the change in fertilizer use under ATA 28
  • 29. ReferenceAdesin A. 2011. Agricultural Transformation Agenda. Presentation made by the Honorable Minister of Agriculture to the Economic Management Team Abuja, September 9, 2011.Banful A, E Nkonya & V Oboh. (2010). Constraints to fertilizer use in Nigeria: Insights from agricultural extension service. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01010.Dorward A. (2009). Rethinking agricultural input subsidy programmes in a changing world. Paper presented for the Trade and Markets Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Duflo E, M Kremer & J Robinson. (2011). Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya. American Economic Review 101(6): 2350–2390.FGN (Federal Government of Nigeria). 2011. The Transformation Agenda, 2011-2015. National Planning Commission, Abuja Nigeria.Mogues T, M Morris, L Freinkman, A Adubi, E Simeon, C Nwoko, O Taiwo, C Nege, P Okonji & L Chete. (2008). Agricultural public spending in Nigeria. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00789.Ricker-Gilbert J, TS Jayne & E Chirwa. (2011). Subsidies and Crowding Out: A Double-Hurdle Model of Fertilizer Demand in Malawi. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 93(1): 26–42.Takeshima H, E Nkonya & D Sayon. (2012). Impact of fertilizer subsidies on the commercial fertilizer sector in Nigeria: evidence from previous fertilizer subsidy schemes. IFPRI NSSP Policy Note 34.Xu Z, WJ Burke, TS Jayne & J Govereh. (2009). Do Input Subsidy Programs ―Crowd In‖ or ―Crowd Out‖ Commercial Market Development? Modeling Fertilizer Use Decisions in a Two-Channel Marketing System. Agric. Econ. 40(1): 79–94. 29
  • 30. PBS PARTNERSHIP SUPPORT IN NIGERIA Paper Delivered by MPO Dore, PBS Nigeria Coordinator NSSP National Conference 2012: ―Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda with policy analysis and research evidence‖ Abuja, Nigeria – November 13-14, 2012INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • 31. INTRODUCTION: UNCED & CBD Nigeria’s obligation arising from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992. UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was one of the outcomes and Nigeria signed it in 1992 and ratified it in 1994. The subject of possible effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was just beginning to get recognition. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) developed and Nigeria signed in 2001 and ratified in 2002.
  • 32. OBJECTIVES OF CPB --- contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements.
  • 33. NATIONAL OBLIGATIONS Nigeria is saddled with the task of developing its domestic legislation, regulations, sectoral guidelines, standard operating procedures and mechanisms to implement the provisions. These are by no means easy tasks given the lack of familiarity with the technology and dearth of legal expertise to draw up legislation on the subject.
  • 34. Background PBS works with stakeholders to develop and implement science-based, functional biosafety systems that ultimately: Expand producer choice, inspire consumer confidence, facilitate trade, and promote agricultural R&D. Its remit includes national, regional and global activities. It serves by providing comprehensive expertise for technical, legal, communications and outreach as well as policy/strategy development.
  • 36. Countries & Economic Groupings  East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda; Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA)  West Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, ECOWAS  Southern Africa: Malawi, Mozambique  SE Asia: Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, APEC
  • 37. Nigeria presence Initiated in 2003; 2nd phase (2008 – 2013) Primarily funded by USAID; IFPRI- managed Comprehensive expertise: technical, legal, communications, poli cy/strategy development Technical assistance component supported by independent IFPRI policy research team
  • 38. SERVICES Services offered : Capacity building for national biosafety officials (familiarization tours, retreats), Development of operational biotechnology and biosafety policies, development of Biosafety laws, implementing regulations and guidelines. Provision of technical expertise for Confined Field Trials (CFTs) and multi-location trials (MLTs), commercial release guidelines, functional coordination among agencies, strategic outreach and communications, Issues Management, Capacity building for decision makers and Coalition building for policy support.
  • 39. ANALYSIS OF NIGERIA BIOSAFETY SITUATION Nigeria has two functional bodies responsible for biotechnology and environmental safety in the use of biotechnology. These are the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) of the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology and Federal Ministry of Environment.The latter is the focal point for the Convention on Biological Diversity and biosafety and led Nigeria’s negotiations for the CPB.
  • 40. Existence of guidelines Nigeria has as yet no laws governing modern agricultural biotechnology and biosafety. The Federal Ministry of Environment, which has responsibility for biosafety regulation issued national biosafety guidelines, which became operational in 2001. The guidelines contain provisions for field-testing of GM crops, following review by the National Biosafety Committee.
  • 41. Passed Bill At the moment the National Assembly has passed the Biosafety Bill and is awaiting presidential assent. The bill calls for the establishment of a National Biosafety Management Agency. The Biosafety Bill was presented to the Ministry of Environment by the current Nigeria Biosafety Committee in 2006.
  • 42. PBS ENGAGEMENT PBS has a long-standing relationship in Nigeria and spans almost a decade. This is discernible into two phases. The first phase of activities commenced in the period 2003- 2008. Activities have now entered their second phase which span 2008-2013.
