Impact of Land Certification on Sustainable Land Resource Management in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Enyew Adgo, Yihenew G.Selassie, Abate Tsegaye, Solomon Abate, and Abiye Alemu Ayele
April 2014
DCG Report No. 75
Impact of Land Certification on Sustainable Land Resource Management in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Enyew Adgo, Yihenew G.Selassie, Abate Tsegaye, Solomon Abate, and Abiye Alemu Ayele
DCG Report No. 75 April 2014
The Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) is an NGO-driven forum for exchange of practical experiences and knowledge on food security and natural resource management in the drylands of Africa. DCG facilitates this exchange of experiences between NGOs and research and policy-making institutions. The DCG activities, which are carried out by DCG members in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali and Sudan, aim to contribute to improved food security of vulnerable households and sustainable natural resource management in the drylands of Africa.
The founding DCG members consist of ADRA Norway, CARE Norway, Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian People's Aid, Strømme Foundation and The Development Fund. The secretariat of DCG is located at the Environmental House (Miljøhuset) in Oslo and acts as a facilitating and implementing body for the DCG. The DCG’s activities are funded by NORAD (the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation).
Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the DCG secretariat. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are entirely those of the author and cannot be attributed directly to the Drylands Coordination Group.
© By Enyew Adgo, Yihenew G.Selassie, Abate Tsegaye, Solomon Abate, and Abiye Alemu Ayele Drylands Coordination Group Report No. 75, (April, 2014). Drylands Coordination Group c/o Miljøhuset Mariboes gate 8 N-0183 Oslo Norway Tel.: +47 23 10 94 10 Internet: http://www.drylands-group.org
ISSN: 1503-0601
Photo credits: cover: T.A. Benjaminsen, Gry Synnevåg.
Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås. Printed at: Mail Boxes ETC, Oslo.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...... 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 7 ACRONYMS ...... 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 9 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 10 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 12
2.1. LAND TENURE AND LAND POLICY OF ETHIOPIA ...... 12 2.1.1. The pre-1975 land tenure system (imperial time) ...... 13 2.1.2. Land tenure during the years 1975 – 1991 (Derg regime) ...... 14 2.1.3. Land tenure post-1991(current government) ...... 15 2.2. IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON CONFIDENCE OF FARMERS TO SUPPORT MARGINALIZED GROUPS AND LONG-TERM INVESTEMENT ...... 15 2.2.1 Land certification and tenure security ...... 15 2.2.2. Role of land certification on confidence of farmers ...... 16 2.2.3. Role of land certification on women and marginalized groups ...... 17 2.2.4. Land certification and land productivity ...... 19 2.2.5. Land certification and long-term investment ...... 21 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 25
3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ...... 25 3.1.1 Sample woredas in Eastern Amhara ...... 25 3.1.2. Sample woredas in Western Amhara ...... 27 3.2. SELECTION OF SAMPLE KEBELES AND HOUSEHOLDS ...... 28 3.3. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ...... 29 3.3.1. Methods of data collection ...... 29 3.3.2. Methods of data analysis ...... 30 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 36
4.1. HOUSEHOLD AND PARCEL CHARACTERISTICS ...... 36 4.1.1. Characteristics of sampled households ...... 36 4.1.2. Farm plot characteristics ...... 38 4.2. PERCEPTION OF AND CONFIDENCE IN LAND CERTIFICATION ...... 38 4.3. IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON WOMEN AND MARGINALIZED GROUPS ...... 42 4.4. IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...... 45 4.5. IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON LAND PRODUCTIVITY ...... 46 4.6. ECONOMETRICS MODEL RESULTS ...... 49 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 56
5.1. CONCLUSION ...... 56 5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 57 6. REFERENCES ...... 58 7. APPENDICES ...... 64
ANNEX 1 ...... 64 ANNEX 2 ...... 65
5
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SAMPLE ZONES, WOREDAS AND KEBELES...... 25 TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING AND SAMPLE SIZE HOUSEHOLDS IN THE STUDY AREA (EASTERN AMHARA)...... 29 TABLE 3: LAND LED HOUSEHOLD HEADS AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF SAMPLED HOUSEHOLDS...... 36 TABLE 4: MEAN HOUSEHOLD HEAD AGE, HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND LAND HOLDINGS (N=300)...... 37 TABLE 5: FERTILITY STATUS AND SLOPE GRADIENTS OF FARM PLOTS OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS...... 38 TABLE 6: PERCEPTION AND CONFIDENCE OF FARMERS ON LAND REDISTRIBUTION AFTER LAND CERTIFICATION...... 39 TABLE 7: PERCEPTION OF AND CONFIDENCE IN LAND CERTIFICATION (N=300)...... 41 TABLE 8: LAND CERTIFICATION AND LAND USE RIGHTS OF MARGINAL GROUPS (N=300)...... 42 TABLE 9: DEGREE OF LANDHOLDING RIGHTS OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH YES RESPONSES (N=300)...... 43 TABLE 10: EXTENT OF LANDLESSNESS BEFORE AND AFTER CERTIFICATION IN WESTERN AMHARA (N= 300)...... 44 TABLE 11: TYPES OF LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BEFORE AND AFTER LAND CERTIFICATION IN PERCENT (N=300)...... 45 TABLE 12: COMPARISON OF MAJOR CROPS PRODUCED IN THE YEARS 2006 AND 2010 (QUINTAL/HH)...... 47 TABLE 13: FARMLAND SIZE AND STATUS OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD PRODUCTION...... 48 TABLE 14: EFFECTS OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON FEAR OF FUTURE LAND REDISTRIBUTION...... 50 TABLE 15: IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON TERRACING BEFORE AND AFTER LAND CERTIFICATION...... 51 TABLE 16: IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON APPLICATION OF FARM YARD MANURE (FYM) BEFORE AND AFTER LAND CERTIFICATION. .. 52 TABLE 17: IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON WATER HARVESTING ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER LAND CERTIFICATION IN EASTERN AMHARA...... 53 TABLE 18: IMPACTS OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON TREE PLANTING BEFORE AND AFTER LAND CERTIFICATION IN WESTERN AMHARA...... 54
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the Dryland Coordination Group (DCG) for technically and financially supporting this research project. The College of Agriculture and Environmental Science is appreciated for providing us with facilities like vehicles, computers, printers and photocopiers.
7
ACRONYMS
ANRS Amhara National Regional State BoARD Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development BoEPLAU Bureau of Environment Protection, Land Administration and Use CC Contingent Coefficient CSA Central Statistical Agency ECA Economic Commission for Africa EEA Ethiopian Economic Association EEPRI Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute EEPFE Environmental Economics Policy Forum of Ethiopia FDRE Federal Democratic Republic Of Ethiopia FYM Farm yard manure HHs Households LAUCs Land Administration and Use Committees LPM Linear Probability Model MASL Meter above sea level NGOs Non-governmental organization OLS Ordinary Least Square RLAUP Regional Land Administration and Use Proclamation P Probablity level SARDP Sida-Amhara Rural Development Program SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency St.D Standard deviation SWC Soil and water conservation VIF Variance inflation factor X2 Chi-square
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of land certification on sustainable land resource management, long-term investments, and to assess its impact on farmers’ perception and confidence on land ownership and land use rights in Eastern and Western Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Six woredas or districts (three from Eastern Amhara; namily Bati, Kobo, and Tehuledere woreda and three from Western Amhara; Gozamin, Ankesha Guagusaand and South Achefer) were selected purposively and then five kebeles per woreda were randomly selected. 20 households per kebele were selected using stratified random sampling techniques. Primary data were collected using face-to-face interviews of households that were supplemented by key informant and group discussions. The qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed using different statistical tools. Descriptive statistics as well as a binominal probit model were employed on perception of farmers towards tenure security and land related investments (terracing, tree planting and application of manure). The result showed that the majority of respondents (68%) feel their land use rights is secured; while 32% of them expect future land redistribution and 17% reported that their farm plot may be taken by the government at any time. Respondents perceived that land certification provided them confidence to their land use rights (98%), enabled inheritance (97%), reduced conflicts (92%), and facilitated land rental market and share cropping (83%). Almost all households (97%) reported certification provided land right protection for marginalized groups and secured land rights of women. The holding rights of women improved from 19% to 91% before and after land certification respectively and was significantly (p<0.001) improved as compared to before certification. Factors affecting fear of future land redistribution were education level of household heads (positively and p<0.05), total land holding (positively and p<0.01) and households affected by previous land redistribution (positively and p<0.01). Farmers also reported that land management practices improved from 73.7% to 96.3%. The participation of households in land management practices has shown a 20% increment after land certification which showed an improved investment on land management. For example, the result of the probit model showed that a unit improvement of training and advices of agricultural extension increased the construction of water harvesting structures by about 21% after land certification. Moreover, about 89% of the households recognized that land certification improves women participation in the household decision- making related to land improvement practices. However, land certification was not accompanied by an increase in land productivity especially in Eastern Amhara. Even in Western Amhara, the slight increase in crop productivity was more of a result of improved seeds and use of fertilizers than land certification. Generally, land certification improves tenure security, land management practices and land use rights of women and marginal groups of societies. Therefore, providing second level of certificates, awareness creation about the policy, preparation and implementation of land use planning, designing appropriate compensation mechanisms and looking for alternative employment opportunities for the landless rural youth should be given due attentions to enhance confidence of farmers on their use rights and bring about improvements in land related investments and productivity.
Keywords: Impact, land certification, land resource management, dryland area, Ethiopia
9
1. INTRODUCTION
In Ethiopia, 85% of the population is directly supported by the agricultural economy. However, the productivity of that economy is being seriously eroded by unsustainable land management practices both in areas of food crops and in grazing lands (Berry, 2003). Ethiopia is a country with a variety of natural resources; and yet, the standards of living conditions of the people remain at a low level. Problems related to land and environmental degradations are among the major challenges that confront the Ethiopian policy-makers (Berhanu and Fayera, 2005). Land degradation is one of the major causes of low and, in many places, declining agricultural productivity and continuing food insecurity in rural Ethiopia in general and in Amhara Region in particular. Land degradation is an alarming challenge in the Amhara region causing serious problem in the region accounting for the loss of approximately two to four billion tons of soil annually, which leaves between 20,000 to 30,000 hectares of land unproductive (Teshome, 2010). From the total soil loss in Ethiopia, 58% originates in Amhara region (Berhanu et al., 2009). Land degradation is one of the major causes of low and in many places declining agricultural productivity and continuing food insecurity and rural poverty in Ethiopia. Achieving sustainable pathways out of the downward spiral of land degradation and poverty requires that farmers adopt sustainable land management practices. Land degradation caused critical food shortages and famine in 1973 and 1984 in Ethiopia. The main causes of land degradation are, among others, the rapid population growth, the limited area of fertile soils on flat lands, deforestation, and an excessive livestock population. Loss of arable land accounts to about 45% of the total land area of Ethiopia and and 66% of the Amhara region (Lakew et al., 2000). Deforestation has been the principal land use change in Ethiopia for centuries to compensate for the low agricultural productivity of arable land. Soil nutrient depletion arises from continuous cropping together with the removal of crop residues. Low external inputs and the absence of adequate soil nutrient saving and recycling are other cases of land degradation. To restore degraded agricultural lands in Ethiopia, an engineering approach or import and distribution of chemical fertilizers, were used in the past but did not solve the problem (Mulugeta, 2004). Moreover, tenure insecurity, land redistribution, limited access to credit, limited education, and other factors are believed to inhibit adoption of sustainable land management practices in some areas (EEPFE, 2005). The land tenure system is regarded as one of the many factors considered as an impediment to the adoption of sustainable and long-term land improvement and management practices. As a result, the land tenure issue has attracted a widespread attention and debate among policy-makers, government and non-government actors, the private sector, the donor community, researchers and the public at large. The problem of land tenure remained to be a challenge that needs to be addressed based on comprehensive and thorough research and analysis (EEA / EEPRI, 2002). The government of Amhara National Regional State has carried out major land redistributions in 1997 and 1998. Following this, the impact of such redistributions has been hotly debated in Ethiopia and elsewhere. The redistribution of land is believed to erode tenure security, which prevented farmers from undertaking land-improvement investments (Benin and Pender, 2001). This fragmentation and reallocation of land holdings is consequently believed to negatively affect the soil and water conservation and land development activities. A study by Berhanu et al. (2003) 10 showed that landholding is one of the factors that constrain farm income and the level of household food security. As landholding declines, per capita food production and farm income also decline, indicating that extremely small-sized farms cannot be made productive even with improved technology and certainly not enough to address rural poverty issues by extension programs that primarily focus on technology diffusion. Such farmers have little or no surplus for investment and for input purchase. Because of high vulnerability to food and income insecurity, farmers with relatively small farm holdings turn frequently to trading crop residues and animal manure as sources of fuel, rather than applying them for soil fertility improvement. Although frequent land redistribution was the principal cause of land rights insecurity in the previous policy, its moves have changed in the present context. The Amhara National Regional State has been carrying out land certification to bring land tenure security. The presence of a secured land tenure system is encourages farmers to undertake land management practices. Hence, in the Rural Land Administration and Use Policy (RLAUP) document, it is stressed that the opportunity to undertake redistribution of land becomes very narrow, unless it is decided by the intended communities and supported by law (Revised ANRS Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation, No.133/2006). Security of tenure is a critical variable that determines incentives to conserve land quality. Securing land tenure rights clearly reinforces private incentives to make long-term investments in soil conservation (Anley et al., 2006). On the other hand, land tenure security can influence land management, because it may affect farmers’ incentives or abilities to invest in land improvements. Farmers holding land under insecure tenure conditions are less likely to invest in such long-term investments as building soil and water conservation structures and planting trees (Pender et al., 2004). Moreover, secured land tenure is important for economic, social and environmental development and it is central to alleviating insecure shelter, inaccessible investments, credit opportunities, short-term resource exploitation and mismanagement (Dalrymple, 2005). Several government policies and strategies have been implemented in the past to solve the problems related to land and land tenure. However, past efforts to solve tenure insecurity, land degradation and then attaining sustainable land resource management did not bring significant results (Tesfaye, 2007). Cognizant of this fact, in 2000, the Amhara National Regional State presented the Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation no. 46/2000. This current policy move includes the registration of holding rights and providing a Certificate of Holding to all rural landholders. One of the preambles of the regulation states that regional government is believed to bring sustainable development and investment in land. The establishment of land ownership encourages landholders to use their labour, wealth, and creativity. In the region, any person, granted rural land shall be given the land holding certificate in which the details of the land is registered by the Authority and his name and his photograph fixed thereon. The land holding certification is a legal certificate of the holder (ANRS, 2006). The ultimate objective of certification is to ensure holders having long-term holding rights and to develop confidence of farmers in land use rights, encourage long term investments and protect marginalized groups of society. Even though land certification activities have been implemented in the region starting from 1998, the impact of the intervention on the above mentioned issues is not well known. Therefore, this research was initiated to address these questions.
11
Objectives of the study To investigate the perception of farmers towards land certification; To investigate the role of land certification on confidence of farmers in land use rights; To assess impacts of land certification on marginalized groups of the society; To investigate the impact of land certification on long-term investments
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. LAND TENURE AND LAND POLICY OF ETHIOPIA
Dalrymple (2005) described that cadastral systems date from as early as 8500 BC, which were based on gathering and recording data about land parcels, and attached ownership rights depicting formal property systems. Cadastral systems were thought to be used for the purposes of governments in tracing property ownership, taxation, and defiance facilities management. Land administration is an important system facilitating the implementation of land policies in both developed and developing nations. Holden and Tewodros (2008) discussed that the first land registration and cadastral survey in Ethiopia was initiated in Addis Ababa in 1909. Besides, there was a Ministry of Land Reform and Administration that measured and registered rural land in collaboration with the Mapping Agency until 1974 aiming to create a system of freehold tenure, provide individual titles of land and to facilitate land sales. Recently, land holding certificates are being issued in four major regional states of Ethiopia: Amhara; Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples; Oromiya; and Tigray regions (Getnet, 2009). Registration of landholdings and granting land use certificates to holders has recently become government policy in Ethiopia. However, land registration was carried out also to collect taxes from land users (Berhanu and Fayera, 2005). Rural land certification has been implemented in Ethiopia since 1998 and over five million certificates have been delivered, the largest delivery of non-freehold rights in such a short time period in Sub Saharan Africa. The new federal and regional land proclamations that are the basis for this land reform, aim to increase tenure security and strengthen women’s rights to land and to ensure more sustainable use of land resources (Holden and Tewodros, 2008). However, the Ethiopian land certificates provide only limited rights in the form of perpetual user rights, rights to bequeath, rights to obtain compensation for investment on the land in the case of loss of the land, and rights to lease out the land for a limited period. However, sales and mortgaging of land remains illegal, which restrict capital markets development (Holden et al., 2009). The land title certificate is issued in the name of the husband and wife, and contains a list of all plots measured and names of family members. Land certification has primary and secondary phases (Berhanu and Fayera, 2005). In the primary certification phase, measurement and registration of holding rights under the traditional method does not employ any surveying equipment. Major information included in the registered data are the holder’s name, the land use type, the status of soil fertility, the size of plot/parcel in local units and the names of holders of bordering parcels. In the secondary certificate phase, the area of parcels measured with the help of the instrument is said to be accurate with a certain precision level (usually one metre) and the area of the parcel is made available in square meters or hectares. In addition, the central co- ordinates of each parcel are collected through the process, which is vital to prepare the parcel
12 map in the end (Getahun, 2008). Generally, Amhara Region land registration format has its own lay-out. Hibret (2008) reported that Gozamen and Dessie Zuria were two of ANRS woredas where land registration and title certification started in January 2003 as a pilot program being supported by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA). Then, toward the end of 2003, land registration with cultural measurement was started in all 106 rural woredas of the region. Land tenure policy in Ethiopia has undergone an intense and radical shift in the last four decades. According to Roth (2008), tenure security is the perception of having secure rights to land and property on a continual basis, free from unreasonable interference from outsiders, as well as the ability to obtain the benefits of labor and capital invested, either in use or when leased or rented to another. Whereas tenure insecurity in practice stems from having too few rights, inadequate duration of rights, lack of assurance in exercising rights, or high costs of enforcement. Three periods can be distinguished in relation to rural land tenure policy and changes in Ethiopia.
2.1.1. The pre-1975 land tenure system (imperial time) The pre-1975 land tenure system in Ethiopia was one of the most complex tenure systems in the world and had not been thoroughly studied (Berhanu et al., 2002). At this time, the relationship between land users and owners was based on a feudal system. Land owned by the Emperor was subject to feudal obligations (Lakew et al., 2000). The major forms of tenure were rist and gult ( Lakew et al., 2000; Berhanu and Fayera, 2005) and other forms of tenure included ownerships granted to members of the nobilities, relations and church systems (Berhanu and Fayera, 2005). Rist refers to communal ownership of land and an individual was entitled to rist rights in a commune if he or she could prove some blood relation to the founding patriarch of the commune. A person who held rist rights was called ristegna. The usufruct rights conferred by rist were generally valid for a lifetime and extended over many generations (Lakew et al., 2000). Traditionally, rist land cannot be sold and characterized by competition (Teshome, 2009). In addition, endless litigations over land rights were mentioned as the feature of the rist tenure (Yigremew, 2002). Furthermore, the amount of rist rights that can be held was determined by the political and social importance of the individual. Individuals can claim land by using their blood relation through their father or mother or the parents of their spouse proliferating the potential rist rights an individual one (Teshome, 2009). The gult was not distinctively different from rist, since it often applied to the same area of land. The difference between the two was in the nature of the tenure, as gult was linked with the legal and political status of the receiver of the grant of tenure. A gultegna was responsible for partial administration and justice at the local level in maintaining law and order and at the same time collecting taxes levied on land, which formed the greatest part of his income. Gultegnas could collect payment from ristegnas in the form of tributes, taxes or labor. Under the gult, as a rule, the tax was 20% of the total crop production (Lakew et al., 2000). The gult was the main mechanism through which the state was affecting the day-to-day lives of ordinary people in times of peace starting at least from as far back as the thirteenth century. Even though gult positions were not necessarily hereditary, there were instances where the same ancestry held them from generation to generation (Teshome, 2009). There was a major distinction being drawn between the northern and the southern land tenure systems in Ethiopia during the pre-1975 land tenure system (Teshome, 2009). The rist/kinship tenure system was most prevalent in the Northern part of the country while private tenure was found in the rest of the country (Berhanu et al., 2002). Lakew et al. (2000) in their review 13 indicated that peasants in Amhara enjoyed more hereditary land-use rights by virtue of their membership in cognate descent groups or residential communities. It is believed that the communal system that was practiced in the Northern parts of the country (Gojam, Gonder, North Shewa, Wello and Tigray) was more flexible and accommodating in that the chances for social mobility were greater. Furthermore, landlessness and tenancy were minimized, and, most importantly, peasants were assured security of tenure. Tenure insecurity has been cited as one of the limitations of the pre-1975 land tenure system. It had different forms from endless litigations over land rights to complete eviction from holdings. Arbitrary peasant evictions were among such sources of insecurity. Land in Ethiopia was the subject of numerous disputes and endless litigation. Civil disputes over land included cases such as failure of the tenant to pay rent, mismanagement of farms, collection of crops before assessment, eviction, claims of inheritance, trespassing, boundaries, and ownership. For instance, it was mentioned that in the study of court files conducted in Kuni woreda (Hararghe) in the period between December 12, 1965 and December 11, 1966 (E.C.), it was found that 20% of the criminal cases involved land issues (Yigremew, 2002).
