Legal and Institutional Frameworks Regulating Rural Land Governance in Ethiopia: Towards a Comparative Analysis on the Best Practices of Other African Countries

This piece of writing has investigated the legal and institutional frameworks regulating rural land governance in Ethiopia by taking the comparative analysis of rural land governance of other African countries, namely Ghana, Kenya and Uganda. The best experience of these countries on the legal and institutional frameworks is examined so as to draw a lesson for the Ethiopian land governance system. The article has employed doctrinal legal research approach and rural land legislations of the country were investigated in great detail. The article has also comparative aspect because, it has drawn lessons from the legal regimes of other African countries that have best experience on the legal and institutional frameworks governing rural lands. Ethiopia can draw many good practices from Ghanaian, Kenyan and Ugandan rural land governance. Rural land legislations in these countries have given sufficient room for the protection of customary land rights and these rights are equally compensated at the time of compulsory acquisition of land use rights. In addition to these, land legislations in these countries compensate owners not only for the value of the produce upon their land but also for the market value of the land taken, cost of disturbance and other damage like severance and injurious affection. So, this can be a good lesson for Ethiopia in order to consider the life of individuals whose land is being expropriated but unable to rehabilitate to their past economic situation after compulsory acquisition. Ethiopia can also acquire a good lesson from these countries on the mode of institutional arrangement governing rural land administration is concerned. In all these African countries, the mandate to administer land is arranged at the ministry level at the apex and there are also other independent sector based institutions up to the lowest administrative hierarchy. Ethiopia, that governs land at the directorate level under the Ministry of Agriculture at the top and bureau of land and environmental protection at the middle and land and environmental protection offices/departments at the lower administrative level can capture this good practice from Ghana, Kenya and Uganda in order to give sufficient room for this vital economic resource that is livelihood for mass populations of the country.


Introduction
Land is increasingly recognized as a significant governance concern and it is also the single greatest resource in most countries (FAO, 2009). Peoples require land and other related resources such as forests and water for the production of food to sustain their basic livelihoods at large. Land provides a place for housing and cities, and is a basic factor of economic production as well as a basis for social, cultural and religious values and practices. Access to land and other natural resources and the associated security of tenure have significant implications for development (FAO, 2009). Land is a key for life with dignity; it is a basis for entitlements which can ensure an adequate standard of living and economic independence and thus, personal freedom (Eide, 2006). Land has major implications for human rights such as: the right to food, health, housing, work and education (Eide, 2006).
Ethiopia is predominantly an agrarian state and as in any other states inhibited by agrarian society, land in Ethiopia has been the major means of production and livelihoods. Land is the major asset in both traditional and modern societies (Ethiopian Economic Association & Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, 2002). It has been crucial means of production for the rural society and for the ruling elite (Ege, 1994). Land served the people as its abode; as means of production and symbol of freedom (Ethiopian Economic Association & Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, 2002). Land was taken as a symbol of freedom because in the pre-1974 revolutionary Ethiopia; only those people with land use right or rist land were considered as a liberated or free. People without rist land, on the other hand were considered either as slaves or serfs for land owners. For rulers of the country, land has been the basis of their political and  (Olika, 2006).
The way that land is governed and administered therefore has a significant impact on the livelihood of mass inhabitants of the country. Land laws and the institutions that govern access and use of land can have great impact on the economic growth of the country. Effective land laws and well-functioning institutions that govern rural lands are highly imperative so as to regulate rights in land. These are crucial to have reputable governance on land sector and reputable governance on land in turn can ensure the rights of landholders in land. In line to this, the article has examined the legal and institutional frameworks regulating rural land governance in Ethiopia by taking the comparative analysis of other African countries (i.e. Ghana, Kenya and Uganda) that are assumed having best platform on the construction of legal and institutional frameworks regulating rural land.

