Article title: Lessons from Systematic Evaluation of Land Administration Systems The Case of Amhara...

World Development Vol. 68, pp. 282–295, 20150305-750X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddevhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.12.006

Lessons from Systematic Evaluation of Land Administration Systems.

The Case of Amhara National Regional State of Ethiopia

GEBEYEHU BELAY SHIBESHI a,b, HELMUT FUCHS a and REINFRIED MANSBERGER a,*

a University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austriab Bureau of Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use (BoEPLAU), Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Summary. — Lessons from the evaluation of land administration systems are important to facilitate sustainable development. TheAmhara National Regional State of Ethiopia has designed and is implementing a land administration system since 2003. In the studya systematic evaluation was conducted. During the evaluation process external factors, monitoring, and evaluation functions were con-sidered. Individual landholders, land administration staff, land use committee members, professionals, and representatives of main stake-holder offices were involved in the evaluation process. The study revealed the major strengths and weaknesses of the Amhara region landadministration system.� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words — The Amhara region, Ethiopia, evaluation, land administration system, case study, participatory

* The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the OEAD for fun-

ding the field work of this research project and BoEPLAU for facilitating

office space and logistics. We thank all the respondents of the survey for

their input during data collection. Institutional support from the Institute

of Surveying, Remote Sensing, and Land Information of the University of

Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU Vienna) was highly appre-

ciated. The authors also wish to thank Christine Van der Stege and all the

members of the writing club 2012 for their valuable comments and guid-

ance during the write up. The views expressed in this article correspond

only to those of the authors. Final revision accepted: December 14, 2014.

1. INTRODUCTION

Land is a critical resource and source of wealth all over theworld. Land as a resource is even more imperative for agrariansubsistence economies (Burns, 2007; De Soto, 2000). The rulesto govern the management of this resource are determinantsfor societal development. The development of a society is adynamic and continuous process that has a resilient impacton the nature of the relationship between the human raceand its land. The relationship between people and land canbe spiritual or metaphysical and material (Sheehan, 2001),partially documented by a land tenure or a land administra-tion system. A Land administration system is a public sectorfacility required to support the alienation, development, use,valuation, and transfer of land.

The debate about land to humankind relationship in Africais characterized by two “schools of thought”. The first groupargues that land policies should be rooted in a theory of socialcapital (most African traditional land tenures belong here) andthe other group is convinced that individualized land tenuresystems are more effective and desirable (Franklin, 2012).

Land tenure is how people organize themselves with respectto their rights and obligations to land (Dale & McLaughlin,1999; Williamson, Enemark, Wallace, & Rajabifard, 2010).The knowledge and information generated by the local societyto satisfy the growing needs is the reason for the emergenceand the development of property systems. The change in theway of life is triggered by the scarcity of the natural resources.The precision of the definition of property rights and the rigor,with which they are enforced, is closely related to the value ofthe resources and population density (Mattsson, 2003;Williamson et al., 2010).

The early individualized ‘modern’ land administration sys-tems were introduced in Africa by colonial powers, but mostof them were not sustained because local population consid-ered them as threats. Several large-scale individualized landadministration projects introduced by international aid andfunding institutions failed in Africa. Although many Africancountries have recently adopted highly innovative and propoor land laws, lack of implementation thwarts their poten-tially far-reaching impact on productivity, poverty reduction,

282

and governance (Deininger, Daniel, Holden, & Zevenbergen,2008). Severe land access constraint is reported in NorthernEthiopia (Bezu & Holden, 2014). In Ethiopia nonfarm econ-omy offers higher income path for participant households.However, participation to nonfarm activities is in favor ofwealthier households (Bezu, Barrett, & Holden, 2012).

The reasons for success and failure of individualized tenureprojects in Africa are manifold. The development of a “landadministration theory” on this matter should be at the topof the research agenda (Van der Molen, 2002). Proper evalua-tion and case studies have a potential to convert challengesinto an opportunity for change and experiential learning.

Many frameworks and methodologies that attempt to eval-uate, to characterize, and to assess land administration sys-tems in the world were developed (Chambers, 1983;Cusworth & Franks, 1993; Diallo & Thuillier, 2005), but oftenthey could not properly address local problems and situationsof progressive land administration systems in developingcountries (Burns, 2007). On the other hand, learning from pro-gressive land administration systems is an urgently neededtask to craft a working and individualized humankind to landrelationship in Africa (Lemmen, Augustinus, Haile, &Osterom, 2009).

Standardized methods or a quality framework for improv-ing, evaluating, or comparing land administration aroundthe world is still lacking (Ali, Tuladhar, & Zevenbergen,2010). This is maybe largely due to the fact that the landadministration systems are dependant of the cultural andsocial values of the societies of the prevailing country in which

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.12.006

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.12.006&domain=pdf

LESSONS FROM SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF LAND ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS 283

they operate (Steudler, Rajabifard, & Williamson, 2004;Williamson & Fourie, 1998).

Methods of evaluation were developed by research, training,adoptive implementation, and proper feedback. The evalua-tion framework includes the political and legal aspects, theefficiency of institutions, the status of implementation of coreland administration functions, the impact of external factors,and existing monitoring mechanisms.

The objective of this study is to contribute for a properdevelopment of individualized progressive land administrationsystems in the developing world, mainly based on the lessonsgained from the evaluation of Amhara National RegionalState (ANRS) land administration system. The lessons arestructured according to policy, institutional and operationallevels of the ANRS land administration system. Lessons fromthe implementation of review processes and from the impactof external factors are also considered.

2. EVALUATION FOR PARTICIPATORY ANDPRO-POOR LAND ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS

The evaluation framework applied in the current studyincludes the status of political and legal context; the effective-ness of involved institutions, the implementation status of coreland administration functions, the influence of external factors,and the status of inbuilt monitoring as well as evaluation mech-anisms (see Figure 1). A land administration system is said tobe pro-poor when sufficient legal provisions are incorporatedin the law to protect the rights of the poor and when sufficientmodalities are available to implement the stated provisions.The representations of the poor in land administration com-mittees as well as free and frequent public hearings are amongthe modalities that help the poor to defend their rights on land.

(a) Policy and law

Land policy is among the key policy issues in almost everycountry. The policy-level evaluation testifies if the system iswell defined by objectives, if it responds to the needs of thesociety, if it is equitable for all, and if the system is economi-cally viable (Steudler et al., 2004).

When an appropriate legal framework and transparent pub-lic administration structures are lacking, land administrationcan only make the best of a bad job (Van der Molen, 2002).

Figure 1. Elements of the evaluation framework.

The conventional way of property right definition procedureis a top down legal process (Dale & McLaughlin, 1999; DeSoto, 2000). Contrary to this conventional way, rights andobligations on land in the ANRS are defined by a participa-tory adjudication process.

Defining a property is a key step in land policy formulation.“Property” is the description of the legal relationship with athing. The property rights can be described as a bundle ofrights flexible to meet the specific needs of each country. Therights included in the bundle are different in different jurisdic-tions.

Absolute land ownership is hard to imagine in a society,because one can affect other members of the society while heis trying to enjoy his ownership right (Mattsson, 2003). Own-ership or property rights have to be clearly defined. The expla-nation has to include the type of activities and income streams,the authority to define them, and whether they are private orcommon (Van den Brink, 2003).

The difference in the type of rights included in the bundlecannot be cited per se as a cause for insecurity. Rights are clas-sified into access, withdrawal, management, exclusion, andalienation. The major rights that have protection from the for-mal legal setting are mostly subjects for registration. The aimof an efficient and up to date registration system is to describethe right holder on the land (Hodgson, 2004).

Land administration cannot be treated in isolation fromother activities. The case for good land administration restson good commercial grounds as well as up on matters of socialjustice (Dale & McLaughlin, 1999). Formalization will do littlegood, if it is not backed up by a coherent legal system andauthority structure that promises effective enforcement of therights inherent in, and implied by, the granting of titles(Bromley, 2008).

The rule of the game either is agreed by the society or thestate shall enact it in formal law. The state or the communityhas to be capable of implementing and enforcing their rules tobring about tenure security (Van den Brink, 2003). Land ten-ure is a rule invented to regulate social behavior. The rulesdefine how the land rights are exercised and access to land isgranted. In short, land tenure defines who can use whatresources for how long, and under what conditions (FAO,2002).