  • 43. Phase I 2005 PBS sub-agreement with International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) under the National Agricultural Biotechnology Program (NABP). --NABP focused on development of Nigeria’s national biosafety system and the strengthening of national capacities for its implementation. -establish an enabling policy environment for the safe use of biotechnology and strengthen national capacities to implement biosafety guidelines leading to the approval of field test applications
  • 44. Achievements 2005-2007 Review and further development of the draft biosafety policy and law; Technical training in key skill areas of biosafety review and regulatory oversight and provision of equipment for the biosafety office to be better able to function. retreat organized in 2005 in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Environment and an NGO which saw the emergence of a draft biosafety bill and regulatory system.
  • 45. Achievements Several training events provided to regulators (IBC members, NBC members) on CFT review and management. These events took place in 2006 (in Ghana, participants from Nigeria). Hands-on national workshop in 2007, focusing on promising technologies for cowpea, maize and cassava supported through the IITA sub-agreement. These activities have significantly strengthened the available skills and capacity for field trial review and management.
  • 46. 2007-8 Regulatory dossier development for an insect-resistant cowpea CFT application became the focus in the period 2007-08, with support from USAID/Nigeria and in collaboration with African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF).
  • 47. Phase II PBS efforts focused on increasing the productivity of selected commodities (cowpea) and the number of value-added products (cassava events, sorghum), build a more commercial and competitive orientation among farmers and small entrepreneurs, and improve the policy environment.
  • 48. Phase IIExpansion of services both in scope and content. Direct collaboration with stakeholders and provided technical support for the first ever Confined Field Trial , support for passage of bill passage, supporting an outreach through OFAB (NABDA) which ensures that the potentials of biotechnology are brought to the grassroots, developing Biosafety guidelines and preparing for regulations required for implementing laws.
  • 49. Current Programs Programs drawn up to deal with the identified areas needing technical expertise in preparation of Nigeria for the coming into law. The development of regulations for implementing the law to be developed include guidelines and manuals on:
  • 50. Taskforce to draft regulations A crucial aspect and determinant in ensuring further progress in the attainment of a lasting and workable Biosafety regime in Nigeria. Risk assessment and Risk Management • System for monitoring and enforcement: e.g., LMO inspections, equipment purchase, development of protocols and guidelines • Need for joint planning and coordination of activities • Procedures for the regulation of laboratory research and confined field trials
  • 51. Regulations & Guidelines Procedures for the commercial release of GMOs into the environment Procedure for the import, export and transit of GMOs Advanced field trial guidelines and SOPs Guidelines for general releases Advanced field trial guidelines, regulations for the enforcement of the Biosafety Act
  • 52. Legal Analysis To ensure an efficient Nigerian biosafety regulatory system that reduces redundancy while meeting all international and national legal obligations. A Biosafety Act is one part of a broader national regulatory system for biotechnology. In addition to the Biosafety Act, there are other existing Nigerian laws that may impact biosafety and/or regulate GMOs or their products.
  • 53. Other legislations Other relevant legislations-- food safety legislation, seed laws and phytosanitary laws may impact plant materials (including GMO plants) and general environmental legislation may apply to the release of a GMO into the environment. International obligations, such as consensus documents from Codex Alimentarius, may impact national biosafety regulation. PBS legal expert & in-country lawyers are working to provide a roadmap of options to reconcile those legal obligations.
  • 54. Process Management Upon passage of the National Biosafety Bill into Law, technical and organizational management advisory services will be required to ensure that the newly established NBMA has adequate capacity to function and execute its mandated duties.
  • 55. Management tools One tool to accomplish this is Process Management Training, which can be useful in articulating the ―who, what, when, where and why‖ of a given process and among various regulatory / legal functions in a clear and methodical stepwise process. Process management, currently applied in several PBS partner countries, will help implement a coordinated framework that is transparent, predictable and efficient.
  • 56. PIPELINE PRODUCTS Biocassava+-Pro-vitamin A Cowpea—insect resistance Sorghum-lysine, Zn THE NEAR FUTURE Demand driven ????