Brief Overview of Land Governance
There is no one and single agreed definition that precisely connotes the term land governance. The following working definition can be crafted for land governance is concerned. Land governance concerns the rules, processes and structures through which decisions are made about access to land and its use, the way the decisions are implemented and enforced, the way that competing interests in land are managed (FAO, 2009). It includes state structures such as land agencies, courts, and ministries and municipalities responsible for land. It also covers the legal and policy framework for land, as well as traditional practices governing land transactions, inheritance and dispute resolution systems (FAO, 2009). Some of the key elements embedded in the above definitions concerning land governance are: In the first place, Land governance emphasis on rules and process: Land governance refers to the rules and the structures that govern and mediate relationships, decision-making and enforcement of the decisions made on land. The rules and structures of land tenure can be formal (i.e. Laws, regulations, and byelaws administered by parliaments, courts and municipal councils) as well as informal or customary (e.g. elder's councils, social networks, etc.) or a combination of them. Process here defines how issues on land are put on the agenda, how decisions are made and by whom, how those decisions are implemented, and how differences and grievances on land are managed.
In the Second place, Land governance encompasses institutions: Land governance recognizes statutory as well as informal/extra-legal institutions and organisations.
Land governance is conceptually broader and includes state actors, customary/non-state actors, religious sectors and private and professional sectors as well.
What all the above assertions exemplify is that, land governance is broad and encompasses many stipulations within it. It is not easy to demarcate the term in one and single terminology. But in a simplified terms, we can delineate land gov-   , 1995). Interestingly, the constitution also recognizes the right of peasants to obtain land without payment and the protection against eviction from their possession. Pastoralists have the right to free land for grazing and cultivation and the right not to be displaced from their own land (Article 40 (4) (5) of FDRE Constitution, 1995). In essence, the constitution has not incorporated provision concerning acquisition and transfer of land by urban dwellers. However, some interpret article 40 (6) which deals with the "right of investors" to get land, as one that includes urban dwellers as well. Article 40 (6) of the constitution envisages that, private investors may get land on the basis of payment arrangement. Here in a plain term, an investor is a person who uses the land for business activities and his/her main motive is to obtain profit. In actual fact, correlating urban dwellers with investor is erroneous because the motive of most of the urban dwellers is not profit like investor. Noticing this problem, some regional state (i.e. Amhara regional state) constitution replaced the word "investor" with "proprietor" (Article 40 (6) of Amhara Regional State Constitution, 2001). Urban dwellers/residents will be included in this change because the word proprietor may also include any person who owns a property.

Legal Frameworks Regulating Rural Land
2) The Federal Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation No.

456/2005
The FDRE constitution states that, federal government shall enact laws for the utilization and conservation of land and other natural resources (Article 51 (5) of FDRE Constitution, 1995). Due to this stipulation the first federal framework legislation enacted to implement the constitution was, the federal rural land ad- inheritance rights to be exercised, and also limited forced land distribution only to irrigation development (Article 8 (1) (5) & Article 9 (2) of Proc. No. 456/2005, 2005. This proclamation was enacted for the purpose of ensuring tenure security; strengthening property rights of farmers; sustainably conserving and developing natural resources; establishing a land data base and conducive land administration in the country (Preamble of Proc. No. 456/2005, 2005. 3) The Expropriation of Landholdings for Public Purposes and Payment But the author of this article believes that the time fixed, (ten and/or fifteen years) in the previous and current proclamations is not justifiable calculation.
On one hand, Land legislations in the country provide peasant farmers, semipastoralists and pastoralists to use rural land for unlimited period of time. In addition, these legislations mandates them even the right to transfer such use right to their family members. In relation to this, the method of calculating displacement compensation in both of the repealed and the current compensation payment proclamations has no any reasonable justification. Since, land legislations mandate landholders to use their holding for unlimited period of time then the displacement compensation that landholders may get by multiplying the average annual income of the previous five years by ten years in the previous proclama-

