Day 1, Session 2 of the 2012 Nigeria Strategy Support Program's

1. Fertilizer subsidy and
private fertilizer
marketing in Nigeria
Hiroyuki Takeshima - Research Fellow (IFPRI)
H.takeshima@cgiar.org
Ephraim Nkonya - Senior Research Fellow (IFPRI)
Sayon Deb – Senior Research Assistant (IFPRI)
NSSP National Conference 2012:
―Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation
Agenda with policy analysis and research evidence‖
Abuja, Nigeria – November 13-14, 2012
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1

2. Introduction
 Nigeria spends about 2% of government
expenditure on agriculture
 Between 2001-2005, Nigeria spent 43% of its
Federal agricultural budget on fertilizer subsidy
(Mogues et al 2008). States added subsidies
 Despite the large public investment in fertilizer
subsidy, Nigeria:
• Average NPK application in Nigeria is 6 kg/ha
compared to 6.2kg/ha for SSA (excl Southern
Africa)
• Is the second largest importer of rice in the world;
largest importer of US red & white winter wheat;
• Value of imported food is growing at an 11%
annually (Adesina 2011).
2

3. Research question
 Did old fertilizer subsidy scheme crowd out
the commercial fertilizer sector?
• Patterns of fertilizer sourcing
• Effect of subsidy on open market fertilizer
price
• Size of crowding in/out
• Policy implications
3

4. Fertilizer subsidy
 Crowding out of private sector
• 18-22% in Malawi (Ricker-Gilbert et al. 2011)
• Smaller in Zambia (Xu et al. 2009)
 Crowding in – potential (Dorward 2009)
• Farmers’ awareness of fertilizer benefit
• Increased fertilizer demand => larger economy of scale
 Other studies
• Duflo et al. (2011) – subsidy could stimulate fertilizer
use in Kenya
4

5. Crowding in / out
 Fertilizer subsidy crowding in / out
 T=G+C
• T = Total fertilizer consumption
• G = Quantity purchased thru gov’t subsidy
• C = Quantity purchased thru commercial
suppliers
If > 0 → crowding in
If < 0 → crowding out
If = 0 → no effect
5

6. Why this study?
 Government of Nigeria is implementing major
fertilizer subsidy reforms
• Hence it is important to set a benchmark
showing the impact of the current fertilizer
subsidy program on private fertilizer market
development
• These data will be used to assess the impact
of the new fertilizer subsidy program on
private sector fertilizer market development.
• Determine the crowding-in / out of commercial
fertilizer marketing by the fertilizer subsidy
program
6

7. Nigeria subsidy policy trend
Years Policy
Early Each State has separate fertilizer subsidy and distribution system
1970s
1976 Government creates FPDD to centralize fertilizer procurement.
Actual subsidy 80%-85% and a fiscal cost over US$ 150 million.
1982-86 Under pressure from donors and fall in oil prices, fertilizer subsidy
reduced from 85% to 28%. Cost of subsidy reaches US$ 240 million
1986-89 Nominal price fixed instead of inflation; subsidy rises to 80%.
1994 Economic reforms reinitiated, devaluation, and fertilizer subsidies
reduced.
1997 Fertilizer subsidies removed and distribution liberalized.
1999- Fertilizer subsidy re-introduced. FGN subsidy rate = 25%, each state
todate gives additional subsidy
7

8. Fertilizer use trend in Nigeria & SSA
regions
14
12
Average NPK/ha
10
8
6
4
2
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Nigeria East Africa Central Africa
Western Africa SSA, excl SA
Source: Presenters’ calculation based on FAOSTAT
8

9. Old fertilizer subsidy scheme
Subsidized fertilizer
International
Non-subsidized fertilizer
market
Fertilizer
Contract Federal Submit request
manufacturer
State
Open market ADP
Farmer
Source: Authors illustration based on literature and consultations with9
the local experts.