  • 57. CONCLUSION PBS has helped reduce uncertainty surrounding biotechnology and biosafety and increase technical knowledge and confidence on biosafety systems in Nigeria. The collaboration between PBS and Nigerian entities has been fruitful and rewarding for all concerned A robust biosafety administrative regime will emerge arising from PBS engagement in Nigeria
  • 58. Title Page Identifying Key Land Governance Policy Issues in Nigeria* By: Peter Olufemi Adeniyi Chairman, PTCLR⃰ Paper Presented at the National Conference of Nigeria strategy Support Programme (NSSP); Under the Auspices International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Rockview Hotel Royale, Wuse 2, Abuja, Nigeria; 13 – 14 November 2012
  • 59. Outline of Presentation Importance of Land What is Land Governance Governance and Policy Making Emergence of Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) — Purpose, Content and Implementation Arrangement — LGAF Study in Nigeria — Summary of its Substantive Results — Some of the Policy Recommendations Why PTCLR — The Objectives, Goal and Expected Benefits of PTCLR — Key Features of the PTCLR Activities — Challenges 59
  • 60. Importance of LandIn the book of Genesis 2:7, it was stated that man was created from the dust of the land and will return to the land at the end of his life. It was also indicated that while alive, man will keep on working, “tilling the land” for his or her survival (Gen. 3:23).Still in the Holy book (Deuteronomy 12: 9 – 10; 25: 8 and 25:21) it was noted that land is our home, our means of survival and our place of rest, safety and enjoyment of good life. It is therefore not an overstatement to say that without land there would be no human existence since land provides humans with items like food, fuel, clothing, shelter, and medication which are very essential for survival.Land is the source of all material wealth. From it we get everything that we use or value, whether it be food, clothing, fuel, shelter, metal, or precious stones. We live on the land and from the land, and to the land our bodies or our ashes are committed when we die. The availability of land is the key to human existence, and its distribution and use are of vital importance. Land records, therefore, are of great concern to all governments. The framing of land policy, and its execution, may in large measure depend on the effectiveness of ‘land registration’, as we can conveniently call the making and keeping of these records. (Rowton Simpson, 1978, Page 3) 60
  • 61. Land Governance and Elements of Good Land Governance What is Land Governance? — Land Governance is about the policies, processes and institutions by which land, property and natural resources are managed. This includes decisions on access to land; land rights; land use; and land development. Land Governance is about determining and implementing sustainable land policies (Ememark, 2009) Elements of Good Land Governance — Land administration systems are efficient, effective and competent; — Land policies that embody value judgments and are endorsed by elected politicians after consultation with interested and affected parties; — Land information is freely available subject to the protection of privacy; — Land laws and regulations are freely available, well-drafted in a participatory transparent manner, responsive and consistent and able to be enforced by the government and citizens; — Land administration agencies are independently audited and publish their accounts and performance indicators; — Land administration services are provided for all without discrimination e.g. on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, age, or political affiliation; — Sustainable land development is encouraged; — Land services should be provided close to the user; — Land registration and legal systems should provide security of tenure for those with legitimate interest in a parcel of land; — Land administration officials behave with integrity and give independent advice based upon their best professional judgment. (FAO, 2007) 61
  • 62. Basic Steps in Governance and Public Policy Making and Implementation Understanding Issues (Scoping Studies) Evaluating Policy Evaluating Consequences Options (Monitoring and Evaluation)Selecting Policy Implementing Policy Piloting and Testing 62
  • 63. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF)Why LGAF? — Need for a robust and comprehensive methodology to assess the various components of Land Governance — The need for a framework that provides governments with objective assessment tool that can be used to identify areas where improvements are requiredWhat is LGAF? It is a diagnostic instrument, developed by the World Bank in collaboration with IFPRI and other partners, for rapid national evaluation of various aspects of land governance. Its methodology is based on 21 indicators. The indicators are further broken down to 80 dimensions which are then grouped into the following five thematic areas: — Legal and Institutional Framework — Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation — Management of Public Land — Public Provision of Land Information — Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management — Plus additional 16 dimensions on Large Scale Land Acquisition 63
  • 64. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) (Cont’d)Its Methodology is Strategic and Novel — Strategic because of the use of in-country experts thereby ensuring credibility and buy-in of the process and outcomes — Novel not only because of the development of comprehensive indicators but also because its implementation is based on participatory approach involving:  Use of Expert Investigators to collect background information on a number of the dimensions  Composition of Expert Panel Workshops for consensus assessment of a number of dimensions  Conduct of Technical Validation of the Consensus Assessment Report  Conduct of Policy Dialogue where key policy recommendations and monitoring indictors are developed. 64
  • 65. Implementation of LGAF in NigeriaPeriod of Study: February to November 2011Four Expert Investigators were appointed to provide background information on 59 out of the 96 dimensionsNine Expert Panel Workshops were conducted for the consensus assessment of a number of dimensions between April 27 and May 13, 2011Conduct of Technical Validation Workshop involving 30 multi-stakeholders Nigerian participants and 13 participants from International OrganisationPolicy Dialogue meeting involving 28 Nigerians and 9 participants from International Organisations 65
  • 66. Summary of LGAF FindingsIndividual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Land Tenure Ranking by Expert EPM LGI Dimension Description Panel Members (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural) B D D B A 1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban) A D B B A 1 iii Rural group rights recognition C D D B C 1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas D C B C C 1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization B C D C C Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to communal 2 i A D D B D land 2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas C D D C D 2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas A D C B D A condominium regime provides for appropriate 2 v D C D C C management of common property 2 vi Compensation due to land use changes C C D D C Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for 3 i B D D B C recognition of property claims 3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession C D C C D 3 vi Efficient and transparent process to formalize possession C B B D C 66