Legal Regimes of Rural Land Governance at the Regional States Level
The FDRE constitution mandates regional states with the power to administer land and other natural resources in accordance with the federal laws (Article 52 (2d) of FDRE Constitution, 1995). In line to this, Federal rural land administration and use proclamation bestows regional states the power to enact rural land administration and use laws and establish institutions so as to implement the proc. No. 456/2005 within their respective regions (Article 17 (1) (2) of Proclamation No. 456/2005, 2005. Due to this stipulation, Oromia national regional What makes most of these rural land proclamations (i.e. proclamations of the Oromia, Amhara, SNNPR and Tigray regional states) similar is that, the legislations mainly focus on farmers or peasants and a few provisions concerning pastoralists and agro-pastoralists are incorporated. Provisions concerning pastoralists and agro-pastoralists are either scattered or only scanty provisions are incorporated in the legislations. So, one can conclude that rural land administration proclamations in the high land regional states of Ethiopia lacks a focus on land rights of pastoralists and semi-pastoralists. The other lowland regional states have also enacted their own rural land administration and use proclamations. In relation to this, Afar regional state has enacted proclamation No. 49/2009, Benishangul Gumuz regional state has enacted proclamation No. 85/2010, Gambela regional state has enacted proclamation No. 185/2011, and lastly the Somali regional state has enacted proclamation No. 128/2013. In fact, the regional states have not added any new thing while enacting their own land legislations rather the proclamations are an exact replica of those of the federal government. None of them has attempted to contextualize the federal proclamations to the socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions of their respective regional states. Thus, the effort to formulate regional land related proclamations adds little value to the agro-pastoral development agendas. The proclamations do not give a complete picture of land use and management issues of the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the region.
But some lowland regional states proclamations have incorporated some additions which are not covered by the land proclamations of the other lowland regional states. If one considers the rural land proclamation of the Afar and Somali regional states, much attention is given for pastoralism and semi-pastoralism. In their preambles, these legislations emphasize the need to strengthen the right of pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and farmers; create a sense of ownership; ensure equal rights of women and the disabled; create a conducive atmosphere for investment; establish a system of rural land administration that promotes the conservation and management of natural resources in which the present use does not compromise the development endeavors of future generations; and establish a database system for different types of land holdings. The rural land administration and use proclamation of the Somali regional state guarantees the use of rural land use rights of pastoralists by ensuring that all men and women pastoralists have a right to access grazing land and use it for unlimited time (Article 5 (1) of Somali Regional State Rural Land Administration and Use Proc. No. 128/2013, 2013. When we see the land proclamation in the Benishangul-Gumuz national regional state, it does not mention pastoralists or agro-pastoralists specifically rather it provides provisions relating to communal holding; but it is not clear whether this phrase addresses the issue of land use and management in pastoral and agro-pastoral areas.
Though regional states in the lowland (pastoral) areas have enacted their own land proclamations, impliedly it is the federal government that is administering land in these areas. Most of the lands in the lowland regions are grabbed by foreign direct investments. In these areas, federal government is mandated to administer investment lands if the amount of land given for the investor is more than 5000 hectare. Even if, the regional states in the lowland regions have enacted rural land administration and use laws but their administrative power is snatched by the federal government since most of these regions are occupied by foreign direct investments.

Land Administration Institutions at the Federal State Level
Institutional setup is one of the most important factors that contribute to the success of land administration systems through transforming legal tools and policies into practice. It is believed that, institutional mandates shall emanate from legal provisions. In the Ethiopian legal system, the division of power between the federal government and the regional states is asserted by the 1995 FDRE constitution. The constitution has mandated the federal government in order to enact laws for utilization and conservation of land and other natural resources (Article 51 (5) of FDRE Constitution, 1995). On the other hand, the constitution mandates regional states with the power to administer land and other natural resources in accordance with the federal laws (Article 52 (2d) of FDRE Constitution, 1995). From these constitutional provisions what we can deduce is that, the two tiers of governments (i.e. the federal and regional governments) have different functions as far as the land administration task is concerned. Here, the federal governments are entrusted with enacting framework legislation, while the regional governments are mandated with the administration and use of land as per the framework legislation of the federal government.
At the federal government level, ministry of agriculture is mandated to over- contribute on capacity development of the regional institutions; links the work at the federal level with that at the regional level; and provides inputs for policy making to advance the harmonization of rural land administration in Ethiopia (Hailu, 2016).
Under the Ministry of agriculture (MoA), there is a newly established semiautonomous agency to administer large scale agricultural investment lands, which is called agricultural investment land administration agency. Ministry of agriculture through this agency is authorized to administer any large scale land deal in the country where the land size given for investor through lease arrangement is more than five thousand hectares. Accordingly, regional states are not allowed to conduct land deals with any investor if the land size meant for investment is more than 5000 hectares. For example, the contract concluded with the Ministry of agriculture (MoA) and an Indian company (karuturi Agro-products plc.) is a typical example that waives the states mandate not to administer land within their respective regions. The contract was signed between MoA and karuturi Agro-products plc in 25th October 2010 for fifty years at 20 birr rent (approximately one US$) per hectare per annum. The lease contract is signed for hundred thousand hectare of land with the condition that another two hundred thousand hectare of land will be added as the company develops the presently agreed upon land within two years of the execution of the contract (Behailu, 2015b). The reason given to grant such power to the federal government is inefficiency and incompetence on the part of the regional states. The regional states were accused of inefficiency and corruption by the federal government (Behailu, 2015b). Basically, such mandate given for the federal ministry of agriculture on regional lands is against constitutional stipulation that authorizes regional state to administer land and other natural resources in accordance with federal laws within their respective regions.

