certificate with holders’ pictures and space for maps.<sup>10</sup> In a departure from the Tigray model where all the work was done by the kebele, most regions have woreda officials compile the registry book and prepare certificates for issuance and/or signature by officials at the kebele or woreda level. Copies of the registry book are kept at the kebele and woreda but it is not clear who has the ultimate responsibility for updating and which of the two books will, in case of discrepancy, be considered conclusive.

As the table illustrates, the program has made considerable advances, registering about 20 mn. plots by some 5.5 million households in a very short time. Originally in the process as developed in Tigray, field measures were recorded on a simple piece of paper which then also served as the landholding certificate. Other regions still furnish users with a preliminary registration document at the completion of fieldwork but subsequently issue formal certificates in the form of passport-sized booklets that also contain holders’ pictures.<sup>11</sup> Whereas in Tigray the certificate was issued in the name of the head only, all other regions require it to be in the names of both head and spouse<sup>12</sup> and in Amhara and the South (but not in Oromia where only the head’s picture is included), space is provided to include pictures of the two spouses.

First-time registration only creates the basis for continued operation of a land administration system; in fact the key role of unambiguous roles and clear mechanisms for updating is illustrated by the case of Tigray where lack of such provisions led to huge differences among kebeles, implying that in some, information has already become outdated (Haile _et al._ 2005). While other regions have provisions to record transfers, some of these are complicated and, according to field visits undertaken in preparation for the survey, not always adhered to. The fact that all regions register leases without reference to the registry book suggests a lack of clear processes and guidelines that could, especially in areas with many transactions, quickly undermine the considerable accomplishments of first-time land registration.

# **2.5 Issues to be explored and methodological considerations**

Despite the innovative nature of land certification in Ethiopia and the fact that inter-regional differences in modalities of program implementation could provide interesting lessons, little information is available on three key issues, namely (i) the extent to which the prescribed process have been adhered to in the field; (ii) the impact of first-time registration in a number of dimensions; and (iii) the cost of the process. All of these have potentially far-reaching implications not only for Ethiopia but also for other countries and it will be useful to briefly review the methodology to be used for addressing each of them.<sup>13</sup>

> 10 Addition of maps would mark the transition from the current ‘first stage’ to a ‘second stage’ certificate. It was, however, found to be too expensive at this point. See the more detailed discussion of cost below.

> 11 In Amhara, the document also includes a rather elaborate summary of legal provisions and main rights and obligations by the land holder.

> 12 In case of polygamy which is frequent in the South, the certificate is issued in the name of the head and main wife while other wives get a certificate in their own name.

> 13 Recent pioneering qualitative assessments of certification in Tigray (Haile _et al._ 2005) and Amhara (Adenew and Abdi 2005) go a long way in addressing this issue but fall short in terms of coverage and lack of quantification. In fact, as responsibility is fully with the regions, even information on implementation of certification available at the central level is often quite inaccurate.

8