2.1.2. Land tenure during the years 1975 – 1991 (Derg regime) The 1975 land reform is one of the most far-reaching land reform projects implemented in Africa (Helland, 2006). The Ethiopian Land Reform in 1974 was based on a radical communistic ideology. Before this reform, there was a diversity of tenure systems from absentee landlordism in the South of the country to the more communal rist system in the North (Holden and Tewodros, 2008). Upon the overthrow of the monarch, the military government (Derg) in its land reform proclamation of March 1975, declared land to be the collective property of the people, redistributed land to farmers, and abolished the system of tenancy and elite rule. In addition, this proclamation on land reform also created state farms and producer co-operatives, to form the basis for development and food self-sufficiency. The maximum holding allowed per household was set at 10 ha, but in practice was usually less than 3 ha due to scarcity of land and population pressure (Lakew et al., 2000). In addition, selling, mortgaging land (Lakew et al., 2000; Berhanu and Fayera, 2005) leasing, buying, hiring of labor (Lakew et al., 2000), renting of land, and sharecropping (Berhanu and Fayera, 2005) were legally forbidden. Peasant Associations (PAs), today’s kebele administrations, were created with the responsibility of distributing and managing common resources, subject to equitable distribution and to accommodate new claimants. Redistribution of cultivated fields to meet the increasing demand by new households led to further fragmentation of farmland holdings and limited farmers’ incentives to invest in the land. If a farmer wanted to make use of trees, the PA executive committee had to approve the cutting of trees, even if the trees were on the farmer’s homestead. This restriction and others discouraged investment in private tree-planting activities (Lakew et al., 2000). In the 1975 proclamation, the land was given to the husband because he was by law the head of the household. Such land reform had a mixed effect on women; it used the heads of family concept (a male) as the basis of the land allocation, thus ignoring the traditional or customary systems that had protected women’s access to land. Therefore, females became secondary users of land (Berhanu and Fayera, 2005). Berhanu et al. (2002) in their review indicated that land was allocated by considering the number of household members; but quality of land, size of family workforce and ownership of farm assets, which have substantial influence on ability to use land, were not given as much emphasis
14 as family size. Farmers hold an equal size of land per household, but with significant variation in factor intensity, such as land per adult labourer, land per oxen, and land per working capital.
2.1.3. Land tenure post-1991(current government) In Ethiopia, the fall of the Derg regime created a period of uncertainty about the future of land rights. Nonetheless, in the November 1991 declaration on economic policy, the transitional government of Ethiopia announced the continuation of the land policy of the Derg regime. In 1995, state ownership of land was instituted in Ethiopia’s new constitution (Crewett and Korf, 2008). Article 40 (4) of Ethiopia’s new constitution was followed by the Federal Rural Land Administration Proclamation No. 89/1997. In this proclamation, Article 1 (4) implies means of land holding distribution in order to address landless members of the community (FDRE, 1997). The present land policy allows rural households to hire labour to work on their fields. Land leasing, sharecropping and lending of land are legal and widely practiced. However, buying, selling, and mortgaging land are still prohibited. The last land redistribution in the Amhara region was declared and undertaken in February 1997 (Lakew et al., 2000). A new land law was developed in 1997 that allocates legislative power to the Federal Government and delegates implementation to the Regional States. In 2002, the government delegated greater legislative powers to the Regional States in matters related to land. Tigray was the first state to start rural land registration in 1996. Amhara, Oromia, and the Southern Regions started the registration and title certification around 2002. Regional governments make their own policy. So that in the Oromia region, farmers are allowed to rent out only up to 50% of their holding for a maximum of three years under traditional farming methods and 15 years under modern technologies and inputs application (Berhanu and Fayera, 2005). Similarly, Amhara region farmers whose land use rights have been given to them for more than three years shall have their right be put in writing with the maximum duration of rent time of 25 years (ANRS, 2006). Berhanu and Fayera (2005) noted that even if at central level, there is no mandated government institution responsible for the management of land matters, Amhara and Tigray Regions have established structures that may be responsible to manage land administration, such as the Environmental Protection Land Use and Administration Authority in 2000 and 2004, respectively.
2.2. IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON CONFIDENCE OF FARMERS TO SUPPORT MARGINALIZED GROUPS AND LONG-TERM INVESTEMENT
2.2.1 Land certification and tenure security Land certification is a current policy move in Ethiopia. In Amhara Regional state, certification started in 2002 and over three million landholders have received temporary certificates and almost two million have received a primary certificate (SARDP and BoEPLAU, 2010). A primary certificate is a land use certificate for the Amhara Region, included in the Book of Holding and issued after the registration. In total, over 98% of the land-using households have received a certificate. Certification is a process of registering land under holding and issuing the certificate as evidence such rights in land are legally secured (Getahun, 2008). As indicated in Revised ANRS RLAUP No. 133/2006 the holding certification is a legal certificate of the holder.
15
The Book of Holding contains the official certificate showing that those named within are the rightful users of the location. In order to specify the location of the parcels even further, the names of the landholders to the north, east, south and west are recorded. The fertility and present use of the land are also described. The Book further lists the responsibilities of the land user, for example to use the land in a sustainable manner. Inside the Book, a precise description of the parcels that together constitute the holding of the land user is given, including specifics of the area, such as the name of the place where they are changes of land users or changes in the composition of the land holding can also be entered in the book. Registration of holding rights and providing a certificate of holding to all rural landholders is the current policy move, which this study is concerned with. The ultimate objective of certification is to ensure that holders have long-term holding rights (ANRS, 2000). Like the Federal Land Law, the Amhara Land Law asserts the principle of public ownership of land, prohibiting its sale and mortgage. The certificate holder has the right to use the land but can also bequeath it and give it to dependants. Parcels may also be exchanged. Further land can be rented for up to 25 years and the contracts can be renewed. This provision is in practice used more or less as a transfer of the user right. Finally the right to land is dependent on residency in a rural area and engagement in agriculture. Land tenure or tenure right is the way in which rights in land are held. A person has security of tenure if he is secure or safe in his holding of land. Land tenure security influences farmers’ decision to adopt conservation measures by influencing the length of farmers’ planning horizon and sense of responsibility (Geoffrey, 2004 cited in Tsegaye, 2006). Tekie (1999) described tenure insecurity as the problem of uncertainty of a holding or given piece of land in the future. If there is a chance for a landowner to be expropriated from his land, without his consent or without any (fair) compensation, then we can say that there is insecurity. Tenure insecurity increases farmers’ uncertainty on their ability to use their land in the future or increases the uncertainty of obtaining the benefits. The main economic problem with tenure insecurity is that it doesn’t give farmers the right incentives; as a result they invest less in factors that improve the productivity of land. In other words, individuals will not be motivated to make investments whose returns mature in the long run but will tend to extract the resource as much as possible in the present.
2.2.2. Role of land certification on confidence of farmers In the Northern parts of Ethiopia, farmers have developed a sense of insecurity due to frequent land redistribution. Farmers do not have strong tenure security with land certificates in Ethiopia due to the possibility of redistribution of land even if they have certificates (ARD, Inc., 2004). In Ethiopia as in many other developing countries, land registration and titling have been taken as a panacea for tenure insecurity and low levels of land related investments. Preliminary evidence shows the presence of a strong demand for rural area land certification among farmers of Ethiopia, as well as willingness to pay for a certificate and higher input use intensities among certificate holders (Zerfu, 2010). Perceived risk of expropriation is higher among farmers with off-farm employment as land rights depend on the physical presence of farmers in the village. To cope with the increased perceived risk, farmers withdraw themselves from off-farm activities. This has a negative impact on the off- farm sector as well as on the overall efficiency of resource allocation. It may also indirectly affect agricultural investment by hampering households’ savings from the off-farm activities (Zerfu, 2010). In Ethiopia, as case study reports show, there is great doubt among farmers who initially believed that land certification was just another politically motivated campaign and only started 16 changing their view as they participated in the process and realized the potential usefulness of the land certificates (Deininger et al., 2008). Hibret (2008) also found that the perception of the majority of farmers on the rural land certification program is associated with any benefits obtained from it. Some of the rural land certification benefits in Ethiopia were the reduction of boundary disputes and reduction of tenure insecurity. Especially female-headed households and age-old farmers due to their experiences on conflict appreciated the first benefit of land certification. Meanwhile, untitled kebele farmers were also very much interested to have the land certificate soon. The demand for land certificate increase, because farmers believe that certification will make compensation more likely. For instance, information obtained from where agent also supported demand for certification is increasing overtime, especially after the government has started expropriating the land in the neighboring kebele for cut flower investment. Similarly, a case study conducted to understand the perception of one woman who has an educated husband on land certificate in a kebelle in Arsi Negelle shows that the land certification has improved her situation, making her an equal owner and participant in decision-making. Before certification, her husband made all land related decisions but after certification, they make joint decisions. Even they have planned to inherit some of their land to their landless daughter and landless sons (Holden and Tewodros, 2008).
2.2.3. Role of land certification on women and marginalized groups In Africa land-based activities contribute a major share to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment, and they constitute the main livelihood basis for a large portion of the rural population. As land becomes scarcer, poorer and more vulnerable groups may see their claims weakened and lose access to land, leading to their increasing marginalization and impoverishment (IIED, 1999, cited in Kanji et al., 2005). One of the most serious obstacles to increasing agricultural productivity and income of rural women is their insecurity of land tenure. Security of tenure is the key to having control over major decisions, such as what crops to grow, what techniques to use, what to consume and what to sell (ECA, 2004). Throughout the world, women constitute a large portion of the economically active population engaged in agriculture, both as farmers and as farm workers, and play a crucial role in ensuring household food security, despite enjoying very limited rights to land. In many countries, the role of women in agricultural production has increased in recent years as a result of men’s migration to urban areas and absorption in non-agricultural sectors. However, in many parts of the world, women have little or no access to resources such as land, credit and extension services. Moreover, women tend to remain concentrated in the informal sector of the economy. In plantations, they often provide labour without employment contracts, on a temporary or seasonal basis or as wives or daughters of male farm workers (Cotula et al., 2006). Few women hold local leadership positions and are usually confined to taking care of children, preparing food and other household responsibilities. Women in Ethiopia are less involved in farming activities than in many other African countries (Holden and Tewodros, 2008). The husband is in charge of the farming activities in most cases. However, there is a persistent gender gap in landholding rights because, women’s access to and control over land are affected by various factors in communities (FAO, 2002 cited in Almaz, 2007). Those who have difficulty defending their rights (particularly divorced women who are share-cropping the land with their ex-husband, those in disputes over inheritance and elderly people) may be at risk that their land will be registered in somebody else’s name if the committee is not vigilant (Askale, 2005). 17
Throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, women’s rights to both movable and immovable property are insecure. Land is one of the immovable properties; insecure property rights pose a number of problems for women. First, it is difficult for them to make plans for their own financial security in case of an anticipated death or divorce. It is socially unacceptable in both East and West Africa for women to buy land or other property in their own name. In many African countries, they cannot obtain autonomous rights to agricultural land because of cultural patterns of control and inequalities in customary and statute law. Customary law controls the allocation of agricultural land up to 90% in Sub-Saharan Africa (Joireman, 2006). In Lesotho, statutory laws discriminating against women owning land are still in place. Where statutory laws are non-discriminatory, as in Zambia, women do not own and control land because they are unaware of their rights and due to socioeconomic constraints such as lack of capital and illiteracy. In some countries, such as Botswana, there is no harmonization of the non- discriminatory land laws with marriage and inheritance laws (ECA, 2003). Even if female inheritance was theoretically possible one of the criticisms in the land tenure system of the monarchical rule was that the majority of women were landless. For instance in Tigray, the social structure favoured property being transferred to male heirs in the family. Similarly, women did not determine what crops to plant or whether a cow should be sold or not and did not participate in decisions to take loans for farm activities or household economic needs (Mebrat, 2005). Kanji et al. (2005) noted that most women face insecure and limited land rights. Women gain access to land usually through secondary rights, being daughter, wife, sister or mother of a man able to assert primary rights to land through patrilineal land ownership systems. There are of course exceptions where inheritance is matrilineal, for example, in Nampula province in northern Mozambique. When men move to the wife’s village, women tend to have independent rights to land; husbands lose access to land in the case of divorce. Rights to use and control land is central to the lives of rural women in countries where the main sources of income and livelihood are derived from these natural resources. The lack of land rights of women and girls threatens their living conditions, their economic empowerment, their physical security and, to some extent, their struggle for equity and equality within a patriarchal society. Without rights to land, women's economic and physical security is compromised (ECA, 2003). Looking at the previous land tenure system of Ethiopia from the gender point of view, both rist and gult land tenure system discriminated against women and did not give any concern to women’s rights of access and control of land and also in the Derg land reform system, many authors’ analysis shows that it was gender biased (Mebrat, 2005). It did not totally discriminate against women’s right to land nor did it improve their situation substantially (Zenebework, 2000 cited in Mebrat, 2005). The land was distributed according to family size and registered under male headed households. Land tenure systems that were practiced in the pre-1974 to 1991 era discriminated against women in particular. According to Mebrat (2005) in the modern land rights system (1991 until present) there are much better visible articles that address women’s land right issues compared to the last two regimes in the country. The 1995 FDRE Constitution Article 35 (6) states “Women have the right to acquire, administer, control, use and transfer property. In particular, they have equal rights as men with respect to use, transfer, administration and control of land. They shall also enjoy equal treatment in the inheritance of property” (FDRE, 1995). Similarly, the revised ARLAU Proclamation No. 133/2006 Article 9 (2) states that, if the land to be distributed is not available to all petitioners
18 with an equal magnitude of a land holding problem it shall prioritise orphaned children, disables, women and youngsters who join the new life of independence, consecutively (ANRS, 2006). The provision of land certification is one of the current policy moves. Women’s ability to influence farm management (due to the strong traditions of male dominance in household-farm decision-making) was increased and it appears that wives have more influence over land management in general and land rental decisions in particular (Holden and Tewodros, 2008). Kanji et al. (2005) also reported that during the latest round of land redistribution in both Tigray and Amhara region unmarried girls (18 years old and above) were entitled to a plot of land. Nevertheless, the system of registration in Tigray carried out in the name of a single household head, male if present, creates certain opportunities for mischief. In the Amhara Region both spouses should be named on their newer version of the certificates. At the end of 2004, when registration work was finalized in close to one third of all kebeles in Amhara, 38.6 per cent of the plots were registered under joint title, 28.9 per cent were under female holding, and 32.5 percent were registered to men. The high percentage of land registered to men is probably due to many married women having been denied joint titling. A positive effect of the land registration process in relation to women’s participation in soil and water conservation is observed. A study in the Dessie Zuria and Tehulederie districts of the Amhara Regional State shows that women’s participation in soil conservation activities at their own holdings or their shared holdings with their husband has increased after the introduction of land certification (Tesfaye, 2007). However, while formal registration might in theory be expected to help poorer groups confirm their claims to land, in practice, the record has been poor. Where there are significant costs to registration, in cash, time and transport, smallholders are particularly vulnerable to losing their rights over land (Platteau, 2000 cited in Kanji et al., 2005). Tenure insecurity in Ethiopia could not only be triggered by fear of future land redistribution. Weak land administration which the government has been struggling to address through the issuance of land certificates could also lead to arbitrary violation of farmers’ land use rights by local authorities or institutions, in which farmers usually have low confidence. Dessalegn (1997) cited in Yigremew (2002) argued that peasants had little incentive to invest in the land and manage it properly since ones holdings could be transferred to others at any time. The link between access to land and agricultural productivity can be established in different ways: Firstly, the presence of property rights eliminates the anxiety and uncertainty of expropriation, which encourage the farmers to make long term investment decisions on land and to adopt the best cropping system. Secondly, the title of land makes it easy for farmers to use the land as collateral for credit (Shimelles et al., 2009). As a result, agricultural investment and adaptation of modern technology will follow. Thus, access to credit enables the farmers to make durable investments on the one hand and intensify the production systems and inputs on the other hand and thereby boost agricultural productivity (Platteau, 1993 cited in Shimelles et al., 2009).
2.2.4. Land certification and land productivity The approach to management and use of land resources is changing rapidly and dramatically towards sustainability at the global scale. In sustainable land management, greater international emphasis has been given to the tropical regions where poverty coupled with growing human population is triggering overexploitation of the limited natural resources base. Because of growing demand for food crops, timber, pastureland and firewood, tropical forests are being degraded, cleared and converted to croplands at an alarming rate (Mulugeta, 2004).
19
It is more apparent that dryland climatic conditions strongly influence the natural and socioeconomic environment. Inhabitants of these areas have traditionally adapted their cropping patterns, farming systems and management of water resources to cope with a dry environment (ICTSD, 2007). African drylands comprise one third of the world’s total drylands. The present estimated dryland area of Ethiopia is over 75 million ha (Tefera et al., 2005). However, dryland degradation is thought to be widespread in Sub-Saharan Africa, Northern China, Australia, North-Eastern Brazil, the Caribbean Islands, and many other dryland areas, also in Europe (across its driest, southern Mediterranean zone). They have experienced damage from deforestation and overgrazing (Winslow et al., 2004). Drylands are often characterized by land degradation which takes a number of forms, including depletion of soil nutrients, salinisation, agrochemical pollution, soil erosion, vegetation degradation as a result of unsustainable agricultural practices, overgrazing and forest clearance (ICTSD, 2007). About 10 to 20 percent of drylands are already degraded, negatively affecting the livelihoods of up to six percent of the two billion people that live in drylands, while many more people are at risk of further degradation (John, 2009). According to ICTSD (2007), unsustainable agricultural practices, overgrazing and deforestation are direct causes of land degradation particularly in places land, water and other natural resources are under-priced. Additionally, when farmers and herders do not have control or long-term security over the land they use, incentives for maintaining environmentally sustainable practices seldom exist. In the transitional economies of Central and Eastern Europe, and the Commonwealth of Independent States, there has been a range of experience, but, in general, the development of registration systems has proceeded substantially since 1990, although in many countries there have been serious constraints, particularly legal and institutional, which have delayed the progress (Cotula et al., 2006). For all tenants, the major factor of their dependency, and the chief obstacle to improved production was the lack of security of tenure. Each sharecropper was never certain how long he would cultivate his holding, or when he would be told to give it up (Yigremew, 2002). Providing security of tenure is often seen as a precondition for intensifying agricultural production and is increasingly stressed as a prerequisite for better natural resource management and sustainable development. Literature suggests that increased security of tenure in productive resources leads to enhanced and more sustainable agricultural production. Tenure security has a marked effect on expectations of returns from an investment of both labour and capital, particularly in a rural setting (ECA, 2003). Assessment of better land management is evaluated in relation to farm practices such as crop rotation, terracing, fallowing, planting trees and the like (Berhanu et al., 2002). Tenure insecurity on farmland undermines investments in tree planting, manuring, soil and water conservation structures, and other land improvements. Similarly, communal ownership is believed to lead to mismanagement, particularly, over-grazing and inefficient removal of wood for fuel (Lakew et al., 2000). High inequality of land ownership reduced productivity and investment, led to political complaints, and eventually overthrow of the imperial regime (Deininger et al., 2007). Peasants had little incentive to invest in the land and manage it properly since ones holdings could be transferred to others at any time. Security of tenure and efficient land use were sacrificed to the misguided belief that redistribution would promote social equality (Yigremew, 2002).
20
Moldenhaver and Hudson (1988), cited in Mitiku et al. (2006) reported that since short-term projects seldom achieve much, any sustainable land resource conservation project or program must be long term. The reason is that successful soil and water conservation practices involve the introduction of changes in farmers’ attitudes and behavioural patterns. Thus, because change is a process, time is important but, the land user will only change his or her usual practices if he or she perceives that changes will minimize risks, increase income or make yields more reliable. The present world agricultural system is increasingly unsustainable. It is degrading the resource base and deteriorating the environment. According to Duley et al. (1992) all the people in the world could be fed if all countries of the world adopted sustainable agricultural policies and moved towards agricultural systems, which work with and don’t dominate or deplete natural systems and resources. Such an agricultural system is called sustainable agricultural system. Soil degradation is taken as one of the major problems confronting agriculture throughout the world. The main causes for land degradation are complex and attributed to a combination of biophysical, social, economic and political factors (Mitiku et al., 2006). Proper land resource management will help to promote economic and social development goals. However, it is very difficult to achieve such development goals without secure tenure. Deininger (2003) indicated that more security of property rights will give incentives for greater conservation in such a way that can reduce tenure insecurity and then environmental degradation. Land tenure and property rights affect the application of technologies for agricultural and natural resource management. Secured property rights give sufficient incentives to the farmers to increase their efficiencies in terms of productivity and ensure environmental sustainability. It is natural that without secured property rights farmers do not feel an emotional attachment to the land they cultivate, do not invest in land development and will not use inputs efficiently (Shimelles et al., 2009). Berhanu and Fayera (2005) also reported that the prevailing land tenure system is one of the root causes of Ethiopia’s poverty, food insecurity, and underdevelopment as it restricts citizens’ access to land for maximizing economic use. This group argues that the existing land tenure policy has constrained investment in agriculture as land cannot be used as collateral, has aggravated land and resources degradation and has hindered migration of surplus rural labor to alternative livelihood activities (Berhanu and Fayera, 2005).