The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic ofEthiopia has enshrined the basic principles about the propertyright of citizens under (FDRE, 1995) (Article 40. Sub-article1). This article generally provides that “every Ethiopian citizenhas the right to the ownership of private property. Unless pre-scribed otherwise by law on account of public interest, thisright shall include the right to acquire, to use and, in a mannercompatible with the rights of other citizens, to dispose of suchproperty by sale or bequest or to transfer it otherwise.” Fromthe reading of this article one can assume an individualizedproperty right system in Ethiopia. But property in the contextof the constitution is not including land. Therefore transferrights given by this article are excluding land, though in prac-tice the transfer of fixed assets is including the parcel they arebuilt on it.

Land without any fixed property on it is not subject to sale.The issue is proclaimed as: “The right to ownership of ruraland urban land, as well as of all natural resources, is exclu-sively vested in the state and in the peoples of Ethiopia. Landis the common property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peo-ples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or other meansof exchange” (FDRE, 1995). (Article 40. Sub-article 3).

Proclamation no. 89, later amended by proclamation456/2005 was the result of the constitutional provision. In

284 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

proclamation 456/2005 it is proclaimed that land is not subjectfor sale or any other type of exchange in Ethiopia. The own-ership to land is exclusively vested to the state and to the peo-ple of Ethiopia. It is only the holding right that is given toindividual citizens (FDRE, 2005) (Article 5. Sub-article 1).

The ANRS proclaimed a regional land law (133/2006) byvirtue of power given by proclamation 456/2005 and consulta-tions. Proclamation 133/2006 is the improved version of thepreviously enacted law proclamation no. 46/2000. The newlaw is based on the experiences gained during the implementa-tion of proclamation no 46/2000. It is designed to give betterrights for landholders compared to the previous law andattempts to resolve the problems encountered during theimplementation.

The ultimate objective of the proclamation is to attain ten-ure security and to contribute its part for sustainable develop-ment. Regulations and directives for the implementation of theland law are subsequently prepared and are already beingapplied.

The provisions in the constitution protect the landholdersfrom dislocations. Landholders shall never lose their occupa-tion without any proper compensation. The constitutionstates: “Ethiopian peasants have the right to obtain landwithout payment and the protection against eviction fromtheir possession. . .” (FDRE, 1995) (Article 40. Sub-article4). However, the payable amount of compensation is notconsidered fair, and many application-related problemsaffecting the security feelings of landholders are reported(Ambaye, 2013).

The prime objective of land administration system in theAmhara national regional state is tenure security. This con-tributes for sustainable development. Holding right includesone or more parcels, where a parcel is the smallest spatial unitin land administration. The right to hold property is also sta-ted in the constitution (FDRE, 1995) (Article 40. Sub-article7). This right is given to every Ethiopian and the protectionincludes all immovable improvements made by the citizen.The improvements can be caused by peoples’ labor, by creativ-ity, or by capital inputs on land. The hold property rightsinclude the right to alienate, to bequeath, to transfer, and toremove the property when the right to use the land expires.

The land administration system of the Amhara nationalregional state benefited from the stability and the relative per-manence to land issues. This is as a result of the significant sta-tus given to land issues in the Ethiopian constitution. Thecurrent land policy bears fruits, as frequent changes, causedin the past by political turmoil and/or other external factors,are avoided now. On the contrary, some people argue thatplacing dynamic land issues in the “static” constitution is thewrong move. According to them, flexibility is required to man-age effectively land issues, which is hardly possible for consti-tutional matters (Ambaye, 2013; Rahmato, 2011). Thearguments raised are valid, but there is either the choice tosupport permanence and consistency or to entertain dyna-mism.

The federal framework land law, which is based on the con-stitution, defines the holding right as the right of any peasantfarmer or semi pastoralist and pastoralist� to use the rural land for the purpose of agriculture andnatural resource development;� to lease and to bequeath land to members of their familyor other lawful heirs;� to acquire property produced on their land thereon bytheir labor or capital, and� to sale, exchange, and bequeath the same (FDRE,2005).

(b) Institutional and management aspects

Institutions are the humanly devised constraints that struc-ture human interaction. They are made up of formal con-straints (rules, laws, constitutions), informal constraints(norms of behavior, conventions, and self-imposed codes ofconduct), and their enforcement characteristics. Together theydefine the incentive structure of societies and specifically econ-omies (North, 1993). Based on this definition, formal as well asinformal land tenure system settings can be considered as insti-tutions.

Land administration systems in general and institutionalaspects in particular are context dependent and therefore theyare different in different societies. The transplantation of insti-tutional arrangements was a key driver in the colonizationprocess, where institutions appropriate to one (geographicand social) context were transplanted into a new context(Smajgl & Larson, 2007).

The contextual nature of institution can be one of the rea-sons for failures of land administration systems introducedby colonial powers in Africa. Institutional arrangements inland administration, whether such a system is decentralized,deconcentrated, or centralized, are influenced by historicalbackground. Additionally, the level of education and trainingin a country is an important factor for the nature of formalland administration institutions (Williamson, 2001).

Experience shows that successful land administration sys-tems centralize all the land administration functions within asingle government organization. One government departmentshould be responsible for the land administration infrastruc-ture in a country, as it is proofed by good examples in devel-oping countries (Williamson, 2001).

The goal of management-level evaluation is to identify theefficiency and clarity of organizational set-up, to check if strat-egies are appropriate to reach and satisfy the defined objec-tives, to investigate if involved institutions have each clearlydefined tasks, to examine the quality of their cooperationand communication, and to verify the private sector involve-ment (Steudler et al., 2004).

(c) Operational issues

Land administration systems cannot be understood, built,or reformed unless the core processes are understood(Williamson et al., 2010). The core processes deal with opera-tional functions. The key attributes of a land administrationsystem are land tenure, land value, and land use. The attri-butes can be expressed in four functions: juridical, fiscal, reg-ulatory, and information management (Dale & McLaughlin,1999).

Land tenure is defined as the mode in which rights to landare held. Value is to be understood as all kinds of values whichland might have. Land use is all kinds of use land might have(Van der Molen, 2002).

(d) Monitoring and evaluation

Various approaches were undertaken to evaluate and tocompare the performance of land administration projects indeveloping countries. However, many of these focused onlyto investigate the efficiency of land administration processesand the capacity of institutions (Mitchell, Clarke, & Baxter,2008).

The evaluation of an administration system as a whole hasto include the external factors and the review process(Steudler & Williamson, 2005). External factors include


human resource development, capacity building, professionalassociation, and technical developments. Review processesdeal with the review of the objectives and strategies, of the per-formance and the reliability of the system, and of customersatisfaction (Steudler et al., 2004).

3. LAND ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM IN THEAMHARA NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE (ANRS)

The Amhara National Region State (ANRS) here afterANRS, is located in the north-western part of Ethiopia. TheANRS consists of 10 rural administrative zones that aredivided into 129 Woredas. A Woreda is an administrative unitwith a similar status as a district. The ANRS has an area of154,708 square kilometers and 18 million inhabitants (CSA,2007).

The emergence of a traditional property right system inEthiopia, especially in ANRS, is strongly related to the man-agement of the scarce land resources and other naturalresources. The introduction and wide-scale application of sed-entary agriculture caused at the same time the gradual declineof shifting cultivation in ANRS. Up to the end of the Imperialregime in 1974, the Irist system – a traditional tenure based onblood-related group of people – was the dominant propertyright system all over ANRS (Ashenafi & Leader-Williams,2005; Rahmato, 2005). The military junta, called Derg, abol-ished the Irist system and introduced the public ownershipof land. The current government, taking power in 1991,enacted a new land administration proclamation and a newland use proclamation. Land redistribution was banned bylaw. But there are defined exceptions. Land redistribution ispossible, if two third of the landholders request and if therequest is approved by the district authority, BoEPLAU(ANRS, 2006) (Article 8. Sub-article 2). Land in Ethiopia con-tinues to be a public property. The aim of the land policy ofthe present day Ethiopia is to attain tenure security and toenable sustainable development.

Tenure security and sustainable development cannot be real-ized per se by changing policy and by enacting laws. Tenuresecurity and sustainable development require a proper andmodern land administration system that can address site-spe-cific problems. It is recognized that almost every countryrequires a range of different strategies for each specific regionin the specific country, depending on the – dynamic – relation-ship between people and land (Williamson, 2001). In 2002 twopilot projects were started by EPLAUA (Environmental Pro-tection, Land Administration and Use Authority; EPLAUAis the previous name the Bureau of Environmental Protection,Land Administration and Use (BoEPLAU). The purpose ofthese pilots was testing hypothetical frameworks of landadministration systems with a specific focus on the local con-ditions in ANRS of Ethiopia.