  • 67. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Urban Land UsePlanning and Development Ranking by Expert Panel EPM LGI Dimension Description Members (EPM) Consensus 1 2 3 4 5 Ranking 3 v Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible and affordable B D B C C C Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability 4 i B D B B B B are justified In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based 7 i C C D D B C on public input 7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use C B C C D C 7 iv Speed of land use change C C D D D Process for planned urban development in the largest city in the 8 i D D C D C D country Process for planned urban development in the four largest cities in 8 ii D D D D C D the country, excluding the largest city 8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth D C D C C C 8 iv Residential plot size adherence in urban areas C C D C C C Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are 9 i C C B B D C affordable and processed in a non-discretionary manner 9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling D C A C C 67
  • 68. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Rural Land Useand Land Policy Ranking by EPM Expert Panel LGI Dimension Description Consensus Members (EPM) Ranking 1 2 3 4 Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and 4 ii B C B B B transferability are justified Clear land policy is developed in a participatory 6 i B D B C C manner Meaningful incorporation and monitoring of equity 6 ii C D C C C goals Policy for implementation is costed, matched with 6 iii C D C D D benefits and adequately resourced Regular and public reports indicating progress in 6 iv D D C D D policy implementation In rural areas, land use plans and changes in these 7 i D D C C D plans are based on public input Use plans for specific rural land classes (forests, 8 v D D D D D pastures, etc) are in line with use 68
  • 69. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Management ofPublic Land Ranking by Expert EPM Panel Members LGI Dimension Description Consensus (EPM) Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Public land ownership is justified and12 i implemented at the appropriate level of B B C C C C government12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land C A B C A C Assignment of management responsibility for12 iii C A C C D C public land Resources available to comply with12 iv D C D C D D responsibilities Inventory of public land is accessible to the12 v B C C C C C public Key information on land concessions is12 vi C B B B B B accessible to the public 69
  • 70. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Management ofPublic Land (Cont’d) Ranking by Expert EPM Panel Members LGI Dimension Description Consensus (EPM) Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests A C D B C C 13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land C B C C C C Compensation for expropriation of registered 14 i C B C B C C property 14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights A A C C C C 14 iii Promptness of compensation D D D D D D Independent and accessible avenues for appeal 14 iv B A C D D D against expropriation Timely decisions regarding complaints about 14 v C A D C D C expropriation 15 i Openness of public land transactions D D D C C D 15 ii Collection of payments for public leases A C A C C C 15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land B B D B B B 70
  • 71. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Large-Scale LandAcquisition Ranking by Expert EPM LSLA Dimension Description Panel Members (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 LSLA-1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered C D C C D Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed LSLA-2 D D D D D expeditiously and transparently Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be LSLA-3 C C D D D identified Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear LSLA-4 D B C C D and consistent manner LSLA-5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent C B D C C Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture (food LSLA-6 crops, biofuels, forestry, game farm/conservation) are regularly C C C D C used and transparently applied There are direct and transparent negotiations between right LSLA-7 D C C C C holders and investors Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the LSLA-8 C C C C C desirability of projects on public/communal land. 71
  • 72. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Large-Scale LandAcquisition (Cont’d) Ranking by Expert EPM LSLA Dimension Description Panel Members (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors LSLA-9 provide the required information and this information is publicly C C C C C available Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from LSLA-10 communities or the public are required by law to explicitly mention D C D D D the way in which benefits and risks will be shared. The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is LSLA-11 D D B C B reasonably short Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are LSLA-12 D C D D D clearly defined and implemented Environmental requirements for large scale investments in LSLA-13 D C D D D agriculture are clearly defined and implemented For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and select economically, LSLA-14 C C C D C environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement these effectively. Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is LSLA-15 C C D D D checked There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do LSLA-16 D D D D D not comply with requirements 72
  • 73. LGAF Validated Findings Summary of the Validated Consensus Ranking of the LGAF Dimensions Legal and Institutional Framew ork 7.41 18.52 44.44 29.63 (27 Dimensions) Land Use Planning, Management 5.88 52.94 41.18 and Taxation (17 Dimensions) Public Land Management (16 12.5 62.5 25 Dimensions) Thematic Areas P ublic Provision of Land 15.38 15.38 23.08 46.16 Inf ormation (13 Dimensions) Dispute Resolution and Conf lict 14.29 42.85 14.29 28.57 Management (7 Dimensions) Large Scale Land Acquisition (16 A 6.25 37.5 56.25 Dimensions) B C All the Dimensions - 96 5.21 14.58 42.71 37.5 D 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 % Score The order of weakness based on the percentage of dimensions scoring C and D are: — Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation with 94.12%; — Large Scale Land Acquisition, 93.76%; — Management of Public Land, 87.5%; — The Legal and Institutional Framework, 74.07%; — Public Provision of Land Information, 69.24%; and — Dispute resolution and Conflict Management, 42.86% 73
