HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

WONDO GENET COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF LAND ADMINISTRATION AND SURVEYING
COURSE TITLE: LAND LAW
COURSE CODE:
BATCH: 2nd year
prepared by: Ginbu N.
Wondo Genet, june 30 /2021
 CHAPTER ONE
Introducing Basic Essences of Land
1.1 Introduction
Land is a surface of the earth that includes the fixtures on it such as buildings, fence,
tree plants and improvements to the land etc. Land is one form of property that is a
subject of ownership or other form of use rights.
Land is the source of all material wealth; it provides us with all our needs to sustain
on. It is also a major economic asset from which people and nations get significant
profit.
In many developing countries, land has been considered as an important economic
and social asset where the status and prestige of people is determined land provides
the foundations for the social and economic activities of the people.
it is both a tangible physical commodity and a source of wealth. because land is
essential to life and society; it is important to many disciplines: including Law,
economics, sociology, and geography.
Each of these disciplines may employ somewhat
different concept of real property.
Within the vast domain of law, issues such as ownership
and the use of land are considered. In economics, land is
regarded as one the four agents of productions, along
with labor, capital, and entrepreneurial coordination.
Land provides many of the natural elements that
contributes to a nation’s wealth.
Sociology focuses in dual nature of land as resource to be shared by all people;
and as a commodity that can be owned, traded and used by individuals.
Geography focuses on describing the physical elements of land and the activities
of the peoples who use it. Lawyers, economists, sociologists, and geographers
have a common understandings of the attributes of the land:
. Each parcel of land is Unique in its location and composition
. Land is physically immobile
. Land is Durable
. Land is useful to people
1.2 Nature and Scope of the Land in General
The nature of the land refers to real property or immovable based on countries legal system.
Under common law legal system, USA real property consists of rights in land and anything
attached to the land (e.g. buildings, signs, fences, and trees) and under civil law legal system
countries like France, immovable property refers to land and any fixtures on the land. In other
word, in both legal system, since the land refers to real property or immovable property, the
scope of the land does not limited to the ground or the surface of the earth rather land includes
the surface of the earth, the land beneath the surface to the center of the earth, and the air
above. The term also includes the property permanently affixed to the soil, such as water
collected in wells, houses, and fences. In this issue both legal systems are similar.
1.3 Property Rights to Land
Under the general label “land tenure,” we are concerned with the complex
relationship that exist between category of individuals and groups in reference to
land and other natural resources. These relationship can be analyzed in terms of sets
of rights and obligations held by these categories of people with regard to
acquisition, exploitation, preservation, and the transfer of land and related resources.
A recent document published by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) defines land tenure as a “relationship, whether legally or customarily defined,
among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land.” Rules of tenure define
how property rights to land are to be allocated within societies. They define how
access is granted to rights to use, control, and transfer land, as well as associated
responsibilities and restraints. In simple terms, land tenure systems determine who
can use what resources for how long, and under what conditions.
Tenure or property rights are wider than those written down in law books and enforced by
law enforcements. Land tenure also encompasses those property rights recognized and
enforced under customary systems.
Customary land rights typically include communal grazing land, private agricultural and
residential houses rights. This rights are evolved indigenously within local people. This
traditional societies or groups have developed various ways of controlling land rights in
different situation. These caver how land is managed in relation to members communities;
how land rights can be transferred within and out of the group.
Apart from this, in legal jurisdiction, land rights are referring to set of legally guaranteed
entitlements or privileges that owned by owner of the land whether gained legally or
customarily. They may also be referred to as bundle of right or attributes of ownership.
Ownership has not been defined in the Roman law or the French Civil Code, which is the
main source of the Ethiopian civil code. The best approach (taken by romans) seems to deal
with the main attribute of ownership and from that allow the meaning of the term to
emerge.
The attributes of ownership, according to the Roman law, are
Usus-the right to use the thing;
Fructus-the right to collect benefit offered by a thing;
Abusus- the right to dispose of a good either physically (destruction) or from a
legal point of view (alienation – transfer gratuitously or for consideration). On the
other hand, there is a Latin maxim “cujus est solum, ejus est usque and coelum”. He who
is the owner of the land is also owner of everything on it. All buildings, all natural fruits,
and everything above as well as below the surface, belong to land owner.
For instance, according to articles 552-554 of the French Civil Code, ownership of land
“involves ownership of what above and below it”. Unless restricted by statutes
(legislations), the owner of the land is considered as owning also the minerals inside the
land and airspace above the land.
Modern common law western treaties on property defined ownership as bundle of rights.
This concept compares land ownership as bundle of sticks. Each stick
in the bundle represents a separate right or interest inherent in the
ownership. The complete bundles of rights includes the following: The
right to sell an interest, The right to lease an interest and occupy the
property, The right to mortgage an interest, The right to give an interest
away, The right to do none or all of these things. Thus, some of the
land rights which emanate from land ownership are right of use and
enjoyment, the right of collecting benefit by renting, leasing, and
investing on it, right to alienate for consideration such as mortgage,
exchange or sale and alienating for free such as inheritance and
donation.