Land Administration Institutions at the Regional States Level
The federal rural land administration and use proclamation No. 456/2005 provides a general framework for regional states so as to enact their own rural land administration and use laws and establish institutions based up on their regional conditions (Article 17 (1) of Proclamation No. 456/2005). At the present day, most of the regional states have enacted their own regional land administration and use laws and established land administration institutions based on the framework legislation. At the regional level, institutional structures vary and each regional state has adopted different approach to their land administration institution structures. In line to this, from the four highland regional states in the country, (i.e. Oromia, Amhara, SNNPR and Tigray) the three regions (Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR) have established a separate land administration and use authority but Tigray regional state does not have a land administration department but the region has retained the same structure as the federal government ministry department (USAID, 2004).
In the Oromia national regional state, the land administration institution is structured at the bureau level as the "Oromia Bureau of rural Land and Envi- Here what we can infer is that, the bureau is endowed with both administrative and judicial functions which are contrary to the principle of separation of power. One can consider that, as to the doctrine of separation of powers none of the government, i.e. the legislative, executive and judicial should ever exercise the powers of the other. Nevertheless, most of the mandates entrusted for the bureau are executive functions; the proclamation has also entrusted the bureau to conduct the function or act that by its very nature is reserved for the judiciary.
For example, the bureau is supposed to resolve and take legal action on individuals or entities that use land to the determent of natural resources. This function is an overlapping function of the bureau that should have to be exercised by the judiciary. Since there is no separate land tribunal reserved for land disputes in the bureau then there are no lawyers whose very duty is to resolve disputes raised by the organ and party. If there are no lawyers performing the activity of the judiciary, then it is not easy for the other experts to frame each and every disputed legal fact between the bureau and party.
In the SNNPR state, the land administration authority also includes environmental protection units like that of Oromia national regional state and it is The organization of the offices at Amhara national regional state is similar to that of the Oromia and SNNPR regional State in that it includes environmental units as well; however, at the woreda level, the environmental protection office is separate and operated independently from the land administration and use department (Behailu, 2015a). In the Amhara national regional state, at the beginning the institution is structured in the authority level by a proclamation No. and use regulation different from other regional states proclamations is that, it has also indicated the term office of the land administration and use committee of the kebele and sub-Kebele levels. As to this regulation, the term office of the This can be a good lesson for other regional states in Ethiopia in order to have effective rural land governance in the country by decentralizing functions between the administrative and judicial organs.