  • 74. LGAF Validated Findings (Cont’d)Areas of great weakness — Enforcement of rights; — Speed of conflict resolution in the formal — Mechanisms for recognition of rights; system; and — Institutional overlap; — Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older — Equity and non-discrimination issues; than 5 year) — Transparency of land use planning; — Efficiency of land use planning; — Transparency of valuation; — Tax collection; — Difficulty of identifying public land; — Speed of use of expropriated land; — Transparency in land expropriation procedures; — Promptness of Compensation; — Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation; — Openness of public land transactions — Mapping of registry records; — Reliability of records; — Cost of registering a property transfer; — Financial sustainability of the registry; — Capital investment; 74
  • 75. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring IndicatorsPOLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS1. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK More than 30 years after  To enable the National Council of States to  Establishment of the its passage, none of the pass needed regulations and to monitor Commission key pieces of regulation land system performance on a regular  Evaluation of results of the envisaged in the Land Use basis, a National Land Commission as a pilots available Act (LUA) (Sections 3 and technical body with representation from  Regulations drafted 46) has been passed. This key actors needs to be established.  Provision of information and has seriously undermined Pending the establishment of the National institutional arrangements to good land governance Land Commission, the Presidential monitor outcomes. and effective land use Technical Committee on Land Reform  Study conducted and planning in the country. (PTCLR) should carry out the tasks below. recommendations A high degree of vertical  Conduct and carefully evaluate pilot disseminated & discussed. and horizontal overlap studies in relevant areas to provide - % increase of land among land institutions evidence to inform the drafting of key registration, leases and creates confusion, high regulations for land registration and land transfers, C of Os levels of transaction survey/mapping in two states within one - reduced boundary costs, and undermines year. conflicts good governance in the  Carry out a study to identify horizontal and - reduction in transaction sector. vertical overlaps in the land system and costs and time recommend solutions. - reduction of vertical and horizontal overlaps 75
  • 76. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS2. LAND USE PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND TAXATION While land use plans are  Prepare strategic land use  Initial establishment of land use necessary to guide development plans with development plans. development in urban and adequate implementation and  Mechanism to monitor rural areas, they are mostly enforcement regulations; compliance with plans in place unavailable leading to sensitize the public on their and results haphazard growth. existence, importance and use of monitored/publicised. Absence of property tax the same.  Property tax guidelines administration, assessment  Review planning standards, plot available, explained to and and collection hinders size, land use class, and adoption understood by citizens, decentralization and of model plans for public use. professionals (e.g. estate effective provision of local  Develop, disseminate, and help surveyors and valuers), and services. implement transparent systems local governments. for property tax administration,  Increase in property tax assessment, and collection for assessments and actual use by local governments at collection. different sizes.  Number of states that have land use plans, land administration machinery and property tax rolls. 76
  • 77. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS3. PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT Lack of information on the  Undertake a comprehensive  Inventory has been location and extent of public inventory of land owned by all established and land makes it impossible to tiers of government. mechanisms to properly manage and protect  Harmonize various legislations maintain it currently this critical asset. into a clear single simple process exist. A large number of acquisitions for acquisition of land by all  Legislation to regulate occurs without prompt and government agencies to ensure expropriation has been adequate compensation, thus due process for land acquisition enacted and is leaving those losing land by requiring publicity, adequate effectively applied. worse off, with no mechanism and prompt compensation in line  Share of allocations of for independent appeal even with global best practice and government (public) though the land is often not ensure availability of independent land and transactions utilized for a public purpose. avenues for appeal. Put in place that are advertised. Divestiture of public land is sanctions for misbehaviour. less transparent and therefore  Ensure publicity of the detailed does not generate revenues agreement, including schedules of for the public sector. applicable charges. 77
  • 78. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS4. PUBLIC PROVISION OF LAND INFORMATION The low level of  Establish software tools to manage textual and  Share of registry registered parcels (less spatial data jointly and to link existing ones. records with textual than 3% of the country  Building on the pilot study results, develop and spatial covered) and the procedures for systematic expansion of information incomplete spatial registered areas. integrated. reference of registry  Study and recommend processes and  Share of the land information fosters requirements to streamline and control under private use that conflict, corruption, different registration services and based on is registered and undermines this, establish a registry service charter mapped. investment, land (including sanctions and avenue for appeal) that  Implementation of market functioning, is publicly available and binding on both user service charter leads and housing finance. and officials. to higher levels of Lack of processes for  Design and implement awareness campaign as customer satisfaction. automatic updating well as training programs for officials. undermines the value  Make transparency issues more comprehensive of the land registry as a by publishing list of all allottees upon or at tool for private sector allocation. development.  Ensure implementation of global best practice on access to public land information. 78