1.4 Nature and Scope of Land Rights in Ethiopia
Since Ethiopian Civil Code has the civil law legal system origin, the nature of the land is
considered as immovable property. The French Civil Code under article 544 describes
“ownership” as “the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner,
provided they are not used in a way prohibited by statutes or regulations”. Similarly, the
Ethiopian Civil Code under article 1205 explains ownership as “the widest rights that may
be had on corporeal thing;” and “such right may neither be divided nor restricted except
in accordance with the law.” For instance, in our country this widest right of individual
may restricted for public interest, health, safety, security etc.
It may be right to possess, use, enjoy, dispose/transmit, and manage, and so on. Currently,
since the ownership of the land is vested in the hands of the state and the people Ethiopia
and it is not subject to sale and any other means of exchange, the scope of the land right
was limited to holdings rights.
1.4.1 Scope and Objects of Land Rights in Ethiopia
Under Ethiopian law, property is either movable or immovable (Article 1126 of the civil
code). Land and buildings are considered as immovable (Article 1130 of civil code).
Hence, unlike the French one, where “land” includes “the ground and any fixtures on
the land”, the Ethiopian Civil Code treats “land” and “buildings” as two separate types
of immovable. In other word, land and buildings are immovable by their nature in our
law in similar with other countries law that our civil code derived from (French) and
other common law legal system also. It follows that contextually, in Ethiopia immovable
property is real property and as immovable property is land and buildings, it follows
that land and buildings are real property. In French Civil Code, the owner of the land
he also the owner of anything above and below the earth. On the other hand, in
Ethiopia, there is no such like provision referred to land rights.
Today, as envisaged under Article 40(3) and (7) of the FDRE constitution,
ownership of land is vested in the hand of state and people commonly,
while the ownership of buildings is given to the individual. It means, the
land surface and buildings over such land are owned by two separate
bodies. On the other hand, unless and until they are separated from the
land, trees and crops are considered as part of land (article 1133 Civil
Code).
1.4.2 Ownership of land in Ethiopia and Recurrent Debates
As envisaged under article 40(3) and (7) of FDRE constitution, land is public resource under the control of the
government rather than private. But as the principle this controlling power of the government limited to the
public interest/use/service.
Totally Ethiopian land is governed under two proclamation and provides two classes of land rights. From the
outset one needs to know that land belongs to the common ownership of Ethiopian people and state, and
hence it is not subject to sale and other means of exchange. For this reason rural farmers and pastoralists
are given a right called “holding right” that provides rights of use and enjoyment, lease/rent, and bequeath
(donation or inheritance).Obviously, this right is short of ownership because of the absence of the sole right of
the selling the land. Similarly, urban residents can get land under lease agreement that guarantees as 99 years
use right on the land. Even if the land may be transferred by sale together with the development or without it
(bare land only), it is highly restricted which makes it also short of ownership therefore, when it comes to the
classifications of the land regimes in Ethiopia, it is not made from pure ownership right perspective, but from
the “holding right” perspective. Honore, in his seminal article ownership, conceives ownership as “the
greatest interest in thing which mature systems of a law recognize. “Looking into existing civil codes one may
find similar expression in the renowned French civil code. The code articles 544 describes “ownership” as
”the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner, provided they are not used in a way
prohibited by statutes or regulations.
“Similarly, the Ethiopia civil code under article 1204 explains ownership as the widest right that
may be had on a corporeal thing: “and “such right may neither be divided nor restricted except
in accordance with the law. “In other words, of all properly rights a person has over an object,
ownership is the widest and most complete one: and yet, this right may be restricted for public
health, safety, security etc. Reasons sanctioned by law, The FDRE Constitution under article
40 that deals with “right to property ” provides details about property in general, and land
ownership in particular, the constitution under article 40(1) guarantees for every Ethiopian
to own “private property” with all its benefits.
Private property includes “any tangible or intangible product which has value and is produced
by the labor, creativity, enterprise or capital of an individual citizen “(article40.2) .Article 40(3)
which is the relevant provision concerning land ownership in Ethiopia states that:
The right to ownership of rural and urban land, as well as of all natural resources, is exclusively
vested in the state in the peoples of Ethiopia. Land is a common property of the nations,
nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or to other means of
exchange.
Regarding its means of acquisition, sub article 4 states that Ethiopian peasants have the
right to obtain land without payment and the protection against eviction from their
possession. Likewise concerning the pastoralist of the low land areas ,sub article 5
declares that Ethiopian pastoralists have the right to free land for grazing and
cultivation as well as the right not be displace from their possession.
