ETHIOPIA

The Need for a National Agency for Land Affairs

Dessalegn Rahmato

Forum for Social Studies

Addis Ababa

 February 2009

Introduction

1. Introduction

 

In predominantly agrarian economies, where agriculture provides employment for the majority of the people and is the chief source of national wealth, land is the most valuable asset. And because it is so valuable, control over land and the resources on it has been a cause of competition and conflict among power elites, social classes and other population groups often leading to social instability, communal violence and sometimes civil war. The history of rebellions and civil conflicts in Latin America, and the frequent ethnic wars and mass killings in Africa have their roots in the contest over land and the legitimacy of claims and counter-claims. In this country, the long years of political disorder and civil war in the 18th and 19th centuries cannot be fully explained without understanding the link between the control of the land and its product on the one hand and political power on the other.

 

Countries like Ethiopia which have no known mineral, petroleum or other high-value resources also depend on the produce of the land not only to feed their populations, but also to earn foreign exchange, and to build up modern industries. Such heavy dependence on agriculture has often come at a high price: it has been accompanied by the increasing depletion of the natural capital: high rates of soil erosion, large-scale deforestation and loss of water resources. These environmental dangers have become all the more pressing as population growth in the rural areas aggravates the pressure on the land.

 

Both these human and environmental dangers will be exacerbated in many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa as the impact of climate change becomes more real and more pressing. These dangers are, to a large extent, a product of the failure of land governance. The term land governance is broader than rights of access to land: it encompasses such rights to be sure, but also includes rules and institutions for enforcing them, as well as the regulation and administration of land affairs. Many countries in the continent have failed to put in place one or both of the following: a) clear and equitable rules defining rights to land; and b) effective and democratic processes and institutions for regulating and enforcing such rights. In many instances existing rules and regulations are perceived by many in society to be unjust and exclusionary. A sound and equitable system of land governance is essential if economic development, natural resource management and social stability is to be achieved. Regulation in particular requires an effective and proactive institution responsible for land governance, placed at an appropriate location in the government structure.

 

This is particularly important for Ethiopia given the heavy reliance of the country’s economy on the agricultural sector and the disproportionately high percentage of its population engaged in land and animal husbandry. It goes without saying that an efficient and responsive system of land governance is indispensable if the country is to achieve peace and stability on the one hand, and social and economic development on the other. Such a system requires an effective institution for land affairs at the national level (which does not now exist) which will undertake the tasks and responsibilities described further down in this paper.

The purpose of this brief paper is to draw attention to the absence of such a focal institution at the Federal level, and to argue for its establishment as soon as possible.

 

The present government has placed strong emphasis on growth in the rural economy and in particular the agricultural sector; such growth is expected to serve as the engine of industrialization and economic development. The strategy pursued since the mid-1990s, namely ADLI (the Agricultural Development Led Industrialization) constitutes the main pillar on which the long-term development of country is based. The government’s latest poverty reduction document, PASDEP, affirms that the ADLI strategy will continue to be the core of government initiatives for poverty reduction and overall development.

 

            In order to accelerate and expand industrial development and increase overall economic growth, it is essential to develop the agricultural sector which is crucial to ensure the provision of inputs for industries as well as to fulfill food requirements. Furthermore, the sector is the subdivision of the economy where the major human power required for development is engaged in addition to being the foundation for major growth in value added registered/achieved in the last three years and the source of foreign exchange earned during this period. (MOFED 2006: 6).

 

While investment in large-scale farming is being encouraged, the country’s agriculture relies predominantly on peasant-based small-scale operations combining crop farming with animal husbandry. State policy both within and outside of the ADLI framework is strongly in favor of small-scale family enterprises. Over three-quarters of the population of the country is employed on the land, operating holdings which on the average are, at least by African standards, small or miniscule. Needless to say, rights to land, its use, transfer and management is of central interest both to the peasant farmer in the rural areas as well as the decision-maker and development planner.

