Is further formalization necessary? Land policy, agricultural transformation, and small holder farmers in Ethiopia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Is further formalization necessary? Land policy, agricultural transformation, and small holder farmers in Ethiopia

on

  • 51 views

Is further formalization necessary? Land policy, agricultural transformation, and small holder farmers in Ethiopia

Is further formalization necessary? Land policy, agricultural transformation, and small holder farmers in Ethiopia

Statistics

Views

Total Views
51
Views on SlideShare
51
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Is further formalization necessary? Land policy, agricultural transformation, and small holder farmers in Ethiopia Is further formalization necessary? Land policy, agricultural transformation, and small holder farmers in Ethiopia Presentation Transcript

  • ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE Is further formalization necessary? Land policy, agricultural transformation, and small holder farmers in Ethiopia By: Hosaena Ghebru, Bethelhem Koru, and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse IFPRI ESSP-II Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA) and the Econometric Society 19th Annual Conference of the African Region Chapter of the Econometric Society 12th International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy July 16-19, 2014 Addis Ababa 1
  • Background • In Ethiopia all land is state owned and individual households are given user rights but no right to sell. • First stage certification: – Largest and least costly titling programs. – Relied on community aided plot demarcation (neighbors and other community members served as witnesses to border demarcations); – Included only the name of household heads on the certificates; and • What did certification mean in the Ethiopian context? – Rights to use, bequeath, inherit, rent out, invest; – Responsibility for land conservation; – Restricts migration and duration of rental contracts; – Obligation to use the land; – Restricts proportion of land rented out up to only half of holdings. • Each region has its own Land Proclamation;
  • Continued…
  • Rationale for a Second Round Certificate • No updating mechanism in First Stage Certification Program • Probability of border related disputes - Erosion corrodes natural boundaries (45% of the households have natural boundaries) - Number of witnesses diminish - people move, pass away • Population growth -Increases demand for land and -Further pressure on border demarcations • Tenure insecurity - Affects urbanization and labor mobility • Thus the objective of the study is to asses factors that explains perceived tenure insecurity of households and to determine the demand for new formalization of land rights in the country.
  • 5 Data and Methods Data Focus on high productive potential areas of Ethiopia(AGP) -93 woredas in Amhara, Oromiya, SNNP, and Tigray -Survey period of baseline 2011 -Midline survey collected 2013 -Total of 7503 Households We have both household and parcel level information on different variables to analyse insecurity of land Methods - Mean comparison test and Logistic model
  • 6 Descriptive Results: Household level Variables Tigray Amhara Oromiya SNNP Number of parcels 3 4 3 2 Farm size(ha) 1.3 1.3 1.6 0.8 Percentage of HH with farm size <=1 ha 53.81 47.98 38.41 71.2 1-2.5 ha 31.39 37.56 39.09 17.49 >2.5 ha 13.79 8.89 17.43 3.31 Household size(number) 4.7 4.3 5 5 farm size per capita 0.33 0.35 0.34 0.17 % of HH with clear boundary demarcation 75 90 91 94
  • 7 Descriptive Results : Parcel level Variables Tigray Amhara Oromiya SNNP Mode of land Acquisition Allocated 79.02 60.19 51.15 13.08 Purchased 1.89 1.60 2.63 8.41 Inherited/Parent's gift 19.02 38.13 46.12 78.48 Mortgaged 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.03 Total 4757 6803 5781 3508 Purpose of land use Owner operated 52.53 71.26 70.96 64.94 Rented out 1.91 1.51 1.55 0.45 Sharecropped out 5.73 10.08 4.73 1.05 Permanent 4.38 6.98 13.81 58.06 Fallowed 1.41 0.88 2.38 6.06 Average parcel size(Ha) 0.40 0.34 0.50 0.45 % of Household with Natural Boundaries 62 58 46 21
  • 8 Indicators of Land Tenure Insecurity In order to asses tenure insecurity of farm households, we used four main indicators (variables) -Perceived risk of Private land dispute -Perceived risk of land expropriation -Likelihood of boarder dispute -Demand for land demarcation
