• No results found

Demand for second-stage land certification in Ethiopia: Evidence from household panel data

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Demand for second-stage land certification in Ethiopia: Evidence from household panel data"

Copied!
13
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Land

Use

Policy

jou rn al h om ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l a n d u s e p o l

Demand

for

second-stage

land

certification

in

Ethiopia:

Evidence

from

household

panel

data

Sosina

Bezu

,

Stein

Holden

SchoolofEconomicsandBusiness,NorwegianUniversityofLifeSciences,P.O.Box5003,1432Ås,Norway

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received15September2013 Receivedinrevisedform17May2014 Accepted28May2014

Keywords:

Landregistrationandcertification Second-stageregistrationandcertification Jointlandcertification

Landadministration Ethiopia

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Ethiopiahasimplementedoneofthelargest,fastestandleastexpensivelandregistrationandcertification

reformsinAfrica.Whilethereisevidencethatthis‘first-stage’landregistrationhashadpositiveeffects

intermsofincreasedinvestment,landproductivityandlandrentalmarketactivities,thegovernment

isnowpilotinganotherroundoflandregistrationandcertificationthatinvolvestechnicallyadvanced

landsurveymethodsandcomputerregistration.This‘second-stage’landregistrationdiffersfromthe

registrationsystememployedinthefirstroundthatusedfieldmarkingsinconjunctionwith

neigh-bors’recollectionstoidentifyplotborders.Weusepaneldatafrom600householdsinsouthernEthiopia

toinvestigatehouseholdperceptionsofanddemandforsuchanewregistrationandcertification.Our

studyrevealedrelativelylowdemandandwillingness-to-pay(WTP)forsecond-stagecertificates.The

WTPalsodecreasessignificantlyfrom2007to2012.Ourfindingsindicatethatfarmersdonotbelieve

thatthesecond-stagecertificateenhancestenuresecurityrelativetothefirst-stagecertificateexcept

ininstancesinwhichfirst-stagecertificationwaspoorlyimplemented.Thedemandforsecond-stage

certificatesappearstocomeprimarilyfromgovernmentalauthorities,asitcanprovideabetterbasisfor

landadministrationandproduceaccessiblepublicdocumentationofland-relatedaffairs.

©2014TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Introduction

Ethiopiahasimplementedoneofthelargest,fastestandleast expensive land registration and certification reforms in Africa (Deiningeretal.,2008).Whilethereissomevariationinhowland registrationandcertificationhasbeenimplementedacross,and evenwithin,regionsinEthiopia,thebroad-scalefirst-stageland registrationandcertificationinvolvedtheregistrationand demar-cationoflandplotsusingsimplelocaltechnologiesthatrequired littletraining.Themainsourcesfordeterminingplotboundaries were field markings, in conjunction with the memoriesof the neighborswhosefarmplotsborderthoseownedbythehouseholds inquestion.Measuringtapesandropeswereusedtomeasurethe farmplots.Whiletheinitialcostofthisregistrationwasextremely low (approximately 1 US$ per farm plotor less), itsimpact in improvingtenuresecurityhasbeensignificant,asevidencedby increasedinvestment,land productivityandland rentalmarket activity(Deiningeretal.,2008,2011;Holdenetal.,2009,2011a; Bezabihetal.,2012).

∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+476478625748.

E-mailaddresses:sosinac@yahoo.com,sosic@umb.no(S.Bezu).

However, the first-stage certification had limitations with respect to the maintenance and updating of land registration records.Ethiopiahas begun pilotingand introducinga second-stagelandregistrationandcertificationinselecteddistrictsinthe highlandregions. Thenewregistration andcertification system involvesregisteringtheprecisegeographicallocationsandsizes of individual farm plots using technologies suchas GPS, satel-liteimageryororthography.Farmersreceiveplot-levelcertificates withmapsrather thana household-levelcertificate. Theaimis thatthesecond-stagelandregistrationandcertificationeffortwill enhancetenuresecurity,themaintenanceandupdatingofrecords, andlandmanagement(MOA,2013b).

Thesecond-stagelandregistrationandcertificationwilllikely besubstantiallymorecostlythanthefirst-stagecertificationand will alsorequiremuch longer tocomplete. Ifthe primary pur-poseofthesecond-stagecertificateistoincreasetenuresecurity forfarmers,itisimportanttoexploretheirperceptionsof, inter-estinandwillingness-to-pay(WTP)forsuchplot-levelcertificates thatincludemaps.Duringthefirst-stagecertification,farmers typ-ically paid a fee toreceive theircertificates.If plannersexpect that partofthecostsof thesecond-stagecertificationwill also berecoupedthroughsuchafee,given thehighbudgetary costs associated withthis project, thefarmers’ WTP should be esti-mated.Weusedatafrom600householdsinOromiaregionand http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.05.013

(2)

SouthernNations,NationalitiesandPeoples(SNNP)regionto inves-tigatehouseholdperceptionsofandWTPforsuchasecond-stage certificate.WeassessedtheWTPinmonetarytermsandusingthe numberoflabor-daysthathouseholdswerewillingtosupplyin exchangeforthesecond-stagelandcertificates.Ourdatacover sub-stantialvariationinagro-ecologicalconditions,marketaccessand urbanexpansion.Thehouseholdpaneldatafrom2007and2012 allowustoassesshowthedemandforsecond-stagecertificates haschangedovertimeinourstudyareas.Thefindingsshouldbe highlyrelevantforthedesignoffuturelandadministrationreforms inEthiopiaandelsewhere,e.g.,toidentifythetypesofareasto tar-getfirstandwhethertherecipientsarewillingtopayalargeshare ofthecostsofthesecond-stagereform.

Theanalysesreveallimitedinterest inthesecond-stage cer-tificate,especiallycomparedtothefirst-stagecertificate.Boththe generalinterestinsecond-stagecertificatesandtheamountsthat interested households are willing to pay for such a certificate declinedfrom2007to2012.Our econometricanalysesindicate thathouseholdsthatparticipatedinpublicmeetingsconcerning thefirst-stageregistrationand certificationand householdsthat experiencedlanddisputesbeforethefirst-stageregistrationare morelikelytoshowinterestinasecond-stagecertificate.However, maleheadedhouseholdsforwhichonlythenameofthehusband appearsonthefirst-stagecertificateandhouseholdsthathad suf-ficientwitnessesforborderdemarcationexhibitlowinterestina newcertificate.Households thathavelargerland holdingshave lowerWTP.

Literaturereview

Landregistrationandlandtitling

Alandtitleisawrittendocumentprovidingproofofownership, andthisownershipisalsorecordedinapubliclyrecognizedcentral landregistry.Modernlandtitlesareassociatedwithhighquality andaccuratemapsandcoordinatesthatcanbeusedtoverifythe exactspatialboundariesofsuchproperty.Upgradingland-titling systemshasbeenagradualprocessinmostcountriesduetothe costlyandtime-consumingnatureofthework.Inmanycountries, thishasbeenademand-basedprocessinwhichthosedemanding thetitlehavehadtopayforthecosts.Suchprocedureshaveoften beenassociatedwithslowbureaucraticprocessesandnumerous stepsthathavecreatedopportunitiesforcorruption,rent-seeking and “elite capture”. They have also createdan unleveled play-ingfieldwherethepoorandlessconnectedhavetypicallybeen marginalized.Manyhavethereforebecomeskepticalof formaliz-inglandrightsthroughlandtitlingindevelopingcountriescontexts suchasinAfrica.Landtitlinghasbeenperceivedasathreatto cus-tomarylandrights(Benjaminsenetal.,2009;Cotulaetal.,2004). Somehavechallenged theveryclaim thatlandregistrationand titlinghavethepotentialtoimproveproductioninpoorcountries, particularlyinAfrica(Atwood,1990;Bromley,2008).Theyargue thatthepremisesonwhichthisclaimisbased,suchasland registra-tionprovidingsmallfarmerswithaccesstocreditorencouraging themtoinvestintheirland,arethemselvesbasedona simplis-ticmodelofrurallandrights(Atwood,1990)andhavenotbeen supportedbystrongempiricalevidence(Bromley,2008).

FederandNishio(1999)reviewedsuccessfullandregistration andtitlingprogramsinAsiaandLatinAmericaandobserved posi-tiveeffectsoninvestment,creditaccess,landproductivityandland value.SucheffectswerefoundinThailand,ThePhilippines(urban areas),Indonesia(urbanareas),Honduras,Paraguay,andPeru.A studyinruralIndia(PenderandKerr,1994)foundnosignificant positiveeffectsoninvestmentorcreditaccess.StudiesonAfrica (Ghana,KenyaandRwanda)(Migot-Adhollaetal.,1991)foundthat

landregistrationhadnosignificantimpactonlandproductivity, landinvestmentorcreditaccess.JacobyandMinten(2007)also foundnosignificanteffectsoflandtitlinginMadagascar.Besley (1995),however, found a positive effectof new land rights on investmentintreesinoneareainGhana.FederandNishio(1999) emphasizethatnumerousprerequisiteshavetobeinplacebefore thepositiveimpactsoflandregistrationcanbeachieved, includ-ingweaknessesinexistingformalorinformaltenuresystemsthat thereforedonotprovidethenecessarytenuresecuritythatis essen-tialforinvestment.Positiveimpactsonaccesstocreditmarkets andlandmarketswillnotoccurunlesssuchmarketsexist.Lending institutionscannotuseland ascollateralunlessthere isa well-functioninglandsalesmarket.Landlawsandlandadministrations capableofimplementingthelawsandlandregistrationandtitling systemsinatransparentandreliablemannerandwithclearconflict resolutionsystemsareessential.Thereisariskthatthe introduc-tionofamodernregistrysystemtoreplaceatraditionaltenure systemcouldresultin landgrabbing(“elitecapture”) by better informed,moreinfluentialandwealthierstakeholders.Thereare fearsthattheeffectcouldincreaselandlessnessandresultinthe formalizationoflandrightshavingnegativeeffectsonthepoor. Localparticipationintheprocessandsimple,efficientand trans-parentproceduresarealsoimportantforcreatingpopulardemand andsuccess.