  • 79. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS5. DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Lack of awareness of  Disseminate existing laws and  Knowledge of relevant the rights and sensitize different groups about legal provisions and avenues to enforce their rights under the law and ways avenues for them reduces the to enforce them. enforcement in the ability to access and  Link spatial and textual data (see population and properly utilize land above) to reduce boundary disputes. specific groups (e.g. especially for  Mainstream traditional institutions women). vulnerable groups. and the Alternative Dispute  Reduction of backlog High level of pending Resolution (ADR) into the justice of conflicts. conflicts undermines system to reduce backlogs and  Number of new investment and improve access to justice, especially conflicts reaching the efficiency of land for vulnerable groups. formal system use.  Increase the ability of formal decreases. institutions to speedily resolve dispute by building capacity and rationalizing assignment of responsibilities. 79
  • 80. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS6. LARGE SCALE LAND ACQUISITION Lack of clear and efficient procedures  Review and streamline regulations for land-  Establishment of the for large scale investment in land related foreign investment. Create a one-stop one stop intervention reduce Nigeria’s ability to attract shop/intervention and conduct publicity for large scale land technically qualified investors. campaigns among potential investors. acquisition. Realized investments often are  Adaptation of existing EIA and SIA  Number of viable technically, environmentally, and mechanisms to the needs of land-related investment proposals socially unsustainable. investment, mandatory publication of these increases. The need for government to documents, and increased efforts at  Number of failed expropriate land before it can be enforcement. Review of other relevant projects due to transferred to investors opens space procedures in light of international standards technical, for discretionary behaviour and, due and best practice. environmental, or to procedural weaknesses (see up),  Ensure those affected by large scale land social problems and often undermines the livelihood of acquisition have the choice of receiving conflict decreases. local people. compensation in kind and provide options for  Living standards in Lack of local involvement, non- direct negotiation between investors and local areas affected by FDI transparent contracts, and lack of communities. improve. monitoring undermine the scope for  Ensure arrangements for large scale land Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) transfer are negotiated and agreed upon by potential to provide benefits to locals local land users, that mechanisms for benefit and contribute to development. sharing and arbitration are specified, and that contract terms are publicly available to facilitate monitoring. 80
  • 81. Why a PTCLR? The Land Use Act (1978) has had noble intentions... — Offer all Nigerians access to land — Facilitate the acquisition of land by governments for projects of public interest — Combat land speculation … but poor results: — Information about who owns land anywhere in the country is largely unavailable as only about 3% of the land parcels in Nigeria has been demarcated and registered — Land speculation is thriving and prices are prohibitive — Land registration is cumbersome, time consuming and expensive (Nigeria is no. 180 out of 183 countries assessed) — Increased informal land development everywhere — State revenue levels, from ground-rent, are very low Increasing concerns about the failure of LUA by both public and private organizations, CSO, NGOs, business and professional organization, academia, etc As social and economic pressure increase, there is an urgent need to put more land into productive use through improved land governance anchored on evidence-based land policies As a response to this, the PTCLR was established in April 2009 by the Federal Government The LGAF result further justifies the constitution of PTCLR and it further assists in redesigning of programme activities and seeking support for their implementation 81
  • 82. Example of Informal Development Around Lagos 82
  • 83. PTCLR’s Terms of Reference To collaborate and provide technical assistance to States and Local Governments to undertake land cadastral nationwide; To determine individuals’ “possessory” rights using best practices and most appropriate technology to determine the process of identification of locations and registration of title holdings; To ensure that land cadastral boundaries and title holdings are demarcated in such a way that community, hamlet, village, village area, town, etc, will be recognizable; To encourage and assist States and Local Governments to establish an arbitration mechanism for land ownership conflict resolution; 83
  • 84. PTCLR’s Terms of Reference (Cont’d)To make recommendations for the establishment of a National Depository for Land Title Holdings and Records in all States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory;To make recommendations for the establishment of a mechanism for land valuation in both urban and rural areas in all parts of the Federation; andTo make any other recommendations that will ensure effective, simplified, sustained and successful land administration in Nigeria. 84
  • 85. Goals of the Reform To empower Nigerians from all walks of life to have easy access to incontestable certificate of occupancy. To bring about sustainable socio-economic growth and development anchored on secure land tenure system and effective land titling. To promote wealth creation and economic empowerment of Nigerians by optimizing the use of land as an economic commodity. 85
  • 86. What the Reform is All About Collaborating with State and Local Governments to provide technical assistance and enhance their capacity for modern land administration. Undertaking a train-the-trainer programme for Field Officers and other technical personnel required for effective nationwide cadastral survey. Putting in place a time defined process of clarification of Land boundaries or adjudication of land for the purposes of registration. Identifying and removing the bottlenecks that are embedded in the current land titling and registration procedures and processes within the existing land delivery process. 86
  • 87. What the Reform is All About (Cont’d) Scaling up the quality and adequacy of institutional capacities required to administer and promote land transactions. Mainstreaming best practices in the documentation of land transactions, land titling and registration processes and procedures. Installing a nationwide land information infrastructure that is required for the efficient networking of databases of cadastral and land title records. Undertaking a comprehensive survey involving the mapping of the country on a scale large enough to show land holdings of individuals or group of individuals or corporate bodies. 87