2.2.5. Land certification and long-term investment In Ethiopia, land certificates serve to secure the right to compensation if land is reallocated, and secure the right to the land during disputes. Some studies on land certification programs of Ethiopia show that the registration process is equitable (in terms of biases against women and the poor), and beneficial (using various measures of benefits and documenting the costs of first-time registration). Preliminary evidence finds a lack of wealth and gender bias. In addition, land certification yields net benefits in the form of high demand for certification, reduced unsettled disputes, and increased investments in the short term (Mueller, 2009). Scholars found no correlation between investment and land rights in Kenya, Somalia and Niger; conversely, in some regions of Ghana and Rwanda land rights promote investment. On the other hand, in Uganda, improvement of land rights does not affect the long-run investment, but it has a positive impact in the short-run investment. Based on this, in the post-1991 period of Ethiopia, land certification has been proposed to promote tenure security; the usufruct right to land still cast uncertainty on economic agents apart from being open to being used in promoting the political interest of the ruling class. However, with the exceptions of some studies land rights are
21 important determinants in shaping the behaviour of farmers toward agricultural investments (Zerfu, 2010). Different studies were carried out to determine the effect of land titling on farm plot investment. In a region of northern Peru, a strong positive effect of land titling on the adoption of terraces was found, and vice versa in single equation models and in simultaneous equations the effects of land titling on terrace adoption and vice versa are almost an order of magnitude smaller than the values indicated by single equation models. The findings confirm the hypothesis that simultaneity biases upward the estimated effects of property rights on investment decisions. Another study on the effects of land registration on tree planting in Kenya reported that more trees were planted on the unregistered land with insecure land rights than on the registered land. Similarly, a study in Zimbabwe has reported that tenure security in form of land titling and registrations has a significant and positive effect on long-term farm investments (Hibret, 2008). Some of the long-term investments on land include tree planting, terracing, use of manure and so on. Land certification programs help to create secure and easily transferable holding rights that ensure benefits to land holders and develop incentives for long-term investment. The case studies conducted in China, Thailand, Vietnam, Honduras, and Paraguay confirmed that land certification/titling has positive impacts on investment and agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, studies from Africa demonstrated that there was a slight relationship between land certification/titling and productivity (Getahun, 2008). Dagnew et al. (2009) revised that demographic and socio-economic factors such as population density, access to markets, tenure arrangements and the level of credit finance support systems influence land management. Land investment practices require support from local and state structures through public expenditure and institutions, among which one major issue is secure land right titling. Therefore, land tenure has important implications for agricultural development in general and land investment in particular. In Ethiopia, land is the main source of livelihood and investment for the majority of the population since agriculture is the main part of the economy. Land fragmentation, tenure insecurity, landlessness etc. have been causes of food insecurity. Of all the factors, land degradation is increasing as a result of poor practices and weak sense of ownership due to the absence of secured land use rights. Land tenure systems affect rural farmers not only in the ability to produce for subsistence and markets but also in their social and economic status, and in their incentive to work hard and use land in a sustainable way. In many circumstances, a variety of measures increasing security and productivity of land users are available without the need of major legislative changes, which include the introduction of simple systems of land rights: boundary definition, titling, support for the resolution of disputes etc. at community/individual level (Dagnew et al., 2009). Shimelles et al. (2009) diagrammatically represented the relationship between land tenure (either through legal changes or through institutional reforms) and agricultural productivity. Land remains a most crucial asset for households of nations where the majority of the population lives in rural areas and about half of the GDP of Ethiopia came from agricultural production. Therefore, good management of land is central to agrarian development, environmental security and rural governance in Ethiopia (Hibret, 2008). Generally, as seen from the whole literature review, land tenure insecurity was one of the limitations of land holding systems of Ethiopia in the pre-revolution period. After this period, 22 cultivated land redistribution was identified as one source of tenure insecurity in the country. It was carried out to meet the increasing demand by new households, led to further fragmentation of farmland holdings and limited farmers’ incentives to invest in the land. Land redistribution was stopped in many regions of Ethiopia in 1991. However, it was carried out in many parts of the Amhara region until 1997. Nevertheless, very few studies examined the effects of land redistribution on land management and productivity in Ethiopia. With the exception of some studies, land certification was enhancing tenure security and long-term investment on land brings improvement of land productivity and sustainable development. In addition, land policies of Ethiopia up to the recent time were not giving attention to women and marginal groups of society. Nonetheless, some studies showed that land certification in many parts of the world brought tenure security, enhanced long-term investment and land management practices; as a result land productivity increased and assured land ownership of women and marginal groups of society. Therefore, recently land certification was carried out in four region of Ethiopia with Amhara region one of them. This research is designed to verify and investigate the impact of land certification on the perception and confidence of farmers concerning their land holding, its impact on land management practices and land productivity. Finally, the impact of land certification on protection of land use rights for women and marginal groups of societies was verified though this research. Samuel (2006) also indicates that insecurity of tenure discourages the incentive to invest in land improvement. Given the absence of any contractual or lease agreement with the government and the general belief that the next round of land redistribution will take place at any time, the incentive to invest in land improvement is often minimal. Also, as indicated by FAO (2004), the redistribution of land by kebele, a local government, is a major source for land tenure insecurity among smallholders. Studies and preliminary field investigation have suggested that there is a general perception among many farmers that their holdings will shrink or be transferred to other households after a period. This has been a disincentive for farmers to invest in the land, resulting in lower productivity and food insecurity. According to FAO another serious deficiency of the current land policy is that it ties up access and land rights to farmer's residences, where the right of the holder is usually evoked as soon as he leaves his residence area. This has constrained the free movement of people and the development of rural markets. The importance of secure and transferable land rights to provide incentives for long-term investment and decisions based on such investments has long been recognized. Where tenure is insecure, the functioning of land markets (and off-farm migration) as well as the use of land as collateral will be impaired and the risk of losing land will create a disincentive for households to undertake investments even if the present value of the productivity benefits from such investments would, under full tenure security, be higher than their cost. This implies that, even in situations where, for example due to lack of credit markets, there is little scope for land ownership to increase credit supply, one would expect tenure security to increase investment (Deininger et al., 2003a). Many authors wrote about the positive impact of land certification on long-term investment. Bresley (1995) cited in Deininger et al. (2009), clearly defined that property rights to land and the ability to draw on the state’s enforcement capacity will lower the risks of squatters and eviction, increase incentives for land-related investments and reduce the need for land owners to expend resources to stake out or defend their claims.
23
Also Deininger et al. (2009) showed that affordable access to reliable information about an individual’s land ownership via a public registry will reduce the cost of renting or selling land. A certificate of land ownership can allay fears that rental land can be taken away, either by the government through redistribution or by a tenant who does not vacate it at the end of the lease period. This could be useful in contexts where migration will require land owners to be temporarily absent (Deininger et al., 2009). A study by Samuel (2005) cited in Samuel (2006) has found that the number of land transactions (both rental and sharecropping) is high and the positive impact of land rental markets in terms of improving the allocation efficiency of factors of production and expanding the use of purchased farm inputs like inorganic fertilizers and improved seeds are implying a positive impact on crop productivity. As indicated in De Soto (2000) cited in Deininger et al. (2009) the key benefits of formal land titles are the ability to sell or rent land to strangers and the associated ability to use land as collateral for credit. The reason is that, if a reliable land registry provides a formal and low-cost way to identify land ownership without the need of physical inspection or inquiry with neighbors, land is ideal as collateral. Deininger (2003) noted that property rights affect economic growth in a number of ways. Secure property rights will increase the incentives of households and individuals to invest, and often will provide them with better credit access, something that will not only help them make such investments, but will also provide an assurance substitute in the event of shocks. A nationwide survey conducted by the Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA) in collaboration with the World Bank in 2006, showed that large majorities perceive certification to increase incentives for investment in trees (88%), soil and water conservation structures (86%), and sustainable management of common property resources (66%) (Deininger et al., 2007). According to a study on the effect of land administration systems on sustainable land resource conservation in two districts of the Amhara Regional State by Tesfaye (2007) found that registration has increased farmers confidence to invest more soil and water conservation practices and further said that they have already started to do some kinds of conservation activities by their own initiatives. He indicated that farmers made soil and water conservation investments or improvements after the registration which includes construction and maintenance of farm terraces with a better standard, exotic as well as indigenous tree planting for soil conservation, gully rehabilitation activities, and intensified soil fertility conservation measures, like cow dung applications and composting. Moreover, moisture-harvesting structures like trenches and micro- basins are put into practice (Tesfaye, 2007).
24
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The study was conducted in six selected sample woredas (districts) of the Amhara National Regional State of which three are located in the food insecure and low rainfall areas and the other three in the surplus producing and high rainfall parts of the region. Table 1: Sample zones, woredas and kebeles. Zone Woreda Kebeles Food security situation
North Wollo Kobo Jarota, Zoble, Woremigna, Durlebes, and Tekulsh Moisture deficient and South Wollo Tehuledere Ketie, Amimo, Hitcha, Jarie food insecure Tehuledere, and Bededo
Oromia Batie Birra, Melka Lgu, Qamie, Gariro, and Qurqura kebeles from Bati
East Gojjam Gozamin Wonka, Chertekel, Enrata, Leklekita, Adisna Gulit High rainfall and food Awie Ankesha Sostu Gimjabet, Hateta, secure Denkushita, Gowona, Bekafta
Achefer West Gojjam Lalibela, Yeboden, Ahurie- Keltafa, Abchikele, Gutta-Advie
The assumption is that investment on land such as soil water conservation, tree planting, etc. can be affected by the resource ownership of households and the return from land and thus such comparisons would help us to conclude about such differences. The selection of the woredas was done based on purposive sampling techniques such as land certification implementation history (issuance of the certificate before four years) and better accessibility to main roads and markets. The sample woredas and their respective kebeles are indicated in table 1.
3.1.1 Sample woredas in Eastern Amhara Kobo, Tehuldere and Bati woredas are well distributed in the eastern part of Amhara region from North Wollo, over South Wollo to Oromia zones respectively. The large majority of farmers living in these woredas have been given a land certificate longer than four years ago. All of the woredas are crossed by asphalted roads and have reasonable market access. General features of the three woredas are described here below.
Tehuledere woreda: It was the first woreda in the eastern part of the region where pilot land certification activities through SIDA’s support have been carried out. Currently, the woreda is divided into 19 rural kebeles and has total area of is 52,400 ha (AMAREW Project, 2006; PANE, 2010). According to CSA (2008), this woreda has a total population of 117,856, of whom 59,287 were men and 58,569 were women. The woreda is characterized by an altitude ranging from 1400 to 2900 meter 25 above sea level. The woreda is comprised of 13% temperate-highland, 72% mid-temperate to mid-highland and 15% hot lowland. Seven kebeles in the woreda are categorized as hot lowland characterized by high population pressure, frequent droughts, high malaria infestation and limited social services such as health, education and potable water (PANE, 2010). Tehuledere woreda has two cropping seasons, from January to March and from May to September. The rainy season from January to March is non-consistent and inadequate. The rain from May to September is also erratic in amount and distribution. The mean annual rainfall is about 700 to 800mm. Of the three agro-ecological zones, shortage of rainfall is more severe in the hot lowland than in the other areas. The minimum and maximum temperatures of the woreda are seven °C and 33°C, respectively. Topographically, the woreda consists of 40% undulated land, 26.41% mountainous land, 13.3% plateaus, 12.3% valleys, and 8% water bodies. 87% of the economy of the woreda’s population is based on agricultural economic activities (PANE, 2010). The farming system is dominantly a sedentary mixed farming system consisting of both crop and livestock production. The major food crops are sorghum and maize. In addition, haricot bean is the dominant crop grown in all agro-ecological zones while barley and wheat are grown in the Dega areas. Due to population pressure, landholding has increasingly become smaller than ever before with a holding size of 0.856 ha per household (0.83 ha) cropland and 0.026 ha grazing land. Currently, the average size of land holding per household in the woreda is 0.5 ha. Goats are the major livestock reared in the area and are one of the major sources of income of the households. Productivity of both crop and livestock is very poor due to erratic rainfall, poor soil fertility, feed shortage and other related problems (PANE, 2010, 2008). According to the data obtained from the Tehuledere woreda BoEPLAU, the land certification program started in 2006. At the end of 2010 100% (29,473) of the households received primary land certification. Based on land certificate holding, 17,170 were jointly certified households, 6,580 were male certified households, and 5,723 households were female-headed in the woreda.
Kobo woreda: The woreda is found 550 km north of Addis Abeba and 50 kms North of Woldiya town on the Addis Ababa - Mekele main asphalt road. It has 35 rural kebeles and three towns and covers a total area of 200,959 ha. The geographic feature of the woreda is mainly characterized as low land with a large flat plain land and some undulating terrain (Haile, 2008). According to CSA (2008), the woreda has a total population of 221,894; of which 111,571 are males and 110,323 are females. Topographically, Kobo woreda consists of 65% flat valley bottom, 20% mountainous land and 15% valleys and gorges. It has two dominant types of soils in equal proportion which are Vertisols (black heavy clay soils), and Fluvisols (medium textured soils) (Selamyihun et al., 2006). Agro-climatologically, the woreda is characterized as hot lowland (below 1,500 m above sea level) (Haile, 2008). The average annual rainfall between the periods 1994 to 1996 and 2001 to 2003 was 725 and 564 mm, respectively. More than 80% of the annual rainfall is received during the months of July and August (Selamyihun et al., 2006). Rainfall over the valley is bimodal with a light secondary rainy season present from March to May and a heavy primary rainy season from July to September. Rainfall distribution is erratic, in both space and time, and a higher frequency of droughts is common. The average temperature of the woreda is 25ºC (Haile, 2008). The farming system of the woreda is characterized by crop/livestock mixed farming. Livestock farming plays almost an equivalently significant role to crop farming. The total land area under cultivation in the woreda is 37,948 ha, of which 94% is rainfed. An average land holding under rain-fed agriculture in the woreda is 0.75 ha, whereas it is 0.15 ha under irrigation. Rivers are the main sources of water for irrigation (Selamyihun et al., 2006). The livelihoods of the majority of the rural population depend on rain fed agriculture, characterized by small-scale subsistence mixed farming systems with livestock production as an integral part. 26
Sorghum, teff, maize, linseed and pea are major crops grown. Vegetables are produced during the dry season and other crop production is carried out under rain-fed conditions. Farmers mostly produce onion, tomato, pepper, cabbage and maize using irrigation. The woreda often faces recurrent drought and famine. During 2005, 53,054 people of the woreda were categorized as chronically food insecure and are beneficiaries of the government safety net program (Haile, 2008). According to the data obtained from the Kobo woreda BoEPLAU, land certification program started in 2006. At the end of 2010, 100% (62,243) of households received primary land certification. Based on land certificate holding, jointly certified households were 26,204, male certified households were 12,080, and female certified households were 23,959 in the woredas.
Bati woreda: It is located in the Oromiya zone and found 418 km from Addis Ababa, and 97 km from the Oromiya zone capital city, Kemisie. The area of the woreda is 124,696 ha and currently divided into 23 rural kebeles. According to CSA (2008), the woreda has a total population of 107,343 with 53,705 males and 53,638 females. Agro-climatologically, the woreda is dominated by hot lowland (81%) and mid-temperate mid-highland (19%) (Tegegne and Mulat, 2004; WOA, 2010). Bati woreda has suffered from erratic rains and summer delays (Piguet, 2002). Nonetheless, the maximum annual rainfall is 900 mm and the mean annual temperature is 33°C (WOA, 2010). The woreda is dominated by undulated land features including 42% hills, 28% cliffs, 20% mountains, and 10% flat land. Due to this land feature, it is not convenient for a crop-based economy (WOA, 2010). Grazing land is the largest land use category in Bati woreda. Bati is mostly hot lowland and it is suitable for crops like sorghum, maize and teff. Moreover, livestock resources such as sheep, goats, camels, and cattle are found in good quantity (Tegegne and Mulat, 2004). As most of the crops rely on rain-fed agriculture, maize and sorghum have been heavily hit by a prolonged dry-spell. Sorghum and sesame sown in April and May dried up. Many farmers are now obliged to shift to short cycle maize or sorghum varieties requesting only 85 to 90 days for maturation. Other farmers have shifted to teff or grow lentils, field peas or linseed or flax (Piguet, 2002). According to the Bati woreda Office of Environmental Protection Land Administration and Use (OEPLAU), the land certification program started in 2006. At the end of 2010, 89.51% (16,701) of the households received primary land certification and the other 10.49% (1957) of households’ landholdings were registered and are waiting for land certificates. Based on land certificate holding, jointly certified households were 11,753, male certified households were 2,284, and female certified households were 2,664 in the woreda. Those farm plots of households registered and waiting land certificates include male and female jointly registered (829), male registered (520), and female registered (608) ones.
3.1.2. Sample woredas in Western Amhara Ankasha Guagsa, Gozamin and South Achefer woredas are found in Awie, Eastern and Western Gojjam zones respectively and well representing the high rainfall areas. Most of the farmers living in these woredas have been given land certificates four years ago. Similar to Tehuledere woreda, Gozamin woreda was the first pilot site for land certification in the western part of the region. General characteristics of each woreda are described below.
Gozamin woreda: The woreda is located in the surrounding of the capital town of the zone, Debre Markos. Around 95% of the woreda receives an annual rainfall of 900 mm to 1500 mm and the rest 5% receives ranfall ranging from 1500 mm –\to 1800 mm (BoARD, 2010). Agro ecologically the woreda is dominatly Woina Dega (74%) followed by Kolla (16%) and the other nine % and one % covered Dega and Wurch respectively. According to the 2007 census, the population of the woreda is 2 7 estimated to be 132,883 of whom 66,348 are male and 66,535 are female. From the total estimated population, 98% are living in rural areas while the remaining two % dwell in the urban areas. According to Gozamin woreda Environmental Protection and Use office, the total area of Gozamin woreda is estimated to be 1217.8 square kilometer which covers 0.78% of the region. The altitude of the woreda ranges from lowlands (over 1500 m.a.s.l.) in the southern lands to above 3500 m.a.s.l. in the northern tip of the woreda. The temperature ranges between 11 to 25°C.
Ankasha Guagusa woreda: A triangle-shaped district in the Agew Awi Zone, Ankesha is bordered in the south by the Mirab Gojjam Zone, in the west by Guangua, and on the north by Banja. Towns in Ankesha include Agew Gimjabet and Azena. The altitude of the area extends from 1500 to 3200 m.a.s.l. In terms of the traditional agro-ecological classification the woreda is composed of Dega (10%), Woinadega (80%) and Kolla (10%). Of the total area 66.57% receives an annual rainfall of 1200 to 1500 mm and the rest, 33.43%, receives an annual rainfall of 1500 to 1800 mm (BoARD, 2010). According to the 2007 census, the population of the woreda is estimated to be 199,826. Of this estimated population, 69,239 are males and 67,269 are females. From the total population of the woreda 8.6% are living in urban areas while the remaining 91.4% dwell in the rural areas. Based on information obtained from ANRS Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development Office (BoARD, 2010) the woreda covers a 768.7 km2 area, which is 0.49% of the region.
South Achefer woreda: South Achefer is one of the 106 woredas in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia.Part of the West Gojjam Zone, south Achefer is bordered in the south by the Agew Awi Zone, in the west by the Semien Gondar Zone, in the north by North Achefer, in the northeast by Bahir Dar Zuria, and in the southeast by Merawi. 72% of the area of the woreda receives annual rainfall of 1200 to 1500 mm, and the rest 28% receives annual rainfall of 1500 to 1800 mm. The soil type is dominated by luvisols (45%), leptosols (29%) and vertisols (26%) (BoARD, 2010). Based on figures published by the Central Statistical Agency in 2007, South Achefer woreda has an estimated total population of 136,508, of whom 69,239 are men and 67,269 are women. 124,732 or 91.4% live in rural areas while the rest 11,776 or 8.6% of its population are urban dwellers (CSA, 2007). The woreda covers an area of 1201.25 km2 which is 0.76 % of the total area of the region. The elevation of the area ranges from 1500 to 3700 m.a.s.l.
3.2. SELECTION OF SAMPLE KEBELES AND HOUSEHOLDS
From each sample woreda, those kebeles with the majority of households certified before 2007 were first identified. Among those kebeles, five kebeles were then selected randomly. With the help of kebele managers, administrators, and chairpersons of land administration committees, the names of female, male and jointly certified households were identified in a separate slip of paper. From each kebele, 20 households were then selected by stratified random sampling techniques. The number of households selected for the survey was proportional to their number in each stratum. Therefore, each landholder in her/his strata had an equal chance of being selected. Accordingly, a total of 600 households were interviewed face-to-face using a structured questionnaire. For example, the sample size taken from each kebele from the eastern sample woredas in accordance to its stratification is shown in table 2.
28
Table 2: Distribution of existing and sample size households in the study area (Eastern Amhara).
Kebeles Households certified before 2007 Sampled Households
Joint Male Female Total Joint Male Female Total Woreda Melka Lgo 721 139 131 991 15 2 3 20 Qamie 343 57 88 488 15 2 3 20 Birra 427 86 166 679 14 2 4 20
Qurqura 392 46 52 490 16 2 2 20
Bati Gariro 502 84 97 683 15 2 3 20 Jarota 682 278 424 1384 12 3 5 20 Zoble 626 324 363 1313 12 3 5 20
Woremigna 789 257 456 1502 12 3 5 20
Durelbes 575 209 347 1131 13 2 5 20
Kobo Tekulish 548 293 351 1192 12 3 5 20 Qetie 695 156 336 1187 14 2 4 20
Amimo 479 124 160 763 15 2 3 20 Hitcha 430 111 226 767 14 2 4 20 Jarie Tehuldere 795 336 268 1399 14 2 4 20
Tehuledere Bededo 666 158 289 1113 14 2 4 20 Total 8670 2658 3754 15082 207 34 59 300 Focus groups and key informant discussions were also instrumental to augment the data collected from household survey. Thus, the woreda administrator, the head of OEPLAU, head of the court office, the head of WOA, a land administration expert from OEPLU and extension and natural resource experts of WOA were interviewed about the impact of land certification on land resource management. Concerning, the focus group discussion, eight to twelve participants were interviewed within a particular group kebele for a more in-depth exploration of key issues identified from the semi-structured interviews. The group members included kebele leaders, managers, natural resource experts, women and youth affair and association leaders, an extension agent, and farmer representatives.
3.3. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
3.3.1. Methods of data collection The major source of data was a formal household survey conducted from November to December 2010. In this study, both primary and secondary data were collected. To obtain primary data, both closed and open-ended questionnaires were developed, tested and adjusted to suit their purpose. Farmers were asked about their perceptions of land holding rights and land management activities before and after certification. This research methodology was preferred because all farmers in a given localities are either certified or not certified. Six enumerators were recruited for the purpose of data collection. These enumerators were first trained in data collection techniques, objectives of the study, how to manage questionnaires and how to approach farmers during the interviews. The questionnaire was designed in such a way that it enables to collect data on personal and socio-economic characteristics of farm households as well as on impact of land
29 certification on sustainable land resource management. In addition, each question was explained and clarified in detail to them with adequate explanation. Enumerators pre-tested the questionnaire at Zenzelma kebele. On the third day of exercise, enumerators were given chances for suggestions and remarks that might be helpful to handle the interview. Official supporting letters were then prepared from the College of Agriculture and Environmental Science to the respective sample woredas administrative offices to help the researchers and enumerators in selecting sample kebeles. Official supporting letters written by each woreda administrative office to the selected kebeles helped to ease data collection at kebele level. Data collected from household surveys were supplemented by personal observations, focus group and key informant discussions. The community representatives selected for group discussions included youths, women and old people. The key informants included were few members of the kebele land administration committee, development agents, leaders of the kebele and experts at the woreda. Interviews of representatives of the Environmental Protection and Land Administration Authority, the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development and local authorities were consulted to understand the perception of the officials about the land certification and its intended objectives. Secondary data collections were conducted through reviewing several reports at kebele, woreda, zonal and regional levels.
3.3.2. Methods of data analysis Both descriptive statistics and econometric analysis were employed to meet the specific objectives of this study. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques were also applied. The qualitative data analysis techniques were used for data collected from the reviewed documents, key informants, and group discussions. For quantitative data analysis, usually the descriptive statistical method of interpretation was used for data collected from the household survey. Percentages, means, standard deviations and levels of significance tests were used to examine the relevant variables under consideration.
Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics was used to explain the different socio-economic characteristics of the sample households. The primary data collected from the household survey was coded and entered into the computer and processed using a computer software known as a Statistical Package for Social Studies (SPSS version 16.0) and Stata (version 10). Percentages, means, standard deviations and levels of significance tests were used to examine the relevant variables under consideration. Summary tables, frequencies and means were mainly produced using the SPSS package while Stata was used to run the regression models in the econometric analysis.