Bothcustomaryandstatutorytenuresystemshavetendedto exhibitagenderbiasinfavorofmenoverwomen.Landtitleshave typicallybeenallocatedtotheheadofthehousehold,whoinmost casesisaman.Therehavebeennumerouscasesinwhich formal-izinglandrightsthroughlandtitlinghasunderminedcustomary landrights,whichhavebeenignoredordisrespected.

Costsofformalizinglandrights

Thehighcostoflandtitlinghasforcedmanycountriesto estab-lishasystemoflandtitlingondemand,andthishasmadelandtitles costlierandonlyavailabletothewealthy(Benjaminsenetal.,2009; BesleyandBurgess, 2000;Cotulaetal.,2004; Deininger,2003). Therefore, there is substantial need for more low-cost, broad-scaleandegalitariansystemsforlandregistrationinlow-income countries.InHonduras,thecostoflandtitlingwasestimatedat 600US$pertitle(Lopez,1996),whileinMadagascarithasbeen estimatedat150US$perhouseholdundertheconventional sys-temoftitlingondemand(JacobyandMinten,2007).Burnsetal. (2007)assessedthevariationincostsacrossnumerouscountries and foundaveragecosts ofbetween20 and 55US$ perparcel. Ayalewetal.(2011)provideanestimateofthecostsofhiring pri-vatesurveyorsfortitlingondemandforurbanlandownersinDar esSalaam,Tanzaniaofapproximately350US$.TheEthiopian first-stagelandregistrationand certificationsystemliesattheother extreme,wherethecostofregistrationandcertificationwas esti-matedtobeapproximately1US$perfarm plotor3.5 US$per household(Deiningeretal.,2008).

Inassessingtheoptimalqualitylevelin alandformalization scheme, it is important to assess the marginal benefits versus marginalcostsofincreasingtheformalizationqualityoflandrights. AsDeininger and Feder(2009) note,there aremany examples ofsupply-driven landformalization programsthat were imple-mented basedon lobbyingby survey professionals and leadto excessivelyhightechnicalstandardsrelative tothedemandfor suchformalizationandtheactuallandvalues.Suchprogramsmay evenhavecreatedcompetitionwithtraditionaltenuresystemsand underminedthelatter.Thismayalsoexplainwhysome conven-tionalland-titlingprogramssuchasinKenyaandMadagascarhave notresultedinanysignificantimpacts(Migot-Adhollaetal.,1991; JacobyandMinten,2007)andothershaveresultedinspeculative behaviorthathascreatedconflicts(Benjaminsenetal.,2009).The

(3)

degreeofprecisionin plotboundaryidentificationformapping purposeshasastronginfluenceonthecostsoflandrights formal-ization.Thecostsoftechnicalformalizationincreaseexponentially intheprecisionlevel(DeiningerandFeder,2009).TheEthiopian first-stageregistrationwasableattoachievehighprecisionata verylowcostwithoutmappingbyadoptingfielddemarcationand usingneighborsaswitnesses.

Thetrendinlow-incomecountriesistowardintermediate solu-tions to the classical land-titling approach by unbundling this “one-size-fits-all”approachtospecifyinglandrightsbyusing low-cost,broad-scaleregistrationwithhighlocalparticipationand/or simpler,lesscostlyandlessprecisetechnologies,issuingsimpler certificateswithout maps,etc. Technologicaladvancesfacilitate more low-cost technical approaches that utilize GPS, satellite images,computers,andnewsoftwaretogeneratemapsand reg-istrysystemsatamuchlowercostthanthetraditionalapproach tolandtitling.Centralizedandcomputerizedmappingandregistry systemsareeasiertomaintainandupdate.Such“intermediate” systemshaverecentlybeenintroducedinanumberofcountries, includingatabroadscaleinRwandaandatthepilotlevelinEthiopia andTanzania.Theleastexpensiveofthesemethodsimplycertain sacrificesintheaccuracyoftheidentificationofplotboundaries, astheaccuracyofthelow-costGPSsystemsthatarecommonly usedmayonlybeatthe5–10mlevel.Nevertheless,this resolu-tionmaybesufficientformappingpurposes.However,suchmaps cannot beusedas a basis for resolvingplotboundary disputes relatedtosmall-scaleencroachmentbyneighbors.Thelatest low-costapproaches usingsatelliteimagescanincrease precisionto therangeofto1–2mandmaythereforereducethepotentialrisk ofborderdisputesduetoinaccuracy.

ReviewoflandregistrationandcertificationinEthiopia

We will begin this section by defining the term land regis-tration as used in this paper. Land registration is a process of locating,measuringandregisteringfarmplotsbelongingtorural farmhouseholdsinEthiopia.Forindividualhouseholds,certificates arenotissuedwhentheirlandisregistered.Typically,certificates areissuedonceallvillage(‘kebelle’)landhasbeenregisteredand verified.Inadditiontotheinevitablelagbetweenregistrationand certification,borderandinheritancedisputesmayalsodelaythe issuanceofcertificatesforlandsthathavebeenregistered. First-stagelandregistrationandcertification

LandregistrationinEthiopiabeganwitharegistrationprogram inTigrayin1998followedbyoneintheAmhararegionin2002. Theothertwohighlandregions,OromiaandtheSouthernNations Nationalitiesand Peoples(SNNP),initiated registrationin 2004. Accordingtothe Rural LandUseDirectorate atthe Ministryof Agriculture,morethan90%offarminghouseholdsintheseregions receivedtheirlandcertificatesthroughthefirst-stageregistration (MOA,2013a).

Attributes,strengthsandweaknesses MainAttributes

ThefollowingarethemainattributesofEthiopia’slow-cost first-stagelandregistrationandcertificationscheme:

• Broad-scale registration: Communities were registered in a single,sweepingexercisewithinashortperiodoftime. Approxi-mately6millionhouseholdsand20millionplotswereregistered andcertifiedwithinafewyears(Deiningeretal.,2008). • Participatory registration process: There was high degree of

involvementbylocalsintheidentificationanddemarcationof plotboundaries,withneighborsservingaswitnesses.

• Registration was performed using simple, user-friendly tech-nology: Ropes were used for plot measurement, and simple, handwrittenformswereemployedtorecordinformation. Reg-istrybookswithinformationonhouseholdsaremaintainedat thecommunityanddistrictlevels.

• Thecertificatesgiven toindividualhouseholds include: Infor-mationontheplotsbelongingtothesehouseholds,name(and photoofhouseholdheadandotherhouseholdmembersinsome regions),locationname,plotsize,landquality,andthenamesof neighborsforeachplot.

Strengths.

• Noneedforskilledsurveyors:Existingortemporarilyhiredstaff withonlyshort-termtrainingregisteredtheland.

• Lowcostregistrationandcertification.

• Lesstimewasrequiredtoregistermillionsoffarmplotsrelative totechnicallydemandingregistration.

• Transparencywasachievedthroughbroadparticipation. • Theconflictresolutionsystembuildsonexistingsystemsthrough

theuseoflocalconflictmediatorsandsocialcourtsandis sup-plemented with newly established local Land Administrative Committees(thereisvariationacrossregionsandovertime). Weaknesses.

• Maintenanceofrecords:Theregistrybooksaredifficulttoupdate intheeventoflandinheritances,giftsordivisionsduetodivorce. • Households,butnotplots,haveuniqueidentificationnumbers. • Thecertificatedoesnotcontainmapsofthefarmplots.

• Accessinginformationforthepurposeoflandadministrationand policyanalysisisdifficult,asdataregistrationispaper-basedand noteasilyavailable.

Deiningeretal.(2008)providedanoverviewoftheEthiopian low-costapproach. In a surveyof 2315households, theyasked aboutthewillingnesstopay(WTP)forlostcertificatetoobtain informationonhouseholds’valuationsofthecertificates.TheWTP was highest in the Oromiaregion (mean 22 EB1), followed by

Amhara(mean9EB),SNNP(mean7EB)andTigray(mean5EB). BasedonexistingregistrationpracticesinAmhara,theyestimated afirst-registrationcostof30EBperhouseholdand8.3EBperplot, indicatingthateveninthefirst-stageregistrationsystem,thefull costmaynotberecoveredthroughregistrationfees.

Impactsofthefirst-stagelandregistrationandcertificationin Ethiopia

Anumberofstudieshaveinvestigatedtheimpactsofthis low-costlandregistrationandcertificationprocessinEthiopia.Holden et al.(2009) provideevidenceof theinvestmentand land pro-ductivityeffectsoflandregistrationandcertificationintheTigray region.Theyfoundevidenceofsignificantandpositiveinvestment impactsontreeplantingandthemaintenanceofsoil conserva-tionstructures.Landproductivitywasfoundtobeapproximately 40%higheronplotswithcertificatesthanonplotswithout certifi-cates.Holdenetal.(2011a)foundthatlandcertificationenhanced tenuresecurity,thewillingnesstorentoutlandandtheamountsof landrentedoutbylandlordhouseholdsintheTigrayregion, espe-ciallyforfemale-headedlandlordhouseholds.HoldenandGhebru (2013)investigatedthis issuefurtherandfoundthat productiv-ityonrented-outlandhasimprovedtoagreaterextentonplots rentedoutbyfemalelandlordsthanthoseownedbymale land-lords.Theyalsofoundthatwelfareimprovements,measuredas real per adult equivalent consumption expenditures, increased

(4)

significantlyindurationoflandcertificateownership,particularly forfemalecertificateholders.

Deiningeretal.(2011)observedsimilarearlyimpactsontenure security,land renting and investment in theAmhara region of Ethiopiabutdidnotcarefullyinvestigatethegenderdimensions. Bezabihetal.(2012)employedthesamedatafromtheAmhara regionandfoundastrongerproductivityimpactofcertificationon rentedland,andthisimpactwasthemostsubstantialforfemale owners.

