responsibility for systematic adjudication of rights in the field in a public process with presence of neighbors. While LAC members repeatedly emphasized the demanding nature of this task, it is critical to ensure transparency, e.g., in identification of communal areas, and reduces the scope for error that could arise from use office records that may not be up to date. The field adjudication process, which may rely on assistance by elders to resolve conflicts, concludes with the issuance of a preliminary registration certificate that identifies sizes and the adjoining neighbors for all of a holder’s plots. Results are then displayed in public, followed by their entry into registry books, copies of which are to be kept at _kebele_ and _woreda_ level. Thereafter, certificates with holders’ pictures (husband and spouse in case of couples where joint ownership is mandated), are issued. While these include space for maps, spatial information is not included except in pilot locations in view of the cost and is expected to be added in a ‘second stage’.

Qualitative evidence suggests that decentralized, participatory, and transparent implementation, issuance of certificates rather than titles, and a focus on gender equality, helped the program avoid some of the problems raised in the literature on land titling in Africa. A nation-wide survey highlights that access to information or certificates was neither biased against females nor the poor. Moreover, the process was generally implemented as planned; in particular (i) public meetings were held before and during the certification process; (ii) land use committees (LACs) were elected and represented most of the sub- _kebeles_ ; and (iii) adjudication relied on village elders to resolve disputes and involved demarcation in the field with neighbors’ presence. As the time allowed for the field process was long enough to sort out conflicts locally, the program could adapt to local conditions while still making rapid overall progress.

An overwhelming majority of households nation-wide pointed to positive impacts of certification on gender relations, land-related investment, rental market participation, and the perceived ability to receive compensation in case of land taking. More than 80% were willing to pay for replacement of lost certificates as well as addition of a map (Deininger _et al._ 2008b). Case study evidence points into a similar direction; as registration involved identification of borders and systematic conflict resolution, it led to a significant drop in land conflict which, according to local government reports, accounts for 80% of rural crime. In one site, the volume of court cases is reported to have reduced from 20 to at most 2 per week (Adal 2008). In some cases, widows were able to win court cases to hold on to their land rather than, as dictated by local tradition, having it revert back to the husband’s lineage at the point of his death. In polygamous settings, the requirement to have separate certificates for any spouses beyond the first one is linked to a reduction in (reported) polygamy and even male farmers acknowledge that joint titling led to increased willingness to work and invest on the part of their wives who are now officially co-owners. Households in areas where urban expansion is imminent are reported to be particularly eager to get certificates that could help them substantiate their claims for compensation once their land is subject to 7