Econometric models Among the various tasks in building the structural models on making decisions, whether to use single or multiple equation models, the choice of relevant variables and choice of functional forms (linear or nonlinear) are important. The choice of relevant variables has been made in the analyses of the impact of land certification on perceived tenure security and investment in land management practices. The explanatory variables used in the regression model are binary and binary choice models assume that individuals are faced with a choice between two alternatives (yes or no) and their choice depends on their characteristics (Gujarati, 2004). Thus, the purpose of a qualitative choice model is to determine the probability that an individual with a given set of alternatives will make one choice rather than the alternative. In the linear probability model (LPM) the dichotomous
30 dependent variable is expressed as a linear function of the explanatory variables. However, Gujarati (2004) stated that while estimates derived from linear regression analysis may be robust in the face of errors in some assumptions, other assumptions are critical and their failure will lead to quite unreasonable estimates. To mention some problems; in LPM the predicted values can easily lie outside the interval [0, 1], which violates the basic tenets of probability (Maddala, 2002). The other problem with LPM is that the variance of the disturbance term is heteroscedastic since it depends on the conditional expectation of the dependent variable, which of course depends on the value taken by the regressor. Because of this ordinary least square (OLS) estimators, although unbiased, are not efficient; they do not have a minimum variance. To alleviate these problems and produce relevant empirical outcomes the Non-Linear Probability Models (logit and probit) are both better than LPM (Maddala, 2002). These two models, in addition to the advantage that the probabilities are bound between 0 and 1, they fit well to the non-linear relationship between the probabilities and the explanatory variables. Concerning the preference between logit and probit, Gujarati (2004) and Maddala (2002) showed that in most applications the models are quite similar and therefore; there is no compelling reason to choose one over the other. Therefore, a binary probit regression model was used to analyze the data. Following Maddala (2002) we can put the probit regression model as:
k yi o j ij u j1 Where
yi is a dummy variable indicating fear of future land redistribution and losingfarmland that is related as yi = 1 if yi > 0, otherwise yi = 0.
xij is explanatory variables, variables determining fear of future land redistribution and losing farmland in the probit model.
βj is an unknown parameter to be estimated in the probit regression model.
ui is a random error term. The purpose of this study was to analyse which of the hypothesized independent variables are related to perceived tenure security and land related investment (e.g. terracing, tree planting and manure application). The dependent variable, perceived tenure security, in this case is a dummy variable (binary), which takes a value 0 or 1 depending on whether or not a farmer expects land redistribution in the future and losing his farm. In order to assess the impact of certification on perceived tenure security, the following model was used:
FEARLOOSE = β0 + β1FEMALE + β2FM + β3EDU + β4AGEHHH + β5THHS + β6TLAND + β7AFFLANDRED + β8FEARGOV + β9TLU + Ui Where
31
FEARLOOSE is an independent variable which indicates level of tenure security and is a simple dummy indicating whether households expect to lose farm land with redistribution in the future. It takes the value 1 for households who do not expect redistribution in the future and 0 otherwise.
β0, β1, β2, β3, β4, β5, β6, β7, β8 and β9 are coefficients to be estimated, and Ui is an error term. FEMALE: Female headed households. FM: Female and male headed households. EDU: Education level of the household head AGEHHH: Age of the household head THHS: Total household size. TLAND: Total size of landholds. AFFLANDRED: Households affected by redistribution. FEARGOV: Households fear that the government will take their land. TLU: Total size of livestock in the tropical livestock unit. Dependent variables, land-related investment takes the value of 1 if the plot received terracing, tree planting and manure application, 0 otherwise. However, the explanatory variables are either continuous or binary. In order to assess the impact of certification on land-related investment on plot j by household i was specified as follows:
INVEST = β0 + β1FEMALE + β 2FM + β 3EDU + β 4AGEHHH + β 5TLAND + β 6 DIST + β7DEG + β 8ACRED + β 9TRAINING + β10TLU + Ui Where INVEST is an indicator of whether or not investments were undertaken. Dependent variables for land-related investments were terracing, tree planting and manure application before and after certification and take the value of 1 if the plot received either of these investments 0 if otherwise. FEMALE, FM, EDU, AGEHHH, TLAND and TLU are as mentioned before. DIST: indicates the average distance of farm plot from the farmers’ dwellings. DEG: indicates farmers’ perception of degradation.
ACRED: Access to credit before and after certification. TRAINING: Available training on land resource management.
β0, β 1, β 2, β 4, β5, β6, β7, β8, β9 and β10 are coefficients to be estimated.
Ui is the disturbance term included in the model.
32
Several variables are expected to affect tenure security and land related investment. However, based on economic theories, empirical works and survey results potential independent variables that are related to tenure security and land related investment were hypothesized. The dependent variable for probit analysis has a dichotomous nature measuring perceived tenure security and land related investment. Perceived tenure security indicates the level of tenure security and is a simple dummy indicating whether households expect land loss in the future. It takes the value 1 for households who do not expect loss of farm land in the future and 0 otherwise. Land related investment is also a dummy dependent variable and is either an indicator of whether or not investments were undertaken. The dependent variable for land-related investment takes the value of 1 if the plot received land management practices (terracing, tree planting and manure application) and 0 otherwise. The hypothesized and selected continuous and discrete variables were checked for multi-co- linearity and association, respectively. In order to detect multi-co-linearity among continuous variables, from among the alternatively recommended statistical tools, the variance inflation factor (VIF) technique was employed to detect the problem of multi-co-linearity for continuous independent variables (Gugarati, 2004). A contingency coefficient test was also made to evaluate the associations between dummy variables. As can be readily seen, if there is no co-linearity between explanatory variables, VIF will be 1. The larger the value of VIF the more “troublesome” or co-linear are the explanatory variables. As a rule of thumb, if the VIF of a variable exceeds 10 that variable is said to be highly co-linear. Based on the results of these tests, variables found to be highly correlated or associated with one or more of the other continuous or discrete variables shall be excluded from further analysis. Only those variables that passed these criteria were included into the analysis. The following are some of the independent potential variables hypothesized to have relationships with household perceived tenure security and land related investments, the dependent variables for the model under consideration.
Gender: This is a dummy variable, which takes a value 1 if the household head is female (FEMALE), 0 otherwise. If the household is male (MALE) it takes the value 1, otherwise 0 and if the household are male and female jointly (FM) the value of the variable is 1 and 0 otherwise. The sex of the household head was included to differentiate between males and females and males jointly in their perception of tenure security and application of land resource management practices. Gender of farmer (sex) is also hypothesized to have an effect on adoption of conservation structures because female headed or female and male headed households can have different land management behavior (Abera, 2003).
Age of the household head (AGEHHH): This is measured as a continuous variable and is expected to affect the decision of farmers for investing in land resource management positively. Through experience, farmers may perceive and understand the problem of soil erosion and the decline in the fertility of the soil and land use management practices in general and employ soil and water conservation technologies, and use of organic fertilizer to improve the fertility of the soil. Thus, more experienced farmers in farming are likely to manage their land in a better way than less experienced farmers. Old aged farmers have larger holdings than the young farmers and may expect land loss with redistribution. This implies that farmers who are older invest less (Abera, 2003).
33
Education of the household head (EDU): EDU refers to the education status/level of the household head. Access to education will increase the farmers’ land management attitude and skill and reflect a better understanding of the benefits and constraints of soil conservation. Education also increases the ability to obtain and apply relevant information concerning the use of soil conservation practices (Abera, 2003). Despite this, more educated households may be less likely to invest inputs or labour-intensive land management practices, since the opportunity cost of investing inputs or labour-intensive investments and capital may increase through education. There is mixed evidence regarding the relationship between farmers educational levels and farmers application of sustainable land management practices (Ahmed, et al., 2009).
Total household size (THHS): This variable refers to the number of family members of the household regardless of age and sex. Family size, a continuous variable measuring the number of household members is expected to have a positive signification, because greater family labour signals greater potential to undertake labour intensive investments like terracing. Larger households will be able to provide the labor that might be required for maintaining conservation structures (Abera, 2003).
Land holding (TLAND): Land is one of the scarce factors of production whose supply is considered fixed. In addition to this, the land tenure system can be a constraint to agricultural productivity. Land rights owned may determine farmers’ decision of soil and water conservation structures, use of inputs, investment in land improvements, access to credit, or the productivity of land. Larger farms may find it easier to produce enough surpluses to build up investments and may, on average, find investments cheaper to implement than smaller farms (Brück, 2003). Soil conservation structure may take some area that would have been used especially for cultivation. Farmers who managed larger size plots can allocate larger parts of the land for soil conservation than those who have smaller farms (Wagayehu, 2003). On the other hand, farm households with relatively larger farms feel more tenure insecure than those with relatively less land and the farm households’ tenure security in Ethiopia is inversely related to the farm size (Alemu, 1999 cited in Holden and Yohannes, 2001). Therefore, the effect of farm size is indeterminated.
Tenure security (FEARLOOSE): Tenure security is expressed by considering the effect of the last redistribution and fear of losing land through government/administrative intervention. Farmers’ responses who expect their land will be taken and lose farm take a value of 1 and 0 otherwise. These variables are expected to negatively affect the decision to carry out long-term investments for the household (Abera, 2003). This is because those household heads that expect that they will lose land will be less interested to invest in the conservation of their farm land as they expect loss of farm land in the future. A study in the Amhara National Regional State reported that every community in the region has experienced at least one redistribution since 1974, and nearly half of them have experienced land redistribution since 1991, mainly in the recent redistribution in 1997 and 1998. This is argued to hamper the security of tenure because farmers anticipate similar redistributions of land to occur in the future (Benin and Pender, 2002 cited in Abera, 2009).
Size of Livestock holding (TLU): This variable represents the livestock holding of the household in tropical livestock unit. Those farmers who have large numbers of livestock may have more animal dung to improve the fertility of the soil and more capital to invest in land management practices. It is also an indicator of 34 wealth which may alleviate capital constraints. It also lowers risk to land users, which may encourage land related investments. Household wealth as indicated by total livestock units may be signs of power and these may reduce tenure insecurity (Holden and Yohannes, 2001). Therefore, the size of the total livestock unit was hypothesized to affect tenure security and land- related investment positively.
Distance of the farm plot from the residence in minutes (DIST): DIST refers to the average distance of a given plot from the residence of the household head in minutes. Farmers whose plots are nearer to their residence apply organic matter to substitute soil nutrient loss and soil conservation structure to minimize soil erosion, because the time and energy they spent is lesser for nearer plots than distant plots. Therefore distance is more likely to affect land related investment negatively.
Training on Land resource management (TRAINING): This variable is measured as a dummy taking a value of 1 for those household heads who have got training on soil and water conservation activity/soil fertility management and 0 otherwise. If a household head gets training on soil and water conservation activities, his/her attitude towards conservation of his/her farm plot will be improved and the farmer is expected to decide for land- related investments and is expected to be positively influenced in his decision to implement soil and water conservation measures.
Farmers’ perception of degradation (DEG): The main form of land degradation in the study area is in the form of soil erosion. It is a dummy variable for the perception of the soil erosion problem. The recognition/observation of the soil erosion problem is considered to be vital for soil conservation decisions. In other words, farmers who have already perceived the problem of soil erosion and its extent are more likely deciding to invest in soil conservation activities than those who have not perceived the problem. Although farmers are often more acutely aware of the condition of their land than is sometimes assumed by experts, they may not be fully aware of land degradation, its causes, or consequences and as a result they are reluctant to the adoption of soil conservation technologies and hence farmers’ perceptions and attitudes can have a major relevance to land management (Shibru, 2010). Thus, the perception variable was expected to be strongly and positively associated with the application of land management practices.
Access to credit (ACRED): It is a dummy variable which takes a value 1 if the household head has access to credit and 0 otherwise. In addition to its labour requirements, land management practices require money. It may be a requirement or essential to buy materials to construct soil and water conservation structures as the availability of cash at hand is a necessity. On the other hand credit access may reduce conservation investment by allowing farmers to mask the effects of land degradation in the short term (Holden et al., 2005) and is expected to be negatively related to long-term investment. The variable is expected to relate positively or negatively with the land management practices.
35
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. HOUSEHOLD AND PARCEL CHARACTERISTICS
4.1.1. Characteristics of sampled households Household characteristics of both Eastern and Western Amhara are very similar in many respects (table 3). Land certified in the name of female, male and joint were accounted on average to about 18.7%, 12% and 69% of the sampled households, respectively. There were many similarities between dryland and high rainfall areas. Concerning the educational background of these sampled households 38.3% were illiterate, 45.3% can read and/or write, 16.4% were above grade five in Eastern Amhara, while 46.3 % of household heads were illiterate, 36.3 % were able to read and/or write, and the remaining 17.4 % were grade five and above in Western Amhara. This shows that the respondents in Eastern Amhara had higher literacy levels. Table 3: Land led household heads and educational level of sampled households. Eastern Amhara Western Amhara Variable Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Land title household heads Female 59 19.7 53 17.7 Male 34 11.3 38 12.7 Male and female 207 69.0 209 69.7 Total 300 100.0 300 100 Educational level of household Illiterate 115 38.3 139 46.3 Read and/or write 136 45.3 109 36.3 Grade five and above 49 16.4 52 17.4 Total 300 100.0 300 100 Source: Survey 2011 The revised ALAU Proclamation no. 133/2005 under Article 24 (2) states that land is held by a husband and a wife together, and the landholding certificate shall be prepared by the name of both spouses (ANRS, 2006). Thus, joint titled implies implementation of land proclamation. In terms of marital status of respondents 83% of the sampled households were married in Eastern Amhara while in Western Amhara 74.3% were married, 9.3 % widowed, 14% were divorced and the rest were single. The households were also interviewed about the type of house they were living in before and after certification. In Eastern Amhara, house types of respondents were 78% households grass 36 roofed, 19% corrugated iron roofed and 3% both types before land certification, whereas after land certification 62% were grass roofed, 33% corrugated iron roofed and 3% both types of housing. In comparison, after land certification, households who have corrugated iron roofed houses were increased by 14%. In Western Amhara, they responded that grass roofed, corrugated iron sheet roofed and both types before certification accounted to 45%, 37% and 18 %, respectively. After certification, grass, corrugated iron sheet and both types of roof accounted to 18%, 42.7% and 39.3%, respectively. The figures show clear differences between dryland areas and high rainfall areas. Houses of Western Amhara are of more a more modern type than in Eastern Amhara. However, it was tried to assess whether the shift from grass roofed to corrugated iron sheet after certification in both areas was an indicator of wealth status of farmers but it was not the case. This might be due the non-availability of grass and even if it is available it is too costly. As shown in table 4, average household age and household size in Eastern Amhara Region was found to be 46 years and 6.21 family members, respectively while they were 49 and 6.3 in Western Amhara so there was not much difference. Looking into variations among the respondent households, the largest family size was 13 and the smallest was 1. In the case of land holding size before and after land certification, there was a mean difference of 0.02 ha and 0.125 ha in Eastern and Western Amhara, respectively. Table 4: Mean household head age, household size and land holdings (N=300). Variable Mean Standard T test difference difference Household head age E. Amhara 46 12.09 W. Amhara 49 13.92 3.387* Household size E. Amhara 6.21 2.15 W. Amhara 6.3 2.33 1.845 Landholding before and E. Amhara 0.02 0.21 1.73* after land certification (in W. Amhara 0.125 0.65 ha) Plot number before and after E. Amhara 0.30 0.47 1.1 land certification W. Amhara 7.5 3.18 Source: Survey 2011; Note: * = significant at p<0.1 The variation of land holding size may emanate from the use of traditional measurement units or households were forced to give their lands to their children who established their own households through inheritance. Concerning the mean difference of number of farm plots before and after land certification, it was only 0.03 in Eastern Amhara while the number of plots was much higher in Western Amhara (7.5). The reasons for such huge variations were not captured in this study. The number of parcels owned by all sample households ranged from 1 to 12 both before and after certification. Total land holdings and numbers of plot before and after certification were not statistically significant (t=0.929, p=0.354 and t=0.139, p=0.890, respectively). The slight 37 reduction in total land holdings might be that though redistribution is not taking place currently farmers are transferring their land to their children through inheritance. Farmers were also asked whether they have plot of land that is out of cultivation because of degradation. The average distance of the parcels from the homesteads was measured by the time taken to walk from homestead to parcels owned (minutes) by the respondent. This was important because land management would be affected by the distance. Major types of livestock kept in the study woredas are cattle, sheep, chicken and equines. The range of livestock holding size was from 0.01 to 18.4 Tropical Livestock Units (TLU). Horses are a major draft power, which is very common in Awi zone in Ankesha Guagusa as ox is in the Gozamin and Debub Achefer woredas.
4.1.2. Farm plot characteristics The characterization of farm plots was assumed to show changes in the fertility status of farm plots before and after certifications. Based on farmers understanding, the fertility status of the farms could be categorized into fertile, moderately fertile and poorly fertile. Table 5: Fertility status and slope gradients of farm plots of sample households. Fertility Areas Frequency Before certification After certification status N (%) Mean St.D N (%) Mean St.D Fertile W. Amhara 252 (84) 0.61 0.41 251(84) 0.64 0.40 E. Amhara 267 (89) 0.60 0.51 273 (91) 0.59 0.43 Moderate W. Amhara 250 (83) 0.67 0.43 268 (89) 0.67 .45 E. Amhara 194 (64) 0.45 0.33 195 (65) 0.45 0.34 Poor W. Amhara 124 (41) 0.54 0.34 91 (30) 0.48 0.31 E. Amhara 132 (44) 0.39 0.26 128 (42) 0.37 0.26 Source: Survey 2011 Figures in table 5 obviously show that fertility status of farm plots were not changed as result of certication especially in Eastern Amhara while some increases in relatively moderately fertile farm plots and decreases of poorly fertile soils can be observed in Western Amhara after certification. This may be due to donation of land certification which internally enhances land management practices of farmers on their farm plots and helps them to improve soil fertility.
4.2. PERCEPTION OF AND CONFIDENCE IN LAND CERTIFICATION
As it can be seen from table 6, the average number of respondents affected by land redistribution was nearly 30%; however, great variations were noticed between dryland and high rainfall areas of the Amhara region. Nearly half of the respondents (47.3%) were affected by the 1997 land redistribution in Western Amhara, while in Eastern Amhara only 14.7% were affected. The effects of the land redistribution were positive for some households and negative for others. For example, in Western Amhara, among the affected households,26% have gained land through the redistribution process while 21.3% experienced losses of farm land. In any case, land redistribution didn’t affect the majority of the respondents, especially, in Eastern Amhara where
38
85.3% of households were not affected at all. This result is not in line with the findings of Deininger et al. (2003b) who found that in the period 1991 to 1998, 9% of the farmers in Ethiopia, 18% in Tigray and 21% in Amhara region were affected by land redistribution. On the other hand, Hibret (2008) found about 43% and 35% of the sampled farmers in titled and untitled kebeles in ANRS, respectively were affected by land redistribution in 1997. In this study, the households affected by last land redistribution are between these two extremes of literature values. Concerning farmers’ expectations on land redistribution in the next five years, about 32% of the respondents expect land redistribution while 68% of the respondents are confident that there will not be any land redistribution in the next five years (table 6). Table 6: Perception and confidence of farmers on land redistribution after land certification. Yes No Variable Frequ Frequ X2 Areas % % ency ency Households affected in E. Amhara 44 14.7 256 85.3 1997 land W. Amhara 143 47.7 157 52.3 36.662** redistribution Average 93.5 31.2 206.5 68.8 Expect land E. Amhara 110 36.7 190 63.3 redistribution in the W. Amhara 83 27.7 215 71.7 15.224** next five years Average 96.5 32.2 202.5 67.5 Fear of land E. Amhara 63 21.0 237 79.0 redistribution beyond W. Amhara 59 19.7 241 80.3 3.84 the next 5 years Average 61 20.3 239 79.7 Fear of land E. Amhara 45 15.0 255 85.0 dispossession by 8.707** W. Amhara 57 19 243 81 government at any Average 51 17 249 83 time Source: Survey 2011; ***, ** Statistical significance level at 1% and 5 % probability level. Given the objective of land certification, the number of households that have fears is still quite high and needs to be properly addressed by the respective institutions if investment on land is to be improved. Looking in to the variation between Eastern and Western Amhara, such fears are higher in drylands than in high rainfall areas. This may be due to the variations in awareness creation activities done in the two areas. The findings of this research are well in line with the studies of Dagnew et al. (2009), in Kilte Awela’elo woreda in Tigray region, and Fitsum (2009) in Tigray region. According to both authors, despite the regions’ declaration of stopping further land redistribution with exceptions of settlement and irrigation areas, more than 30% of households suspect land redistribution in the future. Furthermore, Deininger et al. (2003b) found that only 27% of farmers in Ethiopia are confident that there will not be land redistribution in the future and 9% expect one to happen within the next five years. Hibret (2008) also indicated that 39 only 18% of farmers issued certification expect future redistribution. From all the studies, one can simply notice increasing trends of fear of land redistribution, which might be emanated from increasing trends of landless youths in the rural area that could pressure the government to launch the new land redistribution. According to the response from key informants and group discussions, redistribution is also expected on those land holdings owned by government workers and old farmers who have large sized and communal grazing lands. The current pressure and efforts of pushing and owning communal lands might thus be rooted in such perceptions. There are also woredas like Kobo, which have redistributed communal grazing lands to landless youths. In addition to this, the confusion emanates also from the policy itself which states that land redistribution could be possible if 80% of the farmers want to do so. The researchers of this study believe that such provisions shall be deleted from the policy so that farmers feel secure about the use rights of their land holdings. Moreover, continuous awareness creation of land users might be important to avoid unfounded fears. Respondents were also asked whether they would expect land redistribution beyond the next five years and have fears of losing their farm plots. Accordingly about 20% of the households responded with yes while the remaining 80% do not expect any land redistribution. This indicates that land redistribution fears are higher for the next five years than beyond. In this regard, there were not such high differences between Eastern and Western Amhara region. According to the regional Rural Land Administration and Use policy 133/2006, land can be expropriated by the government whenever it is deemed necessary for development purposes. To ease this issue, a number of rural kebeles found in the peripheries of cities and small towns have been included in the urban administration system. Therefore, this study tried to understand the perception of these farmers as to what extent they fear dispossessions of their lands by the government at any time. 17% of the respondents replied that dispossession could occur at any time while the remaining 83% responded with no. The reasons for such fears lay in the rapid expansion of urban towns that requires more rural land for housing, infrastructure expansions, investments, industrialization purposes etc. Respondents also blamed the amount of compensations paid in case of expropriation from their land. They claimed that the compensation paid does not consider variations in land quality and productivity such as fertility status of the land and is not flexible enough to capture changes in market prices of products and inflations. Since trees are better considered in calculating the compensation costs, farmers around urban peripheries opted to plant Eucalyptus, which might cause environmental problems in the future. The extent of land dispossession fears is similar both in Eastern and Western Amhara. The result of the study was the same to that of Deininger et al. (2009) who showed that 19% of the farmers expected a decrease in their farm plot size because of possible dispossessions. As indicated in Table 6, there are significant differences of farmers perceptions as shown by Pearson chi-square results of Western Amhara in a sense that they are significantly different on the effect of previous redistribution (X2 = 36.662, p<0.001), redistribution in the next five year (X2=15.224, p<0.001) and eviction from their land (X2=8.707, p<0.05). Table 7 shows results of confidences of farmers and possible benefits of certification. Accordingly, 98% of the households believed that land certification enabled them to develop confidence in their land holdings. Possible benefits of land certification are reduction of border related conflicts (91.8%), enabled inheritance of the land to children and other supporters (97%), secured land use rights (90.5%) and facilitated land rent and share cropping (82.5%). Obviously, respondents were highly convinced that land certification has brought distinctive benefits to
40 users. These results were also supported by group discussions and key informants who were claiming that land certification can be used as a proof of their land ownership rights. Also, according to group discussions, information from key informants and woreda courts, certification has especifically reduced border disputes and hence conflict. They also mentioned, however, that what is on the certificate of the land holding book is different from what is found on the ground and lacks accuracy which made solving the disputes difficult. Therefore, they recommended rectifying what has already been done. Although using land as collateral is prohibited by the law, 57% of the farmers perceive that certification enables them to use land as collateral. Comparing the two broad research areas, the perception and benefits of land certification by farmers were in many cases similar. However, respondents in Western Amhara were less convinced of secured land use rights and improvements in land rent and share-cropping than those in Eastern Amhara which might be influenced by the implementation of the policy by local managers and administrators due to variations in understanding of the policy itself. Table 7: Perception of and confidence in land certification (N=300). Yes No Variable Areas Freq. % Freq. % X2 Improve E. Amhara 299 99.7 1 0.3 confidence W. Amhara 291 97.3% 8 2.7 Average 295 98.5 4.5 1.5 8.247** Reduce conflict E. Amhara 295 98.3 5 1.7 farmland W. Amhara 256 85.3 44 14.7 boundary Average 275.5 91.8 24.5 8.2 Enables to E. Amhara 296 98.7 4 1.3 inherit land W. Amhara 286 95.3 14 4.7 7.343** Average 291 97 9 3 Secured land E. Amhara 298 99.3 2 0.7 use right W. Amhara 245 81.7 55 19.3 Average 271.5 90.5 28.5 10 Facilitate land E. Amhara 282 94.0 18 6.0 rent/ share W. Amhara 213 71 87 29 cropping Average 247.5 82.5 52.5 17.5 Source: Survey 2011 The findings of this research are well in line with literature values. According to Dagnew et al. (2009) most households (81%) developed a sense of ownership after land certification in Kilte Awela’elo woreda, Tigray region. Similarly, Sabita (2010) states that 100% of the farmers in Worja and 97.5% in Beressa completely agreed that they will inherit their land. Getahun (2008) 41 in pilot and non-pilot woredas of ANRS; Hibret (2008) in Addis ena Gulit kebele in ANRS; Holden and Tewodros (2008) in Southern Ethiopia; Dagnew et al. (2009) in Tigray region; Getnet (2009) in Gojjam and Gondar administrative zones of ANRS and Sabita (2010) in Worja kebele of the SNNP region have also found that the benefit of land certification was the avoidance of border conflicts. Deininger et al. (2003b), Holden and Tewodros (2008) and Dagnew et al. (2009) also claimed that land certification increased land rental and sharecropping. In conclusion, certification is a step forward to ensure tenure security, because land tenure security refers to the degree of confidence held by people that they will not be arbitrarily deprived of the land rights enjoyed and/or of the economic benefits. It includes both objective elements (nature, content, clarity, duration and enforceability of the rights) and subjective elements (landholders’ perception of the security of their rights) as explained by Cotula et al. (2006) and Kanji et al. (2006).
