Transformation and Vulnerability in Ethiopia Symposium 2016

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!