Although the peasant is not entitled to private ownership right to the land itself , he
is guaranteed a ”fully right to the immovable property he builds and to the
permanent improvements he brings about on the land by his labor or capital, “and his
right includes “the right to alienate, to bequeath ,and where the right of use expires, to
remove his property ,transfer of his title, or claim compensation for it.”Thus unlike the
Derg era, peasants have the fully right to their produce and can sell it at market value.
Moreover, the constitution guarantees peasants against arbitrary eviction by the state.
The constitution clearly says: the government may expropriate private property for
public purposes subject to payment in advance of compensation commensurate to the
value of the property.
Concerning urban land, the constitution said nothing about the acquisition and
transfer of land by urban , some interpret article 40(6) that deal with “right of
investors “to get land, as one that includes urban dwellers as well. Article 75 40(6)
of the constitution envisages that private investors may get land on the basis of
payment arrangement. In other words unlike peasant farmers and pastoralists,
investor must pay a reasonable fee for the land they get from the state. Literally, an
investors is a person who uses the land for business activities and his main
objectives is to reap profit. So, it is obvious that urban dwellers cannot be
categorized as investors. Noticing this problem, it seems, some regional
constitutions replace the words “investor” by another word “proprietor”.
The effect of such change is that urban dwellers may be included in this definition,
since the word proprietor may also include any persons who owns a property.
The basic flow and a reason for controversy in the valuation and compensation of assets is that
the disagreement between articles 40(3) that recognizes joint ownership of land by people and
the state and article 40(8) which give compensation only to private property, fixtures on the land
but not the land.The constitution seems to give a right to ownership of land on the one hand,
and denies its benefits on the other.
1.4.2.1 The Recurrent Debates
The argument forwarded by ruling party for the continuation of land as public/state property
rests mainly on two policy objectives:
- Social equity
- Tenure security
FDRE constitution as well as other Federal and Regional Land Laws ensure the free
access to agricultural land. The amount of the land to be provided to peasant farmers, as
far as possible, is made equal. Accordingly, the policy objective is to ensure equality of
citizen in accessing the land. However, the weakness of this policy objectives is that first,
It does not address the urban land; Article 40 of the FDRE constitution that deals with property talks only
about rural land
Second, it is argued that since there is lack of arable land in the highlands of the country, equality of access to
land is ensured through transfer of land from large holders to small holders and/or to new comers; the result
being diminution of holding plots (0.5-1h). Social equality in Ethiopia, thus, a costly one in that equality in
privilege is tantamount to equality in poverty.
Tenure security is the other policy objective and concern of the state. As mentioned above, the FDRE
constitution prohibits any sale and any means of exchange. State ownership of land is considered to be the best
mechanism to protect the peasants against market force.
In particular, it has been argued that private ownership of rural land would lead to massive eviction or
migration of farming population, as poor famers would be forced to sell their plots to unscrupulous urban
speculator, particularly during period of hardship. The justification is that for large-scale modern farms, there
is an abundant idle arable land in the low lands; both for rain fed and irrigation farming.
Most of the farmers, on the other hand, live in the high lands where there is scarcity of land but large amount
of accumulated human power due to high population density. Allowing the farmer to sell land here, would
lead either to displacing the farmers or converting them to tenants.
In both ways, large amount of capital and labor will be wasted. This argument of the government
is criticized for lack of corroborative evidence. Some researches show otherwise. Some
concluded that farmers would not sell their land wholly or partially if given the right to own their
plots. Another study, conducted by the World Bank, reveals that most farmers would rather rent
their land during stressful periods compared with any other alternatives, even selling it.The study
concludes that the availability of formal land rental markets will serve as a caution to enable
farmers to withstand unfavorable circumstances by temporarily renting their land rather than
selling it.
The state ownership of land has been criticized by researchers and international donors who favor
neo-liberal economic thinking. The usual argument forwarded by these people against the
state/public ownership of land is one that focuses on lack of tenure security. For them, state
ownership of land by default creates tenures insecurity since, they argue, the government may use
land as political weapon by giving and taking it away as the case may be. They argue that absence
of tenure security for land users provides
-Little or no incentive to improve land productivity through investment in long term land
improvement measures,
-Increases transaction cost because of land dispute, and
- Hinders the emergence of property market such as
. Credit availability
. Land mortgage
However, the government rejects such fears as groundless; on the contrary, it claims that
government provides better security as is now taken by regional governments. A good
example is the land registration and certification processes which are being conducted in
Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and the southern regions which enable farmers to have a land
certificate for their holdings. This provides protection and security to the holder.
In general, the debates seem to be based on ideological differences rather than empirical
studies. The private vs. state ownership of land by itself is not as such a decisive factor. What
is important is whether or not there are adequate measure and regulation in place to
guarantee tenure security, such as
. Land certification
. Just compensation in the event of the expropriation
. Long duration of rights
. Good governance
. Absence of corruption, and
. Easy access of courts.