Land administration activities in ANRS were selected asrepresentative samples, as ANRS has a leading role in theland administration sector in Ethiopia. Based on the experi-ences of the region, land administration system can beadopted for similar situations in other regions and develop-ing countries.

The pilot projects in ANRS of Ethiopia had seven inter-linked components, namely: Project management, informa-tion and communication, registration, legislation, propertyplanning, surveying, and valuation. The major output ofpiloting was the development of a home grown participatoryway of working that can be implemented at the regional

level with minimum external input. The participatory wayof working is a step-by-step approach including publichearings, adjudication of rights, land surveying (mapping),registration and issuance of primary and secondary bookof holdings.

The strategic plan with two major parts was developedbased on lessons learnt from the pilot projects. The first stagedealt with adjudication, first registration, and issuance of pri-mary book of holdings. The second stage of the strategic planwill focus on the implementation of a geo-referenced descrip-tion for all holdings. The book of holdings will be upgradedfrom primary to second level by linking geo-referenced mapsof parcels to the book. Computerization of the analog landregister is a pre-requisite for upgrading the book of holdingsto the second level. Computerization is required to simplifyand to sort landholders’ information before field surveys areconducted. The unique parcel identifiers can be identifiedand encoded during the field work when the first-level certifi-cation data are computerized. The software for the computer-ization of the land register in ANRS is called InformationSystem for Land Administration (ISLA) and was developedby BoEPLAU (Bureau of Environmental Protection Landadministration and Use).

4. METHODS

The study deploys both quantitative and qualitative datacollection methods to evaluate the progressive land adminis-tration systems and to draw lessons from it.

The methods applied to evaluate the ANRS land adminis-tration system were literature reviews, interviews with individ-ual farmers, and with land administration committeemembers, professionals’ expert panels with Woreda (district)and zonal experts, a questionnaire survey, and group discus-sions with relevant stakeholders. The individual interviewswere used to get information and data from the main users’viewpoint. Expert panels contributed to understand theaspects of the implementers and professionals. The question-naire survey helped to get knowledge about the status of thesystem from the perspective of the implementing offices.

The design and implementation of the whole field surveywas conducted between June, 2011 and October, 2013. Thelinkage between different methods is shown in Figure 2. Allstructured interviews and discussions were conducted by thecorresponding author, who also took part at all expert panelsand attended all discussion meetings. This was necessary toenable a better understanding of the evaluation and analysisof the system.

(a) Literature review

The literature review included the evaluation of legal andpolicy documents, of numerous official reports, of publica-tions, and of relevant scientific theses. The review was neces-sary to get a clear picture of the status of landadministration system of ANRS with a specific focus to pol-icy-level activities.

Internal and external evaluations supported by SwedishInternational Development Cooperation (SIDA) and UnitedStates Agency for International Development (USAID) wereconducted during and after implementation of the pilot pro-jects. The reports of these evaluations were reviewed to under-stand the status and the customary way of the evaluationmethodology.

Figure 2. Survey design.


(b) Individual interviews

Individual interviews were used to comprehend the level ofthe satisfaction of system users. They were conducted withsmall-scale landholders and with land administration and landuse committee members.

The aim of individual interviews was to evaluate the effec-tiveness of ANRS land administration at policy, management,and operational level indirectly by the degree of customer sat-isfaction. Semi-structured interviews, according to Simon(2006), were carried out to understand the satisfaction ofsmall-scale (household) farmers on land administration activ-ities. Twenty-four farmers from six different Woredas wereinterviewed. Additionally, five members of land administra-tion committees from each selected Woreda were interviewed(in sum 30). The sample for the individual interviews wasdetermined randomly by regarding a proportional number offemale respondents.

(c) Expert panels and questionnaire survey

Expert panels are discussion forums with district and zonalexperts and groups. Experts’ panels guided by open-endedquestions were conducted with 15 expert groups in seven zonaloffices and in eight districts. A total of 70 experts attendedthese panels. The discussion with the professionals focusedon the evaluation of the system at all levels. The professionalsinvolved in the discussion were responsible for the implemen-tation of the land administration system. In addition to paneldiscussions, questionnaires were distributed by mail to theland administration authorities of all Woredas in ANRS.118 institutions responded to the questions focused on fourmain topics (general issues, land tenure, land value, land use).

(d) Discussion with major stakeholders

Expectations of relevant stakeholders (revenue authority,bureau of justice, bureau of agriculture, investment authority

as well as urban and industry development) were assessed.The contribution of the land administration system in ANRSfor the fulfillment of their missions was a point of discussion.The major constraint of this method was that the stakeholderswere judging the system from their perspective.

(e) Compiling and processing of findings

Findings from the review of official documents were linkedand merged with the results of individual interviews. Theresults obtained by questionnaire surveys and by interviewswere discussed and commented on during the expert panels.Finally, the findings were presented during wrap-up meetingswith regional experts and representatives of relevant stake-holders and checked for validity.

The results from all methods were encoded into summaryand analysis tables. Qualitative as well as quantitative datawere collected. Methods of descriptive statistics were usedfor the quantitative data analysis. Content analysis accordingto Mayoux (2006) was the method outlined to analyze qualita-tive data assessed by questionnaires and during discussions.

Triangulation of results was applied to compare and vali-date the data gained from qualitative and quantitative surveys(Mathison, 1988).

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Groups of users of the system (individual land holders, landadministration committee members, professionals engaged inthe implementation and representatives of major stakeholderoffices) were requested to evaluate the system based on thedeveloped evaluation frame. Specific groups were compiledto get different perspectives. The evaluation frameworkincluded investigations about the status of policy and lawaspects, about the effectiveness of involved institutions, aboutthe implementation status of core land administrationfunctions, about the impact of external factors, and about

Table 1. Questions rated from 5 (excellent) to 1 (poor) based on respondent’s experience. (Number of samples: 15 groups with total attendants of 70)

No. Question Number of group Mean ±r

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1 Do you evaluate the land administration system in your area as asuccessful system?

3 4 3 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4.2 0.77

2 How important is land administration system for reduction ofland-related conflicts?

4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.8 0.56

3 Are landholders in your area willing to recover all costs of efficientland administration services?

5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.5 0.51

4 How impermanent is the spatial data set for land administration inyour area?

4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.8 0.41

r. . .standard deviation.


the status of inbuilt monitoring and evaluation mechanisms(see Section 2).

The results from individual interviews with landholders con-firmed that the status of the land administration system inANRS is good, as it can be seen in Table 1.

The land administration professionals in ANRS were askedto discuss and rate the system. The overall rating of the systemduring experts’ panel was very good.

(a) Policy

The existence of clear policy objectives is one of the policyevaluation criteria. The prime objective of the land administra-tion system in the ANRS is clearly defined to be tenure secu-rity that contributes to sustainable development. The landadministration system of the ANRS is guided by constitu-tional provisions, by land administration and land use policyof ANRS, by pertinent proclamations, and by regulationsand directives. In Ethiopia, land policy formulation lies inthe responsibility of the federal state. The most important landadministration issues are incorporated in the constitution ofthe country. The federal land administration framework lawwas enacted in 1997 (FDRE, 1997) and later amended in2005 (FDRE, 2005). The framework law enables regional gov-ernments to enact more detailed regional land laws to admin-ister land effectively in their respective jurisdictions.

According to the constitution, land is not a subject to sale.The issue is proclaimed as: “The right to ownership of ruraland urban land, as well as of all natural resources, is exclu-sively vested in the state and in the peoples of Ethiopia. Landis the common property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peo-ples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or other meansof exchange” (FDRE, 1995) (Article 40. Sub-article 3).

The land administration system of ANRS benefits from thesignificant status given to land issues in the constitution. Theobjective of giving land issues a relative permanence is to pro-tect core land-related functions from frequent changes, causedby political turmoil and/or other external factors, before theland policy bear fruits – normally a process that takes a longerperiod of time. The argument was supported by respondents(land administration professionals).