HoldenandTefera(2008)assessedtheearlyimpactsofjoint first-stagelandcertificationinsouthernEthiopia(5districtsinthe OromiaandSNNPregions).Formaleheadsofhouseholds,onecan discerntwoeffects:(a)apositiveeffectofregistrationand certifi-cationintheformofenhancedtenuresecurityforthehousehold and(b)anegativeeffectforthemaleheadintheformofreduced intra-household control over the land if the joint certification enhanceswomen’spositionsandlandrightswithinhouseholds. Theirstudyrevealedthatthelargemajorityofmaleheadsof house-holdsperceivedtheretobeanetpositiveeffectfromtheprocess andthereforewelcomedthejointlandcertification.

Holdenetal.(2011b)investigatedtheimpactonlanddisputes, particularlythatonlandborderdisputesinTigray,usingasample of405local conflictmediatorsfrom 85 villages.The local con-flictmediatorsperceivedlandborder disputestobeamongthe mostdifficultdisputestomediate.Ofthemediatorssurveyed,68% believedthatsuchconflictshaddeclinedaftertheregistrationand certificationwhile12%perceivedthattherehadbeenanincrease. Econometric analysis revealed that the increase in border dis-puteswasassociatedwithlow-qualitylandregistrationworkwith respecttoplotboundarydemarcationandmeasurementand fail-urestodemarcatecommunityborders.However,suchlow-quality workappearedtohaveonlybeenperformedinafairlysmallshare ofthecommunitiesconsidered.Inasimilarstudyof180conflict mediatorsin theOromiaand SNNP regions,Holdenand Tefera (2008)foundthattherewasasignificantreductionindisputesafter registrationandcertificationinareaswhere suchdisputeswere commonbeforeregistration.

Theabovestudiesrevealimportantbenefitsofthefirst-stage landcertificationthrough:(1)enhancedtenuresecurityduetoa reducedriskofland redistribution;(2) improvedplotboundary demarcationthroughtheuseofwitnessesandthusareducedrisk ofencroachmentbyneighbors;and(3)improvedtransferabilityof landthroughtherentalmarket.

Second-stagelandregistrationandcertification

Thewebsite of theEthiopian Ministry of Agriculture(2013) describes the first-stage certification as “a process of provid-ing “simple” temporarylandholding certificates... Under Stage 1,farmersreceivetemporarycertificateswithnogeo-referencing ormappingoflandparcels”(MOA,2013a).Themorepermanent second-stage certificate, therefore, “seeks to rectify the weak-nessesintheStage1landcertification,particularlytheneedto geo-referenceand map individualparcelstoavoid orminimize boundarydisputes.”Theobjectiveofthesecond-stagecertification, accordingtoMOA,istoenhancetenuresecurityforsmallholder farmers.Landadministratorsacrossthefourlargeregionalstates ofEthiopiahavebeenpilotingthesecond-stagelandregistration andcertificationschemesince2005.Registrationsconducted dur-ingthepilotstagebenefitedfromdonorsupportthroughvarious programs.

OneofthelargestprogramsistheUSAID-fundedELTAP/ELAP programthatcovers24 districts(woredas)acrossthefourlarge regions. Cadastralsurveying is performed using hand-held GPS devices,whilethedatawereprocessedandstoredoncomputers. Therearesomeindicationsthatthismethodoflandregistration

willbescaledupatnationallevelforrurallandregistration(Wood etal.,2012).HandheldGPSdevicesarenotparticularlyexpensive, withprices in the range of USD 200–USD 600, but their accu-racylevelis5–15m.Therehavealsobeenotherpilotprograms thatemployedalternativelandsurveyingmethods.ASIDA-funded projectinAmharausedtotalstationsandprecisionGPSdevices, whicharebelievedtobeaccuratetothemillimeterbutarehighly expensive(USD40,000)andrequirecarstotransportfromplace toplace(SARDP,2010).TheFinland-fundedREILA(Responsible& InnovativeLandAdministration)projectiscurrentlyconducting trialsinfourEthiopianRegionsusingorthophotosthatare pro-ducedfromaerialphotographsandsatelliteimages.Onedistrict isselected fromeachof thefourregionsfor thetrial.The esti-matedcostofthesecond-stagelandregistrationschemebasedon theimagerytrialcompletedthusfarisUSD8.5perparcel(Hailuand Harris,2013).Whilethereseemstobeaconsensusamong imple-mentersregardingthedesirabilityofanewlandcertificatewith plotmapsandgeo-referencing,itisunclearwhichoftheland sur-veymethodswilleventuallybeadoptedtoregisterruralfarmland atthenationallevel.Itmaybepossiblethatdifferentregionalstates willadoptdifferentlandsurveyingmethodsoracombinationof thereofdependingonthetypeoflandscape,thevalueoflandand theprecisionrequired.

From a study that covers 2315 households across Ethiopia, Deiningeretal.(2008)foundthatapproximately90%ofthesample statedthattheywouldliketohaveamapontheircertificatesand werewillingtopayforsuchamap.However,noquestionswere askedonhowmuchtheywouldbewillingtopayforthemap.The studyalsoprovidescostestimatesforhigh-precisionland registra-tionusingelectronictotalstationsof49EBperplotand175EBper householdandforlow-precisionregistrationusinghandheldGPS of13EBperplotand45EBperhousehold.Thereareanestimated50 millionlandparcelsinEthiopia(HailuandHarris,2013).Whichever landsurveymethodisused,thecostsofmappingallparcelswill betremendous.However,themappingandregistrationcostsare nottheonlycostsinvolvedortheonlylogisticstobeconsidered. Whileupdatingandmaintainingthedatawithcomputerized regis-trationiseasierthanpaper-basedregistration,theassociatedcosts arenotnegligible,andaccesstoelectricityisalsoachallenge(see Deiningeretal.,2008).

Thesecond-stagecertificatesproducedthroughthepilot pro-gramsthusfarhaveoftenbeendistributedtofarmersfreeofcharge. Itisunclear,however,whetherthispracticewillcontinueifand whenthesecond-stageregistrationisscaledup.Iffarmersbelieve that thesecond-stagecertificate willprovide additional private benefits,theymaybewillingtopayfortheservice,andthusthey maybeexpectedtocoverpartofthecostsofthenewregistration andcertificationintheformofcertificatefees.

Implementationoflandregistrationandcertificationinthe OromiaandSNNPregions

Oromiaregion

The land registration and certification process began in the Oromia region in 2003/04, with regional employees training district-levellandadministrationstaff.LandAdministration Com-mittees(LACs)wereestablishedatthecommunity(kebelle)level withrepresentativesfromthevillages(sub-kebelles).Registration began withthedemarcation ofcommunity andvillageborders, communallandandpublicland.Individuallandwasdemarcated, andaformwasfilledinthefield.Anotherformwassubsequently filled and keptat community level. The social court addressed complaints.Theregistrationbooksandcertificatesareprepared atdistrictlevel,whileonlytheformsaremaintainedatthe com-munitylevel.Householdheadsprovidephotos(4EB,compulsory)

(5)

beforecertificatesareissued.Certificatescanbecollectedatthe kebellelevelatapriceof5EB(HoldenandTefera,2008).

Thecertificatecontainsthenameofthehouseholdheadunder ‘landholders’inthefirstlineandthespouse’snameunder‘nameof spouse’inthesecondline,followedbyalistofthenamesofother householdmembers.Thecertificateonlycontainsaphotographof thehouseholdhead.Ifthehouseholdispolygamous,thephotoof thehusbandandhisnameas‘landholder’onlyappearsononeof thecertificates(forthehouseholdandlandthathefrequentsor prefers).Theotherwiveswholiveonseparateplotswillhave cer-tificatesfortheirrespectiveparcelswiththeirnameswrittenunder ‘landholders’anddisplayingtheirphotographsinsteadofthe hus-bands’.Thenameofthehusbandwillbewritteninthesecondline under‘nameofspouse’.Ifapolygamoushouseholddoesnothave separatelandforeachwife(whichisnotparticularlycommon),the wives’nameswillappearunderthe‘nameofspouse’lineonasingle certificate.Thecertificatedoesnotexplicitlystatethatthehusband andwifehaveequallandrights,unlikeinSNNPasweseebelow.

Second-stageregistrationiscarriedoutbysurveyorsand reg-istrars in the pilot districts. The surveyors and the registrars collaboratetotakeGPSmeasurements,preparetemporarysketches inthefield,preparemapsonacomputer,andcombinethe plot-levelmeasurementswithhouseholdinformation.Thesecond-stage plotlevel certificates are printed onwater resistantpaper and include(sidebyside)thenamesofbothhusbandand wife,the sizeoftheplot,GPScoordinates,amapoftheplot,auniqueplot codeandtheplotcodeandholdernamesoftheneighboringfarms. Theregionalgovernmentprovidesfundingforthepilotareasand priorityareaswherethesecond-stageregistrationandcertification takesplace.Inaddition,donorsupporthasbeenreceivedforsome ofthepilotareas.Householdsretainboththefirst-stagecertificate (book)andthesecond-stageplotmaps.