1.4.3 Governing Land Laws in Ethiopia
1. Proclamation
Ethiopia is a Federal state which is constituted of two special administrative cities (Addis Ababa
and Dire Dawa) that are accountable to Federal government and nine other administrative
national regional state which are autonomous in the administrative affairs of their people. The
powers and function of the Federal and Regional governments are provided in the FDRE
constitution. The power to “enact laws for the utilization and conservation of land and other
natural resources, historical sites and objects” is provided under article 51(5) of the constitution
to this effect, the Federal government enacted a “land administration and use proclamation” in
Proclamation 456/2005 delegates regional states with the power to “enact rural land
administration and land use law” which is consistent with the federal level law in order to
implement the land administration and use law on regional level (17).
Besides, there are other legislation in Ethiopia related to land matters such as
. Urban land lease proclamation (proc. 721/2011) and
. The Expropriation Proclamation (proc. No 455/2005).
Further, most of the regional states (Tigray, Amhara, afar, Oromia, Benishangul Gumuz,
and SNNPRS) have adopted their own rural land administration and use proclamation and
urban lands holding lease proclamation in order to implement the Federal rural and urban
land related proclamation.
2. The Constitution
Article of the FDRE constitution that deals with (right to property) provides details about
property rights in Ethiopia. When it comes to land proprietorship, 40(3) of the constitution
answers the core question of land ownership issue in the following manner:
The right to ownership of rural and urban land, as well as of all natural resources,
exclusively vested in the state and peoples Ethiopia. Land is common property of
the nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or
to other means of exchange.
On the means of acquisition, sub article 4 provides the Ethiopian peasants with
right to obtain land without payment and the protection against eviction from
possession. Likewise, concerning the pastoralists of the lowlands areas, sub article 5
confers to Ethiopian Pastoralists the right to free land access for grazing and
cultivation as well as the right not to be displaced from their possession.
Although, the peasant is denied private ownership to the land itself, he is guaranteed a “Full
rights to the immovable property he builds and to the permanent improvements he brings about
on the land by his labor and capital. This right includes the rights to alienate, to bequeath, and
where the right to use expires, to remove his property, transfer his rights, or claim compensation
for it “(article 40.7)). Thus, unlike the DERG era, peasants now have full right to their
production and can sell it at market value.
Moreover, constitution guarantees peasants against arbitrary eviction from their state. The
constitution clearly says: “…the government may expropriate private property for public
purposes subject to advance commensurate compensation payment to the value of the
property…” (Article 40(8)).
Concerning urban land, the constitution is quiet about the acquisition, and transfer of land by
urban dwellers. Nevertheless, some interpret the sub article, 40(6), that deals with right of
investors to get land, as one that includes urban dwellers as well. Article 40(6) of FDRE
constitution envisages that private investors may get land on the basis of payment agreement.
 
In other words, unlike peasant farmers and pastoralists, investors must pay
reasonable fee for the land they get from the government.
Literally, an investors are a person who uses a land for business activities
and their main objectives are to reap profit.
So it is obvious that urban dwellers cannot categorized as investors.
Noticing to this problem, it seems, some regional constitutions replaced the
word “investors” by another word “proprietor” as well the case with
Amhara National Regional State’s constitution.
 
CHAPTER TWO
RURAL
 
LAND LAW
 1.1 INTRODUCTION
From immemorial time, land had been controlled by the elite (king and their trusted
followers) in Ethiopia. Denied of private ownership of land, Ethiopian people struggled
for centuries against the inequitable land holdings in the country and successfully
removed the feudal system in 1975.
The regime (Derg) that came to power in 1975 under the slogan “Land to The Tiller”
paradoxically thwarted the motto and ended up in owning the land itself rather than
giving it to the people. The current government, which came into the power in 1991, was
expected to cure the age old land rights ills, among others by giving land to the people in
ownership. Rather, it maintained the DERG’s state ownership of land and controls all
urban and rural land as well as natural resources.
• Even though it is the state which controls land, rural peasants and pastoralists are
guaranteed with the life time “holding” right that gives all the rights except sale, any
other means of exchange and mortgage. Urban residents are also provided with the
right to get land for residence up to 99 years lease based arrangement. However, these
rights are not explicit in national constitution. The state ownership of the land in
current/present day Ethiopia is far from being perfect since it restricts the different
land rights of use, lease, rent, donation, and inheritance for different reasons.
• Since redistribution of land is highly restricted, access of rural land is also almost
nonexistent. The constitution is commended for its protection of land holding against
arbitrary state eviction by inserting a provision that gives “commensurate” amount of
compensation during expropriation. Nevertheless, subsequent implementing
proclamations have violated this protection by denying market value of expropriated
property.
• In short, the amount of compensation in the event of expropriation is considered
inadequate.