The constitution is the highest law in the country addressingthe most important issues and principles. Therefore accordingto respondent professionals, land has to be a central part inthe constitution. The other objective of the constitution is tocreate and maintain a nation. Land is identified by respon-dents as a main factor to create a unified economic, social,and political entity. The constitution can be said to be incom-plete if it lacks land issues.

On the contrary, some people argue that placing land issuesin the – static – constitution cannot represent the dynamic

nature of land. According to them, flexibility is required tomanage effectively land issues, which is hardly possible forconstitutional matters (Ambaye, 2013; Rahmato, 2011).

The participatory way of working was one of the mostimportant outputs of the two pilot projects in ANRS. The mis-sion, the vision, the strategy, and the measures for implement-ing a land administration system in ANRS was developedbased on the experiences and lessons learnt from these twopilot projects.

The results of the panel discussion with Woreda and zonalland administration professionals confirmed that the knowl-edge about the mission and vision of land administration sys-tem of the ANRS is good enough, but no respondent grouphad a correct understanding and background knowledge onthe strategy document. The objectives and tasks of the ANRSland administration system are well defined by legal statutes atdifferent level, and they were also articulated correctly in allfifteen panel discussions.

The scale, pace, and cost-effectiveness of the ANRS landadministration system was unprecedented in Africa and in aparticipatory and public process (Deininger et al., 2008). Inmore recent literature positive welfare impacts (Holden &Ghebru, 2013, chap. 6) and increased investment in terms ofland productivity and land rental market activity werereported (Deininger, Daneal, & Tilahun, 2011; Holden,Deininger, & Ghebru, 2009, 2011). Contrary to this lowerincome is reported for title holders in Tanzania (Sitko,Chamberlin, & Hichaambwa, 2014). The participatory wayof working, developed by ANRS for guiding the implementa-tion of the rural land administration system, enables torespond to the needs of the society and especially the protec-tion of the weaker parties in the society.

Past experiences of landholders about government interven-tion on land issues were not positive. Frequently government-funded land redistribution decisions were taken without anyconsultation of landholders, and land used by landholderswas dedicated to public purposes without any court decisionor any compensation payment. These negative experienceswere reported to pose a big challenge during the initial stageof the current land administration project. Many informationcampaigns and numerous awareness-raising programs aboutthe new land policy and the adapted legal system were con-ducted to overcome this problem. The fact that there is noland redistribution since the enactment of the new law andthe presence of many examples, where individual landholderswon cases in court against the state, contributed to a changedmind set.

Nowadays tenure security – the prime objective of the imple-mentation of land administration system in the ANRS – isincreasing and long-term investment and natural resource con-servation measures are improving. According to individual


farmers’ respondents, the average holding size in the region is1.1 ha per household and the average number of parcels perlandholding was reported to be five.

The investigations identified the land administration systemin the ANRS as participatory and operating properly. Land-holders are involved in the land administration processes fromthe very beginning to the end. Public hearings with landhold-ers are carried out as final collective approval meetings. Landadministration committees, who are elected members of thelandholders in the Kebele, participate at all stages of the landadministration process. Shemaglewoch shengo, the customaryland disputes arbitration committee, is playing a significantrole in reducing conflicts to be submitted to the courts. She-maglewoch shengo is a bridge between the formal and custom-ary (informal) system. All decisions taken under customaryrules were acknowledged by the formal system as long as thecase is not of criminal nature.

(b) Institution and management

Institutions are the major drivers for transforming the legaland the policy framework into action. Therefore, the institu-tional setup is one of the most important factors contributingto the success of land administration systems. The division ofpower between the Federal Government and the RegionalStates, the legislation concerning the use, and conservationof land is vested in the Federal Government pursuant to Arti-cle 51. Sub-article 5 of the Federal Constitution (FDRE,2005). Regional States are vested with the power to adminis-trate land and other natural resources in accordance withthe federal laws as provided under Article 52. Sub-article2(d) of the Federal Constitution.

The boundary of the responsibilities between federal andregional institutions needs to be clarified by law. The institu-tional mandate shall emanate from legal provisions.

For land administration issues, the main responsible minis-tries at federal level are the Ministry of Agriculture (rural land)and the Ministry of Urban Development and Works (urbanland). The Ethiopian Mapping Agency is responsible for coun-trywide topographic mapping and for the implementation andmaintenance of geodetic control points. The responsibility ofrural land administration in the Ministry of Agriculture liesin the responsibility of two directorates. The first is responsiblefor land use and land tenure, while the second is responsible forfederal-level management and lease of state holdings.

The institutional separation between urban and rural areasis an essential weak point of the institutional setting in Ethio-pian land administration. The main reason for the differentia-tion is said to be the socio-economic diversity between ruraland urban areas. Of course, there is a difference in life stylebetween the urban and rural areas, but the variability in theland administration processes is only evident in the classifica-tion of land use. Establishing different institutions for varia-tions in land use is not a convincing reason.

In Ethiopia the responsibility to administer and to manageland and natural resources was given to the regional states.Most regional states have created similar regional and zonalinstitutions for urban land administration, whereas municipal-ities are the major implementing agencies. Each of the nationalregional states in Ethiopia have different implementing agen-cies for rural land administration in naming and organiza-tional setting.

The ANRS enacted the first land administration and useproclamation in 2000 (ANRS, 2000) and the amendment lawin 2006 (ANRS, 2006). The establishment of an authority(EPLAUA) and upgrading it into a bureau, the Bureau of

Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use(BoEPLAU), was based on the regional land law. A regionaldecision at management level delegated the responsibility todesign and to implement the four core land administrationfunctions (land tenure, land use planning, land developmentcontrol, and land valuation) to BoEPLAU.

BoEPLAU has three core and nine supportive core pro-cesses: The three core processes are environmental protectionand sustainability, land administration and land use, and pub-lic relations. Thirty-seven professionals are involved in theprocess of land administration and land use, being responsiblefor land registration, cadaster, land valuation, state landadministration, and land use planning.

The institutional setting of ANRS is a unitary structureaddressing all land issues in one institution. The current orga-nizational structure can be optimized and improved by consid-ering the business processes for each major landadministration function (see Figure 3).

The activities of BoEPLAU are guided by a well-articulatedmission, vision, and strategy. The strategy is designed on theprinciple of a step-by-step approach. Complex and resource-demanding activities, such as cadastral surveying, are left forlater stages. Broadly the strategy can be categorized into fourmajor classes:� Adjudication, primary book of holding, and associatedactivities;� Computerization and related activities;� Cadastral surveys and second-level certification;� Land use planning and development control.

The strategic approach of the ANRS land administrationsystem can be characterized by targeting and achieving smalland consecutive wins. This study identified that mission, vision,strategy, and the way of working (measures) are appropriatelycrafted. The communication and knowledge level of the profes-sionals on the strategy document were low and identified asweakpoints. This fact is caused by a fast staff turnover asreported by the land administration managers. To avoid thegap in knowledge, frequent training and information work-shops are required so that the staff can work with ends in mind.

In the whole ANRS ten zonal and 128 Woreda (district)land offices are established. Additionally, on Kebele (parish)level one expert is responsible for all land-related issues. TheKebele expert has to cooperate with the land administrationcommittees at Kebele and sub Kebele levels. Sub Kebele com-mittees are selected by the community. Among them two willbe appointed as members of the land administration commit-tee at the Kebele level.

A SWOT analysis was conducted during the expert’s panels.Strengths and weaknesses of the system at policy, institutionaland operational levels as described by the respondents are pre-sented in Table 2.

Professionals and managers from land administration officesof 112 different Woredas rated the status of specific tasks ofthe ANRS land administration system. The summary resultsof this questionnaire-based survey are presented in Table 3.

A Shemaglewoch Shengo (traditional arbitration commit-tee) is established in each Kebele to handle land-related con-flicts using traditional rules. It plays a key role in integratingcustomary (traditional) law into the formal setting. The She-maglewoch Shengo is established according to land law. Allagreements made and signed by two claimant parties and wit-nessed by the committee are considered as final decision. Aftersigning an agreement supervised by the Shemaglewoch Shengothe claimants cannot appeal to any formal legal system.

Land administration committee members are volunteerselected to implement the land administration system in ANRS.

Figure 3. Proposed regional land administration institutional setting.