SouthernNations,NationalitiesandPeople(SNNP)region

LandregistrationbeganinSNNPin2004.Community-levelLand AdministrationCommittees(LACs)wereestablishedandtrained alongsideDevelopmentAgents(agriculturalextensionstaff).The demarcationofindividualplots oflandproceededbasedonthe assumptionthatcommunityandpubliclandborderswereknown. Complaintsanddisputeswereresolvedlocallyand,ifnecessary, bydistrictcourts.Registrybookswerepreparedatthe commu-nitylevel.District-levelbookswerecompiledbutonlycontained summarizedinformationathouseholdlevel.Landcertificateswere preparedandsignedatthedistrictlevel,whilephotoswereadded andcertificatesstampedatthecommunitylevel.Thecostof cer-tificatesincludedacardfeeof2EBand4EBforphotos(Holdenand Tefera,2008).InSNNP,thecertificateissupposedtocontainthe namesandphotosofboththehusbandandwifeonthesamepage. WhilethisguidelinehasnearlyalwaysbeenfollowedinSidama,it wasnotstrictlyfollowedinWollaita.Therightsand responsibili-tiessectionofthecertificateindicatesthatboththehusbandand wifehaveequalrightstotheland.Thefirst-stagelandcertification schemehasbeendiscontinuedorwasneverimplementedin cer-taincommunitiesinSidamawherethesecond-stageregistration processhasbegunin theformofpilotprojects.Forexample,in WondoGenetdistrict,whichhasbeenselectedfortheELTAPpilot project,only30%ofthehouseholdsreceivedafirst-stage certifi-cate.

Thesecond-stageregistrationisperformedusinghand-heldGPS devicestomeasuretheplotdimensionsandcomputersto regis-terthedata.Oncetheregistrationiscompleted,householdsare issueda singlebook listingalloftheirplotsand containingthe namesofboththehusbandandwifeaslandholders.Inaddition, separatemapsareissuedforeachplot.AsinOromia,households inSNNPhavenotthusfarbeenrequiredtopayfor the second-stagecertificate.InSNNP,mostofthecostofthecertificatewas

coveredthroughtheELTAP/ELAPproject,buttheregional govern-mentalsocoveredpartofthecost.IncontrasttoOromia,where householdsareabletoretainboththefirst-andsecond-stage cer-tificates,inSNNP,householdsreturnthefirst-stagecertificatewhen theyreceivethesecond-stagecertificate.Landadministration offi-cialsseemtobelievethatthefirst-stagecertificateisobsoleteonce asecond-stagelandregistrationandcertificationstarts.Thismay alsoexplainwhytheysuspendedfirst-stageregistrationinpilot districts.

Dataanddescriptivestatistics

Astratifiedrandomsampleof620householdswassurveyedin 2007infivedistrictsin theOromiaand SNNPregions. Ofthese households,580weresurveyedagainin2012withanadditional 40newhouseholdstomaintainthe620-householdsamplesize. Locationswerestratifiedtocapturethedifferencesbetweenthe tworegions.Thesampleincludesdistrictswithcereal-based, crop-livestock systems; perennialsystems with irrigation producing cashcrops;andperennialsystemsforsubsistenceproduction with-outirrigation.Inaddition,communitieswithvaryingdistancesto thedistrictcenterwereselectedtocapturevariationsinmarket accessandurbanexpansionpressure.Inthesetworegions,land certificateswereallocatedjointlytohusbandsandwivesandwere, therefore,intendedtostrengthenwomen’slandrights.Itispossible thatthisgenderfocusaffectedtheWTPforsecond-stage certifi-cates.

TherearetwocomponentsofthedemandandWTPquestions usedinthesesurveys.ThefirstsetofquestionsexploresWTPfor afirst-stagecertificatebyaskinghouseholdheadshowmuchthey wouldpaytoreplacealostfirst-stagecertificateandwhetherand howmuchtheywouldpayforafirst-stagecertificateiftheydid nothaveone.Thesecondsetofquestions exploresinterestina second-stagecertificate.Thesecond-stagecertificateisdescribed tohouseholdheadsasacertificatewithseparatemapsforeachplot. Inthe2007and2012surveys,householdheadsareaskedabout theirinterestinreceivingasecond-stagecertificateandhowmuch theywouldbewillingtopayforitincashandlabor.Inaddition, husbandsandwiveswereseparatelyaskedabouttheirassessments oftheproposedsecond-stagecertificateinthe2012survey.2Itis

possiblethatsuchquestionsleadtoanoverestimationoftheWTP forsecond-stagelandcertificationbecausethequestionsare hypo-theticalandtheWTPisderivedfromthosehouseholdsthatwishor wouldprefertohavesuchacertificate.Ontheotherhand,whilewe believethedescriptionofthesecond-stagecertificateprovidedto farmersisenoughfortheirevaluationofitseffectontenure secu-rity,wedidnotgofurtherandelaborateonthepotentialbenefits ofthesecond-stageregistrationandcertification.Itispossiblethat farmersmaynotrealizethepotentialprivatebenefitsrelatedto acomputerizedregistrationsystemsuchasfacilitatedinheritance tochildren.Theresultsshouldthereforebeinterpretedinlightof thesecaveats.TheWTPcashamountswereinflationadjustedto ensurethattheresultsobtainedfromthetwosurveyroundsare comparable.3

Table1indicatesthatmorethan91%ofhouseholdshadtheir landregisteredby2007andthree-fourthshadreceivedaland cer-tificateby2012.In2012,asmanyas96%ofhouseholdswithout certificatesreportinterestinobtainingafirst-stagecertificate,an increaseof4%relativeto2007.Regardingthedemandfor second-stagecertificates,only54%reportedbeinginterestedinobtaining suchacertificate,a17%declineindemandfrom2007.Thismay beanindicationthatfarmers considerthefirst-stagecertificate

2ThespecificquestionsarereportedinAppendix.

(6)

Table1

Householdlandcertificationstatusanddemandforsecond-stagecertificate,OromiaandSNNP.

2007 2012

Percent Na Percent Na

Householdswhoselandisregistered 0.91 576 0.94 619

Householdswhohavelandcertificate 0.68 576 0.74 616

Householdswhodonothavelandcertificatebutwantone 0.92 186 0.96 161

Wantsecond-stagecertificatewithmapsforeachplot 0.71 530 0.54 610

Willingtoselllandifitbecomeslegal 0.31 572 0.11 610

Source:Ownsurveydata.

aNreferstonumberofrespondentsforeachquestion.576householdsparticipatedinthelandrelatedquestionsin2007and620in2012.

Table2

Realvalueoflandcertificateaandlandin2006Birrandinlabordays.

2007 2012 Medianratio

2012/2007

Median Min Max. CV Median Min Max. CV

MaximumWTPforfirst-stagecertificate 5.75 0.0 959 3.94 3.36 0.0 672 3.00 0.58

MaximumWTPforlostfirst-stagecertificate 5.75 0.0 1918 4.98 3.36 0.0 672 3.00 0.58

MaximumWTPforsecond-stagecertificateinBirr 9.59 0.0 671 2.16 3.36 0.0 336 3.33 0.35

MaximumWTPforsecond-stagecertificateinlabordays 3 0.0 160 2.00 2 0.0 30 1.00 0.67

Minimumcompensationacceptableiflandisdemandedfor publicservice(inMillionEBperhectare)b

0.11 0.0 134 5.95 0.45 0.0 3360 7.71 4.24

Minimumpricetosellland(inMillionEBperhectare)b 0.11 0.0 7670 17.17 0.67 0.0 1510 6.00 6.34 Source:Ownsurveydata.

aTheWTPforfirst-stagecertificateisreportedforthosewithoutacertificate,WTPforlostfirst-stagecertificateisreportedforthosehouseholdswhoalreadyhaveone. TheWTPforsecond-stagecertificateisreportedbythosewhowantasecond-stagecertificate.Thelandvaluesarereportedbythosehouseholdswhowerewillingtoreport it.

b Minimumlandvaluesarelessthan10,000EBwhichappearaszeroheresincevaluesarereportedinMillionsEB.Eg.0.002.

sufficientandtheirconfidenceinthiscertificatehasgrownover time.Householdsmayalsobewaryofdisplacementifthey asso-ciate the second round of measurement and registration with possiblestateexpropriationoflandforurbanexpansion.Thisis particularlynotableinShashemenedistrict,whichislocatednear thetownof Shashemene,and thedistrict’s residentshave wit-nessedlandexpropriationinthepast.Afearoftaxincreasesmay beanotherreasonforthedeclineininterestiffarmersreported owningsmallerparcelsthantheyactuallyheldduringthe first-stageregistration.Duringthesecond-stageregistration,anumber ofsuchcaseswereuncoveredinOromia,possiblyindicating cor-ruptionorinaccuracyduringthefirst-stageregistration.Thiswas not,however,particularlycommon.

Thetablealsoincludesinformationontherespondents’ willing-nesstoselltheirlandifitbecamelegal.4Onlyasmallpercentage

offarmersindicatedaninterestinsellingtheirfarms.Therateof positive responsesonthis question declinedfrom 31%in 2007 to11% in2012.Thiscouldindicate thatlandhasbecomemore valuabletofarmersorthattheyexpectevenhigherpricesinthe future,meaningthatmostwouldprefertoretaintheirlandforthe present.

Table2presentsinflation-adjustedWTPestimatesforfirst-and second-stagecertificatesin2006EB.ThemedianWTPfora first-stagecertificatedeclinedfrom5.8EBin2007to3.4EBin2012, whilethemedianWTPforasecond-stagecertificatedeclinedfrom 9.6EBin 2007to3.4 EBin2012.The alternativemedian mea-sure,themaximumWTPforsecond-stagecertificatesinlabordays, alsodeclinedfrom3to2man-daysfrom2007to2012.However, theinflation-adjustedvalueoflandincreasedsubstantially over thisperiod.Theminimumwillingnesstoaccept(WTA)priceper hectareoflandincreasedbybetweenfourandsixfoldoverthe

4 InEthiopia,landisownedbythestateandhencecannotbesoldormortgaged. Farmershaveonlyuserright.

Table3

Demandforsecond-stagecertificate.Disaggregatebyyearanddistrict.

District 2007 2012 Interested households(%) N Interested households(%) N Shashemene 92 149 50 96 ArsiNegelle 73 150 59 140 WondoGenet 58 40 48 135 Wollaita 56 191 57 203 Total 71 530 54 610

Source:Ownsurveydata.

