Forum for Social Studies (FSS)        A New Initiative in Ethiopia  

sent July 26, 2005

Subject  Breaking the Land Policy Impasse

Land issue had been the most contested theme in the scholastic landscape of Ethiopian forums. Loads of studies have discussed and argued the multi-faceted ramifications of land security issue vis-à-vis agricultural productivity, environmental care, investment, etc. Almost all land issue-based studies had customarily embedded tenure-spiced recommendations as a panacea for the age-old predicaments. However, such unrelenting wits and guts had never brought the intended effect. Under such circumstances, trailing on the same track would simply replicate the legendary fairy-tale of Don Quixote, where chain of efforts culminate in crumple.

The hard but bitter fact at hand is that land belongs to state and public ownership (The Ethiopian Constitution, Article 40:3), with its own provisions and precincts. At such juncture, there are only two options to bifurcate: (1) to keep on criticizing the reigning land policy so as to enforce a change of policy direction from ruling party, or (2) to seek out alternative approaches within the existing policy framework.

The first approach could cede little fruit as EPRDF hold firm stand on the issue. Attempt to bring about a change on the governments position would be a “sterile argument” as it is a “dead issue”. The second option lodges a modest room for researchers to come up with alternative measures through harnessing new perspectives and innovations. Aren’t there other factors which could be tackled to bring about significant change in agricultural productivity and land management?

Challenges of stalemate are ubiquitous and it has always been a litmus paper for scholars towards their competence. Historical account witnessed that, it is in response to even more intricacies that instigated scholars to great breakthroughs. This implies that the existing standoff could be a blessing in disguise where we can diversify our alternatives and opportunities in the land issue.

My conclusion is that while contesting the land policy, researchers have to go extra mile from the existing land tenure impasse and look for acceptable approach for betterment of land for growth and development. Otherwise, to be fossilized in the primordial argument will take us nowhere.

Breaking the Land Policy Impasse Daniel

Land and the challenge of feeding the Ethiopian people Siegfried  Pausewang

Disowning the idea of privatizing land ownership Bulcha Demeksa

My personal reflections Abu Moges

Yes, we can talk Belay

Let’s focus on the central issue Bulcha Demeksa

Yes, we can talk Mulat

Can We Talk2 :  To Mulat Serkaddis Motbaynor

Can We Talk: To Contributors Serkaddis Motbaynor

Weha Mewket Endayhon Mulat Demeke

Contribution from Indian Rob

Rural Land Policy and Administration in Ethiopia: Recent Patterns and Problems Belay

Balageru Part Two Serkaddis Motbaynor

Balageru  Serkaddis Motbaynor

PRIVATIZE OR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND ? TD

Commentary on Development TD

Suggestions  Sisay Assefa

From Siegfried  Pausewang

Sent      Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:24 pm

Subject  Land and the challenge of feeding the Ethiopian people

Dear readers of the online debate,

I am glad to see a serious debate going on about the question of land and the challenge of development.  But it seems to me some important arguments are missing.  Let me try to summarise a few of them:

1.   It is said that Ethiopian peasants can not even feed themselves under the present system: In average about one third of their food requirements comes from food aid. 

But why is this so?  If food were left to be consumed where it is produced, most peasants could still feed themselves from their own produce. That would allow us to use relief food to supply the cities instead of distributing food to the most remote places at enormous transport costs.  There would be much less problems of supplying the necessary amounts of nutrition.

The problem for the peasants is obviously not lack of production, but excessive taxation and the burden of contributions for different purposes.  Traders are quick to buy up food just after harvest.  And peasants are forced to sell.  Peasants are no fools, they know how much they need to survive with their families.  But they are in debt before harvest, and need to pay after harvest or face a doubling of interest.  And the state, with its fertiliser programme and other schemes, is keeping them in debt. 