Table 2. Summery ratings given by land administration professionals on the status of different land administration activities in the Amhara region (5 good/sufficient � 1 weak/insufficient)

No Activity Summery rating in% Average rating ±r

1 2 3 4 5

1 Cross-cutting issues

1.1 Policy formulation & monitoring 12.9 4.0 11.8 16.1 55.2 4.0 1.45

1.2 Legal 15.1 12.2 22.6 15.4 34.7 3.4 1.48

1.3 Computerization and IT Systems 56.4 13.6 12.6 8.6 8.8 2.0 1.39

1.4 Research & Development 71.9 10.1 11.5 3.6 2.9 1.6 1.05

1.5 Capacity building 48.6 19.6 18.8 7.6 5.4 2.0 1.24

1.6 Public information and awareness 34.2 16.3 26.9 16.3 6.3 2.4 1.31

1.7 Finance and cost recovery 38.0 12.4 21.3 10.4 17.9 2.6 1.55

1.8 Gender issues 9.6 11.0 18.2 22.5 38.7 3.7 1.37

2 Land tenure

2.1 Adjudication 14.1 10.5 18.9 17.0 39.5 3.6 1.48

2.2 Transfer 19.6 11.2 22.5 19.0 27.7 3.2 1.50

2.3 Land lease and rental contracts 28.6 9.4 17.4 14.5 30.1 3.1 1.65

2.4 Updating 15.1 8.3 28.1 30.2 18.3 3.3 1.31

2.5 Unique parcel identifiers 22.4 2.9 9.5 13.3 51.9 3.7 1.67

2.6 Boundary monuments 44.8 18.1 19.5 8.6 9.0 2.2 1.36

2.7 Ground control points 23.5 7.8 17.6 22.1 29.0 3.3 1.57

2.8 Cadastral survey 65.9 7.1 8.2 9.1 9.7 1.9 1.44

2.9 Parcel and index maps 49.1 8.1 9.6 10.8 22.4 2.5 1.71

3 Land value

3.1 Valuation for compensation 23.6 6.7 18.4 16.9 34.4 3.3 1.61

3.2 Mass valuation 62.9 10.7 11.4 5.0 10.0 1.9 1.39

3.3 Alternative livelihood creation 47.9 13.4 15.3 8.6 14.8 2.3 1.53

4 Land use 46.1 3.7 12.1 8.1 30.0 2.7 1.80

5 Development control 47.8 10.9 14.5 11.6 15.2 2.4 1.57


Table 3. Summery of SWOT analysis of the Amhara land administration system

Strengths Weaknesses

� Land policy is of constitutional category� System responds to the needs of society participation

and responsive system� System is equitable for all� System is economically viable – low-cost methods were applied� All-in-one-type organizational structure� BoEPLAU is legally established with clearly defined tasks� Strategies that are appropriate to reach and satisfy objectives- Book of holdings with two distinct strata� Mandates are given by law and well communicated with users� Participatory, fast, and low cost systematic registration� Continued human resource development program.� Focus on capacity building.� Professional association is established� Ongoing trials and pilots� The system was regularly evaluated

� Experts at all levels have little background knowledge about mission,vision, and strategy� Private sector involvement is minimal or no� Organizational structure is not based on land administration core

processes and main functions� Valuation is only for compensation purposes� Taxation is not based on land valuation� No land use planning and planning control� No systematic and regular customer satisfaction surveys were con-

ducted

Opportunities Threats

� Relative peace and security all over the regional state� Decentralized government structure and decision making� Stronger commitment to good governance and rule of law� Political commitment� Well-functioning land rental market� Incentives and support for long-term investment� Strong and well-functioning cultural conflict management culture� Rapid infrastructure and technological development� Very strong users support

� Influences toward to blanket standardization by the federal authori-ties and donors� Weak control over the grass-root level leaders� Disadvantaged position in globalization� Enhanced natural resources degradation� Land grabbing by investors and unplanned settlement programs� Global economic crisis� Dependency on imported technologies� Harmful traditional practices� Uncontrolled population growth


The participation of landholders was guaranteed through pub-lic hearings and meetings (direct participation) as well asthrough the elected land administration committee members.On average the committee executed eleven cases per week.In interviews the respondent committee members attested theirsatisfaction with the support they get from the public author-ities and from the Kebele administration.

Committee members were asked if they are happy with thesupport they give to local community and with the feedbackthey receive from the landholders. All 30 respondents consid-ered their service as their social responsibility. All respondentsreported that they received material support from the parishadministration, 50% of them also got some material supportfrom individual landholders. All respondents reported thatthey get material support from the parish administrationand are satisfied with the moral support they got from the sys-tem users. The interviewed members reported that landholdersare satisfied with the service from the ANRS land administra-tion system and that the frequency of land-related conflicts isdeclining since the introduction of the land administration sys-tem in ANRS.

Direct and indirect private sector involvement in ANRS landadministration system is found to be minimal. The law depictedthat private surveyors can be involved in cadastral surveying forthe issuance of second-level books of holdings. But the studyconfirmed that until yet there was no private sector involvementby implementing the ANRS land administration system.

(c) Operational level

(i) Land tenureBefore the introduction of the formal land administration

system in ANRS, the landholders had no legal evidence for

land tenure. The neighboring landholders and people livingin the area were the only evidences for the landholder claimsof holding rights. During the implementation process of theland administration system, the claims were approved by sev-eral public hearings. The legal status about the land-land-holder relationship was given after public approval. Partiesdissatisfied with the decision had the right to appeal at thecourt. The adjudication process in ANRS is identified to bethe combination of participatory and legal processes. It waspossible to maintain legality and legitimacy of land rights inthe region.

The system contributed to a decreased amount of conflictsas a result of participatory adjudication process. However,latent conflicts come to the surface at the initial stage of adju-dication. Due to this, some persons argued that the system isnot successful in reducing conflicts. The study identified thatperception of occurrence of conflicts at the initial stage wasmuch higher than the actual frequency.

The conflict rate in ANRS is still high. More than half (57%)of the individual farmer respondents reported that they expe-rienced land-related conflicts. The major reasons of conflictsreported by committee member respondents were inheri-tance-related litigations (25%), boundary conflicts (21%), ren-tal contract-related conflicts (19%), easement-related conflicts(11%), communal lands boundary conflicts (10%), informalland sale-related conflicts (9%), and plant shade-related con-flicts (5%). Conflicts related to informal land sale werereported to be difficult to solve due to the fact that land is leg-ally not subject to sale. But according to the committee mem-ber respondents the problems related to illegal land sale aresolved by Shemaglewoch Shengo using customary rules. Theimplementation of this tenure core function therefore is asuccess factor for conflict management.


The evaluation of land tenure of ANRS included the regis-tration system (both manual and computerized) and the cadas-tre. Five indicators for successful implementation of ANRSland administration system were identified:� Coverage increase in adjudication, registration, and issu-ance of books of holdings;� Protection for the weaker parties;� Increased investment on natural resource conservation;� Improved management on communal and state holdings;and� Reduced land-related conflicts.

Tenure insecurity in ANRS was mainly the result of pastgovernment interventions (Rahmato, 2005). The proportionof landholders with tenure security before the introductionof land administration system in ANRS was only 24%, asreported by a study of the Ethiopian Economic Association(EEA, 2002). These results are according to the estimationsof Deininger et al. (2008) with outlined 27%. Contrary to this,now all respondents reported that they have no fear of losingtheir holding rights. The respondents also identified the steadyincrease of investments on natural resource conservation asevidence for the current high level of tenure security. But theachievements related to natural resource conservation werenot free from externalities. Large-scale campaigns for naturalresources conservation were carried out at the regional scale.It was a challenge during the study to differentiate the contri-butions of the implemented land administration system in theregion from the effects of the campaigns.

The increase in adjudication, registration, and issuance ofbook of holdings is the main indicator for the successfulimplementation of the land administration system in ANRS.According to the most recent official report of BoEPLAU3,624,424 holdings are registered and 3,132,879 books ofholdings are issued. Based on the report, the regional cover-age of the issuance of primary books of holdings is 98%. Theaverage estimate of the regional coverage of the issuance ofprimary books of holdings by participants of the experts’panel in sample Woredas was 95%. The findings of the twodifferent sources can be said to be very similar. Additionally,the finding is in agreement with previous comments by exter-nal evaluators about the fast speed, low cost, and extendedcoverage of issuance of primary books of holdings in ANRS(Deininger & Jin, 2006). The current study testified that thetenure security level increased with the introduction of thesystem. The impact of the implementation of the land admin-istration system to sustainable land development of theregion could not be quantified in the current investigation.It is too early to estimate this figure. Nevertheless, the studyidentified increased investments on natural resource conser-vation as well as proper land management contributing tosustainable development.