4.3. IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON WOMEN AND MARGINALIZED GROUPS
One of the objectives of certification was land rights protection of the marginalized groups such as elders, disabled and women. About 98.3 % of the respondents stated that certification provided land right protection (Table 8). Households were specifically asked whether women participation in decision-making was improved by certification and about 98% mentioned an improvement of decision-making in land related issues like land management practices and share-cropping. Women were also in a position to get land from their husbands during divorces and use their own share of land (97%). It has also been frequently mentioned in discussions with focus groups and key informants that being certified was recognized as a legal evidence of holding for both wife and husband to facilitate the decision-making process in border disputes, inheritances and other land related-cases. Table 8: Land certification and land use rights of marginal groups (N=300). Protected land use Areas Yes No X2 rights Freq. % Freq. % Marginalized groups E. Amhara 274 91.3 26 8.7 (orphans, disabled, W. Amhara 295 98.3 5 1.7 elders) Average 284 94.8 15.5 5.2 E. Amhara 298 99.3 2 0.7 Women (married) W. Amhara 291 97 9 3 Average 294.5 98.1 5.5 1.8 Widowed women E. Amhara 287 95.7 13 4.3 W. Amhara 295 98.3 5 1.7 Average 291 97 9 3 Source: Survey 2011
42
Respondents were asked who has stronger holding rights among male headed households before and after certification (Table 9). Accordingly, 5.3%, 63% and 33% of the households acknowledged that the wife, the husband, and wife and husband together, respectively, have strong land-holding rights before land certification. After certification 9%, 73%, and 84% of the respondents believed that the wife, the husband, and wife and husband together, have stronger holding rights respectively. A chi-square test done to investigate whether there is a significant difference in holding rights between wives and husbands before and after certification, showed that there is a significant difference (X2=31.891) at a probability level of p< 0.001. This implies that there is a significant improvement in women holding rights after certification. After certification the holding right by wife and husband was not significantly different which implies that land certification enables women to have stronger land holding rights after land certification. Table 9: Degree of landholding rights of households with yes responses (N=300). Holding right Areas Before certification After certification Freq. % Freq. % X2 Wife E. Amhara 15 5 36 12 W. Amhara 17 5.7 18 6 31.89*** Average 16 5.3 27 9 Husband E. Amhara 143 47.5 34 11.3 W. Amhara 235 78.3 8 2.7 Average 189 63 21 7 Wife and E.Amhara 140 46.7 230 76.7 Husband W. Amhara 58 19.3 274 91.3 Average 99 33 152 84 Source: Survey 2011 Generally, women share the land equally in case of divorce and take the whole land in case of death of the spouse which was not the case before certification in many places especially in the Muslim dominated Eastern part of Amhara. Thus, land certification has addressed gender inequality problems which have prevailed for so many years. Beyond this, land certification has improved husbands’ positions to give respect to their wives as one key informant described as following: “During the previous days we divorced our wives whenever there is no love, but now- a-days we are trying to leave together even in the absence of love.” According to some key informants and group discussions there is a feeling that divorce has even increased because of this empowerment of women with land use rights. Getahun (2008) also obtained similar findings in pilot and non-pilot woredas of Amhara region and Holden and Tewodros (2008) in Southern Ethiopia. Both authors found that land certification contributed to increased tenure security of women. For instance, women have the right to shared land equally in case of divorce and get all the land in case of death of their spouses after land 43 certification. Deininger et al. (2007) also found that most households (85%) expected land certification to improve women’s position and incentives to rent out land. Finally, Sabita (2010) reported that 100% in Worja kebele in the SNNP region and 90% in Beresa kebeles in Oromia region showed that land certification programs have promoted gender equality. However, reviewed work of Yigremew (2002) showed that rural women manage about 35 to 40% of the land in Ethiopia. According to him, rural women in general and female-headed households in particular have less access to and less control over land and other productive resources. Sampled households were also interviewed on the presence or absence of landless groups of the community in their village before and after land certification. As shown in Table 10, about 75% and 82% of the respondents know landless groups in their village before and after land certification, respectively. Some of the landless groups mentioned before land certification were women (55.3%), disabled (44.3%), youths (63.7%) and the poorest of poor (53.7%). Nevertheless, from the points of view of those households, women, disabled, and poorest of poor decreased their landlessness to 33%, 31%, and 28.3%, respectively after land certification. On the contrary, youth’s landlessness increased to 81.3% after land certification. Generally, the statistical test shows that there is significant (p<0.01) variation of landless groups before and after land certification. Table 10: Extent of landlessness before and after certification in Western Amhara (N= 300). Variables Before land After land X2 certification (%) certification (%) Yes No Yes No Landless HHs 75.0 25.0 82.0 18.0 1.27***
Women 55.3 44.7 33.0 67.0 93.83***
Disabled 44.3 55.7 31.0 69.0 1.21***
Youth 63.7 36.3 81.3 18.7 62.46***
Poorest of poor 53.7 46.3 28.3 71.67 78.05***
Source: Survey 2011; Note: *** = Significant at p<0.01 Therefore, except for youths, landlessness of marginalized groups of societies was minimized in the study area. In case of youths, landlessness increased in number and also youths raise the question to get land. This result was supported by qualitative information gained from group discussions and key informants. The findings of this study is similar with the findings of Berhanu and Fayera (2005) who found that only 8.5% of the agricultural holders are younger than 24 years, which shows landlessness was a serious problem in the Amhara region; particularly for young people who have difficulties in accessing land. This may be due to a shortage of farmlands and that land law gives least priority to youths among the marginalized groups of society. For instance, revised ARLAU Proclamation No. 133/2006 Article 9 (2) supports land provision in priority order of orphaned children, disabled, women and then youngsters who join the new life of independence. Therefore, if there is any plot of farmland available for redistribution in the study area, youths may not be addressed until other marginalized groups of society are treated.
44
4.4. IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
One of the key objectives of this research was to investigate to what extent land certification has improved land management practices. Figures are presented in Table 11. Among the respondents, 76% and 95% were practicing at least one type of land management practices (LMPs) before and after land certification respectively and this was significant as the chi-square test shows. The major types of land management practices exercised by farmers are terracing, tree planting, application of farm yard manure (FYM) and compost, and water harvesting. Generally, it can be concluded that all land management practices after land certification were significantly higher than before land certification and thus certification has significantly improved land management practices. Table 11: Types of land management practices before and after land certification in percent (N=300). Practiced variable Areas Before land After land X2 certification certification Yes No Yes No LMP E. Amhara 78.3 21.7 93.7 6.3 46.75*** W. Amhara 73.7 26.3 96.3 3.7 12.67*** Average 76 24 95 5 Terracing E. Amhara 77.0 23.0 90.7 9.3 60.99*** W. Amhara 52.7 47.3 78.3 21.7 26.19*** Average 64.8 35.1 84.5 15.5 Tree planting E. Amhara 42.3 57.7 52.7 47.7 1.79*** W. Amhara 57.7 42.3 76.3 23.7 21.70*** Average 50 50 64.5 35.7 Compost E. Amhara 38.3 61.7 62.0 38.0 1.14*** W. Amhara 39.7 60.3 77.7 32.3 0.533 Average 39 61 69.8 35.2 FYM E. Amhara 68.3 31.7 81 19 1.44*** W. Amhara 46.3 53.7 76 24 17.34*** Average 57.3 42.7 78.5 21.5 WHS E. Amhara 13.3 86.7 27.7 72.3 96.94*** W. Amhara N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: Survey 2011; Note: *** = significant at p<0.01; LMP = Land management practices, FYM = farm yard manure; WHS= Water harvesting structure; N/A = no data available. As one can depict from the table above, terracing was more practiced in Eastern Amhara both before and after certification than in the Western part because of the prevalence of soil erosion in 45 the dominantly high landscape of the area. One the other side, tree plantation was more practiced in Western Amhara than in the East. Regarding tree planting farmers were asked for what purpose they planted tree and their response was to secure their farm, prevent soil erosion, improve soil fertility, fuel consumption, house construction and selling. The majority of farmers (63.3%) reported that they plant trees for fuel consumption either by selling to others or at household level, house construction (23.7%) and for the market (14.7%). Those who plant trees to assure their plots of land account to 40.7% which shows that a considerable number of farmers plant trees to improve tenure security, while those responded to improve soil fertility and soil conservation are only few, 17.3% and 28.7%, respectively. The above result shows that to fulfill the increasing demand of fuel consumption, farmers plant mainly Eucalyptus and their focus is not fertility improvement. The fuel demand also forced people to clear the already sparsely populated forest cover in the areas, which is aggravating erosion. As moisture stress is the main feature of Eastern Amhara, water harvesting practices were only exercised in this part of the region. This finding is similar to the finding of Dagnew et al. (2009) in Kilte Awela’elo woreda of Tigray region, where 85.2% of households were involved in different types of long-term land investment practices after land certification, which shows about 34.1% growth as compared to before. Similarly, Deininger et al. (2007) found that large majorities of households perceived that rural land certification in Ethiopia increased incentives for investment in trees (88%), soil and water conservation structures (86%), and sustainable management of common property resources (66%). According to Sabita (2010), 77.5 % of the farmers of Worja kebele in SNNP region and 70% of the farmers of Beresa kebeles in Oromia region completely agree that certifications increase investments in soil and land management. According to Getahun (2008), in Amhara Region 96.7% of the respondents in pilot and 77.5% of the respondents in non-pilot areas have participated in land improvement activities. Farmers were also asked about the maintenance of soil and water conservation practices as part of sustainable land management activities. From interviewed households about 85.5% maintained soil and water conservation structures regularly. About 90% of the respondents believed that they have got training and technical advice from agricultural extension offices. Besides, women’s involvement in land management practices have been reported by respondents (89%) which is in line with Sabita (2010) where 100% respondent in Worja kebele in SNNP region and 80% of the respondents in the Beresa kebeles in Oromia region stated that women were willing to work more in the field after land certification.
4.5. IMPACT OF LAND CERTIFICATION ON LAND PRODUCTIVITY
As explained above, certification has positive impacts on land management. Now the question to be answered is to what extent land management has influenced production and productivity of households. The results are presented separately for the two study areas in table 12. Accordingly, crop yields of major crops in the year 2006 (before certification) were compared with that of 2010 (after certification). In Eastern Amhara, sorghum, teff and maize were major crops in most areas while all other crops produced in the area were lumped together as others. The study results showed that for most crops no significant difference has been noticed by the respondents. Interviewed households, believed that the yields of sorghum have even significantly decreased. This may be due to fluctuation of the amount of rainfall and other crop production variables.
46
In Western Amhara, wheat, teff, barley, millet, bean, Nug and also potato grows widely. The respondents reported that there is a slight increment in total crop production (table 12). Improvement in land management practices carried out after certification was accompanied by positive impacts on crop yields. From the crop types grown by the farmers there is a significant improvement in wheat production (t = 4.097, p<1%). According to the report of the farmers and information from woreda agricultural offices, wheat production increment may be due to improved land management practices and mainly to the increased use of improved seeds and fertilizer. Given that other production factors are more or less the same, certification might have decreased the perception of redistribution and thus encouraged farmers to invest in land management practices and yield improvements.
Table 12: Comparison of major crops produced in the years 2006 and 2010 (quintal/HH). a. Eastern Amhara Major crops Number of Difference Differences T test respondents in mean in std. quintals/ha deviation Maize produced in 2006 - 2010 68 0.61 3.84 -1.32 Sorghum produced in 2006 - 180 -0.99 7.25 1.84* 2010 Teff produced in 2006 - 2010 152 -0.41 4.43 1.16 Other types of crops produced in 123 -0.08 5.05 0.18 2006 - 2010 Source: Survey 2011; Note: * = significance at p<0.1. b. Western Amhara Crop type Grain yield in 2006 G.C Grain yield in 2010 Mean St.Deviation Mean St.Deviation Wheat 6.434 6.23624 7.9384 9.241 Teff 5.374 4.51173 5.1204 4.527 Barley 4.276 4.64286 4.2376 3.952 Potato 5.571 5.41531 5.7903 4.250 Milet 8.174 5.37611 7.0800 3.559 Bean 3.22 1.202 3.15 1.270 Nug 1.950 1.823 2.090 2.062 Line seed 2.00 1.155 2.50 1.225 Total production 22.47542 16.510559 23.45450 16.409246 Source: Survey 2011.
47
In Western Amhara, farmers were also asked whether there are different reasons for the observed yield increases. Respondents reported that the improvement in production of crops was due to better management of land and use of improved seeds/fertilizer which accounts for 48% and 45.3% respectively and the remaining 6.7% mentioned the presence of sufficient rainfall. Those who reported that productivity improved showed a significant difference (X2=14.486) at a probability level of 5%. The accessibility of enough land size for producing sufficient food for household annual consumption is the precondition in agricultural economic activities. About 50.7% of the sampled respondents acknowledged that they had enough land size for producing sufficient food for their own annual consumption. Similarly, 56.3% of households responded that productivity of farmland improved after land certification. However, about 48.7% and 34.7% of households were able to produce sufficient food for their families’ annual consumption throughout the year before and after land certification, respectively. Here, those able to produce sufficient food for their families throughout the year have shown 14% decrease after land certification while a highly significant difference was shown before and after land certification (P<0.01) (Table 13). Thus, one can see that more than 50% of households were not able to produce enough food crops for annual consumption. Major types of crop yields before and after land certification also show a decrease after land certification, except maize. This implies that crop productivity did not improve through land certification alone in dryland areas even if there is enough farmland, and improvement of LMPs were shown. Information obtained from group discussions and key informants indicate that even if land certification encouraged farmers to elapse more time in their farmland, productivity of farmland was affected by the occurrence of frequent droughts, and recently, the prevalence of insect pests. Table 13: Farmland size and status of household food production. Variable BC (%.) AC (%) X2 Enough farm land size to E. Amhara - 50.7 - produce for annual consumption W. Amhara Productivity of farm land E. Amhara 56.3 - improved W. Amhara Produced sufficient food E. Amhara 34.0 35.28*** throughout the year for the family W. Amhara 72.3 72.4
Source: Survey 2012; BC, AC = Before and after certification respectively; Note: *** = significant at p<0.01 According to Getahun (2008), 63.3% of the households in pilot and 50% of the households in non-pilot woredas of Amhara region agreed that productivity of farmland has not changed after land certification. Respondents were also asked whether they produced enough food for their families. In Eastern Amhara, 48.7% and 34% of the households responded with yes before and after land certification while the figures in Western Amhara were 72.3% and 72.7% respectively. From these responses, one can conclude that the food security situations in Eastern Amhara have worsened while in Western Amhara they remained the same. The claimed yield increases in Western Amhara were probably important to offset the population growth.
48
4.6. ECONOMETRICS MODEL RESULTS
Before the estimation of the models, the severity of multi-co-linearity (the linear relationship) among continuous explanatory variables was checked by computing the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). If the VIF for the continuous variables is less than 10, it indicates the absence of multi-co- linearity (Gujarati, 2004). As indicated in Appendix 1 tables 4 and 5, the results showed that there were no multi-col-inearity problems between the variables and they are included in the econometric model for analysis. The results of the probit model on fear of future land redistribution are presented in table 14. Variables that showed significant relationships with fear of future land redistribution are different in Eastern and Western Amhara while only the total land holding size (TLHold) was significantly positive for fear of future land redistribution. The result indicated that as total land holding size of households increased by one category, fear of land redistribution will increase by about 6.6%. This means those households with large landholding sizes have fear of land redistribution and loss of their farm plots. The household survey result is inconsistent with that of the focus group discussion. Old farmers expressed that an increasing number of landless young people is a threat for their area as it is aggravating food insecurity and crime/robberies. Hence, there might be a redistribution of land from old people with large farm sizes to landless younger people. The educational level of the household head (EdHHH) has also a significantly positive relationship to fear of land redistribution in Eastern Amhara while total livestock holdings (TLU) has a significantly negative relationship with fear of land redistribution in Western Amhara. Why the two variables differently affect fear of redistribution in the two areas cannot be explained from these survey results. The significantly positive effects of the EdHHH can be well explained because as the educational level of households increases the possibility of finding alternative employment opportunities increases and as a result there is an increased fear of losing farm lands. However, such relationships were not observed in Western Amhara. The reason why an increased TLU has negative effects on the fear of land redistribution might be explained by an increased confidence of farmers in terms of a higher and sustainable income from livestock holdings.
49
Table 14: Effects of land certification on fear of future land redistribution. Variables Eastern Amhara Western Amhara Marginal effects Probability Marginal effects Probability Female -0.0987 0.334 -0.0279215 0.736 FM -0.0236 0.819 0.0040495 0.953
AgeHH -0.0005 0.855 0.0009899 0.576 EduHHH 0.0649** 0.045 -0.056226 0.069 THHS -0.0038 0.814 0.0097044 0.364 TLHold 0.1647*** 0.005 0.1579166*** 0.000
EFoLR 0.9216*** 0.000 0.23231280*** 0.000 TLU 0.0022 0.832 -0.0205653 0.041 Source: Survey 2011; **, *** significant at 5% and 1% probability level This result contradicts the study results reported by Pender et al. (2006) but it is in line with the ARLAU proclamation No. 133/2006 enacted at Article 12 (1a) which states that any holder having a right over using the land, can be deprived from this right if he is engaged in non-farming activities and earns for his livelihood there. Therefore, households fear that as education levels increase, the probability of engaging in non-agricultural activities gets higher, which may not be sufficient to fulfil the primary needs of individuals but lead to the loss of farm land. Effects of selected variables on certain land management practices (terracing, application of farm yard manure, construction of water harvesting structures and tree planting) before and after land certification were evaluated using the binary logit model. The results of such analyses are shown in tables 15, 16, 17 and 18. As seen in Table 15, effects of selected variables on terracing of farm plots before and after land certification were not consistent in Eastern and Western Amhara. The only consistent variable was access to training and extension services which positively and significantly affected terracing before and after land certification. The result implies that improved access of farmers to training and extension services was accompanied by an increased construction of terraces. These relationships were stronger in Western Amhara than in the dryland areas of Eastern Amhara. The marginal effect showed that on average, for each additional increase in training and extension advice, the probability of the construction of terraces by the households will increase by 13%, other factors kept constant.