Breaking the Land Policy Impasse Daniel

Land and the challenge of feeding the Ethiopian people Siegfried  Pausewang

Disowning the idea of privatizing land ownership Bulcha Demeksa

My personal reflections Abu Moges

Yes, we can talk Belay

Let’s focus on the central issue Bulcha Demeksa

Yes, we can talk Mulat

Can We Talk2 :  To Mulat Serkaddis Motbaynor

Can We Talk: To Contributors Serkaddis Motbaynor

Weha Mewket Endayhon Mulat Demeke

Contribution from Indian Rob

Rural Land Policy and Administration in Ethiopia: Recent Patterns and Problems Belay

Balageru Part Two Serkaddis Motbaynor

Balageru  Serkaddis Motbaynor

PRIVATIZE OR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND ? TD

Commentary on Development TD

Suggestions  Sisay Assefa

2.  It is said that land has to be used most efficiently, to produce as much food as possible to feed the people.  I agree.  However, "efficiency" depends on the aim. If the aim is to produce most possible food for your people out of a limited land resource, then small family farms have proven all over the world to be the best and most efficient solution.  This is because family farms make optimal use of their labour, and know what to do to get more harvest.  They use much labour and little money input, so whatever they harvest, is theirs – to eat or to sell. Some money is needed in every household, for education, for clothes, for tools, for paying health costs and so on.  But food they can produce themselves.  If they only are allowed to keep it for themselves.

Buit if you want most possible money return for your investment, then mechanised farming is - at least in Europe, where labour is expensive - the most efficient production.  However, this demands investments in machinery, which has to be imported.  So your production has to earn foreign exchange to pay for it.  And that is expensive in Ethiopia.  You may end up producing carnations for the market in Frankfurt or London, instead of teff for your own people. 

Only if you could buy on the international market more food than you can produce on your land instead, would such a production be "efficient".  But with Ethiopian prices of imported machinery, compared to labour costs, it will take a long time before that stage is reached.

3. It is also said that Ethiopian agriculture is so terribly backward - they still use ox ploughs, they do not use modern technology - how can they produce efficiently?  But I conclude from the above that given the lack of alternatives for Ethiopian peasants, a form of agriculture that makes most efficient use of the available land and labour is best adapted to their conditions.  They have no other job opportunities.  If they do not engage in farming activities, they have just no work and nothing to live on.  So it is better to use their marginal labour input in producing food, than to produce food with machines and leave them jobless.  

4.  Ethiopia has a population growth close to 3 percent.  That means a doubling of population within a generation.  An 80 to 85 percent of these people are in the rural areas and have no other possibilities of work than agriculture.  How could they be given jobs or relief food if they did not get some land to feed themselves?  That makes the plots smaller over time, as land does not grow with the population.  But as long as the country's economy does not develop alternative job opportunities for the majority, there is no other alternative but agriculture for them.  And to create enough jobs to absorb the growth even, is at present far from any of the most optimistic forecasts. The problem lies precisely here:  alternative employment has to come before "modern" agriculture. Job creation presupposes education and health.  So investment would have to go to these sectors, to create the preconditions for alternative jobs.

5.  The talk of efficiency and of feeding the people is just misguided if it does not clearly state what the aims are, and how you want to reach them. To expect a solution from a less "backward" form of agriculture is just empty talk.

By the way, these "inefficient" and "backward" forms of agriculture become more modern and progressive again, slowly but steadily, even in Europe.  More and more people realise that fertilisers and pesticides entail a health risk.  Ecological farming is becoming the new growth area in European agriculture.  That means farming with less use of chemical inputs, less energy use, less machinery and more biological plant protection and disease control produces more valuable crops and more value added.. 

If there is anything Ethiopian farmers know best, it is this modern form of agriculture.    

Would you take up my remarks in your discussion forum?  I wish you a fruitful continuation of the debate.

From Bulcha Demeksa

Sent       Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:08 pm

Subject  Disowning the idea of privatizing land ownership 

The Issue of Land 

“Land to the tillers” became the battle cry of the 1974 Revolution.  It was a revolution in most part against the landlords.  Landlords, or balemeret (in Amharic), was the most hated social class.  Land owning became “evil” in absolute terms, without ifs or buts.  Owning land, regardless of the size or location, was loathed.  I know because I was a landlord.  I had only 40 hectares or a gasha and I was, naturally, an absentee landlord as I was living in Finfinee.  I was lucky to be living in Finfinee because otherwise, I would have been lynched like most landlords.  In other words, land-owning was not liked.  A landlord was like a government official and no one ever liked a government official when I was growing up. 