The interviewed farmers reported that they are satisfied withthe land administration system of ANRS. The respondents ofindividual farmers confirmed that the amount of tax annuallypaid by them for their holding rights and updating as well asthe transfer costs are fair. The active participation of land-holders was confirmed by the individual landholder respon-dents. Only communal lands are not managed properly inthe opinion of the landholder respondents (71%).

Protection of the weaker parties in the ANRS land adminis-tration system is targeted at two levels (at system or designlevel and at operational level). The ANRS land administrationsystem attempts to anticipate major intervention areas for theprotection of weaker parties and gives legal protection at sys-tem level. Provisions to give priority for weaker parties areincluded in the land law.

The law indicated the equal rights of the two spouses.Attaching the pictures of the two family heads on the bookof holding is mandatory. The agreement of both parties isrequired to finalize any land transaction (Bezabih et al.,2012). Some practical problems were observed in the level ofprotection for weaker parties at operational level. The list ofpractical problems includes forced illegal selling, limited infor-mation, prolonged litigation, etc. Legal changes need to beinternalized by public awareness campaigns. Legalizations tomake their way to change toward gender equality need to beinternalized (Kumar & Quisumbing, 2012). Gender bias is alsoreported at initial stages of Rwandas land tenure regulariza-tion program (Santos et al., 2014).

Computerization of land administration records is one ofthe on-going activities in ANRS. The registration softwarecalled ISLA (Information System for Land Administration)was developed with financial support of SIDA. ISLA is con-tinually upgraded based on the feedback of the field staff.ISLA was introduced to all Woredas. Currently in 20 Woredasthe land administration information is fully computerized.Due to delayed legalization and limited coverage of computer-ized data in the region, the expected efficiency gain of the landadministration is not fully realized yet. The delay in comput-erization also has a negative effect on the mapping of parcelsand the issuance of second-level book of holding.

The spatial component is the basic part of the cadastral sys-tems. Lack of the spatial description (cadastre) was identifiedby the respondents as a major weakpoint of ANRS landadministration system. The fact that a fully surveyed cadastrallayer is too expensive at a particular stage in a country’s devel-opment does not mean that the spatial documentation or theregistration of a diversity of land rights should not be realized.Benefits and risks of such implementations have to beweighed.

Existing cadastral maps in ANRS (rural) are limited to pilotprojects and to large-scale irrigation project sites. Accordingto the strategy, documents of second-level certification andthe related cadastral land surveying are activities to be accom-plished after careful preparation. Therefore the delay of estab-lishing the spatial framework is just the result of ordering ofactivities based on available capacity and urgent needs. A net-work of 42 ground control points (reference points) – calledAM network and linked with the national grid – is established.As the density and distribution of the ground control points inANRS are not sufficient to roll-out the large-scale second-levelcertification program, the network of control points has to bedensified and extended.

State land management is also one of the functions of landadministration systems (UNECE, 1996). The size of statelands and the potential for investments, compared to less-populated national regional states in Ethiopia such as Gambe-la, Benshangul gumz, Afar etc., are less in ANRS. The limitedpotential is caused by the high population density and by theincreased coverage of small-scale farms. Land banking is amethod practiced in ANRS to prepare land for investmentand resettlement programs. In this program state holdingswere demarcated and mapped. The surveyed land is readyfor the transfer to investors (domestic and foreign) throughlease contracts. This is a point of controversy that sometimesis termed as land grabbing (Rahmato, 2011). Customary rightsare adversely affected by poor state land management practicein Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia (German,Schoneveld, & Mwangi, 2013).

The maximum duration for the leasehold in ANRS is25 years. Lease contracts can be renewed after the expiryperiod. In the lease contract the rights and obligations of the


lessee as well as of the lessor are included. Among others, tak-ing proper natural resources conservation measures are majorresponsibilities of the lessee. But in practice, large-scale com-mercial investment farms are not environmentally friendly.

The strength of the land administration system is the man-agement of state holdings by clear legal provision and leasecontracts. But due to capacity limitation, legal provisionsand lease contracts are not fully enforced. The pace and qual-ity of land preparation is – as reported by the regional invest-ment promotion agency – not in balance with the demand forland investments. A large number of applications for landinvestments are pending at BoEPLAU.

(ii) Land valuation and expropriationLand valuation supports the estimation of compensation

payment, the taxation system, and the land market(UNECE, 2001). Currently, land valuation in ANRS is limitedonly to activities for the compensation of land expropriatedfor public purposes. The study identified that land valuationactivities in ANRS are based on procedures stipulated bylaw. The expropriation of holdings is defined as “. . .takingthe rural land from the holder or user for the sake of publicinterest paying compensation in advance by the governmentbodies, private investors, cooperative societies, or other bodiesto undertake development activities by the decision of the gov-ernment body vested with power” (ANRS, 2006) (Article 2.Sub-article 18).

The compensation has to be paid in advance of taking pos-session of the land. In practice, the launch of projects can bedelayed after paying compensation. Even if the legal right afterpaying compensation is by the project holder, the previousland holder is allowed to use the land until the project is real-ized. Landlessness is the result of the expropriation of totalholdings. Resettlements and rehabilitation programs are notboldly stated in expropriation law (Ambaye, 2013). The cur-rent investigations also attested that the system and the prac-tice of rehabilitating the landless people are very weak.

The payment of compensation is calculated simply by mul-tiplying the average income from marketable products of land-holders within the recent past 5 years multiplied by the factor10. This method of land valuation is a permanent source ofcontroversy.

The respondents of the survey also articulated their dissatis-faction with the amount of compensation payment for expro-priated holdings. The literature review and survey resultsrevealed that the main issue of expropriation is the rate ofcompensation (Alemu, 2012; Ambaye, 2013). The limitationof all land valuation activities only to land compensation hintsat all approaches to improve the method of land and propertyvaluation.

According to the result of the experts’ panel the compensa-tion was calculated based on the requirements given by federalcompensation law. Nevertheless, the paid amount is very lowand cannot be considered as fair compensation. This fact alsowas confirmed by the interviews with the individual landhold-ers. Uncertainty about the timing and amount of compensationis more damaging than anything else (Van den Brink, 2003).

The introduction of a land administration system in theANRS contributed to an increased involvement of landholdersin land rental market. The significance of rental market for thelandholders is very high. Many of the individual farmerrespondents (88%) are involved in rental land market. All ren-tal contracts are officially registered. The rental income sharefor the landholders increased from 30% up to 50% in the past10 years. The rented holdings normally are used for crop cul-tivation. Some exceptions are rental agreements in peri-urban

areas. Parcels in peri-urban areas are rented for house con-struction and for eucalyptus plantations. The involvement oflandholders in the rental market before the introduction ofland administration system in ANRS was only 5% (EEA,2002).

The taxation system for rural land is based on the potentialproductivity of soils, but there are no data and methodologiesto get knowledge on soil productivity (Kassahun, 2006). Nev-ertheless, the respondents of this study (landholders) considerthe amount of tax to be paid as fair.

According to ANRS land law mortgages can be issued inland administration systems. But they are limited to “inves-tors”, who are leasing rural land for a defined period fromthe government.

Individual holding rights are given almost exclusively topeasant farmers. These groups of people normally lack thecapacity to define convincing projects, which is a prerequisitefor banks to approve loans. On the other hand, the peasantfarmers live in scattered areas and the banks calculate the coststo manage loans for such locations as very high. Therefore, thefinancial institutions are not ready or willing to address theissue of mortgage for small-scale farmers. This is in confor-mity to the findings in the literature (Deininger & Jin, 2006).Titling of land as a measure to increase mortgage activitiesis overrated in countries of the south. Financial institutionsdo not necessarily give applicants credit only because they pos-sess title certificates (Franklin, 2012). Banks take titles formuch the same reason that kidnappers take hostages – titlesmean a great deal to the party from whom payment is desired(the hostage giver), while having little value to the hostagetaker (Kronman, 1985).