50
Table 15: Impact of land certification on terracing before and after land certification. Marginal effects Variables Eastern Amhara Western Amhara
Before LC After LC Before LC After LC Female -0.0072 -0.0954 -0.0311824 -0.151889
FM 0.0168 -0.0238 0.0575665 -0.102656
EduHHH 0.0171 -0.0194 -0.0321718 0.0117156
AgeHHH 0.0002 -0.0010 0.0058893** 0.005366
THHS 0.0192 0.0120 0.0103614 0.0304831**
TLHold -0.0629 -0.0167 -0.0070466 0.0022792
TrainExt 0.1330* 0.0905* 0.209431*** 0.1168684**
Credit 0.0633 0.0460 -0.0444519 0.0506345
TLU 0.0320** 0.0132 0.0052592 0.0241066**
Dist -0.0010* -0.0004 -0.0007513 -0.001580
Source: Survey 2011; LC = Land certification The second variable that has similar impacts is the ownership of livestock. Terracing increased positively and significantly with livestock ownership before and after certification for Eastern and Western Amhara respectively. In Eastern Amhara, after certification most terracing activities are perhaps done along with safety net or other programs. Livestock ownership may not be as important, while this is the case in Western Amhara. The decision of terrace construction was positively and significantly related to age of the household heads (AgeHHH) in Western Amhara, which implies that due to better perception and experiences of soil erosion by older households, they constructed more terraces than younger ones while in Eastern Amhara there are no such differences among different age groups. Total household size (THHS) was found positively and significantly related to the decision of terrace construction in Western Amhara after certification. This implies that households with a higher family size were more likely to construct terraces than those with low family sizes. This shows the importance of labour availability in terrace construction while in food insecured areas terraces are constructed through mass mobilization, so it is not significantly affected by family labour. This result is consistent with the findings of Hibret (2008). He found that, all other things kept constant, the marginal effect shows that constructions of terraces increased by 3% for a unit increase in family size. The distance of farm plots had negative effects on terrace construction; however, it was only significant in Eastern Amhara before certification. Table 16 shows that the application of FYM was positively and significantly affected by the ownership of livestock in both parts of Amhara region. This is justifiable because the source of 51
FYM is livestock and thus ownership of livestock matters. Generally an increase of livestock ownership by one unit improved FYM application of households by about 4%. There can also be other explanations for such practices. According to a study by Fikru (2009), the increase in manure application recently is due to increasing price of inorganic fertilizer which leads farmers to use farm yard manure as alternative to replenish loss of fertility. The size of livestock is expected to influence the application of farm yard manure because more livestock can provide more manure. Looking into the different areas separately, total land holding (TLHold) and distance of farm plots (Dis) negatively and significantly affects FYM in Eastern Amhara. These observations can be well-justified because as the total landholding size increases farmers can not apply FYM to all of their plots because the amount of FYM produced per household is very low due to limited ownership of TLU. Distance also matters because FYM is very bulky and thus difficult to transport and apply to remote plots. On the other hand, agricultural extension training and advice was affecting application of FYM positively and significantly before and after land certification in Eastern Amhara, while it was not significant in Western Amhara. A unit increase of training and advices of agricultural extension increased application of FYM by 17.6% and 19.3% before and after land certification, respectively. Obviously training and advice of agricultural extension services was enabling households to increase application of FYM. In Western Amhara, the age of the household head (AgeHHH) and female headed households were positively and significantly related to the decision to apply farm yard manure before and after certification, respectively. The marginal effect shows a unit increase in age of household head, increases the application of FYM by 0.5%. This implies that female participation in land management practices has improved after certification. Improvement in protection of female land rights after certification might lead female farmers to take care of their farm plots. Older farmers put more effort into applying FYM compared to younger ones because older farmers have perceived soil erosion and loss of fertility better. Table 16: Impact of land certification on application of farm yard manure (FYM) before and after land certification. Variables Marginal effects Eastern Amhara Western Amhara Before LC After LC Before LC After LC Female -0.0266 -0.0809 -0.039944 0.1549168**
FM -0.03434 -0.0178 -0.033513 0.1204352
EduHHH 0.0152 -0.0283 -0.068956 -0.0131246
AGEHHH 0.0015 0.0004 0.004949 -0.0031865
THHS 0.0222 0.0125 0.0062969 0.0487189***
TLHold -0.1382** -0.1380*** -0.085514 0.0332293
52
Training 0.1762** 0.1963*** 0.1168364 0.0138247
Credit 0.0325 .024886 0.051742 -0.0335351
TLU 0.0393*** 0.0215* 0.0290311** 0.0292744***
Dist -0.0030*** -0.0020*** -0.002442 -0.0031063
Source: Survey 2011; LC = Land Certification Table 17 shows the likely decision of households to construct water harvesting structures (WHS) as a result of different influencing variables in Eastern Amhara. In Western Amhara where water is available during the rainy season, the decision of households to construct WHS was not investigated. As can be seen from the table, average distance of farm plot from homestead (Dist) and household head ages (AgeHH) are negatively related to construction of WHS while total household size (THHS) and total livestock unit (TLU) were positively related to construction of WHS. Before land certification, THHS was affecting WHS construction at a significant difference of p<0.05, while total livestock unit and average distance of farm plot from homestead were affecting construction of WHS at significant difference of p<0.01. Whereas after land certification AgeHH and THHS were affecting WHS construction at a significant difference of p<0.05, average distance of farm plot from homestead, total livestock unit and training and advice of agricultural extension services were affecting WHS construction at a significant difference of p<0.01. As household size increased by one member, construction of WHS increased by 2.2% and 2.8% before and after land certification, respectively. As total livestock unit increased by one unit, WHS construction also increased by 1.8% and 3.5% before and after land certification, respectively. On the other hand, as average distance of farm plot from homestead increased by one minute, WHS construction decreased by 0.14% and 0.27% before and after land certification, respectively. Finally, after land certification, a one-year increase of AgeHH decreased WHS construction by 0.51%. Contrary to this, a unit increase of training and advices of agricultural extension services increased construction of WHS by 20.8%. Table 17: Impact of land certification on water harvesting activities before and after land certification in Eastern Amhara. Variable Marginal effects Before land certification After land certification Female -0.0513 -0.0475 FM -0.0750 -0.1087 EduHHH -0.0226 -0.0401 AgeHHH -0.0025 -0.0051** THHS 0.0220** 0.0276** TLHold -0.0125 -0.0858
53
Training 0.0441 0.2089*** Credit -0.0186 0.0379 TLU 0.0183*** 0.0349*** Dist -0.0014*** -0.0027*** Source: Survey 2012 In general, out of 10 variables three and five factors were considered to affect the construction of WHS before and after land certification, respectively. Among the variables, THHS, Dist and TLU were found significantly affecting the construction of WHS in the Eastern Amhara before and after land certification. The descriptive statistics also showed that WHS construction increased more than 14% after land certification. Table 18 shows the results of the probit model on the decision of tree planting before and after certification. As it is indicated in the table, age of the household head (AgeHHH) was positively and significantly related to the decision of planting trees before and after certification. This implies that older people planted more trees than the younger ones. This may be due to the fact that older people through their experience observe soil erosion and loss of fertility and thus apply conservation measures. Tree planting may not require as high labour costs as the construction of terraces. THHS was also found to relate positively and significantly to tree planting after certification, while Dist was negatively related to the decision of planting trees after certification. Family size was found to be related positively and significantly to tree planting investment after certification at a probability level of 1%. This implies that households with a higher family size rather plant trees than households with few family members. This might be due to the need of constructing more houses and fuel demand with increasing household size. As indicated in the descriptive part of table 16, about 87% of the farmers plant trees for the purpose of house construction and household fuel consumption. Table 18: Impacts of land certification on tree planting before and after land certification in Western Amhara. Variable code Marginal effects Before certification After certification Female 0.0708728 0.0193538 FM 0.1182739 0.0169358 EduHHH 0.0079948 0.0253136 AgeHHH 0.0065768*** 0.0051169** THHS 0.0260301 0.035745*** TLHold -0.0484166 -0.0204124 TRAINING 0.073747 0.1025885 Credit -0.0194027 0.0798043 TLU 0.0139216 0.0072138 Dist -0.0019926 -0.0057943** Source: Survey 2012; ***, ** significant at 1% and 5% respectively 54
The other possible explanation is that households with more family members have more land and may expect possibility of redistribution and hence plant trees to assure their plots of land. The marginal effect of the probit model showed that for an increase of one person in the family the probability of planting trees increases by 3.6% after certification. The distance of farm plots from the homestead area is found to be related negatively and significantly (p<0.05) with tree planting investment. The result of the marginal effect of the probit model showed a minute increase in distance decreases the probability of tree planting by 0.5 percent. During the focus group discussion it was indicated that farmers having land far from their residence usually do not visit their farm land frequently and it will be difficult to supervise the trees. The other reason was due to the increase of theft during tree maturity famers regret planting trees on plots far away from their homestead area. The study agreed with the result of Hibret (2008) that households tend to plant trees on plots which are located near to their homestead because they fear that somebody will cut the tree if they plant them in plots where they hardly control.
55
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. CONCLUSION
This research had the major objective of assessing impacts of land certification on farmers’ perception of sustainable land resource management in Amhara National Regional State. According to the research findings, farmers’ perceptions on benefits of land certification have enhanced. The majority of the farmers (68%) are confident that there will not be land redistribution in the near future. However, about 32% of farmers have fears that they could be disposessed and land redistributed by the government at any time within the next five years. Farmers’ fear of dispossession and land redistribution by the government emanated from the establishment of new town administrations embracing rural kebeles, the policy itself (because it says if 80% of the farmers agree) and also the increasing number of landless youths. Given the whole objective of land certification to bring confidence in land use rights and enhance investment on land, these figures are too high and need to be properly addressed even though the majority of households acknowledged that land certification enables them to develop confidence in their land holdings, land inheritance and led to a feeling of having land use rights, a reduction of land border conflicts, a facilitation of more land rent and share-cropping. Similarly, the result of the probit model shows that the educational level of the household heads, total land holding size, and households affected by last land redistribution were found to positively and significantly aggravate households’ fear of future land redistribution and loss of farmland. Although using land as collateral is prohibited by the law, farmers reported certification improved informal collateral agreements. One of the interesting positive impacts of land certification was observed on the protection of land rights of marginalized groups (disabled, elders etc.) and women. Also an improvement in women land right security and participation in decision-making were reported by almost all of the respondents. This implies that certification has brought a positive impact on land tenure security of women and other marginalized groups. However, about 63.5% and 81.3% of the respondents know about the presence of landless youths before and after land certification, respectively. Accordingly, youths are raising the question of land redistribution and use rights. Concerning the impact of land certification on long term investment and sustainable land resource management, households’ participation in land management practices such as terracing, application of farm yard manure, construction of water harvesting structures, tree planting and others has shown an improvement in the study area after land certification. Furthermore, the majority of households maintained soil and water conservation structures regularly. However, steep slope lands are still ploughed and used for crop cultivation. This is because land certification efforts were not accompanied by proper land use planning activities which might have undermined the efforts done through ensuring land use rights of farmers to enhance investment on their lands. Average distance of farm plot from homestead was also negatively affecting land management efforts while accessibility of training and advice from agricultural extension services and total livestock unit positively affected the study area. The comparison of major crop yields after and before land certification showed an improvement in Western Amhara, while there was no significant difference or even decrease in Eastern Amhara which might have been caused by rainfall irregularities or other crop growth variables.
56
The findings also showed that more than 50% and 20% of households were not able to produce enough food for their annual consumption in Eastern and Western Amhara, respectively.
5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Land certification highly raised farmers’ perception of and confidence in land tenure security, but farmers still fear future land redistribution and land dispossession by the government. More awareness creation on the essence of land certificates to farmers and more training of lawyers about differences of the LAUP and conventional laws is important. To improve confidence of farmers in land certification but also to address still existing boarder related conflicts, upgrading to second level of certification is highly required. In case of land dispossessions or expropriation by the government, compensations paid should be well revised by proper valuation of the services of the land, which includes a consideration of the variability in soil fertility and benefits out of the land. Considering only planted trees for the sake of calculating the amount of compensation to be paid, seems to have encouraged unsustainable Eucalyptus plantation especially around the cities and towns. Even if land certification improves land management practices and maintainance of soil and water conservation structures, more households are cultivating steep slope areas, which implies the absence of proper land use systems. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop and implement land use plans that prescribe to which purpose a given plot of land has to be devoted. Land consolidation also appears to be important since distances of farm plots from homesteads negatively affect land management practices, but farmers also own highly fragmented farm plots which hinder the use of modern farming practices and time is wasted to travel from one plot to another. Further in-depth studies related to impacts of land certification on productivity and land management practices should be conducted.
57
6. REFERENCES
Abera, B. 2003. Factors influencing the adoption of soil conservation practices in Northwestern Ethiopia.University of Göttingen. Discussion paper No 37. Ahmad, R., Atry, S and Elham, F. 2009. Analysis of Factors Affecting Adoption of Sustainable Soil Conservation Practices among Wheat Growers.Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran World Applied Sciences Journal 6 (5): 644-651, 2009 ISSN 1818-4952.© IDOSI Publications. Almaz, W. 2007. Women’s access to and control over land in the current land administration system in two rural kebeles in ada’a woreda of oromia Region. Addis Ababa University. AMAREW Project, 2006. Revised Annual Work Plan for 2006 (January 01, 2006 to December 31, 2006), Amhara Micro-enterprise development, Agricultural Research, Extension, and Watershed Management (AMAREW) Project. Anley Y., Bogale A. and Haile-Gabriel A., 2006. Adoption Decision and Use Intensity of Soil and Water Conservation Measures by Smallholder Subsistence Farmers in Dedo District, Western Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Develop. (In press), published online in Wiley Inter Science (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ldr.775. Amhara National Regional State (ANRS). 2000. Rural land administration and use reclamation No. 46/2000, Bahir Dar Ethiopia. ANRS, 2006. Amhara National Regional State. Revised Rural Land Administration and Use of the Amhara National Regional State. Proclamation No. 133/2006, ZIKRE HIG 11th Year No. 18. Bahir Dar. ARD, Inc., 2004. Ethiopia Land Policy and Administration Assessment; Final Report with Appendices. USAID Contract No. LAG-00-98-00031-00, Task Order No. 4. Askale, T. 2005. Land Registration and Women’s Land Rights in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Securing Land Rights in Africa Research Report 4. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Benin S. and Pender J., 2001. Impact of Land Redistribution on Land Management and Productivity in the Ethiopian Highlands, Paper to be presented at the Contributed Paper Session Annual AAEA Meeting, August 5-8, 2001. Chicago,IL. Pp. 2-3. Berhanu, A. and Fayera, A. 2005. Land registration in Amhara Region,Ethiopia. Securing land in Africa,IIED. Berhanu ,N., Berhanu,A., and Samuel,G. 2003. Current land policy issues in Ethiopia. Land Reform 2003/3. Land Settlement and Cooperatives. Special Edition World Bank and UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Berhanu G., Gebremedhin W., Yigzaw D., Tilahun G. and Worku T., 2009. Sustainable Land Management through Market Oriented Commodity Development: Case Studies from Ethiopia. Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development, University of Hamburg, October 6-8, Tropentag. Berhanu N., Berhanu A., Samuel G/S., 2002. Land Tenure and Economic Development in Ethiopia: The need for new thinking and pragmatic approach in dealing with the problem, Paper to be presented at a Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Africa (April 29 – May 2, 2002). Kampala, Uganda. Pp. 6- 23. Brück T., 2003. Investment in Land, Tenure Security and Area Farmed in Northern Mozambique, HiCN Working Paper 01. BoARD, 2010. Amhara National Regional State, Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development Technical report on soil and water management, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
58
Cotula L., Toulmin C. & Quan J., 2006. Better Land Access for the Rural Poor. Lessons from Experience and Challenges Ahead, FAO. Crewett W. and Korf B. 2008. Ethiopia: Reforming Land Tenure. Review of African Political Economy No. 116:203-220, ROAPE Publications Ltd. CSA, 2008. Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia population census commission, Addis Ababa Ethiopia. CSA. 2007. The 2007 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia: Statistical Report for Amhara Region. Dagnew Menan, Fitsum Hagos and Nick C., 2009. Implications of Land Titling on Tenure Security and Long-term Land investment: Case of Kilte Awela’elo woreda, Tigray, Ethiopia Proceedings of: Sustainable Land Management Research and Institutionalization of Future Collaborative Research, EEPFE, EDRI, EfD (Enviornment for Development), Mekelle Univerity. Pp. 264-274. Dalrymple K., 2005. Expanding Rural Land Tenures to Alleviate Poverty. A PhD Dissertation presented to the Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructure and Land Administration Department of Geomatics, Faculty of Engineering the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. 6p. Deininger K., Ayalew D., Holden S., and Zevenbergen J.2007 .Rural land certification in Ethiopia: Process, initial impact, and implications for other African countries. Deininger K., Daniel Ayalew Ali and Tekie Alemu, 2008. Impacts of Land Certification on Tenure Security, Investment, and Land Markets Evidence from Ethiopia. Policy Research Working Paper 4764, World Bank Development Research Group Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team. Deininger K., Jin S., Berhanu Adenew, Samuel Gebre-Selassie, Berhanu Nega, 2003a. Tenure Security and Land-Related Investment Evidence from Ethiopia. Policy Research Working Paper 2991, The World Bank Development Research Group Rural Development. Deininger K., Jin S., Berhanu Adenw, Samuel Gebre-Selassie, and Mulat Demeke, 2003b. Market and Non-market Transfers of Land in Ethiopia: Implications for Efficiency, Equity, and Non-farm Development, World Bank. Washington UC Davis, Davis, EEA/EEPRI, Addis Ababa. Deininger, K., and S. Jin. 2006. Tenure Security and Land-Related Investment: Evidence from Ethiopia, European Economic Review 50(5): 1245–77). Deininger, K., Daniel, A., and Tekie, A. 2009. Impacts of Land Certification on Tenure Security, Investment, and Land Markets: Evidence from Ethiopia. Discussion Paper Series EfD DP 09-11. Duley, N., Madly, J. and Solutin, S.1992. Land is Life: Land Reform and Sustainable Agriculture. Intimidate Technology Publications in association with Foundation Development and Peace, Bonn, Germany. ISBN 1-85339-146-8. ECA, 2003. Land Tenure Systems and Sustainable Development in Southern Africa, Economic Commission for Africa Southern Africa Office, Lusaka, Zambia. ECA. 2004. Land Tenure Systems and their Impacts on Food Security and Sustainable Development in Africa. ECA/SDD/05/09. ECA Printshop. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. EEA / EEPRI. 2002. A Research Report On Land Tenure and Agricultural Development In Ethiopia. EEPFE. 2005. Poverty and Land Degradation in Ethiopia: How to Reverse the Spiral? Concept Note. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR).
59
FAO. 2004. Towards Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in the Ethiopian Highlands Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper No. 17. FDRE. 1995. Constitution of the Federal Democratic republic of Ethiopia. Proclamation No.1/1995. FDRE, 1997. Federal Rural Land Administration Proclamation NO. 89/1997. Federal Negarit Gazeta 3rd Year No. 54, ADDIS ABABA 7th July 1997. FDRE, 2005. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia enacted Rural Land Administration and Land Use Proclamation No. 456/2005. Federal Negarit Gazeta 11thYear No. 44, ADDIS ABABA- 15th July, 2005. Fikru, A. 2009. Assessment of adoption behavior of soil and water conservation practices in the koga watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Fitsum Hagos, 2009. Certification and Land Investment: The Case of Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia, Proceedings of: Sustainable Land Management Research and Institutionalization of Future Collaborative Research, EEPFE, EDRI, EfD, Mekelle Univerity, pp. 312-320. Getahun Alemneh Belete, 2008. The Effects of Land Certification in Securing Rural Land Rights Amhara Region, Ethiopia. A Thesis Presented to Real Estate Planning and Land Law, KTH Real Estate and Construction Management, Stockholm. 4- p. Getnet Alemu, 2009. The Challenges of Land Tenure Reform to Structural Transformation of the Economy: Lessons from Country Experiences. Ege Svein, Aspen Harald, Birhanu Teferra and Shiferaw Bekele, In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, ed. Trondheim, pp 772-776. Gujarati, N.D.2004. Basic Econometrics. 4th Front Matter Introduction. The McGraw−Hill Companies. New York. Haile Tesfay Haile, 2008. Impact of Irrigation Development on Poverty Reduction in Northern Ethiopia. A PhD dissertation presented to The Department of Food Business and Development National University of Ireland, Cork. Helland J., 2006. Pastoral Land Tenure in Ethiopia. Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway. Montpellier. Hibret Belete, 2008. Investment Effects of Rural Land Certification: Evidence from Amhara National Regional State of Ethiopia: A Case Study of Addis ena Gulit and Gonbat. MSc. Thesis, KTH Real Estate and Construction Management Stockholm. Holden S. and Hailu Yohannes, 2001. Land Redistribution, Tenure Insecurity, and Intensity of Production: A Study of Farm Households in Southern Ethiopia. CGIAR System-wide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights, International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. Holden S., Deininger K., Ghebru H., 2009. Impacts of Low-cost Land Certification on Investment and Productivity Proceedings of: Sustainable Land Management Research and Institutionalization of Future Collaborative Research, EEPFE, EDRI, EfD (Environment for Development), Mekelle Univerity. Pp. 281-284. Holden, S., Bekele, S. and John P. 2005. Policy Analysis for Sustainable Land Management and Food Security in Ethiopia. A Bioeconomic Model with Market Imperfections. Research Report No 140: International Food Policy Research Institute Washington, Dc. Holden, S., and Tewodros, T. 2008. Land Registration in Ethiopia:Early Impacts on Women, Summary report. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) Nairobi, Kenya. ISBN: 978-92-1-132014-5.