10. Empirical methods
 Two household datasets
• National survey on agricultural export
commodities (NASC) – pseudo-panel data
• Living Standard Measurement Survey –
Integrated Survey on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) –
cross section data
 Examine:
1. Patterns of sourcing
2. Effect of subsidy on fertilizer subsidy
3. Size of crowding in / out
10

11. National survey on agricultural export
commodities (NASC)
Collected by NBS, CBN,
FMARD and FM of Year of survey Sample size
Commerce and Industry 2003 14,337
(FMC&I) 2006 16,307
2007 15,286
Export crop growers Source: NBS
• Cashew, Cassava, Cocoa, Coffee, Cotton, Garlic, Gi
nger, Groundnut, Gum Arabic, Kolanut, Oil Palm
Rubber, Sesame seed, Sheanut, Sugar cane and
Tea
• In 2010 LSMS Data, these farmers account for
 15 % of producers in Nigeria
 30 % of fertilizer use in Nigeria
11

12. Living Standard Measurement Survey –
Integrated Survey on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA)
 Collected by the NBS, World Bank
 Sample – 5000 households nationwide
 Approximately 3000 farm households with
farm plots
12

13. Fertilizer purchase source
Definitions of commercial / public – subsidized sources
Commercial Public - subsidized
NSAEC data • Cooperative society* • Ministry (Extension services)
• Local market • Agro service center
• Other source • Farm service center
LSMS data • Market (local / main) • Government
• Friend / neighbor • Political Leader
• All the other • All free fertilizer (regardless of the
source)
Source: Consultations with the local experts and literature
13

14. PATTERNS OF FERTILIZER
SOURCING
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 14

15. Share (%) of farmers by sources of
fertilizer
2003 2006
20.4 21.5
18.1 18.9
79.6 78.5
1.7 1.9
0.6 0.7
2007 LSMS
No
Com only
25.0 20.4
69.7 30.3 75.3 24.1
Sub only
2.1
3.3
3.2 Both
1.0
Only one type of source (usually)
Some indication of crowding-out
Source: Authors 15

16. Why use only one source?
Potential reasons
 Small demand for fertilizer
 High transaction costs (information)
 Trust in particular source (quality)
=> Characterize the interaction between
commercial and subsidized market
Affect the nature of crowding-out
Determine our estimation approach
16

17. EFFECT OF SUBSIDY ON
OPEN MARKET FERTILIZER
PRICE
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 17

18. Fertilizer transportation cost
Table 6. Transportation costs from
Lagos to major fertilizer destinationsa
Source: Informal communication with major
fertilizer manufacturers in Nigeria.
Destination Zone Transportation costs
Naira / USD / ton
30 ton
Kano NW
Sokoto NW 380,000 82
Katsina NW
Maiduguri NE
Yola NE 450,000 98
Jalingo NE
Abuja NC 320,000 71
Ilorin NC 220,000 49
Ibadan SW 200,000 44
Oshogbo SW 220,000 49
Calabar SS 400,000 87
Enugu SE 280,000 61
Source: Major fertilizer manufacturers in
Nigeria (Tak International)
Source: Generated by Renato Folledo using ESRI World Street Map 18
(http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b93337983e9436f8db950e38a8629af)

19. Fertilizer prices – theoretical, actual
(commercial / subsidized) - 2010
(US Dollar /
Ton)
689 666 695 668 650
653
585 553 585
520 520 527
424
325 312
273
NW NC NE SW SS SE
Theoretical (NPK and Urea) Open Market Subsidized
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Open market and subsidized prices are median of each region in LSMS data.
No subsidized price was obtained for the South West region.
• North => lower subsidized price, though slightly higher theoretical price
• Open market price < Theoretical price => Subsidy depressed open market
price
19

20. Lower subsidized price (higher
subsidy) => lower open market price
Correlation between open market and subsidized price at the LGA
level
NSAEC data LSMS data
2003 2006 2007 All LGA Sub-
Sample
Correlation coefficient .391*** .163* .565*** .014 .261**
Sample size 135 114 83 70 68
p-value (H0: correlation .000 .083 .000 .907 .031
coefficient = 0)
Source: Authors.
• Positive correlation at the LGA level between open market price and
subsidized price
Greater subsidy may be depressing open market fertilizer price as
well
Another indication of crowding out
20

21. SIZE OF CROWDING IN /
OUT
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 21

22. Estimation challenge
1. Data restriction – we can only use 2 groups to estimate crowding-
out effect
Obtain Obtain Obtain
fertilizer from fertilizer from fertilizer from
Does not use fertilizer
commercial subsidized both types of
source only source only sources
Single-source users Dual-source users
2. Subsidized fertilizer quantity – endogenous, censored at 0
22

23. Estimation method
1. Bivariate probit - control for self-selection
(ΠC, ΠG) = f (x) => Obtain λ (inverse
mills ratio)
2. Endogenous Tobit – crowding out among single-source
users
Censored regression (Tobit)1: G* = f (xG, λ)
Censored regression (Tobit) 2: C* = f (xC, G*, λ)
3. OLS – difference in fertilizer use between single- and dual-
source users
T* = f (xG, xC, δ)
δ: probability of being dual-source users – estimated from bivariate
probit
Correlated Random Effects:
 Interact variables x with year dummies – to minimize bias from 23
pooled cross section data