ETHIOPIAN TENURE HISTORY IN BRIEF
2.1.1 THE PRE- 1974 REVOLUTION ERA

Since time immemorial, land was controlled by the king and the ruling elite in
Ethiopia. As a result of the expansionist war of the ancient Ethiopian rulers
with their neighboring tribes, the state had vast territories under its rule.
The tribal lands were under the control of the monarchs and were usually
redistributed to the favorites and supports of the king in due time.
In any case, the land remained under the imperial control. Land was granted to
individual people/peasants in the form of Rist (usufractuary right).
The peasants were then allowed to use, rent and inherit the land to family
members. In exchange, peasants were obligated to make different kinds land
related tax payments.
Selling the land to non-family members was prohibited. Land was then transferred
in the form of inheritance from family to children for generations which overtime
reduced the size of farm lands.
Land was also provided to church which was considered a major ally to the
imperial powers. The church was a major possessor of material wealth not only
because by selling salvation in return for treasure and land, but also by
perpetuating imperial power over the people.
It was the church which played a major role in propagating the mass to obey the
king. Obedience to the king was justified in many of the Christian writings and the
day to day teachings.
Monarchs who disagree with church or became out of favor with the later found
themselves in the middle of bloody wars. Land owned by the government was
distributed to different people on the condition of serving the state at different
levels.
In the old days since gold and silver was not found in abundancy (Gebre-wold-ingida,
1962), the government heavily relied on the land under it is control to run the state
(shiferaw-bekele, 1995). This was done in two days, by giving land in lieu of salary to
those who directly served the state and by collect tax tributes in kind from those who
farmed the land. Land given in lieu of salary could revert to the state in the event of non-
fulfillment of the obligation by the holder of the land.
For example, land was given to the civil servant and war veterans (maderia land) in lieu
of salary or pension for their services to the state as long as they remained in services.
Land was also distributed to other state servants other than those mentioned above.
Generally known as ginde bel land. For example, land given to soldiers; people care
tents, canons or brought horses and mules to war fronts; people who serve the palace as
masons, prison guards, gardeners and so on were categorized under this tenure. In a
similar fashion, the church had also been distributing the land it had obtained from the
kings to the different hierarchy of the clergy and lay men, who served the church. The
name given to such types of land was samon land.
Hence, church land distributed to clergy, such as priests, deacons, church heads,
teachers, and the lay people who supported and protected the interest of the
church royal court (mahteme-sillassie, 1970; Pankhurst, 1966; Shiferaw-Bekele,
1995).
During the second half of the nineteenth century, the Ethiopian empire was further
expanded to present south, south eastern, and south western of the country.
Emperor Menelik II and his military commanders crushed any resistance
attempted by the natives and confiscated all the lands of the natives (Pankhurst,
1966).
In places where the native chief accepted the dominance of the Ethiopian empire,
the people were allowed to keep their lands intact (Ibid). In any case, a vast
territory the land added again to the Ethiopian empire during this period. All the
land which was confiscated by the northern forces was distributed to different
organs. One part was given to
menelik soldiers, to settle on and as a reward for their loyal service during the
expansion period
A second part was given to the local chief/gentry to maintain their support
A third part was given to the church that would be distributed to the church clergy in the
same fashion as in the north, and
Another share, held by the state, to be distributed to different people on the condition of
serving the state at different levels.
Northern people were encouraged to settle in the south in the hope that they, together existing
with the soldiers, would create effective control of the new territory. As a result of this
military expansion, the whole native people who used to cultivate the land on community and
clan base were left landless, gabbars. The gabbars of the south hence become literally
servants and tenants to the northern until 1974 Ethiopian revolution (Pankhurst, 1966;
crummey, 2000; Markakis, 2006). The peculiar feature of the land holding right in the
southern regions was that land was held in private ownership and hence subjected to sale and
other forms of exchange. There was a prolific land sale transaction at that time as investors
were interested in cash crop (coffee mainly) production by purchasing the land from owner.
But the land sale process left the southern gabbars as tenants who solely relied on crop
sharing farming activities. In the following decades (during the Emperor haile sellassie
era) the government tried to reduce the burdens of the southern gabbars by introducing
different land related laws. It tried to lift the burden but no avail, the landlord in the south
became more powerful. Side by side, the government introduced new tax bases on
agriculture and then later sold more lands to coffee growing investors both of which
negatively impacted the life of gabbars. The land tax reform triggered the peasant’s
rebellions in the northern and southern parts of the country (Gebru-tareke, 1977). In short,
the government land reforms had failed which led to the government’s demise in 1974 for
two main reasons: The emperor (Haile sellassie) himself and his family, together with the
baron’s and lords in both houses of parliament were owners of the vast tracts of land, and
any change in the land reform would mean harming their interest; because of lack of
information on its advantage, peasants of the Northern provinces resisted and opposed
any attempt of land measurements and registration.