Typologies of Rural Land Tenure in Ethiopia
There are different conceptual definitions for the term land tenure. Somewhat inclusive definition is given by United Nations food and agriculture organization (FAO) and here it is defined as a "relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land" (FAO, 2002 The one and foremost issue that raise discussion under the private holding is the insertion of pastoral land within the private holding category. Private holding includes pastoral land tenure systems even though the way pastoral lands managed are just seems communal ones. Pastoral lands rather should be re-garded as "res communes" or communal lands in the proper sense, with various ownership rights vested in specific collectives of people. In the Ethiopian legal system, pastoral tenure which is one of vaguely defined rights over large tracts of land vested in a widely defined group is categorized under the agricultural tenure systems that attach specific rights over specific parcels of land to specific individuals over long periods of time. In strictly legal terms, all pastoral lands are now owned by the state on behalf of the peoples of Ethiopia. The FDRE Constitution guarantees access to land for all Ethiopian pastoralists to have the right to free land for grazing and cultivation as well as the right not to be displaced from their own lands, but leaves it to subsidiary legislation, to be worked out by the ethnically based regional states, to specify the terms and conditions under which land is made available to users. In practical terms, the pastoral lands have not been covered by specific national legislation granting security of tenure to the people who live from pastoralism. A number of issues combine to obscure the existence of tenure regimes in the pastoral areas, leading to the assumption that pastoral lands basically were "res nullius" or no-man's land. The assumption that pastoral lands do not belong to anybody has been central to one of the most enduring generalizations about pastoralism, viz. the tragedy of the commons theorem (Hardin, 1968).
The second type of tenure typology (which is vaguely recognized) in the Ethiopian legal system is communal holding. The proclamation No. 456/2005 gives definition for communal holding as, a rural land which is given by the government to local residents for common grazing, forestry and other social services (Article 2 (12) of Proclamation No. 456/2005). Thus, the land is under the custody of the community bestowed from the government for common use. The community can use the communal holding for animal grazing, growing perennials, and perhaps holding some social functions on it. A communal land by definition allows access of use to everybody who is a residing member of the community in question. It is important that an individual be a recognized member of the community in order for him or her to be beneficial of the communal land. Communal holding is designated usually from the customary use rights of the community, yet it is subject to conversion to private holding at the prerogative of the state (Behailu, 2015a).
Though the federal and regional states rural land administration and use proclamations apparently recognizes communal land tenure typology as one mode of land tenure but its existence is debatable one. Strictly speaking, the existence of communal land tenure typology highly rests up on the will of government. So, one can only claim two types land tenure regimes (i.e. the state and the private holding). From the readings of both the federal and regional states rural land administration and use proclamations, one can strike out the communal holding from the ambit of rural land tenure typology. Proclamation No.
456/2005 defines communal holding as, rural land which is given by the government to local residents for common grazing, forestry and other social services. From the underlined phrase one can deduce that, the government is the pro- The third tenure typology under the Ethiopian legal system is state holding. State holding on the other hand is defined as, a rural land demarcated and those lands to be demarcated in the future at federal or regional states holdings; and includes forest lands, wildlife protected areas, state farms, mining lands, lakes, rivers, and other rural lands (Article 2 (13) of Proclamation No. 456/2005). If a certain piece of land is not categorized under private or communal holding typology then it automatically falls under the domain of the state holding because of the phrase "…any other land" included in the wordings of the proclamation.