 

While several legislations defining access, use and disposition of land have been issued both by the Federal and Killil governments over the last decade, the necessity and significance of an institution at the Federal level responsible for managing land affairs and ensuring proper and sound regulation and follow-up has not been recognized. There are public bodies at the Federal level for water resources, mining and energy, forestry and wildlife, but not for land. Given such strong commitment to peasant agriculture and the rural sector, on the one hand, and the choice of a tenure regime based on public ownership on the other, the absence of a central agency responsible for land affairs is highly anomalous to say the least. Because land is such a critical asset, access to it is sought by a large number of interest groups. This lacuna has been responsible for policy as well as knowledge gaps, inefficiencies and inconsistencies in policy implementation, and uncertainty among a broad range of interest groups, including peasant farmers, investors, government bodies, and non-state actors. We shall return to this further down in this paper.

 

In what follows we will look very briefly at the experiences of the Imperial and Derg regimes for the lessons that may be drawn and pitfalls that may be avoided. 

 

2. Experiences under the Imperial and Derg Regimes

 

The land system of the country at the time of the Imperial regime was immensely complex. There was a wide variety of tenure regimes and rights of access in different parts of the country but there was only limited knowledge and documentation about any of these. Land affairs at the local level was a in large measure the responsibility of customary institutions, and most land transactions were undertaken without recourse to the law and outside the formal sector and administrative framework. There was no land law as such, though rights having to do with property were included in the various legal instruments issued by the regime. From the 1960s onwards, the land system came increasingly to be seen as a serious impediment to modernization and economic development. Despite this however the Imperial regime was unable and unwilling to address the land issue in a meaningful way and to modernize the land system.

 

However, partly as a result of growing pressure and partly due to concern at the slow pace of growth in the agricultural sector of the economy, the government set up a Ministerial body with a range of mandates on land affairs in the mid-1960s. This body was the Ministry of Land Reform and Administration (MLRA) established by executive order in 1966. The Ministry replaced an earlier agency called the Land Reform and Development Authority which was established by law in 1965, and took over the responsibilities of the defunct Ministry of State Domain. As its name suggests, MLRA’s remit was primarily to undertake “reform” activities, though the reform intended was partial and limited in scope. The term “Administration” appended to its name also referred to a narrow range of activities. There were essentially two major responsibilities entrusted to the Ministry, which were: a) to design, propose and implement land related reforms, particularly reforms “in relations between landlord and tenant regarding tenure, rents, crop-sharing arrangements and similar matters;” and b) to administer all government lands, propose resettlement programs and provide land under its administration for such purposes (see Consolidated Laws, pp. 56-57). While the Ministry was also entrusted by legislation with the task of establishing registers of land, and conducting cadastral and other land surveys, it was not really meant to be a full-fledged land reform and land administration institution. Moreover, from the very outset, MLRA came to be viewed with strong suspicion by the powerful landed classes in the country, and received only lukewarm support from the higher political authorities.

 

The Ministry had a short life and much of it was taken up with conducting an inventory of the country’s land and tenure systems. The inventory was to determine the variety of tenure regimes, rights of access to land, and the obligations of land users in each of the country’s thirteen provinces; it was also intended to identify and classify state domain land and ascertain its extent and current state of use. With the support of a number of donors and foreign and local expertise, MLRA made considerable efforts to fill the knowledge gaps and to provide a better understanding of the country complex land system.

 

Later, at the end of the 1960s, the Ministry became engaged in promoting tenancy reform measures, a task which took up a good deal of effort in its last years. MLRA was strongly in favour of smallholder farming as opposed to large-scale agriculture, which it believed would lead to greater eviction of peasants from the land. There were several reform measures it was keen to propose of which the following were some of the important ones: a) tenancy reform to lighten the burden of the tenant and to provide tenure security; b) allocation of government land to small cultivators rather than Imperial grantees (senior public servants, military officers, the well-to-do etc) as was the case at the time, with plots not exceeding two to five hectares; c) land registration to promote security of holding. While it did realize the immense difficulties involved and the stiff resistance that would be put up by the powerful landed classes in the country, it was in favour of limiting the size of land held by big landlords and distributing the excess to the landless and the needy. Of these, only tenancy reform looked more feasible at the time and the Ministry took considerable pains to prepare a reform measure acceptable to all. However, the draft legislation which it brought before Parliament was rejected due to the overwhelming influence of the landed interests in the Legislature in the dying years of the Imperial regime (see Dessalegn 2008).