Breaking the Land Policy Impasse Daniel

Land and the challenge of feeding the Ethiopian people Siegfried  Pausewang

Disowning the idea of privatizing land ownership Bulcha Demeksa

My personal reflections Abu Moges

Yes, we can talk Belay

Let’s focus on the central issue Bulcha Demeksa

Yes, we can talk Mulat

Can We Talk2 :  To Mulat Serkaddis Motbaynor

Can We Talk: To Contributors Serkaddis Motbaynor

Weha Mewket Endayhon Mulat Demeke

Contribution from Indian Rob

Rural Land Policy and Administration in Ethiopia: Recent Patterns and Problems Belay

Balageru Part Two Serkaddis Motbaynor

Balageru  Serkaddis Motbaynor

PRIVATIZE OR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND ? TD

Commentary on Development TD

Suggestions  Sisay Assefa

During the last week of April this year, I was campaigning in Western Wellega and I almost lost the election when OPDO continuously attacked me as an old landlord who wanted to restore landlordism.  It took three weeks to reverse the trend.  Actually, I was never a landlord in the true sense of the word, but the peasants did not like anybody   associated with land owning.   I had to say that, according to the old Oromo Geda system, there was no private ownership.  Land was owned by the community and could never be sold.  This was also the system in part of Wollo, Gojjam, Gondar, Tigray and Eritrea, prior to the Revolution of 1974.  I thus saved my campaign by totally disowning the idea of privatizing land ownership. I never believed in it in the first place.  

Those who advocate that land should be commercialized (bought an sold), are, perhaps without realizing it, treating land as a commodity that can be replaced, expanded or re-acquired.  Of course, land is an asset that cannot be manufactured, replaced or renewed in the shortrun (and most of us, as human beings, will only live to see the “shortrun”).  Population rapidly increases while land remains the same (I am not a Malthusian as I know that technology can change land and its habitats.) In my opinion, as hyperbolic as it may sound, land is like parts of a body which some people want to commercialize.  However, those who are responsible for public policy, dread when they hear that some scientists want to manufacture babies in order to sell their parts to heal some other people’s ailments.  We should, in a similar manner, dread the idea of commercializing land, no matter what the economic rationale may be. The social cost would be so high that we should not attempt it. It is like settling a group from one ethnic region in another territory inhabited by another nationality.   

Land has become the cause of many conflicts in many parts of the world.   So many want to “grab” land, while so many want to keep out those who want to take their lands. 

If private individuals are allowed to own land, as opposed to possessing land, the temptation to sell it is almost irresistible.  The farmer today wants cash.  So, if he has land or anything that can fetch cash, he would sell it.  You might say: “If he benefits immediately, what does he care about public policy.”  But those of us, who are entrusted with the task of guiding and educating the citizens, should not play with fire by legislating the privatization of land.  It is logical to assume that such a farmer would not have any other choice but move to an urban area and become part of the great urban proletariat .   (This discussion will continue)

From Abu Moges

Sent    Sunday, May 1, 2005 11:55 am

Subject           Land

Dear Colleagues:

It is important to keep the dialogue on land and related development issues alive for these issues evolve more complicated and complex over time. I would like to share with you my personal reflections on the issue of land in Ethiopia.

Land is an important economic resource that provides livelihood, wealth, and subsistence for a significant portion of the Ethiopian population. It is therefore important that any public policy that targets improving the livelihood and productivity of the farmers be based on effective assessment of the land situation in the country and addressing potential opportunities to improve its effective use. The first step in addressing the critical hurdles towards improving the productive capacity and its effect on standards of living is to de-politicize the land issue as much as feasible even if such an influential factor always has political implications.

Breaking the Land Policy Impasse Daniel

Land and the challenge of feeding the Ethiopian people Siegfried  Pausewang

Disowning the idea of privatizing land ownership Bulcha Demeksa

My personal reflections Abu Moges

Yes, we can talk Belay

Let’s focus on the central issue Bulcha Demeksa

Yes, we can talk Mulat

Can We Talk2 :  To Mulat Serkaddis Motbaynor

Can We Talk: To Contributors Serkaddis Motbaynor

Weha Mewket Endayhon Mulat Demeke

Contribution from Indian Rob

Rural Land Policy and Administration in Ethiopia: Recent Patterns and Problems Belay

Balageru Part Two Serkaddis Motbaynor

Balageru  Serkaddis Motbaynor

PRIVATIZE OR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND ? TD

Commentary on Development TD

Suggestions  Sisay Assefa

The forms and institutions of land ownership and the productive use of land in the process of economic development are closely related aspects and failure to achieve coherent policies generates considerable economic costs.