Nature of Rights in Land
In many countries the issue of land is not a matter of constitution rather it can be equally depicted under the category of property rights. Constitutional laws stipulate property rights in general rather than expressly fixing of land rights separately. In the Ethiopian legal system, the FDRE constitution while defining property rights has utilized bundles of rights approach. The inclusive concept of bundles of rights is developed by Schlager and Ostrom 1 and as to the bundle of rights approach; the owners hold all five types of rights (access, withdrawal, management, exclusion, and alienation rights) (Schlager & Ostrom, 1992). But the constitution has treated the land issue separately by isolating it from other categories of private property that fall under the bundle of rights approach. The bundle of rights approach envisaged in the constitution can be identified when one reads article 40 (1) (7) of the FDRE constitution. According to FDRE constitution, the right to ownership of private property includes the right to acquire, to use, to dispose of such property by sale or bequest or to transfer it otherwise (Article 40 (1) of FDRE Constitution). In addition to this, the constitution also provides that, every Ethiopian shall have the full right to the immovable proper-1 As to the bundle of rights approach of Schlager and Ostrom, owners of the property hold the right to access (right to enter a defined physical area and enjoy non-subtractive benefits); the rights to withdrawal (the right to obtain resource units or products of a resource system); the right to management (for example, to transform and use a resource); exclusion rights (that is to determine who is entitled to access and withdrawal rights, and who decides about the transfer of such entitlements); and alienation rights (the right to sell or lease a resource). ty he builds and to the permanent improvements he brings about on the land by his labor or capital. This right shall include the right to alienate, to bequeath, and, where the right of use expires, to remove his property, transfer his title, or claim compensation for it (Article 40 (7) of 1995 FDRE Constitution). As to these two constitutional provisions, the right to private property of holders in FDRE constitution is constructed in terms of the bundle of rights approach as categorized by Schlager and Ostrom.
Article 40 (2) of the constitution defines private property as, any tangible or intangible product which has value and is produced by the labor, creativity, enterprise or capital of an individual citizen, association which enjoy juridical personality under the law, or in appropriate circumstances, by communities specifically empowered by law to own property in common. From this sub-provision one can argue that land cannot regard as private property because there is no labor, creativity, enterprise and capital to create land. This is to mean that since there is no labor or creativity in order to make land as private property, then one cannot treat it as a property of peasants or pastoralists. So, one can believe that definition rendered by the drafters of the constitution for private property is obviously to exclude land from the ambit of private property.
The constitution has treated the land rights of holders separately by excluding it from the category of bundle of rights approach. This can be evident when one reads article 40 (3)   leased to other farmers or investors, subject to restrictions on the extent and duration of leases. The law gives the discretion of deciding on the duration of the lease period and the amount of land to be leased out to regional governments.
For example, the Oromia rural land administration and use proclamation mandates peasants, pastoralists or semi-pastoralists the right to rent out up to half of his total holding for not more than three years for those who apply traditional farming and fifteen years for mechanized farming (Article 10 (1) (2) of Oromia Rural Land Administration andUse Proclamation No. 130/2007, 2007). Tigray national regional state rural land administration and use proclamation also bestows rural land holders in order to rent out up to half of their holding for not more than three years for those who apply traditional farming and twenty years for those who apply mechanized farming (Article 9 (4) (a) (b) of Tigray Regional State Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation No. 239/2014).
The land laws also do not allow rights in land being used as collateral for loans and this in turn restricts rural land holders not to offer their land rights for their credit loans. The governments justification provided for this is to protect rural land holders from exploitation by loan sharks and land speculators and to avoid the tide of rural to urban migration (Minutes of the Ethiopian Constituent Assembly, 1995). The government also believes that if land is owned privately and used as collateral for credit, smallholders will lose the use rights over the land they mortgaged and migrate in mass to the cities and towns. Many scholars do not agree with this and ask the question "why are investors who lease land for a limited period allowed to use their land use right as collateral while small scale landholders who have use right in perpetuity are not accorded the same privilege" (Deininger & Jin, 2005). The justification forwarded by the government is not as such plausible because if land use right is used as collateral then one who has provided credit for the holder is not entitled to use the land use rights indefinitely rather for a period indicated in the contract of loan if the debtor has failed to furnish the debt in the agreed period of time.

Duration of Rights in Land
The breadth of duration of land rights is important determinant factor component to land tenure security. According to Place and others, land tenure security can be defined to exist when an individual perceives that he or she has rights to a piece of land on a continuous basis, free from imposition or interference from outside sources, as well as ability to reap benefits of labor and capital invested in the land, either in use or upon transfer of another holder (Place et al., 1993). It is assumed that breadth or robustness of those rights (such as rights of use, transfer and exclusion), duration of such rights, and assurances of such rights are important components of tenure security. Security of tenure refers to the degree of certainty that one's land rights will be recognized by others and protected in case of specific challenges. One major component of security is thus effective protec- The FDRE constitution has not specifically dealt the duration of land rights rather the constitution under article 40 (5)  In this case, the proclamation has opened the door for the regional states in order to fix the duration of rights in land for these specific land holders.