60
ICTSD, 2007. Trade and Sustainable Land Management in the Context of Drylands. ICTSD Project on Trade and Sustainable Land Management, Selected Issue Briefs. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development(ICTSD), Geneva, Switzerland. John P., 2009. The World Food Crisis, Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management: Linkages, Opportunities, and Constraints International Food Policy Research Institute. Joireman S. F., 2006. Human Rights and Human Welfare. An Unholy Trinity: AIDS, Poverty and Insecure Property Rights for Women in Africa a forum for works in progress working paper no. 34. Kanji,N., Cotula,L., Hilhorst,T., Toulmin, C., and Witten,W.2005. Can Land Registration Serve Poor and Marginalised Groups? Summary Report. Securing Land Rights in Africa. IIED. Kassie, D. 2006.Assessment of real property valuation for purposes of expropriation in Ethiopia, a case in Amhara region. Lakew Desta, Menale Kassie, Benin S. and Pender J., 2000. Land Degradation and Strategies for Sustainable Development in the Ethiopian Highlands: Amhara Region. Socio-economics and Policy Research Working Paper 32. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Land Administration and Use (BoEPLAU). 2010. Land Registration and Certification: Experiences from the Amhara National Regional State in Ethiopia. Maddala, G.S. 2002. Introduction to Econometrics. University of Florida and Ohio University MacMillan Publishing Company. New York. Mebrat Gebreslassie, 2005. Women and Land Rights in Ethiopia: Ownership and Control of Land Volunteers for Sustainable Development Participant, Relief Society of Tigray and the Development Fund. Mitiku, H., Herweg, K., and Stillhardt, B. 2006. Sustainable Land Management – A new Approach to Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia. Land Resources Management and Environmental Protection Department, Mekele University, Ethiopia, and Swiss Center for Development and Environment, in National Center of competence in Research (NCCRI) North-South University of Bern, Switherland.ISBN-3-906151-92-1. Mueller A. de Brauw V., 2009. Do Limitations in Land Rights Transferability Influence Low Mobility Rates in Ethiopia? Mulugeta Lemenih, 2004. Effects of Land Use Changes on Soil Quality and Native Flora Degradation and Restoration in the Highlands of Ethiopia, Implications for sustainable land management. Doctoral Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala. PANE, 2008. Millennium Development Goals Status Report Tehuledere woreda, Amhara Region. Haik, Tehuledere. PANE, 2010. Participatory District Development Plan (P-DDP) of Tehuledare woreda in the Amhara Region. www.pane.org.et/LinkClick.aspx?filetickettabid=67&mid=424, Accessed on 6/10/2010. Pender, J., F. Place, and S. Ehui, 2006. Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands. Washington, D.C. Piguet F., 2002. Cheffa Valley: Refuge for 50,000 Pastoralists and 200,000 Animals, Present Humanitarian Situation and Livestock Conditions in Selected Areas in and Around Afar Region UN-Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia. Roth M., 2008. Land Tenure, Property Rights, and Food Security USAID Land Tenure and Property Rights Program: December 2008. Sabita Giri, 2010. The Effect of Rural Land Registration and Certification Programme on Farmers’ Investments in Soil Conservation and Land Management In the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, MSc Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen UR.
61
Samuel, G. 2006. Land, Land Policy and Smallholder Agriculture in Ethiopia: Options and Scenarios. Paper prepared for the Future Agricultures Consortium meeting at the Institute of Development Studies. SARDP (Sida Amhara Rural Development Program) and BoEPLAU (Bureau of Environmental Protection and Land Administration and Use), 2010. Land Registration and Certification. Experiences from the Amhara National Regional State, Bahir Dar Selamyihun Kidanu, Yelbie Aneley, and Melaku Tefera, 2006. Participatory Rural Appraisal of Golina Irrigation Scheme: Report of a Diagnostic Survey Kobo woreda, Amhara Region. SWHISA Document IRG – 03. Shibru, T. 2010. Land Degradation and Farmers’ Perception: The Case of Limo Woreda, Hadya Zone of SNNPR, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University School of Graduate Studies Environmental Science Program Sida – Amhara Rural Development Program (SARDP) and the Bureau of Environment Protection. Shimelles, T., Islam Z. and Parviainen, T. 2009. Effects of land tenure and property rights on agricultural productivity in Ethiopia, Namibia and Bangladesh. University of Helsinki Department of Economics and Management. Discussion Papers No 33. Helsinki. Tefera Mengistu, Demel Teketay, Hakan Hulten, and Yonas Yemshaw, 2005. The Role of Communities in Closed Area Management in Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development Vol 25 No. 1 Feb 2005: 44–50. Tegegne Gebre Egziabher and Mulat Demeke, 2004. Small Businesses in Small Towns of the Eastern Amhara Region: Nature and Economic Performance a Research Report. Tekie, A. 1999. Land Tenure and Soil Conservation – Evidence from Ethiopia. Kompendiet – Gothenburg, Sweden. Tesfaye, C. 2007. The Effect of Land Administration System on Sustainable Land Resource Conservation in Amhara Region, Ethiopia, the Case of Dessie Zuria and Tehulederie Districts. Teshome Taffa, 2009. Characteristics of Property Units in Ethiopia, the Case of Two Pilot Projects in Amhara National Regional State. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research Volume 6, November 2, 2009. 5-7. Teshome, T. 2010. Nature of Property Units in Ethiopia: Case Study of Two Pilot Projects in Amhara National Regional State. Tsegaye, Habtamu, 2006. Land tenure and agrarian social structure in Ethiopia, 1636-1900. PhD Dessertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. Verbeek M., 2004 (2nd edition). A Guide to Modern Econometrics. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, the Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England. Wagayehu, B., 2003. Economics of Soil and Water Conservation: Theory and Empirical Application to Subsistence Farming in the Eastern Ethiopia Highlands. Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Science. Winslow, M., Shapiro, B.I., Thomas, R. and Shetty, S.V.R. 2004. Desertification, Drought, Poverty and Agriculture: Research Lessons and Opportunities. Aleppo, Syria; Patancheru, India; and Rome, Italy: Joint Publication of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and the UNCCD Global Mechanism (GM). 52 pp. Yigremew Adal, 2002. Review of Landholding Systems and Policies in Ethiopia under the Different Regimes. EEA/Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute Working Paper No 5/2002. WOA (Woreda Office of Agriculture), 2010. Batie Woreda Office of Agriculture report, Batie, Oromia Zone, ANRS, Ethiopia
62
Zerfu, Daniel, 2010. Essays on Institutions and Economic Outcomes. Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg.
63
7. APPENDICES
ANNEX 1
Table 1: Land holding, plot number and distance of farm plot from homestead area before and after certification (Western Amhara). Land characteristics Before After
Min Max Mean St.D. Min Max Mean St.D.
TLAND 0.125 3.5 1.296 0.6518 0.250 3.00 1.2795 0.6211 3 05 8 9 PLOTNO 1 12 4.362 2.0038 1 12 4.3567 2.0256 5 8 LANDOUTCULT 0.12 0.75 0.287 0.173 0.12 1 0.25 0.20 Distance Mean St.D. F-value 14.5358 9.14626 6.211*** TLAD =total land holding (ha) before and after certification, PLOTNO = number of parcel of a house hold before and after certification, LANDOUTCULT = land out of cultivation (ha), DIST= average the mean distance from homestead to farm plot (measured in walk minute). Table 2: Tropical livestock unit and major livestock’s for the households (Western Amhara). Livestock Households with livestock ownership(N=285) F type Min Max Mean st.d Ox 0.70 8.4 1.718 0.9275954 16.778*** Cow 0.7 10.5 2.035 1.5343675 3.573** Sheep 0.1 6 0.457 0.5175881 4.847*** Donkey 0.5 4.5 0.778 0.5533986 0.001 Horse 0.8 3.2 1.350 0.5114970 7.894*** Chicken 0.01 1.5 0.0761 0.1445103 2.146 Total TLU 0.01 18.4 3.856 2.5987983 12.696*** ***, ** Statistically significance level at 1 % and 5% probability level respectively. Table 3: Multicillenearity test among the independent variables for perceived tenure security. Variables VIF Age of the household head 1.113 Total house hold size 1.194 Total land holding 1.149 Total livestock unit 1.155 Source: Survey
64
Table 4: Multi-co-lenearity test among the independent variables for land management practices. Variables VIF Before After certification certification Age of the household head 1.168 1.113 Total house hold size 1.204 1.197 Total land holding 1.169 1.161 Average distance of the farm plot from homestead 1.012 1.011 Total livestock unit 1.153 1.155 Source: Survey
Table 5: Contingency coefficients for dummy explanatory variables for perceived tenure security. FEMALE FM EDU LANDRED FEARGOV FEMALE 1 FM 0.578 1 EDU 0.096 0.077 1 LANDRED 0.013 0.013 .042 1
FEARGOV 0.021 0.035 .094 0.048 1
ANNEX 2
Questionnaire for Household Survey Name of enumerator ______Date of data collected ______Signature ______
I. Household characteristics 1. Zone ______Woreda ______Kebele ______Sub-kebele______Gote ______2. Distance of kebele to the nearest market centre ______km or ______hr/s on foot walk 3. Distance of kebele to main road ______km or ______hr/s on foot walk 4. Head of household a. Female b. Male c. male and female jointly 5. Age of household head ______year 6. Marital status a. single b. Married c. Divorced d. widowed 7. Level of education a. Illiterate b. read and/ or write c. grade 5-8 d. grade 9-12 e. other (specify) ______8. Total household size ______a. under 15 years old male ______Female ______b. 15 years and above male ______Female ______9. Total land holding in hectare a. before certification ______or in timad ______and number of plots ______b. after certification ______or in timad ______and number of plots ______10. Distance of farm plot from homestead ______km or ______hr/s on foot walk 11. Do the land holding certificate got by the name of both heads and spouses? a. Yes b. No 65
12. If your answer for Q10 NO, who is certified? a. Male b. female 13. Type of your house? i. Before 2007 a. Grass roofed b. Corrugated iron roofed house c. Both ii. After 2007 a. Grass roofed b. Corrugated iron roofed house c. Both 14. What level of certification do you have? a. Tentative b. primary level c. secondary level
II. Land certification on long term investment and sustainable land resource management 1. Do you have plot of land affected by land degradation before 2007 E.C? a. Yes b. No 2. If yes for Q1, size of plot out of cultivation ______hectare 3. Do you have plot of land affected by land degradation after 2007 E.C? a. Yes b. No 4. If yes for Q2, size of plot out of cultivation ______hectare 5. Have you undertaken any land management practices on your farm plot before 2007E.C? a. Yes b. No 6. If the answer for Q5 is yes, what type of land improvement practices you did? i. Terracing on farm plots a. None b. < half c. ≥ half ii. Planting trees on farm plot a. None b. Yes, ______trees iii. Application of compost a. None b. Yes, ______quintals iv. Farm yard manure a. None b. Yes, ______quintals v. Incorporating crop residue on farm plots a. Yes b. No vi. Construction of other soil and water conservation structure (Trenches, semi-circular, water harvesting structures etc.) a. None b. < half c. ≥ half vii. Other (specify) ______7. If your answer for Q1 is no, what is problem do you face? i. Lack of awareness about land management practices a. Yes b. No ii. Lack of family or hired labour a. Yes b. No iii. Lack of materials and inputs a.Yes b. No iv. Lack of technical knowhow about the land improvement structure a. Yes b. No v. Fear of land redistribution a. Yes b. No vi. Other (Specify) ______8. Have you undertaken any land management practices on your farm plot 2007 E.C? a. Yes b. No 9. If the answer for Q8 is yes, what type of land improvement practices you did? i. Terracing on farm plots a. None b. < half c. ≥ half ii. Planting trees on farm plot a. None b. Yes, ______trees iii. Application of compost a. None b. Yes, ______quintals iv. Farm yard manure a. None b. Yes, ______quintals v. Incorporating crop residue on farm plots a. Yes b. No vi. Construction of other soil and water conservation structure (Trenches, semi-circular, water harvesting structures etc.) a. None b. < half c. ≥ half vii. other (specify) ______10. If your answer for Q1 is no, what is problem do you face? i. lack of awareness about land management practices a. Yes b. No ii. lack of family or hired labour a. Yes b. No iii. lack of materials and inputs a. Yes b. No
66
iv. lack of technical knowhow about the land improvement structure a. Yes b. No v. fear of land redistribution a. Yes b. No vi. other (Specify) ______11. Did anyone of your parcels have planted trees before 1999 E.C? a. None b. Yes, ______trees 12. For what purpose do you plant trees? i. To assure plot of land a. Yes b. No ii. To prevent soil erosion a. Yes b. No iii. To improve soil fertility a. yes b. No iv. For fuel consumption a. Yes b. No v. Other (specify) ______13. If your answer for Q12 is No, what is your reason? i. I have no enough land for tree planting a, Yes b. No ii. I cannot use trees as I want a. Yes b. No iii. Crop growth friendly seedlings are not available a. Yes b. No iv. Other (specify) ______14. Are the land improvement practices (if any) carried out on your farm plot initiated by yourself? a. Yes b. No 15. Do you carried out regular maintenance of soil and water conservation structures regularly? a. Yes b. No 16. Do you have accesses to extension program? a. yes b. No 17. If you answer yes for question NO.9, what type of support do you get from the extension program? i. technical advice from DA a. yes, ______times per month b. No ii. Training SWC a. Yes, ______times per year b. No iii. Others ______18. Did you have any credit accesses before certification? a. Yes b. No 19. If you answer yes for question NO.18, for what purpose do you use the credit? a. to purchase agricultural input(fertilizer, seed, herbicides etc) b. to purchase oxen for farming c. credit for fattening d. credit for dairy 20. Do you have any credit accesses certification? a. Yes b. No 21. If you answer yes for question NO.20, for what purpose do you use the credit? a. to purchase agricultural impute(fertilizer, seed, herbicides etc) b. credit for fattening c. credit to buy sheep d. credit for dairy
III. Perception of farmers towards land certification and ownership 1. Do you have enough land for producing enough food for your household consumption? a. Yes b. No 2. If your answer no. how much additional size of land do you require to made the household self-sufficient______(in hectare)______(in local units)? 3. How would you like to acquire the upper mentioned size of land? a. Renting (share cropping) b. Buying c. Gift d. Land redistribution e. Other, specify______
67
4. Did your household affected by the last land redistribution in 1999 E.C? a. Yes b. No 5. If yes, how? a. Lost b. Gain 6. Do you expect future redistribution in the next five years? a. Yes b. No 7. When did you receive the land holding certification? ______E.C. 8. Do you fear land redistribution will come in the future and lose your farm plot? a. Yes b. No 9. Do you fear your land will be taken by government at any time? a. Yes b. No 10. Have you ever been evicted from your farm land? a. Yes b. No 11. If your answer for Q4 is yes, did you have any compensation? a. Yes b, No 12. If your answer for Q4 is yes, how do you saw the compensation? a. sufficient b. Not sufficient 13. What is the benefit of your land certification? i. No benefit a. Yes b. No ii. I got confidence a. Yes b. No iii. I can inherit my land a. Yes b. No iv. No one take my land a. Yes b. No v. can be used as collateral a. Yes b. No vi. Help to reduce conflict a. Yes b. No vii. More land rent and share cropping a. Yes b. No viii. I don’t know the benefit a. Yes b. No ix. No benefit a. Yes b. No
IV. Land Certification and Land Productivity 1. What were the status of you farm plots fertility at the time of land certification? Before Certification After Certification Fertility status Area of plot Fertility status Area of plot Fertile (Leme) Moderately fertile poor
2. What are the slope categories of your plots of farm land? Slope categories Area in ha Flat Moderately steep steep
3. Do you face labour shortage before 2007 E.C? a. Yes b. No 4. If you answer for Q3 is yes, for which kind of activities do you face labour shortage? 1. Ploughing and seeding (food crops) a. high b. medium c. low 2. Weeding a. high b. medium c. low 3. Harvesting a. high b. medium c. low 5. Do you face labour shortage after 2007G.C? a. Yes b. No 6. If you answer for Q5 is yes, for which kind of activities do you face labour shortage? 1. Ploughing and seeding (food crops) a. high b. medium c. low 2. Weeding a. high b. medium c. low 3. Harvesting a. high b. medium c. low 7. How do you evaluate the productivity of your farm land after 2007 G.C? 68
a. Improved b. Not improved 8. If your answer for Q1 is improved, what are the reasons for the improvement of the productivity? a. More rainfall than before b. More improved seed and fertilizer c. Better land preparation d. More credit than before e. Better land management than before f. Other (specify) ______9. Involved in share cropping? a. Yes b. No If yes how much is your share in quintal______? 10. Are you involved in land rental market before 2007G.C? a. Yes b. No 11. If your answer for Q9 above is yes, how much do you Pay per year from a hectare of land rental market ______Birr per timad? Get per year from a hectare of land rental market ______Birr per timad? 12. If your answer for Q9 is no, what are the reasons behind? i. I have enough land a. Yes b. No ii. No one interested to rent in a. Yes b. No iii. Fear of losing the land a. Yes b. No iv. Price of land rent out not attractive a. Yes b. No v. Price of land rent in too expensive a. Yes b. No Vii. Lack of money a. Yes b. No 13. Are you involved in land rental market after 2007 G.C? a. Yes b. No 14. If your answer for Q12 above is yes, how much do you Pay per year from a hectare of land rental market ______Birr per timad? Get per year from a hectare of land rental market ______Birr per timad? 15. If your answer for Q12 is no, what are the reasons behind? i. I have enough land a. Yes b. No ii. No one interested to rent in a. Yes b. No iii. Fear of losing the land a. Yes b. No iv. Price of land rent out not attractive a. Yes b. No v. Price of land rent in too expensive a. Yes b. No vi. Other (specify) ______16. Has land certification generally encourage or discouraged land rental market? a. Encourage b. Discouraged 17. Are you able to produce sufficient food for your families throughout the year? i. Before 2007 a. Yes b. No ii. After 2007 a. Yes b. No 18. If your answer for Q15 is no, how do you get food for the remaining month of the year? a. Food aid b. Selling labour for farm activities c. Involve in non-farm activities d. Get remittance e. selling of animals f. No means 19. Do you or your family undertake some additional income generating activities of off-farming before 2007? a. Yes b. No If yes source of income? ______ amount you gain in Ethiopian Birr ______19. Do you or your family undertake some additional income generating activities of off-farming after 2007? a. Yes b. No If yes, what source of income? ______and amount you gain in Ethiopian Birr ______
69
20. Can you tell me your produce? No. Crop type Amount in produce quintal
21. Can you mention the livestock owned by household? No. Types of Total number livestock
V. Land Certification and Marginalized group 1. Are there households who do not own land in the village? i. Before 2007 a. Yes b. No ii. After 2007 a. Yes b. No 2. If your answer is yes for Q1i, who are those households? a. Women headed household b. Disabled households c. Pastoralists d.Youths e. Poorest of poor f.Oother (specify) ______3. If your answer is yes for Q1ii, who are those households? a. Women headed household b. Disabled households c. Pastoralists d. Youths e. Poorest of poor f. Other (specify) ______4. Do the land rights of elders, orphans, and disabled well protected by land certification? a. Yes b. No c. The same as before 5. If your answer for Q3 is yes, what is /are the reasons? a. ______b. ______c. ______d. ______6. Who has stronger holding rights among the household members? i. Before 2007 a. wife b. Husband c. Children ii. After 2007 a. wife b. Husband c. Children 7. Does the women participation in the household decision-making related to land improvement improved after 2007? a. Yes b. No 8. If your answer no for Q6, what are the reasons? a. ______b. ______c. ______d. ______9. Who has the right to use land of a death spouse after 2007? a. Wife or husband b. Any person live dependently in that household c. Independent son/ daughter d. Other (specify) ______70
10. Do you believe that the women land right are secured after 2007? a. Yes b. No 11. Would you like to comment on the effects of certification of different farming systems on and land resource management? ______Do you want to give general comments on the questionnaire? ______
THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO FILL IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE!!
Open and closed-ended questionnaires for experts (government experts) Date ……………………………………….. Name enumerator ______Signature ______Key informant Zone………………………… Woreda…………………………… Name of interviewee ………………………. Sex………………… Qualification…………………………….. Responsibility……………………
I. General information on land holding and land degradation problems 1. What could be the major causes of land degradation in the woreda? ______2. Do you think that land fragmentation contribute to land degradation? Yes ____ No____
II. General information on land certification and land degradation 1. Do you think that land use certificates contribute towards attaining proper land resource management? Yes______No______2. How many households received land use certificates and how many of them did not receive?Received______Do not receive ______3. How many household received Primary Book of Holdings (limited field identification) and Secondary Book of Holding (more accurate delineation and recording of property boundaries using modern cadastral methods)? Primary ______Secondary______4. Is there any difference in land use security level between the two books of holdings? Why? Yes ______No ______Because ______5. What is the cost of receiving land certificates (time, money)? Easy ______Medium ______Tiresome ______Cheap ______Medium ______Costly ______6. What will happen to farmers that do not take land holding certificates?
71
______7. How do you explain farmers’ attention towards land holding certificates? ______8. Can farmers rent out their land after having certificates? What is the procedure? Is a government institution involved in this process? ______9. How the land is valued and how monitoring of the quality of the land is done after land certification? Location from the house ______Productivity level ______Parcel size ______Other______10. What is the impact of land certification on long-term investments as compared to the time they did not have certificates (putting soil conservation structures [terracing on farm lands, terracing on pasture lands, fodder tree planting on pasture, fencing of farm lands, planting perennial trees, etc) ______11. Who was more benefited from land certification (the riches or the marginalized poor, women and children)? a. The riches b. The poor c. The men d. The women e. Children f. All are equally benefited 12. Do farmers think that land use certification is synonymous with land ownership rights? Why? ______13. Do farmers have a sense of fear that their land could be dispossessed after certification? Why? Yes ______No______Not known ______14. Do lands use certificates reduced free grazing systems? Why? Yes ______No ______Because ______15. What is the perception of farmers about land redistribution and land certification? Do farmers believe that the certification will guarantee them against future land redistribution? ______16. Which kind of lands could be redistributed? i. Communal lands a. Yes b. No ii. Private owned lands a. Yes b. No
72
iii. Private irrigated lands a. Yes b. No iv. Other (specify)______17. What is the role of the woreda office of agriculture and rural development, woreda administration and woreda Environmental Protection Land Administration and Use office in the processes of land certification? ______18. Are there incentives for farmers who respect the modalities presented in the certificate? a. Yes b. No Incentive types and number of farmers who received it were: ______19. Does the land certificate give the farmer the right to use the land for any purpose the farmer wants or is there any restriction? Yes ______No ______20. Do farmers have the right to sale the soil or excavate construction materials for sale? Yes ______No ______If yes what is required to do? ______
III. Gender, land certification and land resource management 1) How many of the households that have land use certificates are led by men and women? a. Men b. Women 2) What is the status of women’s land rights in the current land use systems? Who receives land certificates in a coupled family? a. Men b. Women c. Joint title provision 3) Who will have the right to use the land if couples divorce? a. Men b. Women c. Both will share 4) How is the right of women protected by the law? ______5) How is the right of disabled and elderly people protected by the law? ______6)What have the government and civil society done to improve the land use rights of women? What have been the successes? ______7)Can you suggest other solutions that can be done to improve the land use rights of women other than land certification? ______8) How orphaned children are treated in land use certifications? ______
73
IV. Land use systems, land certification and land resource management 1) Which land use systems are vulnerable for land degradation? (Hint: forests, wood lots, farmlands, grazing lands, residential/other buildings, etc…) Why? ______2)Which land use systems have not land certification? Why? ______3)How marginal lands like mountains, riverbanks, communal forests, wetlands are protected with out land certifications? ______4)Why do think that farmers cut trees that they did not plant? ______5)Would you like to comment on the effects of certification of different land use systems on and land resource management? ______
V. Farming systems, land certification and land resource management 1)Do you think that certification of grazing lands could reduce land degradation? ______2)Would you like to comment on the effects of certification of different farming systems on and land resource management? ______Do you want to give general comments on the questionnaire? ______
THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO FILL IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE!!