  • 9 Indicators of Land Tenure Insecurity vs Land Certificate Variables With certificate With out certificate Perceived risk of expropriation 0.81 0.75*** Perceived risk of Private Land dispute 0.41 0.4 Perceived risk of boarder dispute 0.64 0.62
  • 10 Mean comparison test: Household characteristics vs Tenure insecurity indicators Variables Perceived risk of land dispute Perceived risk of expropriation by demand for land demarcation Yes No Yes No Yes No Monogamy 0.69 0.696 0.69 0.693 0.696 0.683 Single 0.036 0.024** 0.03 0.026** 0.028 0.027 widow 0.163 0.179 0.176 0.156 0.166 0.191 Divorce 0.052 0.033 0.04 0.039 0.041 0.026 Farming 0.878 0.865 0.87 0.859 0.867 0.883 Domestic work 0.076 0.093 0.082 0.108 0.089 0.08 Non farm 0.032 0.022 0.031 0.021 0.03 0.017*** N 2566 3725 5864 1508 3195 1753
  • Mean comparison :Land characteristics and farming types vs Tenure insecurity Variables Perceived risk of land dispute Perceived risk of expropriation Most-likely dispute is border Yes No Yes No Yes No Area proportion of gedel parcel 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01* 0.01 0.02** Area proportion of rented out land 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.008* 0.01 0.01 Area proportion of sharecropped land 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.04** 0.07 0.05** Area proportion of fallow land 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.023 0.02** Area proportion of permanent perennial 0.15 0.19 0.17 0.12** 0.12 0.20** N 2566 3725 5864 1508 3766 3608
  • 12 Logitic Model: Demand for land Demarcation Demand for land Demarcation Perceived risk of private land dispute(1=yes) 0.065*** (0.015) Maximum years of parcel acquisition -0.001** (0.005) Number of parcel -0.05*** (0.019) Farm size 0.008 (0.005) Boundary marked(1=yes) 0.039** (0.02) Boarder dispute(1=yes) 0.053*** (0.015) Purchased land 0.143*** (0.04) sex(1=male) -.027* (0.016)
  • Regression Result  Household are more likely to demand for land demarcation if they have – purchased land – held the land for longer period of time – higher perceived risk of land dispute – Reported boarder dispute as a major source of dispute  Households are less likely to demand further land demarcation if the head of the household is male
  • Regional Comparisons of Tenure Insecurity Variables Perceived risk of expropriation Most-likely dispute is border Perceived risk of land dispute Yes No Yes No Yes No Tigray 0.029 0.032** 0.031 0.028* 0.004 0.002*** Amhara 0.281 0.22 0.297 0.242 0.344 0.195*** Oromiya 0.441 0.458 0.47 0.419 0.393 0.573*** SNNP 0.249 0.291 0.202 0.311*** 0.258 0.229 N 5864 1508 3766 3608 3195 1753
  • In an in-depth study based on a big survey in Tigray • Demand for the first stage certification Household closer to the district town (+), implies tenure insecurity is higher in peri-urban area Potential land lose/dispute from government(-) Female farmers Large farm size per capita (+) Large number of plots (+) Members engaged in nonfarm activities (+) Lease at least half of their land (+) • Demand for the second stage certification Potential border disputes (+) Large farm size holdings (+) Land is acquired through government allocation (-) Higher if dispute is from neighbors (+)
  • Conclusion and Policy implication • Generally tenure insecurity are still high, parcels with Perceived Risk of Private Land Dispute is high (45%) while parcels with Perceived risk of expropriation is relatively low(16%) in Ethiopia. • Perceived Risk of Private Land Dispute is not the same among regions; it is relatively high in Amhara and Tigray and relatively low in Oromiya. • Demand for land demarcation is positively associated with non-farm employment and purchased land and negatively associated with longer years of acquisition • The existence of boarder dispute increase the likelihood of demanding for further land demarcation • Women are more likely to demand further land demarcation. • Perceived Risk of Private Land Dispute is highly associated with the other tenure security indicators and boarder dispute experience. This implies policy intervention in one aspect could also solve problems in other aspects. • High proportion of parcels with clear boundary demarcation implies future boundary demarcation process is not going to be a huge task. But, Risk of private land dispute can not be solved simply by creating clear boundary demarcation