 

The Ministry had placed high hopes on tenancy reform which it considered a much less radical option hence more likely to be acceptable to the landed interests than full-scale land reform which was increasingly being advocated by student activists, progressive sections in the civil service as well as some of the more liberal voices in the donor community. Tenancy reform would not have threatened the property and dominance of the landed classes: it was only meant to formalize the relations between tenant and landlord, and to put some limits on the obligations of the former and the exactions of the latter. However, a combination of greed on the part of the landed classes and lack of political will and shortsightedness on the part of the Emperor succeeded in defeating the MLRA’s well intentioned plans.

 

As far as land administration was concerned, MLRA’s remit was restricted to government land, which while no accurate figures were available was variously estimated to be immense. Here, the Ministry faced a host of stubborn problems which were in part a legacy of gaps and ambiguities in state domain property and which it had inherited from its predecessor. To begin with, land that was said to be under state domain was claimed by individuals, groups, communities, and in some cases large ethnic groups, many of whom were engaged in pastoral production and other forms of livelihood dependent on mobility. These claimants contested the government’s efforts to take their land and on occasions taking their case to the courts. Secondly, the state itself had over the years distributed a good deal of state domain land to Imperial grantees and other social groups as reward for past services or payment for current duty, and some of this land was now being claimed by the persons concerned as private property though many did not have proper legal documents for their claims. Thirdly, there was no accurate information on government land nor were there sufficient or reliable records to go by. Nevertheless, despite these complex challenges, MLRA went on to support settlement programs on state domain land and to prepare plans for the distribution of some of this land to poor and disadvantaged peasants. On the other hand, there was no serious effort to undertake either cadastral surveys or land registration, two tasks that the Ministry was entrusted with right from the start.

 

In all fairness, it needs to be noted that MLRA was operating under difficult circumstances: there was on the one hand suspicion and hostility on the part of the country’s powerful landed interests to any reform initiative having to do with land. The Imperial land system was complex and reliable information and documentation on it was very limited; and reform planning and initiation was hampered by the shortage of  national expertise, lack of trained staff, and limited resources.

 

Following the overthrow of the Imperial regime by the Derg and the implementation of the radical land reform in which Ministry played a not insignificant role, MLRA was closed down and some of its departments transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. The Derg saw no justification for a land reform Ministry now that land reform itself had been accomplished and all peasants had access to land. I have argued elsewhere that while the land reform of the 1970s was flawed from the start and subsequently subverted by  a series of hard-line “Stalinist” rural policies, it must nevertheless be credited for  two important achievements: a) it abolished “landlordism” and destroyed the political and economic domination of the landed classes; and b) it did away with the multiplicity of tenure regimes which were considered by many to be inflexible and obstructionist, and replaced them with a uniform system of land holding, of user rights and obligations. Nevertheless, despite this, the land system that emerged was not stable and required careful regulation and administration if the benefits of the reform were to be sustainable. There was now an even more urgent need to establish and maintain a modern system of land registration, to design and implement land use programs, and to undertake land surveys to aid in this process. Thus the need for a public agency responsible for these and related tasks was quite evident, however, the new authorities showed little concern for the establishment of sustainable land institutions and a land system acceptable to the country’s peasantry.

 

Land now came to be viewed as an ideological tool and object of “socialist” policy. The interests of the land user were considered expendable and could be overridden for what were seen to be the higher objectives of agrarian socialism. State policy now favored large-scale farm operations as against small holdings, as well as collectivization, resettlement and villagization (see Dessalegn 1993 for details). The “Marxist-Leninist” party that was set up in the latter part of the Derg’s rule became increasingly involved in matters having to do with the rural economy and especially with land, thus ensuring the politicization of land affairs. The agrarian crisis that appeared from the end of the 1970s, as the benefits of the initial land redistribution came to an end and the threats of new policy initiatives began to be felt, and that grew in scope and intensity in the second half of the 1980s, was in large measure a product of the politicization of land and the consequent instability of tenure rights. The establishment of a land use planning unit within the Ministry of Agriculture in the 1980s, while a welcome measure, did not address the broader objectives of land regulation and administration. The unit was established with donor support and given the task of planning a land use program and enabling its implementation. Most of its activities were focused on preparing the groundwork for this objective by gathering information and background material, producing studies, and providing support for technical capacity building.