5yearsbetweenthetwosurveys.5Thisgivesusgoodreasonsto

questionwhyweseethissignificantdeclineinWTPnotonlyfor second-stagecertificatesbutalsoforfirst-stagecertificates. More-over,themedianWTPweobservedinoursampleismuchlower thanthelowestestimatedcostforsecond-stagecertificates(refer to“Second-stagelandregistrationandcertification”section).

Table 3 provides more disaggregated information on the demandforfirst-stageandsecond-stagelandcertificatesbyyear anddistrict.Thetwofirstdistricts(ShashemeneandArsiNegelle)in theOromiaregionhavecereal-basedproductionandlackirrigation but havegood marketaccess. WondoGenetis a high-potential perennialzone featuringcashcrops,irrigationandgoodmarket access.ThisdistrictwasalsoselectedbyELTAPforsecond-stage certification.Wollaitaisalow-potentialperennialzone character-izedbypoorermarketaccessandveryhighpopulationdensity.We notethatthedemandforsecond-stagecertificatesdeclinesover theperiodfrom2007to2012inallzonesexceptWollaita.

5Asignificantshareofthesamplerefusedtoassignavaluetotheland,asortof refusaltoacceptthatlandcanbetakenorsold,whichindicatesthesensitivityand insecurityfeltbyfarmers.

(7)

Table4

Medianwillingnesstopayforlandcertificateandmedianlandvalues,disaggregatedbydistrictandyear.

2007 2012

Shashemene ArsiNegele WondoGenet Wollaita Shashemene ArsiNegele WondoGenet Wollaita MaximumWTPforlost

certificate

5.75 9.59 9.59 4.79 3.70 6.72 6.72 3.36

MaximumWTPforfirst-stage certificate 9.59 9.59 4.79 3.84 3.36 6.72 6.72 3.36 MaximumWTPfor second-stagecertificate 9.59 19.18 9.59 9.59 3.36 5.04 5.38 3.36 Minimumcompensation consideredfairiflandis demandedforpublicservice (inMillionsEBperhectare)

0.10 0.11 0.45 0.07 0.90 0.45 0.85 0.27

Minimumpricetosellland(in MillionsEBperhectare)

0.10 0.12 0.45 0.07 1.34 0.74 0.67 0.45

Source:Ownsurveydata.

Note:FiguresaremedianWTPin2006EthiopianBirr(EB).

Table5

DistributionofWTPvaluesforsecond-stagecertificateandhouseholds’landvaluationin2012(in2006EB).

District Willingnesstopayforsecond-stagecertificate(inEBperhousehold)a Perhectare(compensation)landvalues(inMillionsEBperhectare)b

Median Min Max CV Median Min Max CV

Shashemene 3.70 0 336.02 2.73 0.90 0.007 134 3.209

ArsiNegele 4.20 0 33.60 0.92 0.45 0.018 896 6.996

WondoGenet 5.38 0 168.01 2.11 0.85 0.005 3360 5.214

Wollaita 3.36 0 16.80 0.91 0.27 0.002 672 6.736

Source:Ownsurveydata.

aReportedforhouseholdswhoreportedinterestinsecond-stagecertificate. bReportedforhouseholdswhowerewillingtoreportthelandvalues.

Table4providesdataonmedianWTPin2007and2012inthe samefourdistricts.TheresultsindicatethatthemedianWTP val-uesdeclinedin alldistricts from2007 to2012,particularlyfor second-stagecertificates.Thetablealsocontainsmedianland val-uesintermsoffarmers’assessmentsoffaircompensationinthe eventofalandtakingortheacceptablesalespriceiflandsales wereallowed.Here,weobserveasharpincrease inlandvalues from2007to2012,particularlyinShashemenedistrict,whichis experiencingrapidurbanization.WondoGenet,thezonefeaturing cashcropcultivationandirrigation,hadthehighestlandvaluesin 2007,butlandvaluesincreasedrelativelylessinthisareathanin theothersfrom2007to2012.ThedecisionbytheELTAP/ELAPto targetWondoGenetforsecond-stagelandcertificationdoesnot seemtohavestimulatedtheinterestinorWTPforsecond-stage certificationinthiscashcroppingareafocusingoncashcrops.A potentialexplanationfor this is thatresidentsalready consider their tenure secure. Shashemene has experienced land takings relatedtourbanexpansion,butthisdoesnotseemtohaveaffected theWTPforsecond-stagecertificates.Thiscouldalsoindicatethat householdsdonotbelievethatthesecertificatesprovidethemwith anyadditionalsecurityormorereliableinformationonland expro-priation.Toprovidemoredetailedinformationonvariationacross districts,wepresentthedistributionoftheWTPand land com-pensationvaluesin2012inTable5.Althoughweonlyreportthe WTPforsecond-stagecertificateforthosehouseholdsinterested inobtainingone,theminimumvalueiszero,indicatingthatsome householdsthatareinterestedinthesecond-stagecertificatedo notwishtopayforit.Thereissubstantiallymorevariationinland valuesthaninWTPvalues.ThereisrelativelylessvariationinWTP forsecond-stagecertificatesacrosshouseholdsinWollaita,which alsohasthelowestaverageWTP.Conversely,thehighestland val-uesareobservedinShashemene,wherethevariationinevaluations acrosshouseholdsisthelowest.

Asindicatedearlier,husbandsandwiveswerealsoseparately askedtoevaluatetheimportanceof theproposedsecond-stage

certificate.Theavailableresponsesare:Bad/unnecessary, accept-able/indifferentand good.Table6 summarizestheresponsesof menandwomen.

Approximately40%ofmenandwomen believethat second-stagecertificationisanunnecessaryorbadidea.Proportionately, moremenhaveapositiveattitudetowardsecond-stage certifica-tionthanwomen.

Wealsoexploredfarmers’perceptionsoftheirtenuresecurity. We identifiedtwoindicators: (1)whethertheybelievethat the existingfirst-stagecertificatesprotectagainstencroachmentand (2)whetherfarmersfeelsecurethattheywillnotbesubjectto furtherstatelandredistribution.Table7summarizestheresults. Theresponsestothefirstquestionwereatahouseholdlevel,but wehaveseparateresponsesfrommenandwomenonthesecond question.

Itisclearfromthetablethatfarmersfeeltheyhavebecomemore secureovertimewithrespecttothelandcertificatesprotecting theirlandfromothernon-statethreatssuchasencroachmentby neighbors.Theproportionofhouseholdsthatbelievethattheland certificatewillprotectthemfromencroachmentdoubledoverthe 5yearsbetweenthetwosurveys.Thefearoflandredistribution hasalsodeclinedbutnottoasgreatanextent.Ofthefarmersand theirspouses,one-fifthstillexpectslandredistribution.Thiscould beapotentialsourceoftenureinsecurityandareasonfortheir

Table6

Attitudeofmenandwomentowardsecondstagecertificatein2012. Male(%of respondents) Female(%of respondents) Indifferent-acceptable 15 25 Good 47 34 Bad-unnecessary 38 41 Observation(N) 579 627

(8)

Table7

Farmers’perceptionoftenuresecurity.

2007(% respondyes)

2012(% respondyes) Existinglandcertificate

protectsagainstland encroachment(household head)

35 72

Expectlandre-distribution (femalerespondents)

32 20

Expectlandre-distribution (malerespondents)

35 21

Source:Ownsurveydata.

reluctancetoparticipateinfurtherlandregistration.Furtherefforts toraiseawarenessandassurefarmersmayalleviatesomeoftheir concerns.

Conceptualframeworkandempiricalmodel

We canconceptualize formalization ofland rights asa con-tinuumofformalizationintensityandquality wherethecostof formalizationincreaseswithgreaterintensityandquality. Techno-logicaladvancesimplyareductioninthecoststoachieveagiven intensityofformalization.Thismaybevisualizedasaforwardshift intheformalizationsupplycurve.Identifyingthesociallyoptimal levelofformalizationintensityrequiresidentifyingthe formaliza-tiondemandcurve.Thisdemandcurvewillshiftoutwardwiththe wealthofasociety,thesizeandqualityofland,ascapturedbythe (potential)valueofland,theindividualdemandfortenuresecurity, theextenttowhichsuchsecurityisthreatenedandtheextentto whichformalizedlandrightsarebelievedtoincreasethissecurity. Thedemandmayalsodependontheexpectationsandqualityof otherservicesprovidedbythelandadministrativesystemsuchas fairconflictresolutioninlanddisputesandtheeffectivenessofthis formalizedsystemrelativetoatraditionalconflictresolution sys-tem.Thedemandmayalsobeinfluencedbythelevelofknowledge andthusrealismofexpectationsconcerningtheservicesthatcan beprovidedandtheabilitytoaccessthebenefitsofthesystem. Furthermore,ifformalizationisalsoassociatedwithstrengthening statutorylaw,thismayhaveimplicationsforwhetherthebundleof rightsandobligationsandtheirdistributionamonglandownersare changed.Forexample,ifformalizationiscombinedwithanew pol-icytostrengthenthelandrightsofwomenwithinhouseholds,there isaredistributionalelementthatgoesbeyondrecognizingtheland rightsthatexistedbeforetheformalization.Thismaythenaffect thedemandamongoldandnewrightsholders.Newlawsand reg-ulationsthatgofurtherinspecifyingtheobligationsoflandowners aspartofaformalizationprocess,suchasconservationobligations, mayalsoaffectlandowners’levelofdemandforformalization.