Land Tenure Debates in Ethiopia: Towards Reducing the Tension
Rural land policy has remained one of the sources of disagreement and focus of debate among politicians, academicians and other concerned parties in Ethiopia.
During the transition period of the current regime, when the government had not yet defined its policy on rural land, much concern was shown by different sections of the society as well as by international agencies on the preferred policy issue on rural land. Later on, the ruling party made it clear that the policy on land was to continue more or less on the same lines to that of the derg's policies: land ownership remained vested in the state and this was enshrined in the FDRE constitution. The insertion of the issue of land in the constitution, however, may indicate that rural land has increasingly become a political affair. The constitu-  (Kassahun, 2006). During his end of year report to parliament in June 2004, Meles announced that the change of land policy in Ethiopia would take place only over his party, "Ethiopian People's Democratic Revolutionary Front's tombstone" (Devereux et al., 2005).
The argument forwarded by the ruling party for the continuation of land as public/state property rests mainly on two policy objectives, i.e., these are the social equity and tenure security synthesis. The FDRE Constitution as well as other federal and regional land laws ensures the free access to agricultural land. The amount of land to be provided to peasant farmers, as far as possible, is made equal. Accordingly, the policy objective is to ensure equality of citizens in accessing the land. However, the weakness of this policy objective is that in the first place, it does not address the urban land rather article 40 of the FDRE constitution only deals rural land issue; 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 or through land redistribution not by inserting the land policy within the constitution.
Tenure security is the other policy objective of the state to make land under the public/state ownership. State ownership of land is considered to be the best mechanism to protect the peasants against market forces. In particular, it has been argued that private ownership of rural land would lead to massive eviction or migration of the farming population, as poor farmers would be forced to sell their plots to unscrupulous urban speculators, particularly during periods of hardship (MOIPAD, 2001). Most of the farmers who live in the highland areas 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 In their struggle for private ownership, the issue of land sale is invariably taken by economists and western oriented advisors as a central agenda. They criticize the states effort to move towards market economy while controlling land.
They contend that, one cannot move towards a market economy while keeping land, the most vital means of production on agricultural economy outside the operation of the market (Bruce et al., 1994). Those who argue for privatization maintain that: In the first place, private ownership will ensure security of tenure and provide peasants with the incentives necessary to make investments and long term improvements on the land and, Secondly, one cannot move towards a market economy while keeping land; the most vital means of production in an agricultural economy outside the operation of the market (Inter-Africa Group, 1992). The only way peasant's confidence will be restored and insecurity of tenure abolished thus enabling peasants to take their land as their assets and to work it with great effort, is if peasants are assured that no one can take their land from them (Rahmato, 1992). Rahmato also underlines that, freehold is the best means of ensuring absolute tenure security. It will provide strong incentives to peasants to invest on their land, and will make land transactions easier and more efficient (Rahamato, 1994). The economic impact of such state ownership was making it difficult to the peasant to develop the productivity of the land and his labor as he has seen the land does not belong to him and that it can be taken away by the state whenever necessary (Woldemariam, 1999). The ruling party's argument that if peasants are given unrestricted land rights, then they will sell their lands and they will become landless is judged as unfounded and if it happens in extraordinary situations, it is not considered as disastrous as has been argued by those who are against it (Rahmato, 1994;Woldemariam 1999). Unnecessary restrictions may deny efficient farmer access to farmland and would  (Aredo, 1999). In a symposium on the Ethiopian economy, it was reported that there was a consensus that the current land ownership regime system has detrimental effects on agricultural productivity and natural resource conservation but, no consensus was reached as to whether or not the solution was to be found in the privatization of land (Inter-Africa Group, 1992).
In the above discussions (i.e. both those who argue state ownership regime on one hand and those who argue private ownership regime on the other hand) strictly criticizes the other side of the regime and promotes their own side only.
On one hand, the contenders, on both sides of the argument, are more likely reflecting their own interest and ideologies without fully investigating the interest of the rural society. On the other hand, each of them may not fully understand the adverse effect of deciding land policies without letting the concerned sections of the society. The debate especially on the side of government even has not secured the opinions and interests of the peasants and pastoralists in order to reach their conclusion. It is for this reason that, Allan Hobben profoundly suggested that; it will be better if contending parties listen what the people say and take into account the social, cultural and historical contexts of the society before designing and revising land policies and strategies (Hobben, 2002).
The author of this article believes that, the hot debate upon a single tenure arrangement cannot resolve land related problems rather one can establish another alternative policy measures to have an effective land governance system in the country. It is not sound to seriously criticize the public ownership regimes because it has its own advantage. The most core advantage of the public policy op-

Lessons Learned From the Experiences of Other African Countries: In Response to Filling a Gap on the Rural Land Governance of Ethiopia
This section has dealt the comparative analysis of other African countries experience namely (Ghana, Kenya and Uganda) concerning the legal and institutional framework on the rural land governance. The best experience of these countries that is assumed to fill a gap in the land governance system of Ethiopian is dealt in brief. The three countries are chosen because they are agrarian countries and that are inhabited with substantial number of smallholder population.