  • 88. Direct Benefit of the Reform Guaranteed land tenure security and possessory rights for all land owners and occupiers. Economic empowerment of individuals through the use of their certificates of occupancy as credit collateral to promote their economic ventures. Improved efficiency of land administration especially for revenue generation for Local, State and Federal Governments. Reduction in the cost of land transactions, and by extension, reduction in the cost of housing. Reduction or elimination of fraud and other risks in land transactions due to transparent processes and procedures. Effective and early resolution of land disputes. Direct and easy access to reliable, complete and up-to-date land information. National economic growth and development resulting from optimal use of land in various economic engagements. 88
  • 89. Key Features of the Reform Intensive and extensive awareness building Conduct of Strategic Stakeholders’ Meetings Densification of geodetic stations across the country through the installation of Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) o CORS have been installed in Ondo, Katsina and Imo States while that of Kano State is about to be installed 89
  • 90. The CORS being Installed in Ondo State 90
  • 91. The CORS being Installed in Katsina State 91
  • 92. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d) Conduct of scoping studies to provide necessary background information for the development of regulations and a toolkit for systematic land titling and registration  Perception Study  Studies on Land Administration Service Delivery in Nigeria  Socio-economic base line Study  Strategic studies into Valuation Mechanisms Design and development of a toolkit for systematic land titling and registration, involving: (i) a streamlined systematic registration work flow, (ii) a detailed manual that provides sufficient information to enable field staff to implement the procedure, including copies of all the field forms, and (iii) the training material necessary to train State, LGA, village and field staff in the implementation of the procedures. Development of registration software package (e.g FAO Open Source SOLA Software) Conduct of pilot systematic land titling and registration in Ondo and Kano States 92
  • 93. Land Registration in NigeriaThe process of registering property is cumbersome, time-consumingand unaffordable to majority of Nigerians. Nigeria ranks 180 out of 183countries on the issue of registering property. 93
  • 94. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)Land titling and registration can be sporadic or systematic. Thesporadic system is usually part of a user-pays government initiativethat allows individual landholders to gain titles or more securetenure at their own initiative and cost. The systematic titling on theother hand is equally part of a large government initiative to deliversecure land titles or tenure to a wide cross section of the populationat little or no cost to the landholders.The sporadic system is the system being used in Nigeria and this isresponsible for the abysmal low level of registered parcel in Nigeria.Today, most land titling projects adopt a systematic approach asexemplified by the well-known Thailand Land Titling Project. Thesame approach is being adopted across Africa in such countries asGhana, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, etc. 94
  • 95. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)The advantages of the systematic land titling registrationinclude: Low initial cost for landholders; Government can effectively manage land since it knows who owns what and where it is; A vital end product is a complete map of all land in a jurisdiction or country to support land management and sustainable development; A systematic approach is much more equitable than a sporadic approach, especially when the base map is used for land taxation, to identify encroachments, or other planning or environmental controls; Titling is completed relatively quickly (15 – 20) years is possible for most countries. 95
  • 96. Designed Field Party Structure for the Systematic Registration State Coordinator Field Party Leader (PL) Deputy Field Party Leader (DPL) FieldTeam (3) Team (3) FieldTeam (3) FieldTeam (3) Sensitisation Office GIS Officer (1) Field Field Team (3) Village Field Team (3) Officers (3) Assistance (3) Field Team (3) Officials (2) State/LGA Official Employed Staff Village Officials 96
  • 97. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)Each of the four field parties will be structured as follows: Field Party Leader (FPL, either a land surveyor or an estate surveyor) who is responsible for the management of the overall activities of the party including: liaison with the community, leading the sensitisation activity in the villages, oversight of the dispute resolution process, preparation of reports to the state coordinator. Deputy Field Party Leader (an estate surveyor if the PL is a land surveyor or a land surveyor if the PL is an estate surveyor) who assists the PL in managing the work. Sensitisation Officers (3 staff) – responsible for planning and coordinating the village sensitisation program with the field teams, implementing the village sensitisation program, facilitating dispute resolution, assisting with the public display, helping distribute registration information. 97
  • 98. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d) Office Assistants (3 staff) – responsible for checking the data gathered by the field teams, entering the data into the computer, producing reports, producing material for public display, helping resolve disputes, preparing registration material. GIS Officer (1 staff) – responsible for entering the spatial information in the GIS, preparing large scale plots for the field teams, preparing the maps for public display, preparing and spatial data for registration. Field Teams (7 teams each comprised of a field officer, adjudicator and field assistant – a total of 21 staff) – responsible for the demarcation and charting of property boundaries, the gathering of information on rights, the completion of the field forms with the necessary signatures and supporting information, chasing land holders not present in the field, the correction of incomplete or incorrect information on the field forms, settling disputes, assisting with the office processing and other tasks. 98
  • 99. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)The deployment of the procedures involves the following three(3) stages:(i) First Stage (Front Office) which entails: Village or ward sensitization Field survey to identify the boundaries of land parcels. Taking inventory of the possessory rights of individuals or family groups or corporate bodies over the parcels of land, which must be carried out in the presence of all adjacent owners of such parcels of land in the community. Field adjudication for minor disputes 99
  • 100. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)(ii) Second Stage (Middle Office) which entails: Entering, analyzing and processing of the cadastral and attribute data collected in the field. Quality control of the data so collected. The timely process of adjudication of land disputes which could not be resolved in the field by the local adjudicator. This will be done at the Local community level. Where the claims are not contested or the contestation had been resolved, the rights of individual to the parcels being presented for validation are then confirmed. The confirmation will be done through the issuance of a receipt that entitles the owner of the parcel of land to apply for a title or certificate of occupancy from the appropriate authority. 10