Finally, peasant rebellions(rising, insurrection, refusal), popular unrest and most of all
student movements which rallied (united) on the famous slogan “Land to the Tiller”
became the reasons for the downfall of the Feudal system of the state in the country.
2.1.2 Rural Land Tenure during Derg Era

After the 1974-1975 revolution, a military junta (a. k. a. DERG) took

over power by ousting the emperor from his throne. The Derg
immediately passed proclamation No.31/1975 that nationalized all the
rural land and transferred the same to state ownership. The proclamation
overnight abolished the age old property system and left the land
owners empty handed without any compensation.
On the other hand, it allowed all the peasants and the tenants to maintain
and hold the land which they farmed and absolved them from any debt
or obligation they owed to the landlords. The law restricted the right to
use the land by prohibiting the lease/rent, donation, sale, exchange,
mortgage, and inheritance (except to miner children) of the land.
In retrospect, the land reform appeared successful in that it generated a lot
of support especially from the peasants of the southern region. The
administration of the land was provided to the peasant association created
in every village of 800 hectares of land. They were tasked with among
other things the distribution of land.
Although rural farmers were in a better position in terms of production
process decision, later erroneous policies and repeated land reforms made
them to benefit only marginally(slightly, a bit, a little bit) from it
(Dessalegn-Rahmato,1993). The government, as land owner, conducted
repeated land reforms and as the result farmers lost tenure security.
Government had also introduced forced urbanization, forced resettlement
programs (moving farmers from one region, mostly the north, to another,
mostly the south), and grain requisition programs (forcing farmers to
deliver all their produce to the government at the cheaper price instead of
selling it at market price.
 In conclusion, as Dessalegn-Rahmato (1993) observed, the history of
Ethiopia during the Derg regime has been partly recorded as a history of
growing rural property, food shortage, famine, and escalated rural
insurgency and civil war.

2.2 THE CURRENT RURAL LAND TENURE SYSTEM

2.2.1 Access to Rural Land

Two years after the adoption of the FDRE constitution, the Federal
Government enacted a rural Land administration and use proclamation
(proc. 87/1997) that replaces the 1975 (proc no. 31/1975) rural land law.
Proclamation 87/1997 was again repealed and replaced by the new rural
land administration and use proclamation (proc. 456/2005) in 2005.
 This proclamation follows the constitutional principle that creates the free
access to rural land. It declares that “…peasant farmers and pastoralists
engaged in agriculture for a living shall be given rural land free of charge”
(Art.5.1), a person, above the age of 18 years May claims a land for
agricultural activities. Women who want to engage in agriculture shall also
have the right to get and use land (Art.5.2) of FDRE constitution.
This principle of free access to rural land has also been replicated in the
regional land law. The conditions attached to this right are first, the person
must want to engage in agricultural activities.
In other words, agriculture must be his/her main means of livelihood or
profession. Secondly, she/he reside in the area where the agricultural land
is located. Although this principle is not clearly seen in the Federal rural
land law, regional rural land laws have clearly envisaged it.
Thus, residency and professions are the two important conditions to get
rural land in Ethiopia. The rationale for this seems to be that since there
is shortage of agricultural land in rural areas, because of population
pressure, it is not advisable to give land those who live elsewhere
(absentee owners) and those who earn income from other professions.
The criticisms raised against this rule are first,
The principle of free access to rural land has, in practice, not been
working for shortage of land in rural areas and because the laws prohibit
redistribution of land.
Second, because of the residency requirement in the law, peasant
farmers are locked in on their land instead of searching for additional
income by staying in urban areas for longer periods. This in turn
increases the pressure on the agricultural land and exacerbates
(intensify) land fragmentation.
2.2.2 Nature and Duration of Land Rights

Concerning the nature of the right provided to farmers, the Federal and Regional land
proclamations uphold the constitutional principle that denies private ownership of land.
Rather, these proclamations provide farmers with a right termed as “holding”.
The Federal Rural Land Law defines the term “holding rights” as “…right of peasants and
pastoralists to use rural land for the purposes of the agriculture and natural resources
development, lease and bequeath to members his family or other lawful heirs, and includes
the right to acquire property produced on his land there on by his labor or capital and to sale,
exchange, and bequeath the same…” (Art.2.4 of proc.456/2005).
Similar definitions have also been included in the other regional rural land laws. The
peasants and pastoralists can use the land for agricultural production, have full ownership to
the production collected there from, have right to rent to fellow farmer (share-cropping),
lease to investors, and inherit and donate(as a gift), to family members.
Peasants shall have such right for life time and beyond, since they can
donate to and inherit it to others. It has been declared that:
“…rural land use right of peasant farmers, semi-pastoralists and
pastoralists shall have no time limit…” (See id Art.7 (1); Art.5 (3) of
Amhara; Art.5 (1) b of Tigray rural land proclamation).