Ouraiminthisstudyistoexaminethedemandforsecond-stage certification.Thesecond-stagecertificate isexpectedtocontain moredetailedandpreciseinformationthanthefirst-stage certifi-cate.However,it isnotobviousthatthehighlevelofprecision impliedbyasecond-stagecertificateisworththeadditionalcost. Thelow-cost,participatoryapproachinwhichneighborsserveas witnessesemployedinthefirst-stageregistrationinEthiopiamay provideasubstantiallyhigherlevelofprecisionthanthelow-cost GPSdevicesthathavebeenusedinmostofthepilotareas.The addedvalueofthistechnologyisthereforenotboundary identifi-cationandprotectionagainstencroachment,butmapcreationand computerizedregistration.Itisquestionablewhethersuchmaps enhancetenuresecurity.Itisthenappropriatetoaskwhoshould payforsuchintensifiedformalization.Acomputerizedregistrymay facilitatebequeathingoflandtochildren,butownersmaynotbe awareofsuchbenefits,anditisuncertainwhethersucharegistry

wouldsubstantiallyenhanceWTP.Itislikelythatthebenefitsof computerizationandmappingareprimarilysocialandonlytoa smallextentprivate.Thetenuresecurityeffectofformalizationis private,andweshouldexpectittobereflectedinthedemandand WTPforregistrationandcertificates.However,itispossiblethat theentiretenuresecurityeffectiscapturedinthefirst-stage cer-tification.Thismayalsobethecaseforwomeninthehousehold wherethereisjointcertification.Theotherbroaderbenefits asso-ciatedwithlandtitling,suchascreditaccessandthetransferability ofland,areirrelevantorlessimportantundertherestrictedrights regimeinEthiopiawherelandsalesandmortgagingoflandare prohibited.

Specifically,thestudyteststhefollowinghypothesesusingdata fromthe2007and2012surveys.

H1. Demandandwillingnesstopay(WTP)forupgradingto second-stagelandcertificationislow:Wearguethattherearefewerprivate benefitstoupgradingtoasecond-stagelandcertificate.Themain privatebenefitofformalizinglandrightsintheEthiopiancontext istenuresecurity,whichisalreadyprovidedbythefirst-stage cer-tification.

H2. WTPforsecond-stagecertificateswillbehigherthehigherthe valueofland.Farmerswhohavelargerorhigher-qualityplotsof land,bothintermsofproductivityandlocation,arelikelytopay higherpricestoprotecttheirassets.Thesequalitiesarereflected inthesubjectivevalueoftheland,aslandmarketsdonotexistin Ethiopia.

H3. WTPforupgradingfromfirst-stagetosecond-stagecertificate increasesovertime.Thisisbasedontheassumptionthatthebenefits fromthefirst-stagelandregistrationandcertificationdeteriorate overtimeduetopoorupdatingandmaintenanceofrecords; there-fore,farmers becomemore interested inupgradedregistration. Alternatively,wemayarguethat

H4. WTPforsecond-stagecertificatesdeclinesovertimeduetoa lossofmomentuminthelandregistrationandcertificationprocess andreducedexpectationsconcerningbenefitsfromupgrading.This couldalsoresultfromabeneficialeffectoffirst-stagecertification ontenuresecuritythatisenhancedovertime.

H5. WTP is higherfor households that have beenexposed to informationalmeetingsconcerningthebenefitsoflandregistration andcertification.Informationsuchastheimplicationsofa com-puterizedregistrationsystemregardingfacilitatinglandtransfers throughbequestsandgiftsmaycreategreaterinterestanddemand insecond-stagecertificatesinfarmingcommunitieswithlowlevels ofliteracy.

H6. WTPishigherforhouseholdsthatlackwitnessesfortheirplot boundariesfromthefirst-stageregistrationorhaveexperienced landdisputes.Thisissimplybecausesuchhouseholdsmayhope togainadditionalsecuritythroughanewlandregistrationsystem andobtaincertificatesthatincludemapsofindividualplots.

Theempiricalmodelforthewillingnesstopayfora second-stagecertificateisgivenby:

WTP2Cht =ˇ0+ˇ1Aht+ˇ2Cht+ˇ3RQht+ˇ4CYht+ˇ5Mh+ˇ6Vh

+ˇ7Dt+˛h+εht

whereWTP2Chtisthewillingnesstopayforasecond-stage

certifi-cateforhouseholdhinperiodt,Aisfarmsize,Cisadummyfor exposuretolandconflicts,RQisregistrationquality,CYisland cer-tificateinformation,includingwhetheronepossessedafirst-stage landcertificateandwhosename(s)is/areonthecertificate,Misa dummyforwhetherthehouseholdhasbeenexposedto informa-tionalmeetingsregardinglandcertification,Visavectorofvillage dummies,whichcapturesmarketaccess,populationpressureand

(9)

urbanexpansion,Disayeardummy,˛hrepresentsunobservable

householdfactors,andεhtisarandomerrorterm.

Thehousehold-levelWTPisgiven bothincash andin labor. Asindicatedabove,approximately30%ofhouseholdsin2007and 46%in2012werenotinterestedin thesecond-stagecertificate. Thus,weonlyobserveWTPvaluesforthosewhoexpressinterest inobtainingone.OrdinaryLeastSquares(OLS)isnotanappropriate regressionframeworktoestimatethemodel,asitdoesnotcontrol forthecensoringoftheWTPvaluesatzeroandmaythusresult innegativepredictedvalues.Thismodelisbestestimatedusing Cragg’s(Cragg, 1971)two-part truncatednormal hurdlemodel. Cragg’sspecificationdisaggregatesthedecisionintoa participa-tionequationandanamountequationandyieldspositivepredicted valuesfortheamountequation.Thismodelspecificationemploysa probitfortheparticipationequationandatruncatednormalmodel fortheamountequation.Themodelassumesthat,conditionalon asetofobservedcovariates,themechanismsdetermining partici-pationandamountsareindependent.InourWTPmodel,thetwo componentsare:(1)aprobitmodelfor‘interestinasecond-stage certificate’usingthefullsampleand(2)atruncatednormalmodel for‘maximumwillingnesstopay’usingthesub-sampleof inter-estedhouseholds.

Because we are using paneldata, we can control for unob-servedheterogeneityinadditiontotheobservedcovariates.Inour model,weemployaCorrelatedRandomEffect(CRE)model follow-ingMundlak(1978)andChamberlain(1982)becausefixedeffects estimationisdifficulttoimplementfornonlinearmodelsdueto theincidentalparameterproblem.TheestimationprocedureinCRE involvesaddingthemeanoftime-varyingvariablesasanadditional setofexplanatoryvariables.Theinclusionofthesemeanscontrols fortime-constantunobservedheterogeneity(Wooldridge,2010).

Resultsanddiscussion

Estimationresult

TheresultsoftheDouble-HurdlemodelarereportedinTable8. Thefirsttwo columnsreporttheresultsfromtheprobitmodel fortheprobabilityofbeinginterestedinsecond-stagecertificate (hurdle1).Thenextfourcolumnsreportresultsfromthe trun-catedregressionmodelsforWTP(hurdle2).6Theobservationsin

theprobitmodelincludeallhouseholdsinbothperiods,whilethe truncatedregressionmodelincludesonlythosehouseholdsthat areinterestedinasecond-stagecertificate.WeestimatedWTPin bothcash(middletwocolumns)andlabor-days(lasttwocolumns). Wefirstanalyzethefactorsinfluencingtheprobabilityofbeing interestedinasecond-stagecertificate.Wefindthathouseholds thatexperienced a landdisputebeforethefirst-stageland reg-istration was implemented are more likely to be interested in a second-stage certificate, indicating that experiences of con-flictresultingreatertenureinsecurityandthusgreaterdemand forcertificatesbeyondwhatthefirst-stagecertificateshave pro-vided.Respondentswhoattendedpublicinformationalmeetings regardinglandregistrationarealsomorelikelytobeinterestedin asecond-stagecertificate.Thisisperhapsbecausetheyaremore informedoflandregistration,thevarioustypesofcertificatesand theirbenefits.However, households thatreported having suffi-cientwitnessesduringthefirst-stageregistrationarelesslikelyto wishtoobtainasecond-stagecertificate,indicatingthatthe first-stagecertificateprovidessufficientplotboundarysecurityforsuch

6Itispossiblethatthetwodecisionsarecorrelated,evenaftercontrollingfor observedcovariates.Ifthisisthecase,theWTPequationhastobecorrectedfor selection.OurtestforselectionbiasusingtheHeckmanselectionmodeldoesnot indicateaselectionproblem.

households.Havingalandcertificatewasnotsignificantly associ-atedwithinterestinsecond-stagecertificates,buthouseholdsthat onlyhavethehusband’snamelistedonthefirst-stagecertificateare lesslikelytoexhibitinterestinsecond-stagecertificates.Wemay speculatethatmaleheadsofhouseholdsperceivetheretobean advantageofretainingthecertificatethatonlyincludestheirname insteadofobtainingasecond-stage certificatethatmayinclude boththehusband’sandhiswife’snames.Theageofhouseholdhead wasnegativelyassociatedwithinterestinobtainingasecond-stage certificate,whichcouldbebecauseolderhouseholdheadsfeelmore securewithrespecttotheirlandtenure.However,itcouldalsobe duetoresistancetochange,astheyhavewitnessedfrequentland redistributionsinthepast.Controllingforotherfactors,interest inobtainingasecond-stagecertificatedeclinedsignificantlyfrom 2007to2012,indicatingthatthedeclineinmomentumand farm-ers’expectationsregardingsecond-stagecertificationdominates anyconcernfarmersmighthaveconcerninganerosionofthe ben-efits offirst-stagecertification. Wealsofindthat householdsin WondoGenetandWollaita,thetwomostdenselypopulatedareas, arelesslikelytoexhibitinterestinsecond-stagecertificatesthan householdsinShashemene.