(iii) Land use planningUnlike the recommendations found in the literature

Williamson et al. (2010), land use planning functions areweakpoints in the ANRS land administration system. Accord-ing to the regional land law the implementation of approvedland use plans for all holding types is mandatory. But nodetailed land use plans are prepared and approved by BoE-PLAU offices so far. In the discussion the experts of BoE-PLAU explained that the participatory land use plan will beprepared in two stages. The first draft of the land use plan willbe derived from existing data acquired during the first registra-tion phase. Based on this, the Kebele experts will make agree-ments of land use at parcel level with the landholders. Afterreceiving their approval, the participatory land use plan willget legal force. In a second stage, geodata – gained by thecadastral survey for upgrading the primary book of holdings– will be used as essential input for the development andimprovement of land use plans.

(iv) Development controlDevelopment control was not practiced until yet on rural

lands in ANRS. Lack of detailed land use plans as regulatorytools is the main reason for the low achievements in thisdefined core function. The impact of the missing developmentcontrol can be seen in informal settlements and in eucalyptustree plantations on fertile agricultural fields. Miss-use of landdue to the lack of development control tools was reported byall respondents.

In the case of ANRS, all the respondents in the experts’panel reported that no significant activity is performed relatedto land use planning and land development control core func-tions. But according to the respondents, the redistribution ofhillside slopes to landless youth groups in Wollo and Gonderis considered to be a good beginning and good example.


(d) External factors

Staff development as part of the general capacity buildingprogram was an essential contribution for the sustainabilityof the land administration system. In collaboration with SIDAand the Royal Institute of Technology of Sweden (KTH) atotal of 24 land administration professionals from BoEPLAUand Bahir Dar University were trained at M.Sc. level.

Human resource development at BoEPLAU was divided intwo main categories. The first is in-house trainings and work-shops. In this category all professionals at BoEPLAU aretrained every year at least once for the duration of 5–10 days.The trainings were focused on land surveying, computer tech-nology, registration activities, and on general land administra-tion concepts. A second category of education programsincluded the long-term professional trainings. According to67% of the respondents, the number of on-job and in-servicetrainings was increasing.

The Institute for Land Administration (ILA) was imple-mented with collaborated effort of BoEPLAU, SIDA, BahirDar University, and the Royal Institute of Technology of Swe-den (KTH) for the continual education and training of landadministration professionals in the country. ILA has an intakecapacity of 40 students per year and in 2009 the first studentsgraduated. Additionally, the Ethiopian Land AdministrationProfessionals Association was established. It is hosted at ILA.The main goal of the association is to contribute to the technicaldevelopment of the land administration system in the country.

The capacity building program of BoEPLAU and ILA was –as outlined above – mainly supported by SIDA. Surveyingequipment, field cars, computers, and office furniture werefunded within the SIDA capacity building program. The num-ber of professionals assigned to undertake land administrationresponsibilities is increasing (see Figure 3). Eighty-seven per-centage of respondents stated that within the last 10 years thebudget assigned for land administration offices was increasing.Nevertheless, the current status of Woreda and Kebele officesas well as equipment was rated as very poor by 80% of the

Figure 4. Manpower and budget increase in sample Woredas (

respondents. The respondents’ assessment is in line with officialreports of the public authorities (see Figure 4).

The main stakeholder sectors appreciated the introductionof the land administration system in ANRS and identifiedthe following major functions with strong connection to theland administration system:� Natural resource conservation and development struc-tures are becoming sustainable;� Legal research is facilitated as data are created in landoffices;� Delivery of land to investors is now based on informa-tion in the land registry;� Land taxes are based on value information registered inthe land offices;� Urban development and urban expansion is initiatedbased on data from land offices.

Relevant stakeholders also were asked to articulate changesdue to the introduction of the land administration system inthe region. They identified the most important changes as fol-lows:� The justice system is now dependent on evidences fromthe land sector for decisions on land-related conflicts;� The procedure to give license to investors is revised bythe investment agency;� Compensation payments become a must and they haveto be considered as budgetary burden for town expansionplans.

The contributions expected from the land administrationsystem for the efficiency and effectiveness of the stakeholders’responsibilities were (selection):� Support through guidelines and strategies, and effectiveland use system;� Proper judgment through provision of land holdingcertificates;� Land banking;� Precise and up-to-date information about landholders.

The design and implementation of the land administrationsystem in ANRS was not supported by research activities.

local administrative unit with similar status to a district).


The development was guided by a step-by-step approach andby an empiric process. Piloting and experiential learning were-strengths of the system. The respondents of the current surveyreported that the support they received from research or otheracademic institutions was minimal. Only pilot projects wereused to evaluate the applicability of technologies and tech-niques for the implementation process.

(e) Review processes

The study revealed that the BoEPLAU developed a strategydocument in 2003 and made amendments in 2007. The pilotprojects and overall activity were evaluated by internal andexternal evaluators. BoEPLAU managed to register 98% ofall landholders in a relatively short period of time and withcomparatively low cost. Though customer satisfaction wasnot regularly surveyed by BoEPLAU, the current studyattested a high level of customer satisfaction.

The review process deployed by BoEPLAU for the ANRSland administration system is strong. The strategy documentwas developed based on the lessons learnt from pilot projects.The result of pilot projects was reviewed by external reviewersfinanced by SIDA and USAID. The implementation processwas reviewed annually. The strategy was adapted continuouslyaccording to the input of the annual reports and to the expe-rience gained during the implementation process. In the last10 years three major institutional rearrangements have beenmade to address the changing needs in the land administrationsector. The last restructuring was made after the completion ofa BPR (Business Process Reengineering) study. BSC (Bal-anced Score Card) was used as a tool to plan and to defineresponsibilities. The nomination of Kebele-level land adminis-tration experts is one of the major outputs of BPR and BSCstudies.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The current study confirms that the framework developedfor the evaluation of progressive land administration systemsis an important tool. Including major land issues in the consti-tution is an advantage at the policy level in the implementation

process of the new land administration system in Africa. Theinstitutional mandate has to be based on core land administra-tion functions. Institutions need to consider customer satisfac-tion surveys as indicators for their achievements.

Professionals and managers from land administration officesof 112 different Woredas rated the status of specific tasks ofthe ANRS land administration system as very good.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and treats on ANRSland administration system (SWOT analysis) are discussedrelated to policy and law, management, operational functions,review processes, and external factors.

It is recommended that the priority of activities shouldconsider the prime objective and measures to solve themajor problems of tenure security. Cadastral land surveyingwith high geometric accuracy and with high technical stan-dards is not an obligatory pre-condition for tenure security.The authors recommend prior implementations of legalreforms and a participatory way of working to addressthe urgent needs for sustainable projects. Embarking anextensive cadastral system implementation before reachingto a consensus with landholders about the system to beimplemented, can lead to costly surprises – especially incountries, where formal land administration systems arenot common.

The study identifies constrains for a large-scale implementa-tion of land use plans due to technical complications andcosts. It is believed that – in the first stage without any maps– land use plans can be prepared at parcel level, based onthe local best practices with contractual agreement with theresponsible landholders. The plans can be enforced by law.After the land surveying is completed, the land use plans canbe upgraded to full-fledged detailed plans and linked to thecadastral maps. Attempts to make decisions for developmentactivities without any data input from land use plans can leadto subjective and unfair decisions. In the worst case it can be athreat for good land governance and with it erode the publictrust on land administration institutions.

As long as we have limited knowledge of how to bring abouteconomic development in sub-Saharan Africa, strange nos-trums will continue to appear on schedule. And they will betaken seriously until the next dose of magic appears. Mean-while, the world’s poor wait in vain (Bromley, 2008).

REFERENCES

Alemu, B. Y. (2012). Expropriation, valuation and compensation practicein Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) – The case of two cities(Bahir-Dar and Gonder). Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real EstateResearch, 9(1), 30–58.

Ali, Z., Tuladhar, A., & Zevenbergen, J. (2010). Developing a frameworkfor improving the quality of a deteriorated land administration systembased on an exploratory case study in Pakistan. Nordic Journal ofSurveying and Real Estate Research, 7(1), 30–57.

Ambaye, D. (2013). Land rights and expropriation in Ethiopia (Ph.D.thesis). Stockholm: Real Estate Planning and Land Law, Departmentof Real Estate and Construction Management, School of Architectureand the Built Environment, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).

ANRS. (2000). Proclamation issued to determine the administration anduse of the rural land in the Amhara National Region. ProclamationNo. 46/2000. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Zikre Hig.