In a way, this gives tenure security to the holders of the land as the right
of using the land and the investment made there on will not be
threatened by time limitation. It must be noted that the longer the
duration of land use right, the better in terms of ensuring tenure security.
The missing element in the Federal rural land law is, however, the issue
of pastoralists land.
The pastoralists are people who live in the lowlands of the country
depending on the production of animal husbandry for their daily
livelihood.
They do not have a plot of land like highland farmers to settle on; they are
always on the move in search of pasture and water for their animals. The
challenge is how to define their right of grazing over vast territories of the
lowland as a holding right; It includes the right to lease, rent, inheritance, and
donation. The type of property regime dominating the areas is more of
communal rather than private holding and governed by customary rules
rather than formal laws. The remedy would be for the lowland regions to
come up with their own rural land laws that take into consideration the
customary tenure system of the areas.
2.2.3 MODALITIES OF LAND ACQUISITION
There are different ways through which a person may acquire rural land in
Ethiopia. The la recognizes four modalities for a person to get access to rural
land:
A . LAND GRANT
As mentioned above the FDRE constitution and subsequent land laws have
created a free access to rural land for those who wish to engage in agricultural
activities. Any person, who is 18 years age and above has right to get rural land
by government grant. The government, through its different land administration
apparatus, is empowered to give the land to those who are in need of it.
Land grant may be made from unoccupied government land, communal land,
land reserve (land left without heirs and claimed back by the government, land
claimed back by the state because of the holder leaves the area permanently
and /or neglected land), and finally by conducting land distribution.
B . INHERITANCE AND DONATION
Any person who is a member of peasant family may have the right to get the land from his/her family through inheritance or
donation/gift (Art.5 (.2) of proc.456/2005, art.7.of Amhara). A family member is defined as “any person who permanently
lives with the holder of holding right sharing the livelihood of the latter…” (Art.2.5 of proc 456/2005).
Unlike the family members recognized by the Federal Revised Family Code (RFC) as those who are related by marriage,
blood and adoption, the Federal Rural Land Law follows a slightly different path. As can be inferred from the above cited
provision, a family member is one who “lives” with the peasant who holds the land and “shares” his livelihood.”
The requirements are basically two: residency and management.
It means, first, she/he must permanently live with the farmer under the same roof (residency element); and second, he must
totally rely on the peasant farmer for his life and has no other income of his own. He is under the control and administration
of the farmer (management element). This means that the law does not specifically require marital or blood relations for a
person to be considered as a family.
Hence, a laborer who has no alternatives income of his own and lives with the farmers without salary under the same roof
may be considered as family member and eligible for inheritance.
 Even the Amhara Rural Land proclamation goes one more step by allowing inheritance of land
by will to any farmer engaged in agriculture (art.16.1). By contrast, it is not possible to inherit or
donate rural land to one’s own children who live elsewhere or are engaged in other professions.
The rationale behind such rule seem that since land belongs to the state and people and not a
private one, it has to be transferred to those who are in need of it, irrespective of their blood
relations.
c. Lease
The third modality to acquire land is government land transfer to private investors through lease
contract (article5 (4) (a). these is the base for the current large-scale agricultural land transfer
practice carried out in the country. Ethiopia is one of the countries that attract interested
investors and sovereign states from different countries. The Federal rural land proclamation
(456/2005) under article 5(4.a) allows investors to get rural land for agricultural investment:
Private investors that engage in agricultural development activities shall have the right to use
rural land in accordance with the investment policies and laws at federal and regional level.
The same principle has been reproduced in all the regional rural land laws promulgated so far.
The logic behind this provision is to attract investors who have the capital and technology to
participate in agricultural production of land found in the low land areas of the country.
About 60 million hectares of arable land lies in the low lands of the country, on the border to the Sudan. Because of its
hostile environment, however, peasants from the highland areas have not been interested in cultivating the low land
areas. Taking this fact into consideration, the federal government has offered tax holidays and other incentives to attract
domestic and foreign investors.
An incredible amount of domestic and foreign investors have shown interest and got land accordingly. It has been
claimed that so far about 3.5 million hectare of land has been transferred to both type of investors, and the government
has plans to yet transfer the same amount of land in the coming five years ((Dessalegn-Rahmato, 2011).
The government on the hand has put the figures at about 2.6 million (2.2 million contributed by regional states and
400000 by the federal government). In the beginning the procedure of land transfer was left to the concerned regional
state. But later on it was changed for two reasons: first, regional states were proved inefficient in providing land; and
second, they lacked the necessary technical capacity in designation and transferring the necessary land. It is said, for
examples, the western region of Gambella had transferred 100000 ha of land to the Indian company Karuturi for less
than two US dollars a hectares and for exaggerated period of 70 years.