74
List of Publications
Reports:
1 A. Synnevåg, G., Halassy, S. 1998: “Etude des indicateurs de la sécurité alimentaire dans deux sites de la zone d’intervention de l’AEN-Mali: Bambara Maodé et Ndaki (Gourma Malien)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 1 B. Synnevåg, G. and Halassy, S. 1998: “Food Security Indicators in Two Sites of Norwegian Church Aid’s Intervention Zone in Mali: Bambara Maoudé and N’Daki (Malian Gourma)”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 2 A. Aune, J.B. and Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM), Case studies of two projects in Mali: CARE Macina programme and PIDEB”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 2 B. Aune, J.B. et Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV), Etude de Cas de deux projets au Mali: Programme de CARE Macina et PIDEB”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 3 A. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. and Hassan, M. 1999: “Synthesis report and Four Case Studies on Gender Issues and Development of an Improved Focus on Women in Natural Resource Management and Agricultural Projects”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 3 B. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. et Hassan, M. 1999. “Rapport de synthèse et quatre études de cas sur Les Questions de Genre et Développement d’une Approche Améliorée concernant les Femmes et les Projets d’Agriculture et de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 4 A. Sydness, M., Ba, B. 1999: “Processus de décentralisation, développement institutionnel et réorganisation des ONG financées par la Norvège au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 4 B. Sydness, M. and Ba, B. 1999: “Decentralization Process, Institution Development and Phasing out of the Norwegian Involvement in Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 5. Waktola, A. and Michael, D.G. 1999: “Institutional Development and Phasing Out of the Norwegian Involvement, the Case of Awash Conservation and Development Project, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 6. Waktola, A. 1999: “Exploratory Study of Two Regions in Ethiopia: Identification of Target Areas and partners for Intervention”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
75
7. Mossige, A. 2000: “Workshop on Gender and Rural Development – Training Manual”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 8. Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 2000: ”Sécurité Semencière: Etude de la gestion et de l’approvisionnement en semences dans deux villages du cercle de Ké-Macina au Mali: Kélle et Tangana”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 9. Abesha, D., Waktola, A, Aune, J.B. 2000: ”Agricutural Extension in the Drylands of Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 10. Sydness, M., Doumbia, S. et Diakité K. 2000: ”Atelier sur la décentralisation au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 11. N’Dior, P. A. et Traoré, N. 2000: ”Etude sur les programmes d’épargne et de crédit au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 12. Lode, K. and G. Kassa. 2001: ”Proceedings from a Workshop on Conflict Resolution Organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG), November 8-10, 2000 Nazareth, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 13. Shiferaw, B. and A. Wolday, 2001: “Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Micro-Finance Industry in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 14 A. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Integrated Plant Nutrition Management (IPNM): Practical Testing of Technologies with Farmers Groups”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 14 B. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 15. Larsen, K. and M. Hassan, 2001: “Perceptions of Knowledge and Coping Strategies in Nomadic Communities – The case of the Hawawir in Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 16 A. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “Participation of Civil Society in the national Action Programs of the United Nation’s Convention to Combat Desertification: Synthesis of an Assessment in Ethiopia and Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 16 B. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “La Participation de la Société Civile aux Programme d’Actions Nationaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la Désertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 17. Kebebew, F., D. Tsegaye and G. Synnevåg., 2001: “Traditional Coping Strategies of the Afar and Borana Pastoralists in Response to Drought”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 18. Shanmugaratnam, N., D. Mamer and M. R. Kenyi, 2002: “From Emergency Relief to Local Development and Civil Society Building: Experiences from the Norwegian Peoples’ Aid’s Interventions in Southern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 19. Mitiku, H. and S. N. Merga, 2002. “Workshop on the Experience of Water Harvesting in the Drylands of Ethiopia: Principles and practices”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 20. Tesfai, M., V. Dawod and K. Abreha, 2002. “Management of Salt-affected Soils in the NCEW ‘Shemshemia’ Irrigation Scheme in the Upper Gash Valley of Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
76
21. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2002: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans- Rapport de la Campagne 2001”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 22. Haidara, Y., Dembele, M. et Bacha, A. “Formation sur la lutte contre la désertification atelier organisé par groupe de coordination des zones arides (GCoZA) du 07 au 10 octobre 2002 à Gossi (Mali)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
23. Aune, J. B. 2003. “Desertification control, rural development and reduced CO2 emissions through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol - an impasse or a way forward?” Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 24. Larsen, K. and Hassan, M. 2003. “Sedentarisation of Nomadic People: The Case of the Hawawir in Um Jawasir, Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 25. Cissé, I. et Keita, M.S. 2003. “Etude d’impacts socio-économique et environnemental des plaines aménagées pour riziculture au Mali.” Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 26. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. “Indicators to Promote Civil Society’s (NGOs and CBOs) Participation in the implementation of Ethiopia’s National and Regional Action Programs of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. A guideline Document”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 26B. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir la participation de la société civile (ONG et OCB) à la mise en oeuvre en Ethiopie des Programmes d’action national et régionaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”. Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 27. Assefa, F., Dawd, M. and Abesha, A. D. 2003. “Implementation Aspects of Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Policy and Extension Gap in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 28. Haile, A., Selassie, D.G., Zereyacob, B. and Abraham, B. 2003, “On-Farm Storage Studies in Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 29. Doumbia, M.D., Berthé, A., Aune, J.B. 2003, “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques et Vulgarisation de Technologies”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 30. Mossige, A. and M. Macina 2004, “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir et suivre la participation de la Société Civile (ONG et OCB) dans la mise en œuvre des Programmes d’Action National, Régional et Communal de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 31. Tesfay, Y. and Tafere, K. 2004. “Indigenous Rangeland resources and Conflict Management by the North Afar Pastoral Groups in Ethiopia. A Pastoral Forum Organized by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, June 27-28, 2003, Mekelle, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 32. Kebede, D. and Retta, S. 2004. “Gender, HIV/AIDS and Food Security, Linkage and Integration into Development Interventions”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 33. Kidane, A., Araia, W., Ghebremichael, Z, and Gobezay, G. 2004. “Survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in relation to striga management and control of sorghum (Sorghum bicholor) in the Goluge sub zone: Lessons to be learned and creating awareness”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
77
34. Kibreab, G., Berhane, T., and Ghezae, E. 2004. “A Study to Determine the Extent and Use of Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Development Projects – A Case Study from Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 35. Meehan, F. 2004. “Female Headed Household in Tigray, Ethiopia. A Study Review”. Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway. 36. Doumbia, M. Berthe, A., Aune, J. B. 2005. “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Mali. Summary Report 1998-2004”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 37. Kaya, B., Traoré, C. O., Aune, J.B. 2005. “Etude d’identification des prototypes d’EcoFermes au Mali. Rapport diagnostic et plan d’action pour 2005“. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides, Maison de l’Environnement G9, Norvège. 38. Nedessa, B., Ali, J., Nyborg, I. 2005. ”Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management. A Case Study from Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 39. Makenzi, P. 2005. “Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills. A Baseline Study from Budy County, South Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 40. Ogbazghi, W., Bein, E. 2006. “Assessment of Non-Wood Forest Products and their Role in the Livelihoods of Rural Communities in the Gash-Barka Region, Eritrea”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 41. Kouyaté, S., Haidara, C. M. 2006. “Etude sur la Problématique des Périmètres Irrigués Villageois au Nord du Mali”. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides, Miljøhuset G9, Norvège. 42. Haile, A. 2006. “On-Farm Storage of Chickpea, Sorghum, and Wheat in Eritrea”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 43. Ask, V. 2006. “UNCCD and Food Security for Pastoralists within a Human Rights Context”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 43B. Ask, V. 2006. « La CCD et la Sécurité Alimentaire des Pasteurs Dans le Contexte des Droits de l’Homme ». Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway 44. Desta, M., Haddis, G., Ataklt, S. 2006. “Female-Headed Households and Livelihood Intervention in Four Selected Weredas in Tigray, Ethiopia.”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 45. Araia, W, Haile, A. 2006. “Baseline study on crop husbandry, in-situ conservation and informal seed supply system in Eritrea”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 46. Emana, B., Gebremedhin, H. 2007. “Constraints and Opportunities of Horticulture Production and Marketing in Eastern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 47. Malifu, E., Tefera, H., and Mekiso, M. 2007. “Evaluation Report on Training of Trainers on UNCCD/NAP”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 48. Assefa, D., Belay, M., Tsegay, D., and Haile, M. 2007. “Transplanting Sorghum as a Means of Ensuring Food Security in Low Rainfall Sorghum Growing Areas of Northern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 49. Tsegaye, D., Balehegn, M, Gebrehiwot, K.,.Haile, M., Samuel, G.,Tilahun, M., and Aynekulu, E. 2007. “The Role of Dobera glabra for Household Food Security at Times of Food Shortage in Aba`ala Wereda, North Afar: Ecological Adaptation and Socio-economic Value. A Study from Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 50. Teklehaimanot, G. and Haile, M. 2007. “Women in Backyards: Root Crop Production and Biodiversity Management in Backyards”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.
78
51. Bengtsson, Frida. 2007. “Review of Information Available on Seed Security and Seed Aid Interventions in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali and Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 52. Tesfay, Haile. 2007. “Assessment of Institutional Setup and Effect of Household Level Water Harvesting in Ensuring Sustainable Livelihood. A Case study of Kobo, Almata and Kilte Awlaelo Woredas in Amhara and Tigray Regions of Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 53. Elias, E. 2008. “Pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia: Dispossession, Access to Resources and Dialogue with Policy Makers”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 54. Meles, K., Nigussie, G., Belay, T., and Manjur K. 2009. “Seed System Impact on Farmers’ Income and Crop Biodiversity in the Drylands of Southern Tigray”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 55. Mengistu, E., Regassa, N and Yusufe, A., 2009. “The Levels, Determinants and Coping Mechanisms of Food Insecure Households in Southern Ethiopia: A Case study of Sidama, Wolaita and Guraghe Zones” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 56. Emana, B., Gebremedhin, H., and Regassa, N., 2010. “Impacts of Improved Seeds and Agrochemicals on Food Security and Environment in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia: Implications for the Application of an African Green Revolution”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 57. Traoré, C.O., Aune, J. B., and Sidibé, M. M., 2010. “Rapport Final du Projet Ecoferme au Mali. Synthèse des quatre années 2005-2008”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 58. Megersa, B., 2010. “An epidemiological study of major camel diseases in the Borana lowland, Southern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 59. Bayu, W., Bayissa, M., Manjur, K., Yeshanew, A., Agdo, E., Sime, G., Tolera, A., Belay, T., Meles, K., Aune, J. B., Ayele, A. A., 2010. “Results of Ecofarm Action Research Activities in Three Project Areas in Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 60. Coulibaly, A., Aune, J. B., Sissoko, P., 2010 “Etablissement des cultures vivrières dans les zones sahélienne et soudano sahélienne du Mali”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 61. Tesfay, G. 2011. “On farm water harvesting for rainfed agriculture development and food security in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: investigation of technical and socioeconomic issues”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 62. El-Hag, M. A. F., Osman, A. K., El-Jack, F.H., Wagiyalla, N. A., Mekki, M. A., and Khatir, A. A., 2011. “Changes and threats facing nomads under drylands – the case of the Shanabla tribe in Western Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 63. El-Dukheri, I., Oyiki, C. O., El Wakeel, A., S., Meseka, S., K. 2008. “Review of the Food Security and Natural Resource Situation in Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 64. Kebede D. and Adane H. 2011. “Climate change adaptations and induced farming livelihoods”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 65. Regassa, N. and Taye M. 2011. “Impact of Resettlement on the Livelihood, Food Security and Natural Resource Utilization in Ethiopia.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 66. Gebreyohannes, G. and Hailemariam, G. 2011. “Challenges, Opportunities and Available Good Practices Related to Zero-Grazing in Tigray and Hararghe, Ethiopia.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 67. Osman, F. M., and Abdel Kariem A. 2011. “Livelihood Assessment of the Dryland Community, Um Jawasir - Sudan.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 79
68. Haji, J., Gelaw, F., Bekele, W. and Tesfay G. 2011. “The ‘Black-Box’ of Ethiopian Agricultural Produce Price Formation and its Determinants within the Current Liberalized Market Policy.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 69. Hameed, A. A. K., Alebaid, S. A., El Hassan, H. M., Abdella, S. I. and Musa, F. S. 2011. “Review of literature on drought in Sudan.” Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 70. Relief Society of Tigray, Research and Policy Unit. 2012. “Can Provision of Household Agricultural Extension Packages Reduce Rural Food Insecurity and Poverty in Tigray?” Drylands Coordinaton Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 71. Osman, K.A., Elhag, F.M., Mekki, A., Abdalla, Elgailani A. and Aune, J.B. 2012. “Ecofarm Research Project – Kordofan Region – Sudan” Drylands Coordinaton Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 72. Coulibaly, M., Doumbia, M. D., Fassikoye, F. B., Diarra, D., Traore, K. M. et Reij, C. P. 2012. “Le captage des eaux de pluie”. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides, Miljøhuset G9, Norvège. 73. Nigatu, R., Mengistu, E. and Yusufe, A. 2013. “Situational analysis of indigenous social institutions and their role in rural livelihoods: The case of selected food insecure lowland areas in Southern Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 74. Chala, A., Abate, B., Taye, M., Mohammed, A., Alemu, T. and Skinnes, H. 2014 “Opportunities and constraints of groundnut production in selected drylands of Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway. 75. Adgo, E., Selassie, Y.G., Tsegaye, A., Abate, S. and Ayele, A.A. 2013. “Impact of Land Certification on Sustainable Land Resources Management in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.
Proceedings: 1. Drylands Coordination Group. 2000. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Ethiopia-Sudan. Proceedings from a Seminar organised by the Drylands Coordination Group in Nazareth, Ethiopia, April 10-12, 2000. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 2. Drylands Coordination Group. 2001. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Eritrea. Proceedings from a Seminar Hosted by the National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW) in Asmara, Eritrea, March 26th-28th, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 3. Amha, W. 2001. Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Microfinance Industry in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Seminar Organised by the Relief Society of Tigray (REST), on behalf of the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia and Sudan, In Mekelle, August 25, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 4. Mossige, A. and Berkele, Y. 2001. Civil Society’s Participation in the National Action Program to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Workshop organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, Debre Zeit, September 13-14, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 5. Maiga, S. et Mossige, A. 2001. Participation de la Société Civile dans la Mise en Oeuvre Programme d’action pour la Convention Sur la Désertification (CCD) au Mali. L’atelier Organise par le Groupe Coordination sur les Zones Arides (GCOZA) Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 5 et 6 novembre 2001. GCOZA/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 6. Drylands Coordination Group. 2002. Do conventions need civil society? A critical review of the role of civil society in the implementation of international conventions. Proceeding from a Seminar Arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group and Forum for Development and Environment (ForUM) in Oslo, January 15th, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
80
7. Berkele, Y. 2002. Workshop on training of trainers in UNCCD/NAP implementation in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a workshop arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia, Nazareth, June 10-15, 2002, DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 8. Drylands Coordination Group. 2002. Sustainable livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists in Eritrea. Proceedings from a workshop organised by DCG Eritrea in National Confederation of Eritrean Workers Conference Hall, Asmara, November 28 –29, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University Of Norway, Ås. 9. Drylands Coordination Group. 2003. DCG networking seminar 2002, 15th-22nd November 2002, Khartoum, Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 10. Soumana, D. 2003. Atelier d’information, d’échange et de réflexion sur l’élargissement du Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA) au Mali, Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 18 et 19 février 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 11. Ati, H. A.and Nimir A. A. H. 2004. Training Course On The Role Of Local Institutions In Regulating Resource Use and Conflict Management, Um Jawaseer, June 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 12. Berkele, Y. and Ayalew, B. 2004. Training of Trainers in Implementation of UNCCD/NAP in Ethiopia. Third Round, 10-14 Nov. 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 13. Macina, M. 2004. Atelier National et Campagne d’Information et de Sensibilisation sur la CCD. Un Atelier organisé par la Coordination des Associations et ONG Féminines au Mali (CAFO) en partenariat avec le Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA). Les 29-30 novembre 2004 à Bamako, Mali. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 14. Musnad, H.A. and Nasr N. K. 2004. Experience Sharing Tour and Workshop on Shelterbelts and Fuel Wood Substitutes in Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås. 15. Gakou, M. 2005. Atelier d’information et de formation des ONG membres de GCoZA sur le montage des projets/ synergie entre les conventions de la génération de Rio et de la convention de Ramsar. Le 28 décembre 2004, à Bamako, Mali. GCoZA, Oslo. 16. Berkele, Y., Mossige, Anne. 2005. Awareness Promotion and Experience Sharing on the Implementation of UNCCD-NAP to Enhance Pastoralist Areas Development. Workshop organized by the Drylands Coordination Group Ethiopia for the Pastoral Affairs Standing Committee and the Natural Resource Development and Environmental Protection Standing Committee, Members of Parliament - Ethiopia. December 17-19, 2004 in Nazareth, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 17. Esheteu Bekele, E., Azerefegne, F., and Abate, T. 2006. Facilitating the Implementation and Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Ethiopia. Planning Workshop, 13-15 October 2003, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, EARO. Jointly organized by the Association for Advancement of IPM (ASAI) and the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO). DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 18. Kodio, A. 2006. Atelier de Formation des Membres du GCoZA Mali à l’Approche Epargne Crédit Musow ka Jigiya Ton (MJT) au Mali. Atelier organisé par CARE Mali et le GCoZA Mali du 1er au 5 août 2005 au Centre Gabriel Cissé de Ségou au Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 19. Belal, A. A. and Hussein, F. S. 2006. Awareness Raising Workshop on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Workshop organized by DCG Sudan for the Parliamentarians and other Stakeholders. December 28th and 29th 2005 in the Green Hall of Sudan’s Parliament, Omdurman, Sudan. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 20. Dembelé, T., Berthé, A. et Yattara, M. 2006. Atelier de formation en matière du Guide Programme Communal d’Action Environnementale (PCAE) et des techniques Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV). Atelier Organisé par GCOZA Mali et le Consortium Synergie – AMAPROS ACD pour les membres de GCOZA et des trois communes (Saloba, Souley et Sana). Du 20 au 22 juin 2005 à la Maison du Partenariat à Bamako, Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 81
20B. Yattara, M. 2006. PCAE ani GINV baarakqfqqrqw dùnniyaw dqmqnan lajqkalan kùnùkow sqnsqnnen. Lajqkalan sigilen sen kan GCOZA Mali ani xùgùndqmqjqkulu AMAPROS ACD fq, ka xqsin GCOZA tùndenw ni Saloba, Suleyi ani Sana komini saba kùnùmùgùw ma. K’a ta san 2005 zuwqnkalo tile 20 ma, ka se a tile 22 ma Mali la, xùgùndqmqjqkuluw ka soba la Bamakù. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 21. Touré, B. 2007. Atelier de Renforcement des Capacités des Organisations de GCoZA Mali sur les Mécanismes de Financement des Projets et Programmes pour la Mise en Oeuvre de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la Lutte contre la Désertification (CCD). Atelier Organisé par la Coordination des Associations et ONG Féminines du Mali (CAFO) et GCoZA Mali pour les membres de GCoZA Mali. Du 11 au 13 septembre 2006 au Mémorial Modibo Keita à Bamako, Mali. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 22. Negassi, A. and Beyene, Y. 2007. Bridging the Gap Between Research, Extension and the Farmer in Eritrea. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 23. Anage, A. and Lulu, M. 2007. Awareness Raising Workshop on UNCCD/NAP and Experience Sharing Sessions on Drylands Development Issues in Ethiopia. Workshop organized for the Pastoral and Natural Resources and Environment Affairs Standing Committees of the Parliament of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. December 8th -10th 2006, Adama Mekonen Hotel, Nazareth, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 24. Sterling, L., Nagoda, S., Tveteraas, A. 2008. Moving from emergency seed aid to seed security - linking relief with development. Workshop organized by the Drylands Coordination Group Norway and Caritas Norway, in collaboration with Norad and The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Oslo May 14th 2008. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo. 25. Anage, A. 2009. Capacity Building for Regional Council Members, Sector Offices & Academic Institutions & CSOs of Oromya, Gambella and Benshangul-Gumuz National Regional States on UNCCD/NAP in Ethiopia. Workshop organized by EACD and the Drylands Coordination Group Ethiopia. July 3rd and 4th 2008 at Nekemte Municipality Hall, Wollega Zone, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset. Oslo.
82
Drylands Coordination Group Addresses in Norway:
Secretariat of the Drylands Coordination Group Mariboes gt. 8, 0183 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 23 10 94 90 E-mail: [email protected]
ADRA Norge Postboks 124, 3529 Røyse, Norway Tel.: +47 32 16 16 90, Fax: +47 32 16 16 71 E-mail: [email protected]
CARE Norge Universitetsgt. 12, 0164 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 22 20 39 30, Fax: +47 22 20 39 36 E-mail: [email protected]
Development Fund Mariboes gt. 8, 0183 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 23 10 96 00, Fax: +47 23 10 96 01 E-mail: [email protected]
Norwegian Church Aid Postboks 7100, St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway Tel: + 47 22 09 27 00, Fax: + 47 22 09 27 20 E-mail: [email protected]
Norwegian People’s Aid P.O. Box 8844 Youngstorget, 0028 Oslo, Norway Tel: + 47 22 03 77 00, Fax: + 47 22 17 70 82 E-mail: [email protected]
Noragric, Department for International Environment and Development Studies University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway Tel: +47 64 94 99 50, Fax: +47 64 94 07 60 E-mail: [email protected]
83