 

In conclusion, there is an important lesson to be drawn here and this is that in both the two regimes land was not only a natural and economic resource but came to be a political object used and manipulated for various power-political ends. Under these circumstances, an institutional capability for land governance either failed to emerge or was altogether not given consideration. In the case of the Imperial regime, the establishment of a land reform and administration ministry, though with less than full scope and authority for land governance activity, was a step in the right direction, however, neither the Emperor nor the dominant classes were willing to have it succeed in carrying out its responsibilities. This short-sighted obstructionism was to cost both groups dearly in the end. In the case of the Derg, the land reform that transformed the country’s agrarian system failed to be institutionalized and instead came to serve ill-conceived and ideologically driven objectives, creating immense insecurity among land holders and bringing great hardship to the rural population in the process.

 

3. The Current Situation

 

Following the overthrow of the Derg and the establishment of a federal administrative and political structure, responsibility for land administration was transferred to the Killils. This was an important departure from past practice. The broad framework for land policy is provided by the Federal constitution and land laws, however, within this framework each Killil is empowered to issue legislation on land matters and to regulate land affairs within its jurisdiction. This devolution of responsibility and authority was expected to improve land administration, and to enable better monitoring and follow-up. On the other hand, the land holding system itself was not radically altered and, while some changes and improvements have been introduced by the new Federal and Killil laws, many of the key provisions of the Derg’s reform have been retained. The foundation of the system both previously as well as now is state ownership of land on the one hand, and use rights for holders on the other. The tenure regime is broadly uniform throughout of the country, and the differences that do exist across Killils are minor and inconsequential.

 

An important policy initiative that this government has undertaken is the program of land certification and registration, which is an altogether new initiative for the country. While the need for some sort of land registration and documentation of rights was recognized in the past –at least in policy documents- neither the Imperial nor Derg regimes showed any keen interest in undertaking one or the other. The certification and registration program, which has been going on since the beginning of the 2000s, has now been virtually completed, and most peasant land holders have been issued with land certificates or user documents.

 

However -and this is the crux of the matter here- there is no government body at the Federal level responsible for land affairs. There is a small land administration unit within the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development however it has no formal mandate to undertake the kind of duties and responsibilities expected of a lead agency as described further down in this paper. As noted above, the authority for land administration has been devolved to the Killils, but agencies and staff here and lower down operate under considerable limitations and the institutionalization of land administration has faced numerous obstacles as a result. Equally important, there are numerous deficiencies in the policy instruments, and the implementation of land certification and registration has suffered due to this and other obstacles and limitations. Both the Federal and Killil land laws contain a good number of ambiguities, contradictions and inconsistencies which have impacted badly on interpretation and implementation. These laws also do not provide specific provisions regarding the implementation of land registration nor are there any laws governing registration, cadastral surveying and related tasks. The laws themselves have not been widely made available to woreda personnel involved in implementing them or court officials responsible for interpreting them in dealing with land disputes. Land disputes have in fact increased in many areas and while the available evidence is not conclusive, there is reason to believe that registration has not had the expected impact in this regard. The registry system adopted is not easily updatable, and there is a lack of awareness and inclination on the part of land holders to update their records. The registration process was undertaken by woreda and kebelle officials who did not have the expertise nor the training to undertake the tasks. There was no regular and adequate monitoring of land registration by Killil authorities. There is no national database on land matters hence the information that is available is sketchy or unreliable (see Dessalegn 2008, and ELTAP 2008 for details). These and other deficiencies and limitations would have been minimized if there had been a strong national agency for land affairs at the Federal level.

 

Moreover, there are a host of development programs and initiatives that cut across Killil boundaries and that require access to land. Indeed, as economic growth accelerates there will be increasing demand for land by local and foreign investors as well as public agencies. At the same time, the diversity of uses for which land is sought will also be growing. More and more land will be needed by investors and public agencies for: manufacturing, extractive, mining and service industries; roads, rail, air and other transport services; renewable energy initiatives (wind farms, solar and geothermal energy, hydro-electric dams); communications infrastructure; large-scale irrigation, harnessing of river systems or river basin development schemes; and natural parks, game reserves and other large-scale environmental rehabilitation schemes. In brief, access to land will be of critical importance not just for agriculture, but more so for a broad range of development activities outside it. In such circumstances, land governance will become increasingly complex and demanding, and Killil agencies will not have sufficient expertise and capability to respond efficiently and effectively.  

 

In contrast to our case, many African countries have set up a lead agency responsible for land administration and regulation at the national level. These consist of either Ministries or specialized agencies or Commissions, but in each case their responsibilities cover all or most aspects of land governance (see IFS 2005). The following are some examples.

 

   Country                                               National Agency

 

Botswana                                            Ministry of Lands and Housing

Kenya                                                  Ministry of Lands, Housing and Settlement

Namibia                                               Ministry of Lands, Resettlement & Rehabilitation

South Africa                                       Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs

                                                               Department of Land Affairs

 

Tanzania                                              Ministry of Lands and Settlement

                                                               Commissioner of Lands

Uganda                                               Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban Dvpt

Zambia                                                Ministry of Lands

 

In many African countries one public body regulates both rural and urban land. On the other hand, land surveying is a unit within the land agencies in some countries, whereas in others surveying is done by the private sector but government, often the land agency issues licenses and provides supervision.

 

The urgency of the need for a national body and the important role that it can play has long been recognized by a broad sector of informed and concerned opinion in this country.  In many of the conferences and discussion forums I have attended in the last ten years or so, I have heard academics, researchers, development practitioners as well civil service staff concerned with land issues acknowledge the need and significance of a focal body for land affairs. At a recent conference organized by the Ethiopia Land Tenure and Administration Program (a USAID funded initiative), and sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and USAID, which brought together land administration staff from six of the major Killils, experts from the Federal ministries, researchers, academics and members of civil society organizations, there was unanimous agreement that such an agency was urgently needed and would benefit the land administration effort in all Killils. The following was the consensus at the conference:

 

…..[T]here is a need to establish a strong national entity at the federal level that is mandated and adequately resourced to take charge of land administration and land use policy formulation and implementation.

 

It is recommended that like in other countries, Ethiopia should explore setting up a separate ministry or a strong department of lands that takes on seriously the tasks of formulating long term national vision, strategy and policy for the land sector and coordinate their implementation at the regional level. As in other countries, the Ethiopian Mapping Agency should an integral part of such a ministry or department.

 

As in other countries with successful land administration and use development programs, consideration should be given to integrate rural and urban land administration under one umbrella. [ELTAP: 451]

 

 

4. Tasks and Responsibilities of a National Land Agency

 

What are the tasks and responsibilities of a national (Federal) land agency and how does it fit within the existing federal framework?

 

A national land agency will have four broad responsibilities, namely: a) responsibility for land governance issues that cross Killil boundaries; b) responsibility for establishing and promoting standardized procedures, methods, frameworks and technologies and to train and build the capacity of public agents and others engaged in land matters, both of which aimed at enhancing land administration activity undertaken at the Killil level; and c) responsibility for drafting appropriate legislation and other instruments to fill policy gaps, monitoring policy implementation; and d) establishing and maintaining a national database on land matters, and providing reliable information to policy makers, stakeholders (of which some of the main ones are listed below), and all interested persons and groups.

 

Generally speaking, the range of activities that a national land agency is expected to undertake is quite broad but in each particular case it will depend on many factors including the land policy and objectives pursued by the country in question, the needs and demands of public agencies, the interests of private sector groups and non-state actors, and the country’s international commitments. What follows is an indicative list of common tasks and duties, suggested more to stimulate debate rather than to serve as a prescriptive framework.

 

An efficient and responsive land agency will be expected to undertake the following:

 

a) Land management: this refers to overarching decisions and activities having to do with the care and development of land resources; it includes land development and natural resource management

b) Land administration: this is narrower in scope referring to determining, recording and disseminating information about land, rights under which it is held, its uses and valuation; the processes of land registration (adjudication, demarcation, land registry, and cadastre) are important aspects of land administration

c) Land use planning, implementation and monitoring; in some cases, land use planning is including in the category of land management noted above;

d) Land information management: establishing a system of gathering, interpreting, storing, updating and disseminating current and reliable information about land. This is an important service that will benefit public agencies, investors, non-state actors, the farming community and others

e) Research and documentation: important to fill knowledge gaps and familiarize persons concerned with new thinking, theories and ideas about land and land governance

f) Monitoring, supervision and evaluation of the implementation of land legislations and policies and providing corrective measures

g) Establishing and promoting common standards and procedures, shared system designs and technologies, and similar or uniform regulatory and operational frameworks and guidelines. This is particularly important for the work of land administration. As part of this effort and as well as capacity building it will be necessary to prepare and provide manuals, operational tools, and technical kits on subjects listed under (a) to (d) above

h) Capacity building: training, skill upgrading, experience sharing and support activities: this will be particularly useful to offices and staff at the Killil and lower levels.

i) Preparing and drafting of legislation and policy instruments: this will help to fill policy gaps, respond to emerging needs, and improve land access and tenure security

 

5. National Land Agency or Commission

 

What should this public agency, whose tasks and responsibilities we have suggested above look like and how should it be set up? Should it be attached to one major Ministry or established as an autonomous and separate body? Should it be a ministry, a commission or an agency? These questions cannot be answered here and now; they will have to be widely debated by all stakeholders if and when the government decides to establish such an institution. However, whatever decisions are made and whichever choices are preferred, one thing must be clear: the purpose in the final analysis is to establish a responsive and firmly institutionalized system of land governance and the organization in question should be effective and dynamic. Decision-makers should avoid the mistakes of the past, and especially the politicization of the institution that is established. It should be given sufficient independence, authority and resources to carry out its duties in a highly professional manner.

 

As has been suggested above, the agency we have in mind will provide services not only to one Ministry (like the Ministry of Agriculture, for example) and one interest group (peasants and farmers) but to a large number of public, private and non-state interests. In fact, as time goes on, there will be more and more demands for access to land by a growing number of public as well as private interests. At present the following are the main institutions and interest groups that the proposed agency will provide services to once it is established:

 

1. v The Ministry of Agriculture
2. v The Ministry of Water Resources
3. v The Ministry of Industry
4. v The Investment Office
5. v The Ministry of Transport
6. v The Ministry of Mines and Energy
7. v The Ministry of Works and Urban Development (new towns, expansion of existing ones, etc)
8. v Ministry of Defense (military camps; training grounds, etc)
9. v All persons and groups engaged in agriculture (peasants, farmers, pastoralists, etc)
10. v The business community (including local and foreign investors)
11. v Non-state organizations
12. v Teaching, research and religious institutions

 

In view of this, and the fact that the number of stakeholders and the demands for land and land-based services will grow as the country’s development efforts bear fruit, my own recommendation is that the agency in question should be an independent body, and not a unit within a Ministry or agency; this will enable it to provide services to any and all interested parties equally and without discrimination. It should be governed by a Board on which the main state and non-state stakeholders should be represented. It is also my preference (though subject to debate and eventual consensus) that it should not be a Ministry but an Agency or Commission. For convenience we may call this body National (Federal) Land Agency or National (Federal) Land Commission.

 

6. Conclusion

 

Land governance should be firmly institutionalized, and the Agency or Commission set up to be responsible for it should serve to promote the proper care, utilization and development of land resources, to improve access to land and security of tenure, to address, through policy recommendations, deficiencies, inequities and grievances regarding the land system and the process of implementation and administration. Such an Agency or Commission should be non-political and non-partisan; it should instead be a professional and technical body. Land governance is enhanced not only through decentralization of duties and responsibilities, as has been attempted at present,  but also by ensuring that a robust and proactive body exists at the national level to support the work of the institutions at the Killil and grassroots levels as well as provide strong and effective leadership and supervision.

 

REFERENCES

 

Consolidated Laws of Ethiopia 1972. Faculty of Law, Haile Selassie I University. Addis Ababa: Haile Selassie I University Press

Dessalegn Rahmato 1993. Agrarian Change and Agrarian Crisis: State and Peasantry in Post-Revolution Ethiopia. Africa, 63, 1: 36-55

_____________ 2008. The Peasant and the State: Studies in Agrarian Change in Ethiopia 1950s-2000s. Customs Book Publishing; amazon.com

ELTAP (Ethiopia Land Tenure and Administration Program) 2008. National Forum on the Achievement and Lessons of the Ethiopia: Strengthening Land Tenure and Administration Program. Addis Ababa, 2-4 June 2008.

IFS (International Federation of Surveyors) 2005. Secure Land Tenure: New Legal Frameworks and Tools. Proceedings of an Expert Group Meeting held by FIG Commission 7 on 11 and 12 November 2004 at UN-Gigiri Nairobi, Kenya. Frederiksberg, Denmark

MOFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) 2006. Ethiopia: Building on Progress. A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) (20005/06 – 2009/10). Addis Ababa, September

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Dessalegn Rahmato | Publications | Updates | ©2008 Dessalegn Rahmato