Wenextexaminefactorsthatinfluencethewillingnesstopay (WTP)forsecond-stagecertificatesamonginterestedhouseholds. Farmsizeisnownegativelycorrelatedwiththewillingnesstopay, whetherreportedin cashorinlabor-days.Thiscouldbealand scarcity effect,suchthat moreland-scarcehouseholds are will-ingtopaymoretosecuretheirrights,ceterisparibusHowever, iflandscarcityiscorrelatedwithpovertyandpoormarketaccess, thiscouldlimitWTPandpossiblyexplainthelowerWTPobserved in Wollaita.ComparedtoShashemene, theWTP forhouseholds inWollaitawas17%and8%lowerincashand inlabor, respec-tively.Similarly, WTPdeclinedsignificantly from2007to2012, with a 5% decline in WTP in cash and a 1.5% decline WTP in labor.Alloftheabovevariablesweresignificantatthe1% signifi-cancelevel.Female-headedhouseholdswerenomoreorlesslikely thanmale-headedhouseholdtodemonstrateinterest in obtain-ingasecond-stagecertificate.But,amonginterestedhouseholds, female-headedhouseholdshad6.7%lowerWTPincashbuttheir WTPinlaborwasnotstaticallydifferentfromthatofother house-holds.Thismayberelatedtothegreaterliquidityconstraintfaced bymostfemale-headedhouseholdsinruralareas.Attendinga pub-licmeetingbeforeregistrationwaspositivelycorrelatedwithWTP, butitwasonlysignificantatthe10%level.Havingonlythe hus-band’snameonthecertificatewasnegativelycorrelatedwithWTP inthelaborequationbutonlysignificantatthe10%level.

Itispossiblethattherearetwoforcesworkinginopposite direc-tionswithrespect tofarm size.On the one hand,as farmsize typicallyaffectsthevalueofthelandforwhichasecond-stage cer-tificatemaybeissued,thewillingnesstopaymaybehigherfor largerfarms.Ontheotherhand,afearoflandexpropriation,which maybemorepronouncedonlargerfarms,maynegativelyinfluence theWTPforthenewcertificate.Althoughlandsalesareprohibited inEthiopia,andfarmershaveonlyuserrights,theyhavea subjec-tivevaluationoftheirlandthatdepends,amongotherthings,on farmsize,thequalityoftheland,theproximitytourbanareas,the presenceofirrigationandhouseholdcharacteristics.Table9reports estimationresultsfromtheregressionmodelsthatinclude farm-ers’subjectivevaluesoftheirland.Thesevaluesaretheminimum compensationhouseholdswerewillingtoacceptintheeventthat theirlandisexpropriatedforpublicuse.Becauseasignificant per-centageofhouseholdswereunwillingtoreportthesevalues,the numberofobservationsconsideredinthisanalysisisreducedby 40%.Weincludethismodeltoassesstherobustnessofourresults. Inadditiontothelandvalues,wealsoallowedforvariationinthe WTPforlandofasimilarvaluedependingonhownearahousehold islocatedtoanurbanareausingadummyvariablethattakesvalue

(10)

Table8

Factorsassociatedwiththedemandandwillingnesstopayforsecond-stagecertificateincashandinlabor.Double-HurdleModel. Interestedinsecond-stagecertificate

Probitmodel

Amount/willingnesstopay(inCash) Truncatedregression

Amount/willingnesstopay(inlabor-days) Truncatedregression

Marginaleffects RobustStd.Err Elasticities RobustStd.Err Elasticities RobustStd.Err Farmsizepercapita

(ha)

0.000 0.000 −0.173*** 0.057 −0.177*** 0.049

Experienceland disputebeforeland registration 0.074** 0.034 0.011 0.027 0.003 0.020 Havesufficient witnessestoconfirm plotborders −0.123** 0.049 0.037 0.140 −0.116 0.103

Householdhasland certificate

−0.062 0.060 0.035 0.146 −0.028 0.096

Onlyhusbandnameon thecertificate

−0.155*** 0.051 0.010 0.013 −0.017* 0.010

Attendedpublic meetingbeforeland registration

0.090*** 0.034 0.140* 0.085 0.066 0.059

Femaleheaded household

−0.039 0.110 −0.067** 0.030 −0.010 0.021

Ageofhouseholdhead −0.003** 0.001 −0.002 0.153 −0.048 0.113

Totalnumberofmale members

−0.010 0.017 0.231 0.182 0.012 0.142

Householdsize −0.002 0.010 0.038 0.141 −0.003 0.149

Districtdummies:baseline-Shashemene

ArsiNegele −0.068 0.043 0.023 0.037 0.003 0.027 WondoGenet −0.179*** 0.060 0.016 0.020 −0.007 0.015 Wollaita −0.136*** 0.039 −0.165*** 0.044 −0.082*** 0.028 Year2012,dummy −0.111*** 0.032 −0.501*** 0.049 −0.153*** 0.036 Constant(Coefficient) 1.110*** 0.234 2.404*** 0.263 1.636*** 0.179 Sigmaconstant 1.024*** 0.046 0.726*** 0.036 Chi2 92.3 205.5 66.4 Prob>chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000 Loglikelihood −642.9 −813.7 −578.2 Numberof observations 1029 605 589

Note:Thedependentvariablesintheamountequations(cashandlabordays)arelog-transformed.Themeanoftimevaryingvariablesareincludedasadditionalregressors inthesemodels,buttheyarenotincludedinthetabletosavespace.

* Significanceat10%. ** Significanceat5%. ***Significanceat1%.

oneifthehouseholdislocatedinavillageneartoanurbanarea andincludetheinteractionbetweenthisdummyvariableandthe landvaluevariable.

TheresultsfromtheprobitmodelinTable9indicatethat house-holdsthathavelargerlandvaluesarelesslikelytobeinterested inasecond-stagecertificate. Thecoefficientis significantatthe 1%levelofsignificance.Thismayindicatethathouseholdsdonot believethatsecond-stagecertificatesprovideprotectionagainst expropriation,asmore valuable landmaybe nearurbanareas, wheresuchrisksarehigher,orthosewithmorevaluablelanddo notfearthelossoftheirlandandthereforedo notbelievethat theyneedsecond-stagecertificates.However,amonghouseholds thatwereinterestedinobtainingsecond-stagecertificates,those withlargerlandvalueshadahigherWTPincash,andthe loca-tionofthehighlyvaluedland(peri-urbanornot)didnotaffectthe magnitude(Table9,secondmodel).Thisindicatesthatthe will-ingnesstopayofthosewhoperceivedbenefitsfromsecond-stage certificatesincreasedintheirvaluationsof theirland.Farmsize hadthesameeffectinthenewmodelsasbeforewithevenlarger negativeelasticitiesinbothWTPincashandlabor.A1percentage pointdecreaseinpercapitafarmsizeisassociatedwitha2 percent-agepointincreaseintheamounthouseholdsarewillingtopayfor second-stagecertificates,indicatingthatincreasinglandscarcityis drivinguptheWTPforsecond-stagelandcertificates.Households locatedinperi-urbanareashadhigherWTP.Thecoefficientsforall othervariableshadthesamesignsasinthemodelwithoutland values,butwehavefewerstatisticallysignificantcoefficients in thecurrentmodels,perhapsbecauseofthesignificantreduction

in the number of observations and hence variation in the data.

Predictedwillingness-to-payinOromiaandSNNP

WetriedtoobtainanestimateofWTPforhouseholdsinOromia andSNNPbasedonourempiricalmodel.Table10reportsthe pre-dictedvaluesofWTPbasedontheDouble-Hurdlemodelbutonly considersthemostrecentdata(2012data)intheprediction.The medianWTPisapproximately7EBforArsiNegele,WondoGenet andShashemeneand3.5EBforWollaita.Whendisaggregatedby farmsize,WTPexhibitssomevariationacrossthethree compara-bledistricts.ThehighestWTPistobeexpectedfromhouseholds inShashemene.Comparedtothethreeotherdistricts,households inWollaitahavethelowestWTP.Inalldistricts,householdsthat werewillingtopaythemostwerethosewithlandsizesinthethird quartile.

Fig.1providesamorevisualpresentationoftherelationship betweenpredictedWTPandfarmsize.Weuseatwo-waygraph withlocalpolynomialsmoothingtoplottherelationshipbetween WTPandfarmsize.TheWTPvaluesarenevermorethan8EB.We findthatforShashemeneandArsiNegele,thepredictedWTPis higher,withvaluesnotfallingbelow6EBforallfarmsizelevels, butthereismoredispersionintheWTPinShashemene.InWondo Genet,theWTPismostlyclosetothatofthetwoOromiadistricts butitdeclinesand thedispersionincreasesafterapproximately 1.3haofland.InWollaita,theWTPislowerthan4EBatallland sizelevels.WollaitaalsohastheleastdispersioninpredictedWTP.

(11)

Table9

Factorsassociatedwiththedemandandwillingnesstopayforsecond-stagecertificateincashandinlabor.DHModel(withlandvalues). Probabilityofbeinginterestedin

second-stagecertificate

Amountinterestedhouseholdsare willingtopay(incash)

Amountinterestedhouseholdsare willingtopay(inlabor-days) Marginal

Effects

RobustStd.Err Elasticities RobustStd.Err Elasticities RobustStd.Err

Ln(landvalues) −0.075*** 0.027 0.060** 0.030 −0.030 0.019

Householdfarmsize(ha) 0.000 0.000 −0.222*** 0.062 −0.191*** 0.051

Experiencelanddisputebefore landregistration

0.051 0.042 −0.003 0.033 0.001 0.027

Havesufficientwitnessesto confirmplotborders

−0.034 0.058 −0.159 0.157 −0.095 0.121

Householdhaslandcertificate −0.007 0.072 0.131 0.172 0.027 0.122

Onlyhusbandnameonthe certificate

−0.181*** 0.065 −0.007 0.016 −0.021* 0.013

Attendedpublicmeeting beforelandregistration

0.108** 0.042 0.131 0.111 0.084 0.071

Femaleheadedhousehold 0.054 0.139 −0.060** 0.029 −0.009 0.017

Ageofhouseholdhead −0.001 0.001 −0.088 0.192 −0.051 0.142

Totalnumberofmalemembers −0.007 0.021 0.307 0.221 0.125 0.161

Householdsize −0.003 0.013 0.120 0.209 −0.209 0.170

Districtdummies:baseline-Shashemene

ArsiNegele −0.112* 0.063 0.042 0.035 0.001 0.027

WondoGenet −0.148* 0.084 −0.025 0.037 −0.005 0.028

Wollaita −0.255*** 0.053 −0.102 0.084 −0.127*** 0.048

Farmlocatedinperi-urbanarea 0.098 0.263 0.217* 0.116 −0.062 0.086

Peri-urbanarea×landvalue −0.014 0.019 −0.163 0.112 0.054 0.078

Year2012,dummy −0.021 0.049 −0.516*** 0.077 −0.108** 0.051 Constant(coefficient) 1.444*** 0.435 1.789*** 0.445 1.827*** 0.283 Sigmaconstant 1.004*** 0.059 0.714*** 0.049 Chi2 68.451 157.8 51.4 Prob>chi2 0.00 0.00 0.00 Loglikelihood −397.442 −516.2 −369.6 Numberofobservations 649 388 381

Note:Thedependentvariablesintheamountequations(cashandlabordays)arelog-transformed.Themeanoftimevaryingvariablesareincludedasadditionalregressors inthismodel,buttheyarenotincludedinthetabletosavespace.