1) Ghana
The first African country that Ethiopia can notice a good practice on the go- Uganda has also adopted a mechanism so as to establish a fund known as the Land Fund that is among others meant to resettle persons who have been rendered  The institutional arrangement and capacity of land administration at the regional level is not also as such powerful in order to govern the country's economic and social asset. In theory, every region is autonomous in setting up and staffing its organizational structure. Land administration functions are not handled by a separate and independent agency in most regional states of the country. For instance, environment has been included in the responsibilities of land administration institutions. This is also true for the institutional arrangement at the Zonal and Woreda level arrangements. Making environmental protection part and parcel of land administration institution increase the responsibility of the institution and this paves a way to have weak land administration system in the country.
There are local level institutions established to implement land administration systems, which are called rural Land administration and use committees. The committee members are volunteers who are elected by local community in each kebele to implement the land administration system and work without any payment (Behailu, 2015a). These organs are not experts rather laymen that administer land in the kebele and sub-kebele levels. There are no established guidelines for these organs on how to deal on land issues. There is also no incentive mechanism for these organs for their official duties. Land laws have not also arranged mechanisms for these organs to be supported by experts while conducting their duties. It is only Amhara national regional state which is extended its office even to the kebele level and assigned experts in order to provide technical assistance for the committees (Behailu, 2015a). What we can deduce from all these stipulations is that, since the committees are lay-men and are not supported by other experts, it is not easy for them to administer rural lands of their community. Lack of guidelines concerning land governance and none-incentive arrangement in most of the regional states also discourages their vigor and motivation of the committees on the land governance.

3) Lack of Transparency and Public Participation
Making the public to take part at the time

Hand and Valuation and Compensation Experts on the Other
Existence of standardized valuation and compensation methods during expropriation of rural lands are essential to enhance and boost tenure security of land holders on one hand and to rehabilitate the life of individuals whose land has been taken for more public purpose. Repeatedly hearing complain on the inadequacy of amount of compensation paid for land taken under the power of eminent domain in Ethiopia is not strange. Land taking by regional governments for expansion of cities and towns and for lease to investors in agriculture and industry is rising rapidly in Ethiopia (Solomon, 1994). lesson from other African countries so as to establish land valuation experts. For example, Ghana has established a separate land board that work on all matters of compensation for land acquired by the government or any of its agencies; preparing valuation lists for property rating purposes; and valuation of interests in land, including all customary land.

5) Large Scale Land Deals or Land Grabbing
The practice of land grabbing or large-scale land transfer in Ethiopia is criticized by displacing local communities on one hand and undermining their livelihoods and food security on the other. Studies confirm that, large-scale agricultural investment is implemented in a manner of excluding local populations and harming the environment (Tura, 2017). Moreover, in Ethiopia federal government has leased out the large tracts of land to private investors by taking over the constitutional mandate of regional states regarding administration of land and other natural resources that is stipulated under article 52 (2) (d) of the FDRE Constitution. It is Ministry of Agriculture which is authorized to administer any large-scale land deals in the country where the land size is more than five thousand hectares. Accordingly, regional states are not allowed to conduct land deals with local or foreign investor where the land size meant for investment is more than five thousand hectare even if the project is being executed within their respective jurisdictions. The mandate that given for the federal ministry of agriculture on regional lands is against constitutional stipulation that authorizes regional states to administer land and other natural resources in accordance with federal laws within their respective regions and this possibly creates overlap of functions between the tiers of government on the governance of rural land is concerned.

Concluding Remarks
The Ethiopian legal and institutional frameworks governing rural land in relation with other African countries exhibit many gaps that the Ethiopian legal sys-

Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper. Beijing Law Review

T. S. Wabelo
The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (1992). (2010). The Somali National Regional State Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation