staff would already be working at capacity, computerization at zonal rather than the woreda level would only marginally reduce costs, to B 4.58 per transaction.

In both cases, that the system could maintain itself out of full cost recovery from user fees, appears realistic in view of the fees actually paid for certificates (plus B2 to 4 for photos) and users’ willingness to pay for maps and replacement of lost certificates. Which option to choose will depend on the scope of integrating the manual and computerized processes. As discussed above, with current level of productivity the cost per transfer is unlikely to fall significantly below B5. Policy decisions requiring registration of instruments such as long-term leases will need to be cognizant of the cost of compliance, bearing in mind that users are unlikely to pay for registration unless the benefits they perceive from doing so will exceed the cost.<sup>40</sup>

# **5. Conclusion and policy implications**

The evidence reported in this paper leads to a number of policy conclusions. First, the rapid speed, participatory nature, and low cost of Ethiopia’s land certification, together with the positive results from this process and the absence of bias in favor of the wealthy or lack of access to information by the poor demonstrate that, contrary to what one might be tempted to conclude from experience in other countries, large-scale and rapid delivery of land certificates in a participatory way is possible. Users’ positive assessment of the process, readiness to pay to replace lost certificates, high demand -and willingness to pay- for a spatial reference, and their positive assessment of likely impacts suggest that the way in which Ethiopia implemented land certification responded to local needs. The fact that most disputes could be resolved in the field, our failure to find outcomes biased in favor of the wealthy or against women, reinforced by initial evidence of positive investment- and transfer-effects, all support this view. This suggests that elements of Ethiopia’s certification process, with modifications as needed, could serve as a model for other African countries to quickly scale up implementation of land legislation, the innovative provisions of which have thus far been largely ineffective.

This does not imply that Ethiopia’s process could not be improved; in fact to sustainably realize the full potential of the country’s first-time registration, action in four areas may be required. First, procedures to update information collected can be improved by (i) redesigning registry books and ensuring that no new certificates be given out without cancelling old ones; (ii) defining institutional responsibilities to eliminate gaps and time lags which currently are a potent source of possible inconsistency; and (iii) spelling out protocols to ensure broad and public access to information. Lack of updating could create problems particularly in commercial areas with higher transaction frequencies and jeopardize trust in the overall system. Second, although considerable effort is expended for first-time registration of individual holdings,

> 40 The scope of being able to use, on a part-time basis, computers that might become available at the woreda level through other initiatives could also be a relevant issue. Also, note that a number of Indian states have achieved very positive results with making land records available over the internet (Ahuja and Singh 2006) and that options to do so and thus increase transparency may be considered in Ethiopia as well.

19