Interview with Dessalegn Rahmato, land tenure expert

Land tenure is a hotly contested issue in Ethiopia. While critics of the current state-owned system argue for privatisation, the government maintains that could lead to a nightmare scenario of millions of landless peasants. Here Dessalegn Rahmato, a land tenure expert and head of the Ethiopian-based Forum for Social Studies, tells IRIN there is a third way. QUESTION: Why the need for land reform in Ethiopia? ANSWER: It is essential because the current land system is very restrictive, it is the cause of a great deal of tenure insecurity and the current land system gives the state immense power over peasants. It is inefficient and rigid – it is not flexible so its impact on agricultural production and economic progress has been extremely negative. So there is a need to revisit the land tenure issue and change it so it is more flexible, more dynamic and provides greater security. Q: What changes do you feel are necessary? A: The essential objective should be to provide lasting, long-term tenure security to the peasants. That is the essence. I don’t have a blueprint and I don’t think we need one. I think it should evolve through public discussions. But there are essential objectives to be achieved like ensuring security through whatever means. Make the land flexible so that land users can use it if they want or lease it out, rent it out or whatever means they feel. That flexible system creates a dynamic land market. That would have an impact on even poor people’s income, possibilities for employment. Q: How? A: At the moment a poor person is very reluctant if he cannot use the land to lease it out because of the fear of losing it. Under a more secure system they can do so. That is a source of income. They can even contract it out on a long-term basis. In a dynamic system, land should be able to move from those who cannot for various reasons use it efficiently to those who can. That is a dynamic land market. Q: The government would argue there is security - that people can pass land on to their children etc? A: I disagree. Some five or six years ago the government was arguing there was security of tenure but now I think they have come around to the idea that there is perhaps insecurity although they may not fully accept it. Recent initiatives to provide certification is recognition of the fact there is no security of tenure. The other indication is that in a recent workshop the prime minister [Meles Zenawi] did concede there is tenure insecurity. But it [the government] has not taken the next step: shall we revisit the land issue, should we change it? That step, they have not taken. In fact the prime minister has insisted the land issue is a dead issue as far as he is concerned. Q: What impact would greater security and flexibility have in raising productivity? A: Land tenure specialists know that from the experiences of other countries in similar situations as ourselves, a greater sense of security has meant greater investment on the land, greater care for the land. This has given rise to better productivity and protection of the environment. So there is sufficient experience in many other countries that security of tenure has tremendous impact on all these factors. Q: Is land tenure the most pressing issue in Ethiopia? A: Yes because this country, being a very poor country, the main resource we have is land and unless we can use it efficiently and care for it, which only security of tenure can bring about, you are going to face crisis after crisis in the coming years. Q: Do you think privatisation is the answer? A: I have not fully supported privatisation. I see dangers in it. I think there are arrangements that should be explored that could improve security. I have argued in favour of a system I call associated ownership, which is a combination of freehold and community responsibility. It is freehold in the sense that the individual user has the right to dispose of the land if he or she wishes to do so. Full rights over the land. But the community should also have some say so that if interests that may be hostile to the interests of the community, want to take it over, the community should have a say. The first choice of sale should be given to the community so that the land is kept within the community. Q: How does that address concerns over privatisation? A: That would meet the fears of some who argue that if this land were to be sold, peasants would be evicted on a mass scale and outsiders could come and take over the land and the community would suffer as a consequence. So it is a combination of freehold and community interest. That is what I would propose but I would not say this is the only solution. Under this system the individual has basic rights but the community has responsibility. If they feel that there is a danger the owner should give the community first choice. Q: And what about peasants selling their land, particularly in times of hardship? A: Peasants are very strongly attached to the land. I can see them renting it out on a long-term basis. It is not just Ethiopian peasants but peasants all over that are attached to the land, they are reluctant to sell. This does not mean that some will not, a few might, and in fact this is a good thing. Because of the insecurity people cannot move, they are trapped, because if you are away from your community for a few years you are liable to lose your rights to that land. So [at the moment] you can’t say I will go to the towns to look for employment. Q: What is the result of people not being able to move? A: It has meant there is a huge population concentration in the rural areas which has meant smaller plots and great pressure on the land, and this has given rise to environmental problems. So it is important to get a considerable percentage of the population out of the rural areas and only a secure system can do that. If a farmer feels secure that this belongs to me and no one can take it away from me I have more than one option – I can remain on the land or I can rent it out say for 10 or 20 years and go to the town and look for a job, but I still have the land. Q: What are the implications of the existing system which prevents farmers using land as collateral? A: Peasants, rural producers are shut off from institutional credit services – so I can’t go to the bank and get a loan. You might argue, and this is true, that most peasants don’t have the will to get a loan from the bank, or the possibility of doing so even if they had the land. But there are a small number of better-off peasants who could benefit from this. There are cooperatives that could benefit from this, but they don’t at the moment. So it is a closing of opportunities that could have been exploited. Q: Will the government’s agricultural development-led industrialisation (ADLI) growth policy work under the existing tenure system? A: No it will not work because it is really a policy that is ill-advised. Who are you banking on? As you know ADLI places all its eggs in one basket – the smallholder agriculture basket. To bank on smallholder agriculture in our condition is unsound because what kind of agriculture do we have - an impoverished peasantry, very tiny plots of land, huge environmental degradation, productivity at best that has stagnated over the last 20 years. This is the kind of smallholder agriculture we have. To think that you can get a dynamic economy based on this type of agriculture is just unrealistic. Q: Has ADLI led to any improvements as far as you are concerned? A: The only positive thing you can mention is that there is greater distribution of chemical fertilisers. But of you look at the figures they don’t show really any dramatic changes in terms of productivity – in fact productivity per household has stagnated. Q: What would you suggest as a replacement for ADLI? A: I argue in favour of what I call agricultural pluralism. Let many forms of agricultural production be encouraged; state agriculture, private, commercial and mechanised. I have also argued in favour of economic pluralism which would mean let's encourage agriculture but let's also at the same time encourage the modern sector, employment creation opportunities, investment in industry and services. Investment in our towns – they should play a dynamic role which they are not at the moment – to create employment opportunities, to create demands for agricultural goods. The urban population income is improving, [there should be] small scale or medium size enterprises that can be run in towns. That is what we should be encouraging. We should not say everything else is irrelevant and we must only focus on smallholder agriculture, that won’t help.