There are two interrelated issues with the discussion of land: ownership and entitlement. When one depolitizes the land issue, the dispute about forms of ownership becomes how to utilize the land in the best and efficient manner possible. The forms of land ownership indeed affects how economic decisions
are made with respect to land use, investment, length and intensity of work.
Land should be owned by those who value it the most and use it efficiently and sustainably. And any land policy reform should be guided by the objective of increasing the incentive for farmers and other users of land to exert their best effort to improve, invest and sustain the productive capacity of the land. The market forces provide important mechanism by which to distribute land to those who value it and express their valuation with payment of resources. The allocation efficiency could be complemented by measures that improve the productive efficiency of the land that opens the opportunity for all able and hardworking citizens. There are valid concerns that the market mechanism might lead to distributional problems and the ownership of land by absentee landowners. However, there are important policy instruments and communal practices available at the disposal of the
government to prevent such unwanted outcomes. In a number of countries, taxation on land transactions as well as local community regulations effectively address such concerns. This could be achieved by institutional arrangements in which the members of the farming or urban dwellers -
citizens- would participate in the forms and mechanisms of using land for the purpose for which they commonly believe is to the best interest of their community.  It is therefore apparent that land could be used and owned by individuals, communities and the public sector depending on situations, localities, and historical traditions and there are several instruments to minimize the side effects of competitive land market solutions.

Security on land is a reflection of broad political and economic factors operating in the society and could not be ensured by a simple certificate that states entitlement on land. This issue goes to the top and core of our laws. The spirit of the constitution should be putting  limits on the actions of the public sector and the protection of private property. This provision and its judicious implementation ensures security in various aspects of citizen's life including on land security. Even if the ramifications are apparent, the underlying forces lie in a broader settings of the political and economic landscape of the country.

Addressing the land issue in Ethiopia is timely and it takes a transition period before a workable situation emerges. Time alone could not solve the current problem by itself. If anything, the longer this issue remains in the limbo the worse it gets. Given the demographic trends and the increasing demand for land, the land issue must be addressed as a priority. In this respect, it is important to establish the reference with respect to which further measures could be contemplated.

There are serious policy and implementation issues that remain to be addressed even if the country become convinced for land reforms. Despite its limitations and distortions in implementation, the 1975 land proclamation managed to redistribute land in the country along more egalitarian lines.
However, from that period on the demographic changes and the lack of structural transformation in the national economy has made the reference period too unpractical a solution. We have to be ready for a solution radical enough to shake the accumulated distortions and yet leave room for new mechanisms to take over the responsibility of opening opportunities for farmers as well as allow market forces to play a meaningful role. For such a setting to emerge, it might be time to consider bold measures of land
redistribution policy, subject to local adjustments and feasibilities, and then move towards a system of land ownership that accommodates private, public and communal forms of ownership and security.

Once such a fundamental issue is addressed, the economic policy of the country should continue to support the opportunities to improve the productivity of labor in the sector and achieve such objectives with the complementary role by the industrial sector. A sector as dominant and low productive as Agriculture in the national economy of Ethiopia poses both challenges and opportunities to bring about drastic improvements on the livelihood of almost all Ethiopians. Reforms should be targeted to improve
the quantity, dexterity and effectiveness of labor force utilization in the agricultural sector so that it could increase the average productivity, sustain productive participation of the masses, improve their nutritional situation, and improve the capacity of the sector to generate investment resources for itself and for the rest of the economy.

I should conclude my statement on such a rather broad topic by encouraging all concerned individuals to reflect on the unrealized potentials in the agricultural sector and small scale industries and crafts to save us all from our collective humiliation in the community of nations.

From  Belay

Sent   Friday, April 15, 2005 1:13 pm

Subject  Yes Serkaddis, We can talk! 

Thank you very much for your active participation in the debate and raised a lot of issues. I would be brief in giving you my view on your critical question forwarded to me.

Your Q: “…I would be glad for your views on how and who you see bringing about the improvement or change in the constitution article 40 (3) that you recommended.  Is there any political party in the current election process that has promised to make this change or any other changes that you think are required? I personally believe that the only requirement for converting the current land use rights in to ownership rights and improving change the constitution article 40(3) is regime change.” 