  • 101. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)(iii)Third Stage (Backroom Office) which entails: The presentation of the receipt from the middle office represents application for the issuance and registration of the title documents or certificates of occupancy by the appropriate authority. Development of computerized land registries at Local and State Government levels. Provision of computerized backup facilities in a National Depository at the Federal level. Promotion of the development of the National Cadastral data infrastructure. 10
  • 102. Importance and Relevance of Land Reform (Cont’d) Land Reform will strengthen the capacity of State Governors and Local Government Chairmen to administer land in their States and Local Governments. Land Reform will protect all land owners and occupiers from illegal encroachment. Land Reform will enhance the security of all Statutory and Customary Certificates of Occupancy. Land Reform will make land more viable for economic activities and this will lead to economic empowerment and wealth creation. 10
  • 103. ChallengesAttitudinal Change and lack of capacity to appreciate and manage changePoor perception of the fundamental importance of landVery weak capacity in Land AdministrationDevelopment of a comprehensive evidence-based National Land PolicyResource Mobilization for the nationwide conduct of Systematic Land Titling and RegistrationSustenance of Stakeholders’ InterestEstablishment of a National Land Reform Commission 10
  • 104. The Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform Thank you! Conclusion10
  • 105. Challenges and Opportunities for Land Governance in Nigeria:- Insights from Case Studies in Ondo and Kano states Hosaena G Hagos, IFPRI NSSP National Conference 2012: “Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda with Policy Analysis and Research Evidence” Abuja, Nigeria – November 13-14, 2012
  • 106. Background: About This Research• Very little is known about customary or statutory legal provisions regarding women’s rights, the types of ownership or use and management rights women hold;• There is lack of clarity on mandates of institutions (formal and customary) available to enforce land rights in case of violation and the transaction costs associated with doing so.• IFPRI was asked by the PTCLR to do qualitative assessment of the land governance system in Ondo and Kano• This report is based on case studies and exploratory visits to the pilot intervention sites identified by the PTCLR (in Ondo and Kano states)•INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 106
  • 107. Motivation: Why Land Governance Reform? The demand for secure property rights to land • Need for investment to increase agricultural productivity & sustainability • Increasing urbanization, escalating land prices, • ‘Scramble’ for land in wake of bio-fuel boom (speculation) Supply-side factors • New land legislation in much of Africa in 90s • Advances in IT and remote sensing reduces cost But why has so little happened on the ground? • Technical or institutional obstacles • Limited benefits compared to costINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 107
  • 108. The Rationale for Land Right Formalization• Theory predicts that formalized land rights enhance tenure security of householdsEconomic benefits of formalization of land rights:• Enhance land investment • Conservation structures, technology adoption• Transferability • Gains from trade • Reallocate land to more efficient users• Credit access • Land as collateralINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 108
  • 110. Rational for the Demand Assessment StudyObjectives of the survey Assess the general public’s knowledge and perception of land regulations Understand the expectations with respect to benefits offormal and informal property rights (e.g. land disputes, access to mortgage, protection of women rights, etc.) Quantify the willingness-to-pay for a certificate of occupancy Inform the second phase assessment (design of the baseline survey)and help refine registration process and sensitization strategyINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 110
  • 111. Preliminary Findings: case studies• The study shows that the costs of land registration are around 10 percent of the land value• Household reported the disbursement of compensation as a major problem rather than the lack of land registration per se.• The local governments play a rather limited, if not completely nonexistent role, in providing land governance servicesINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 111
  • 112. Preliminary Findings: Cont.• The law, both statutory and customary recognizes the right of women to own and use land for productive uses.• However, there is a regional variation in the rights of female to land ownership (acquisition) • Kano: In the event of the death of the husband, the wife has the right to inherit ¼ the husbands property. • Ondo: A woman according to custom has no right of inheritance from her husband,• Direct purchase, gift through inheritance and government allocation are the dominant modes of land acquisition for women• Though joint ownership of land and properties with spouses is constitutionally allowed, it is rarely practiced.• Majority of respondents opposed this form of land ownership (reason: potential cause for conflict in polygamous family)INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 112
  • 113. Preliminary Findings: Cont.• The willingness-to-pay for Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) varies in both states• Generally, there is a higher willingness (backed with ability) to pay in the urban area, among male respondents, migrants and households with earlier experience of land dispute• Unaffordability was stated as the major reason for not having (obtaining) certificate of Occupancy• Land-related disputes are more common in urban areas than rural.• Though a myriad of them exist in both states (Kano and Ondo State), inheritance dispute , border dispute and dispute caused by land expropriation are dominant cause of land related disputes in the two states.• Majority of the households have reported to have poor access to formal dispute resolution mechanisms - mainly relying on traditional (informal) mechanismsINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 113
  • 114. Conclusions • Sporadic land registration is more expensive and less pro-poor (risk of elite capture) • A need for a context-specific land governance intervention as sources of risk of tenure insecurity and customary practices vary from place to place • In addition to lack of clarity in recognition of land rights, poor organizational structure of institutions, overlapping institutional mandates, and lack of public awareness of the formal and traditional rules (laws) are factor for poor land governance in NigeriaINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 114