To alleviate such problems, the federal government has issued a directive in February 2010 which enables it to take
back control of all uncultivated land in all regional states above 5000 hectatres. The directive empowers the federal
ministry of agriculture (MoA) to identify and transfer agricultural lands, which are above 5000 hectares up on the
consent of the regions. In other words. Regional states would still keep the right to give land for agricultural lease
below this limit.
Accordingly, the MoA identified and transferred to its land bank about 3.6 million
hectares from four regions (Dessalegn-Rahmato, 201; Agricultural-investment-
support-directorate, 2011). The federal government MoA has set the maximum
amount of land to be transferred which is at the moment 50000, 20000, and 5000
hectares for bio-fuel, cereals, and tea/coffee production respectively. Some critics,
however, claim that the government does not strictly enforce its own rules.
In reality, regional states do not comply with the set limits by the federal
government. Further, regions complain of the lack of institutional coordination
between the MoA and concerned regions during provision of land and the
subsequent follow up of the investment projects. For example, it is not clear as to
who should follow the environmental and social impacts of a project, who
receives income tax and the lease installment payments clear and so on
D. Transferability of Land Rights
There are other modalities, through which land use rights may be transferred
temporarily to others. There are referred to as commercial land transactions to
differentiate them from inheritance and gift. To be specific, the law recognizes rent
(from farmer to farmer) and lease (from government to investor) as the two possible
ways to transfer land use rights temporarily.
 Sale and mortgage are not yet allowed. The federal rural land law provides the
general provision that allows rent and lease the details of which shall be decided by
regional rural land laws. It is generally said that peasants and pastoralists can “lease
to other farmers or investors the land from their holding of a size sufficient for the
intended development in a manner that shall not displace them, for a period of time
to be determined by rural land administration laws of regions based on particular
local condition [emphasis added]” (art.8 (1) of proc.456/2005).
It means that the law gives the discretion of determining about duration of the lease
period and the amount of land to be leased out in each region. Another point is that
the law uses only the term “lease”, and excludes the word “rent” whereas regional
land laws give different meanings to the two term.
Since the FDRE rural land proclamation no.
456/2005 provides regional state discretion to do so, regional rural land laws do not follow similar approach
in the size of land to be leased out and the duration of lease period. For instance, in Tigray the peasant is
allowed to rent out up to 50% of the size of his land for 20 years if the lessee uses modern technology; and
3 years if she/he uses traditional means of production (art.6(1), (3) of Tigray regional rural land
proclamation. In Amhara region, renting land is allowed for maximum of 25 years, although the size is not
mentioned. There are practices in the region where the farmer rent out the whole his holding to small scale
investor.
 The argument for deviating from the federal one (which says in a manner that shall not displace them) is
one that depending on recognizing the rationality of the farmers; that farmers knows the better for
themselves.
The Oromia land law follows the Tigray approach in terms of size and duration to be leased out. The
SNNPRS rural land law follows somehow different approach. According to article 8 (1) of proclamation
no.110/2007, the duration of land rent from peasant to peasant is 5 years, from peasant to investor is 10
years, and from peasant to those who cultivate perennial crops is up to 25 years.
Investors who rent land either from the peasant or government have the right to mortgage their lease right as
security to bank (art.8 (4) of proc.456/2005). What is being mortgaged here is that is not the land itself but the
lease right; the right to use the land for a given period of time.
When we look at practices, the investor can lease or may give as collateral to the banks the land he rented from
the government rather than such from peasant farmer. Because, unlike investors, our laws not permit/entitle the
peasant/pastoralist in order to mortgage or use as collateral their bare land to gain financial support.
2.5 TERMINATION OF LAND RIGHTS

Rural land rights are not immune to government intervention. Hence, a farmer may be required by law to use his
rights in some condition than another. For instance, a farmer may not cultivate land having 30 degree slope,
without putting terraces on the land (art.13 (4) of federal proclamation. Such restrictions are made for various
reason, such as environmental equity, health and others. Violations of such obligation may render the loss of land
itself.
Concerning the reasons of loss of land right, the proclamation does not as such give a coherent list. For instance,
it said that a holder of rural land “shall be obliged to use and protect his land”. When the land gets damaged, the
holder of the land shall lose his use right (art.10 (1).
In general, a review of the federal as well as regional RLAUPs reveals that the
following may be considered as a reasons for the loss or termination of rural
land rights:
Permanent employment of the farmer that brings him an average salary
determined by the government
Engagement in profession other than agriculture and for which tax is paid
Absence of a farmer from the locality without the knowledge his whereabouts
and without renting the land for more than 5 years
Fallowing the land for three consecutive years without sufficient reason
Failure to protect land from flood erosion
Forfeiting the land right upon written notification
Voluntarily transfer of land through gift
Land distribution (the loss will be partial)
Expropriation of land without replacement of another