BY ABEBE WOLDEGIORGIS
Land always comes at the forefront when we talk about countries where agriculture is the mainstay of their respective economy. Combined with labor and capital, land becomes a source of wealth creation, but the benefit obtained from it will be insignificant and even might pose social disturbance if not well managed.
Hence, as ensuring tenure security to farmers is instrumental in enhancing production and productivity, rendering more attention in this regard is quite essential.
Since the time of Emperor Haile Selassie, the land issue has been a hot political discourse. In the imperial era, the land holding system was the reflection of feudalism marginalizing peasants.
Historically, there were various types of land holding systems. In the northern part of the country, the ‘rist’ system was characterized by Communal land holding, provided inheritance rights to the members of the community and transferring land holding right from parents to the offspring’s’ was a common practice.
Here, farmers had a relative freedom to use the land as they wished and benefited out of the transaction value of the land. Unlike the northern part, in the land system in the southern part of the country, peasants were landless and subdued to the landlords.
They paid tribute to the landlords, the church and received a small portion of their products. They had also a duty to provide corves labor to the land owners.
As the economy was predominantly feudal-oriented for centuries, its productivity was hampered due to the absence of a sense of land ownership in the part of the farmers.
The production relation was an inhibiting factor for achieving economic progress. Landlords reside in the city exploited peasants and enhanced their unearned income while the peasants became poorer and poorer.
According to the renowned land researcher, Desalegn Rahmato, from 1950s onwards private investment was intruding in various parts of the country such as in Humera in upper, middle and lower awash, in wolayta and of course in Jijiga and stimulated the economy.
Some urban residents purchased land for the farming community and produced various crops and supplied them to the market. Foreign investors also invested on cotton and sugar plantations in Awash valley but though modern farming flourished, the expansion of mechanized farms posed the eviction of peasants.
In the 1960s, the expansion of education gave way for the emerging elite class who demanded political and economic reform. The question of “land to the tiller” became the rallying point to the progressively minded class including the members of student movements.
The old imperial regime adamantly persisted to perpetuate the century old establishment instead of preparing itself for the unavoidable change by responding to the political and economic demand.
The bycameral parliament comprises the lower and the upper house had a legislation power but failed to make law enable to redress the appalling situation of peasants. In fact, any law was not passed unless it was endorsed by the emperor.
The century old monarchical system which had run out of time to cope up with the new situation was overthrown by the military junta and met its ultimate death in 1974.
To respond to the question of “land to the tiller” which was the cause for the popular movement, the Dergue regime instead nationalized the land. The land proclamation of 1975 gave the monopoly ownership of the land to the government.
Peasant’s tenancy changed from the landlords to the government and peasants only retained the use rights of the land and the transaction value of the land was once again nullified.
Most private farming enterprises also became nationalized and closed. The agricultural productivity witnessed its climax by private companies plummeted to zero.
Side by side, the land holding system, the natural factors affected the land fertility and the ecosystem .The population growth which is the highest in the world became a threat to the natural resources.
When their children became old enough to till land, farmers provided a portion of their holding to them and this again made land fragmented and vulnerable to degradation.
The monopoly of land ownership by the government hampered the flourishing of private investment in the rural part of the country.
As farmers had only use rights of their land, they had no sense of ownership and to invest on their land. They also showed reluctance to protect and conserve the natural resources.
When EPRDF took power, it sustained the Dergue land holding system again and lost its transaction value. In 1991 GC, the number of the Ethiopian population was 40 million and currently the number rose to 110 million and still 80 percent of the population earns their living from subsistence farming which is environmentally unfriendly and unsustainable.
According to the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change recent report, about 95 percent of the nation’s cultivated area is used by smallholder farmers with holdings of less than 2 hectares.
Severe population pressure in the highlands is forcing land fragmentation and expansion of agriculture into forests, steep hills and mountain sides and marginal areas.
There is little room for further expansion. In many areas, an increasing proportion of the rural population, as much as 30% has become landless. Furthermore, rapid horizontal expansion of human settlements into fertile agricultural lands without proper planning and zoning is reducing cultivable land.
The resource degradation made agriculture unsustainable practice and necessitate reforming land policy. We can understand from the above statement that utilizing land as business as usual neither enables the nation to ensure neither food security nor use the resource sustainably.
Similar to the Dergue regime, EPRDF used the land holding system to perpetuate its political power. It is proved that in the last five national elections, farmers were warned that unless they vote for the ruling party they would face eviction.
On the other hand, unlike the Dergue, the EPRDF regime imposed a land lease policy which is a capitalist model in urban centers that opened the door for corrupted officials to amass undeserved profit and unlawful income.
Evicting urban residents suspected of supporting opposition parties was also witnessed after the revelation of the 2005 EC election result. Currently, the poor have no access to land for residential house construction as illegal settlement and land grabbing has been rampant particularly in cities.
According to economists, while 85 percent of the nation’s labor engaged in subsistence farming attaining structural change is impossible. Hence, shifting the stranded from rural labor to the non-farming sectors such as the manufacturing and service through ensuring a sense of ownership of land to farmers is essential. When such lucrative approaches are entertained, more private investment flows to all sectors and farmers bargaining power to transact their land will also be enhanced.
Currently, Ethiopia is preparing itself for the 6th national election and the ruling party promised to conduct free and fair elections and various measures helpful for making it have been taken.
Reforming laws and appointing pers-onalities with professional integrity to lead democratic institutions including the election board brought a glimpse of hope.
When the official political debate begins the land issue must be a priority agenda and after the election result is announced, the incoming government priority agenda should be restoring farmers’ tenure security through ensuring not only the use value but also the transaction value of the land.
The Ethiopian Herald March 28/2021