ANRS. (2006). The revised Amhara National Regional State rural landadministration and use. Proclamation No. 133/2006. Bahir Dar,Ethiopia: Zikre Hig.

Ashenafi, Z. T., & Leader-Williams, N. (2005). Indigenous commonproperty resources. Human Ecology, 33(4), 539–563.

Bezabih, M., Holden, S., & Mannberg, A. (2012). The role of landcertification in reducing gender gaps in productivity in rural Ethiopia.CLTS Working Paper No. 1/2012.

Bezu, S., Barrett, C. B., & Holden, S. T. (2012). Does the nonfarmeconomy offer pathways for upward mobility? Evidence from a paneldata study in Ethiopia. World Development, 40(8), 1634–1646.

Bezu, S., & Holden, S. (2014). Are rural youth in Ethiopia abandoningagriculture?. World Development, 64, 259–272.

Bromley, D. (2008). Formalising property relations in the developingworld: The wrong prescription for the wrong malady. Land Use Policy,26, 20–27.

Burns, T. (2007). Land administration reform: Indicators of success andfuture challenges. 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433: TheInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The WorldBank.

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Harlow:Longman.

CSA. (2007). Census report. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: Central StatisticsAuthority.

Cusworth, J., & Franks, T. (1993). Managing projects in developingcountries. Harlow: Longman.

Dale, P., & McLaughlin, J. (1999). Land administration. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: why capital triumphs in the westand fails everywhere else. London: Bantam Press.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0305-750X(14)00404-5/h0005













































Deininger, K., Daneal, A., & Tilahun, A. (2011). Impacts of landcertification on tenure security investment, and land market partici-pation: Evidence from Ethiopia. Land Economics, 87(2), 312–334.

Deininger, K., Daniel, A., Holden, S., & Zevenbergen, J. (2008). Ruralland certification in Ethiopia: Process, initial impact, and implicationsfor other African countries. World Development, 36(10), 1786–1812.

Deininger, K., & Jin, S. (2006). Tenure security and land-relatedinvestment: Evidence from Ethiopia. European Economic Review, 50,1245–1277.

EEA. (2002). Land tenure and agricultural development in Ethiopia. AdisAbeba: Ethiopian Economic Association/Ethiopian Economic PolicyResearch Institute.

FAO. (2002). Land tenure and rural development. Rome: Food andAgricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The success dimensions of internationaldevelopment projects, trust and communication: An African perspec-tive. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 237–252.

FDRE. (1995). The constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic ofEthiopia. Proclamation No. 1/1995. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Berhan-ena Selam Printing Press.

FDRE. (1997). Rural land administration proclamation of the FederalGovernment of Ethiopia: Federal Negarit Gazeta No. 89/1997. AddisAbaba: Berhanena Selam Printing Enterprise.

FDRE. (2005). Rural land administration and land use. Proclamation No.456/2005. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Birhanena Selam Printing Press.

Franklin, O.-O. (2012). Land reforms in Africa: Theory, practice, andoutcome. Habitat International, 36, 161–170.

German, L., Schoneveld, G., & Mwangi, E. (2013). Contemporaryprocesses of large-scale land acquisition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Legaldeficiency or elite capture of the rule of law?. World Development, 48,1–18.

Hodgson, S. (2004). Land and Water–the Rights Interface (No. 84). Food& Agriculture Org.

Holden, S. T., Deininger, K., & Ghebru, H. (2009). Impacts of low-costland certification on investment and productivity. American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 91(2), 359–373.

Holden, S. T., Deininger, K., & Ghebru, H. (2011). Tenure insecurity,gender, low-cost land certification and land rental market participa-tion. Journal of Development Studies, 47(1), 31–47.

Holden, S., & Ghebru, H. (2013). Welfare impacts of land certification inTigray, Ethiopia. In S. Holden, K. Otsuka, & K. Deininger (Eds.),Land tenure reforms in Asia and Africa: Impacts on poverty and naturalresource management. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kassahun, D. (2006). Towards the development of differential landtaxation and its implications for sustainable land management.Environmental Science & Policy, 9(7), 693–697.

Kronman, A. (1985). Contract law and the state of nature. Journal of Law,Economics and Organization, 5–32.

Kumar, N., & Quisumbing, A. R. (2012). Beyond “Death Do Us Part”:The long-term implications of divorce perceptions on women’s well-being and child schooling in rural Ethiopia. World Development,40(12), 2478–2489.

Lemmen, C., Augustinus, C., Haile, S., & Osterom, P. (2009). The socialtenure domain model – A pro-poor land rights recording system. GIM.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? In H. Stuckensmidt, E. Stubkjaer,& C. Schlieder (Eds.), Educational Researcher, 17 (2), 13–17.

Mattsson, H. (2003). Aspects of real property rights and their alteration.In H. Stuckenschmidt, E. Stubkj�r & C. Schlieder (Eds.), The ontology

and modelling of real estate transactions (pp. 23–34). ISBN 0-7546-32873.

Mayoux, L. (2006). In V. Desai, & R. B. Potter (Eds.), Quantitative,qualitative or participatory? Which method, for what and when? Doingdevelopment research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Mitchell, D., Clarke, M., & Baxter, J. (2008). Evaluating land adminis-tration projects in developing countries. Land Use Policy, 25, 464–473.

North, D. C. (1993, December 9). Nobelpriz.org. Retrieved fromnobel_prizes: <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1993/north-lectu>.

Rahmato, D. (2005). From heterogeneity to homogeneity: Agrarian classstructure in Ethiopia since the 1950s. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: Forumfor Social Studies.

Rahmato, D. (2011). Land to investors: Large-scale land transfers inEthiopia. Forum for Social Studies.

Santos, F., Fletschner, D., & Daconto, G. (2014). Enhancing inclusivenessof Rwanda’s land tenure regularization program: Insights from earlystages of its implementation. World Development, 62, 30–41.

Sheehan, J. (2001). Conceptualizing native title as an analogues propertyright with in an Anglo-Australian land law paradigm. Brisbane,Queensland, 400 Australia: Queensland University of Technology.

Simon, D. (2006). In V. Desai, & R. B. Potter (Eds.), Your questionsanswered? Conducting questionnaire surveys doing development research.London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Sitko, N. J., Chamberlin, J., & Hichaambwa, M. (2014). Does smallholderland titling facilitate agricultural growth? An analysis of the determi-nants and effects of smallholder land titling in Zambia. WorldDevelopment, 64, 791–802.

Smajgl, A., & Larson, S. (2007). Institutional dynamics and naturalresource management. In A. Smajgl, & S. Larson (Eds.), Sustainableresource use: Institutional dynamics and economics. London: Earthscan.

Steudler, D., Rajabifard, A., & Williamson, I. P. (2004). Evaluation ofland administration systems. Land Use Policy, 21(4), 371–380.

Steudler, D., & Williamson, I. P. (2005). Evaluation of national landadministration system in Switzerland. Survey Review, 38(298),317–330, Journal of Land Use Policy (21), 371–380.

UNECE. (2001). Land (real estate) mass valuation systems for taxationpurposes in Europe. Geneva, Switzerland: Working Party on LandAdministration.

UNECE. (1996). Land administration guidelines with special reference tocountries in transition. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from: <http://www.unece.org/hlm/wpla/publications/laguidelines>.

Van den Brink, R. (2003). Land policy and land reform in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Consensus, confusion and controversy. Washington, DC: WorldBank.

Van der Molen, P. (2002). The dynamic aspect of land administration: Anoften-forgotten component in system design. Computers, Environmentand Urban Systems, 26, 361–381.

Williamson, I. P. (2001). Land administration “best practice” providingthe infrastructure for land policy implementation. Land Use Policy,18(4), 297–307.

Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J., & Rajabifard, A. (2010). Landadministration for sustainable development. New York: ESRI Press.

Williamson, I. P., & Fourie, C. (1998). Using the case study methodologyfor cadastral reform. Geomatica, 52(3), 283–295.

ScienceDirectAvailable online at www.sciencedirect.com





































































http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1993/north-lectu

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1993/north-lectu








































http://www.unece.org/hlm/wpla/publications/laguidelines

http://www.unece.org/hlm/wpla/publications/laguidelines





















Article title: Lessons from Systematic Evaluation of Land Administration Systems The Case of Amhara...

Documents

Transcript of Article title: Lessons from Systematic Evaluation of Land Administration Systems The Case of Amhara...