Improving constitutional articles:  

Breaking the Land Policy Impasse Daniel

Land and the challenge of feeding the Ethiopian people Siegfried  Pausewang

Disowning the idea of privatizing land ownership Bulcha Demeksa

My personal reflections Abu Moges

Yes, we can talk Belay

Let’s focus on the central issue Bulcha Demeksa

Yes, we can talk Mulat

Can We Talk2 :  To Mulat Serkaddis Motbaynor

Can We Talk: To Contributors Serkaddis Motbaynor

Weha Mewket Endayhon Mulat Demeke

Contribution from Indian Rob

Rural Land Policy and Administration in Ethiopia: Recent Patterns and Problems Belay

Balageru Part Two Serkaddis Motbaynor

Balageru  Serkaddis Motbaynor

PRIVATIZE OR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND ? TD

Commentary on Development TD

Suggestions  Sisay Assefa

Constitutional articles are normally drafted and approved or agreed upon by group of people by capturing major national issues which further will be defined by proclamations, rules and regulations. Since it is man made document there is always a room for improving or changing some of the articles as people are getting better knowledge on different issues and facing problems in doing business. Always there is dynamism in the social system and other ways of life, the same is true for the constitution. The country must have a procedure in place to amend the constitutional articles and then issues that require changes should have to pass through that system. Currently I don’t know what type of system we have in place to amend some articles of the constitution (other might comment on this). I have forwarded my idea simply for any responsible body (party, parties, and current government people) to take action following any sort of procedure set in place or create anew concerning the issues of land ownership rights and its transferability. But amendment of constitutional articles doesn’t always necessarily require a change of a regime. It can be done under the current regime or any given regime if they believe in the issues. If the current regime doesn’t take any action or answer the people question by any means it will become a political problem and political parties will try to flag it as one of their political agenda (as we can see in the current election debate) and get the majority vote. Here comes the power of the people to vote and influence policy changes.

Is that possible to amend those articles under the current regime?

 I doubt because H.E. Ato Meles Z. put it clearly “under EPRDF regime there is no possibility to change their party stand on land “…over my (EPRDF) dead body” was the message passed for all of us. But there might be chances in the future (after the election) for change under another TEHADISSO because not all EPRDF members agree on Ato Meles’ stand point on land. Anyways this is one of the issues that need further debate by political parties, farmers and pastoralist’s representatives (if there are any). 

What shall we do up until then?

“Belt liji yesetutin eyebela yalekissal approach.” I think we don’t disagree on the importance of having development in this country. By any means we have to strive to bring about change in our current poverty status. That is why I said under the current frame work (Current regime and constitution) there are some possibilities that could be exploited for bringing tenure security for the farmers. As I indicated before the current land administration and certification efforts of the regional governments has to be supported positively. It is one step forward to the right direction and also there are rooms of improvement in their rules and regulations. Some of the regions are pilot experimenting different land recording systems, technologies (GPS, index mapping, total stations, computers etc) and issue land holding certificates.

According to Wollo- Gerado farmer’s information about the importance of the current land certificate: 

-         it reduces boundary disputes that takes much of farmers working time and lives

-         can lease or rent out their land for up to 25 years and find off-farm activities to get additional income

-         if the banks accept them they will use their land as a collateral for getting finance ( it is allowed under Amhara region rules and regulations).

-          will think to put manure on their land and start to plant trees. 

It is too early to see impact of the land certificate exercise but these are some of the early advantages of the land certification that the farmers are telling us.  

Thanks

From    Bulcha Demeksa 

Sent     Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:38 am

Subject  Let’s focus on the central issue

I have two short comments at this stage. One is that I thought that you would exchange information informing others of what others say. The other is that I think you are trying to avoid the central issues of today about land. For me, the discussion about land tenure system , who should  own land and manage it,  the  role of government in land owning and management, the issuing of title deeds , the resettlement program , investment in land , large scale  farms .etc.,  are not "stale issues" Wasting time on issues that are only   marginally current and relevant does not interest me.    

Regards,

Breaking the Land Policy Impasse Daniel

Land and the challenge of feeding the Ethiopian people Siegfried  Pausewang

Disowning the idea of privatizing land ownership Bulcha Demeksa

My personal reflections Abu Moges

Yes, we can talk Belay

Let’s focus on the central issue Bulcha Demeksa

Yes, we can talk Mulat

Can We Talk2 :  To Mulat Serkaddis Motbaynor

Can We Talk: To Contributors Serkaddis Motbaynor

Weha Mewket Endayhon Mulat Demeke

Contribution from Indian Rob

Rural Land Policy and Administration in Ethiopia: Recent Patterns and Problems Belay

Balageru Part Two Serkaddis Motbaynor

Balageru  Serkaddis Motbaynor

PRIVATIZE OR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND ? TD

Commentary on Development TD

Suggestions  Sisay Assefa