*Significanceat10%. **Significanceat5%. ***Significanceat1%. 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 0 1 2

Shashemene

ArsiN

egelle

Wondo Genet

Wollaita

Pre

d

ic

te

d W

T

P

in

ET

B*

Farm size in hectares

*The 2012 data is used for prediction. The amount is in real 2012 Ethiopian Birr (base year 2006)

Plot

of

predict

ed WTP in cash f

or diff

erent

farm size

Local polynomial smooth with 95% CI

(12)

Table10

Expectedwillingnesstopaybyfarmsizeanddistrict.

Farmsize Shashemene ArsiNegele WondoGenet Wollaita

Min. Med. Max. Min. Med. Max. Min. Med. Max. Min. Med. Max.

Quartile1 3.50 5.90 18.13 3.95 6.40 10.36 3.96 6.43 8.54 1.80 3.42 4.49

Quartile2 3.95 6.62 12.06 4.85 7.03 8.12 3.96 6.42 10.30 1.77 3.53 5.09

Quartile3 3.15 6.81 25.29 3.24 6.55 11.89 3.54 6.66 8.09 1.87 3.65 4.79

Quartile4 4.85 6.99 11.50 4.66 6.69 9.42 3.06 6.84 9.78 1.89 3.04 4.53

Total 3.15 6.71 25.29 3.24 6.63 11.89 3.06 6.60 10.30 1.77 3.49 5.09

Source:ModelpredictionfromtheHDmodelestimatedinsection6

Note:Weuseonlythe2012surveydataforpredictionsinceitisthemostrecent;Districtspecificquartilesarecomputedtogrouphouseholdbytheirfarmsize.

Tosummarizetheassessment ofourhypotheses,we cannot rejectHypothesis1,thatdemandandWTPforsecond-stage cer-tificatesarelow,aswefoundthattheWTPissubstantiallylower thantheadministrativecostsofimplementingthesecond-stage certification.

WecannotrejectHypothesis2thatWTPincreaseswithland val-ues,buttheevidenceisweak.Whileweobservedastrong,negative correlationbetweeninterestinobtainingasecond-stagecertificate andlandvalues,whichinclinesustorejectthehypothesis,wealso observedapositiverelationshipbetweenvaluesandtheamount thatinterestedhouseholdsarewillingtopay.However,this pos-itiverelationshipisonlyweaklysignificant.Landvaluesmayalso becorrelatedwithfarmsizewithinareas,andwefindthatgreater landscarcitywithinthehouseholdwasassociatedwithhigherWTP forsecond-stagecertificates.Therefore,thisalsosupportsrejection ofthehypothesis.Thus,itseemstobepovertyinlandratherthan inlandvaluesthatincreasesWTP.

Hypothesis3thatWTPincreasesovertime,isrejected.Wefound noindicationsthattheeffectofthefirst-stagecertificationhas dete-riorated.Rather,itmaybethecasethatthetenuresecurityeffectof thefirst-stagecertificationgrewovertheperiodfrom2007to2012 asfirst-stagecertificatesgained recognition(seeTable6). How-ever,wecouldnotrejectHypothesis4,whichstatesthatWTPhas declinedovertime.Thisresultmaybeduetoalossofmomentum andinterestandmorerealisticexpectationsregardingthe bene-fits.Second-stagecertificationmayalsobeassociatedwithfears oflandexpropriationandbeenimplementedinareasfacingmore dynamicdevelopmentsandlandusechangessuchasurban expan-sion.Informaldiscussionswithfarmersrevealedthattheywere somewhatconcernedthatparcel-levelregistrationmayincrease theirlandtaxliability.Currently,thetaxonagriculturallandis collectedasafeeperhectareoflandcultivatedregardlessofthe locationorproductivityoftheland.Thefearisthateachplotmay beusedasabasisforaseparatelandtax,perhapsaccordingtothe quality,insteadofaflatlandusefeeperhectare.Althoughwedonot knowhowwidespreadthisbeliefis,itisclearthatalackof infor-mationregardingthepurposeofthenewlandregistrationplaysan importantrole.

WecannotrejectHypothesis5,statingthatWTPishigherfor households that have been exposed toinformational meetings onland registrationandcertification. Itis clearthatthose who attendedthesemeetingshadsignificantlyhigherinterestinand WTPforsecond-stagecertificates.Thismaynotonlybean infor-mationaleffect,however.Itcouldalsobeademandeffect,asthose withhigher levels of demand for documentation of their land rightswerealsomorelikely toattendmeetingsonthesubject. Theinformationalmeetingsweconsiderinthisanalysiswere pri-marilyawarenessmeetingsduringthefirst-stageregistrationand certification.Ourassessmentfromourdiscussionswithfarmers, developmentagentsandofficialsisthat,asopposedtothecasefor thefirst-stagelandregistrationandcertification,littleeffortwas devotedtoraisingawarenessofthesecond-stagelandregistration andcertification.

Finally,wecannotrejectHypothesis6,whichstatesthatWTP forasecond-stagecertificateishigherforhouseholdsthataremore insecureoftheirlandtenureduetoexposuretolandconflictsor lackofwitnesses.

Conclusion

OurstudyhasrevealedarelativelylowdemandandWTPfor second-stagecertificates.Theaddedvalueofthesesecond-stage certificatesisperceivedtobelow.Theimpressionisthattheydonot substantiallyenhancetenuresecurityrelativetofirst-stage certifi-catesunlesstherewasaproblemduringthefirst-stagecertification. Mosthouseholdsbelievedthattheyhadsufficientwitnessesinthe neighborhoodthatcouldassistinverifyingthecorrectplacement ofplotborders.Inaccuratemapscreatedbasedonmeasurements obtainedviahandheldGPSdevicesprovidelessreliable informa-tiononthelocationofplotborders.Thatwenoteda significant reductioninWTPforsecond-stagecertificatesfrom2007to2012 whileperceivedlandvaluesincreaseddramaticallyoverthesame periodmayindicatethatthefirst-stagecertificationwas success-fulincreatingthedemandedtenuresecurity.Thestrongnegative correlationweobservebetweenfarmsizeanddemandfor second-stagecertificatesindicatesthatpovertyinlanddrivesupWTPfor second-stagecertificates.

Thebenefitsfromsecond-stagecertificationappearsmallfor theindividualfarmers,whiletheymayprovideabetterbasisfor landadministrationandgeneratepublicdocumentationof land-relatedaffairs.Thepresentstudyexclusivelyfocusesontheprivate benefitsofsecond-stagecertificatestofarmhouseholds.However, othersocialbenefitsofthesecond-stageregistrationand certifica-tionmaybemoreimportantandjustifyitsimplementation.Ifthat isthecase,adetailedcost-benefitanalysisshouldexamineall rel-evantbenefitsandcosts,includingthetimerequiredtocomplete theregistrationandcontinuouslyupdatethedata.Inthemeantime, cautionshouldalsobetakensothatsecond-stagecertificationdoes notunderminethepositiveeffectsofthefirst-stagecertification suchasthejointcertificationofhusbandsandwives.Webelieve thatfurtherpilottestingofthesecond-stagecertificationisneeded andmaybeusefultoprioritizetospecificareassuchasthosesubject torapidurbanexpansionandmaybeusedtoimprovethe coordina-tionofurbanandrurallandregistrationandcertificationinways thatcanenhancethetenuresecurityoflandholdersandensure appropriatecompensationincasesoflandexpropriation.

Appendix.

Willingnesstopayquestionsfromthesurveyquestionnaire

WTPforfirst-stagecertificateisexploredusingthefollowing question:

1.Ifyouloseyourcertificate,howmuchwouldyoubewillingto payforareplacement?(WTPincash)

References

Related documents

Agriculture is an important sector of production for economic growth in countries of Southeastern Europe SEE and especially for Romania that is the biggest country of the region

Support the market « kickstart » method from a pilot village, zone or region, and/or support local development partners, trained by AVN to disseminate the NV concept in their

Key Words Psychosynthesis Dis-identification Will Height psychology Psychological functions Identity Psychotherapy Education.. When I first wrote

Through this research, I propose a model of Ethical Self-Reformation (ESR) that combines the institutional morality of treatment programs with stigmatizing public moral discourses to

•  We can use formulas parallel and series systems in combination to compute the reliability of a system having both series and. parallel parts

Step1. Input the Red, Green and Blue plane. Enhance the gradient of each plane. Compare the two similar planes showing the optic disc location. Identify the optic disc using

(1) The implementation of Jamkesda system in Malang Regency is not entirely the initiative of the leadership of Malang Regency–although the vision, mission, and health

In the present work we have developed a new, simple precise and stability indicating method for determination of Tetrabanazine in bulk drug and