24. Other variables in the models
Categories Variables
Farmer characteristics Age, gender, household size
Education Primary, secondary, post-secondary
Land tenure Size of land owned
Land tenure
Access to market, Distance (nearest town, all-weather
infrastructure road, market, ADP) at LGA level
Agro-ecological factors Rainfall (mean, variation)
4 Agro-ecological zones
Political factors 6 Geo-political zones
Use of modern inputs / Improved seed
credit* Motor plow
Pesticide
Credit
24

25. Share of farmers using subsidized
fertilizer
Share of farmers using subsidized
fertilizer - by LGA
Share of farmers using subsidized
fertilizer - by state
25

26. Household level analysis
 Estimated crowding-out (mean of all sample)
= 19 ~ 35%
Adding 1 ton of subsidized fertilizer
=> increase total fertilizer use by only
650 ~ 810 kg
=> reduces the demand for commercial
fertilizer by 190 ~ 350 kg
 Using both sources (commercial &
subsidized), instead of one, => no increase in
fertilizer use
26

27. Beneficiary characteristics as cause of
crowding out
Key characteristics that are statistically significant in both
datasets
Farmers using more Recipients of subsidy
commercial
fertilizer
Distance to nearest town near near
Household size large large
Household head age older
Post-secondary education yes
Source: Authors’ estimation.
For farmers with large household size, residing closer to the
town
=> More subsidy was given to them although they were more
likely to buy fertilizer at commercial price even in the absence
of subsidy
27

28. Implications
 Old fertilizer subsidy was more likely displacing
commercial fertilizer market, than stimulating
 Government’s goal, increasing fertilizer use in
Nigeria under the ATA, can be achieved more
efficiently through improved targeting to reduce
leakages
• Ex-ante assessment to identify demand
• Targeting mechanisms – index-based targeting
 Monitor the change in fertilizer use under ATA
28

29. Reference
Adesin A. 2011. Agricultural Transformation Agenda. Presentation made by the Honorable Minister of
Agriculture to the Economic Management Team Abuja, September 9, 2011.
Banful A, E Nkonya & V Oboh. (2010). Constraints to fertilizer use in Nigeria: Insights from agricultural
extension service. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01010.
Dorward A. (2009). Rethinking agricultural input subsidy programmes in a changing world. Paper
presented for the Trade and Markets Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Duflo E, M Kremer & J Robinson. (2011). Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental
Evidence from Kenya. American Economic Review 101(6): 2350–2390.
FGN (Federal Government of Nigeria). 2011. The Transformation Agenda, 2011-2015. National Planning
Commission, Abuja Nigeria.
Mogues T, M Morris, L Freinkman, A Adubi, E Simeon, C Nwoko, O Taiwo, C Nege, P Okonji & L Chete.
(2008). Agricultural public spending in Nigeria. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00789.
Ricker-Gilbert J, TS Jayne & E Chirwa. (2011). Subsidies and Crowding Out: A Double-Hurdle Model of
Fertilizer Demand in Malawi. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 93(1): 26–42.
Takeshima H, E Nkonya & D Sayon. (2012). Impact of fertilizer subsidies on the commercial fertilizer
sector in Nigeria: evidence from previous fertilizer subsidy schemes. IFPRI NSSP Policy Note 34.
Xu Z, WJ Burke, TS Jayne & J Govereh. (2009). Do Input Subsidy Programs ―Crowd In‖ or ―Crowd Out‖
Commercial Market Development? Modeling Fertilizer Use Decisions in a Two-Channel Marketing
System. Agric. Econ. 40(1): 79–94.
29

30. PBS PARTNERSHIP
SUPPORT IN NIGERIA
Paper Delivered by MPO Dore,
PBS Nigeria Coordinator
NSSP National Conference 2012:
―Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation
Agenda with policy analysis and research evidence‖
Abuja, Nigeria – November 13-14, 2012
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

31. INTRODUCTION: UNCED & CBD
 Nigeria’s obligation arising from the United
Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in 1992.
 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
was one of the outcomes and Nigeria signed
it in 1992 and ratified it in 1994.
 The subject of possible effects of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) was just
beginning to get recognition. The Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) developed and
Nigeria signed in 2001 and ratified in 2002.

32. OBJECTIVES OF CPB
 --- contribute to ensuring an adequate level
of protection in the field of the safe
transfer, handling and use of living
modified organisms resulting from modern
biotechnology that may have adverse effects
on the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity, taking also into account
risks to human health, and specifically
focusing on transboundary movements.

33. NATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
 Nigeria is saddled with the task of developing
its domestic legislation, regulations,
sectoral guidelines, standard operating
procedures and mechanisms to
implement the provisions. These are by no
means easy tasks given the lack of familiarity
with the technology and dearth of legal
expertise to draw up legislation on the
subject.

34. Background
 PBS works with stakeholders to develop and
implement science-based, functional biosafety
systems that ultimately: Expand producer
choice, inspire consumer confidence, facilitate
trade, and promote agricultural R&D.
 Its remit includes national, regional and global
activities. It serves by providing
comprehensive expertise for
technical, legal, communications and outreach
as well as policy/strategy development.

35. WHERE WE WORK

36. Countries & Economic Groupings
 East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda;
Common Market for East and Southern
Africa (COMESA)
 West Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, ECOWAS
 Southern Africa: Malawi, Mozambique
 SE Asia: Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam,
APEC

37. Nigeria presence
 Initiated in 2003; 2nd phase (2008 –
2013)
 Primarily funded by USAID; IFPRI-
managed
 Comprehensive expertise:
technical, legal, communications, poli
cy/strategy development
 Technical assistance component
supported by independent IFPRI
policy research team

38. SERVICES
 Services offered : Capacity building for
national biosafety officials (familiarization
tours, retreats), Development of operational
biotechnology and biosafety policies,
development of Biosafety laws, implementing
regulations and guidelines.
 Provision of technical expertise for Confined
Field Trials (CFTs) and multi-location trials
(MLTs), commercial release guidelines,
functional coordination among agencies,
strategic outreach and communications,
Issues Management, Capacity building for
decision makers and Coalition building for
policy support.

39. ANALYSIS OF NIGERIA BIOSAFETY SITUATION
Nigeria has two functional bodies responsible
for biotechnology and environmental safety in
the use of biotechnology. These are the
National Biotechnology Development Agency
(NABDA) of the Federal Ministry of Science
and Technology and Federal Ministry of
Environment.
The latter is the focal point for the Convention
on Biological Diversity and biosafety and led
Nigeria’s negotiations for the CPB.

40. Existence of guidelines
 Nigeria has as yet no laws governing modern
agricultural biotechnology and biosafety. The
Federal Ministry of Environment, which has
responsibility for biosafety regulation issued
national biosafety guidelines, which became
operational in 2001. The guidelines contain
provisions for field-testing of GM crops,
following review by the National Biosafety
Committee.

41. Passed Bill
 At the moment the National Assembly has
passed the Biosafety Bill and is awaiting
presidential assent. The bill calls for the
establishment of a National Biosafety
Management Agency. The Biosafety Bill was
presented to the Ministry of Environment by
the current Nigeria Biosafety Committee in
2006.

42. PBS ENGAGEMENT
 PBS has a long-standing relationship in
Nigeria and spans almost a decade. This is
discernible into two phases. The first phase of
activities commenced in the period 2003-
2008. Activities have now entered their
second phase which span 2008-2013.

43. Phase I
 2005 PBS sub-agreement with International
Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) under
the National Agricultural Biotechnology
Program (NABP). --NABP focused on
development of Nigeria’s national biosafety
system and the strengthening of national
capacities for its implementation.
 -establish an enabling policy environment
for the safe use of biotechnology and
 strengthen national capacities to
implement biosafety guidelines leading to the
approval of field test applications

44. Achievements 2005-2007
 Review and further development of the
draft biosafety policy and law;
 Technical training in key skill areas of
biosafety review and regulatory oversight and
provision of equipment for the biosafety
office to be better able to function.
 retreat organized in 2005 in collaboration
with the Federal Ministry of Environment and
an NGO which saw the emergence of a draft
biosafety bill and regulatory system.

45. Achievements
 Several training events provided to
regulators (IBC members, NBC members) on
CFT review and management. These events
took place in 2006 (in Ghana, participants
from Nigeria).
 Hands-on national workshop in 2007,
focusing on promising technologies for
cowpea, maize and cassava supported
through the IITA sub-agreement.
 These activities have significantly
strengthened the available skills and
capacity for field trial review and
management.

46. 2007-8
 Regulatory dossier development for an
insect-resistant cowpea CFT application
became the focus in the period 2007-08, with
support from USAID/Nigeria and in
collaboration with African Agricultural
Technology Foundation (AATF).

47. Phase II
 PBS efforts focused on increasing the
productivity of selected commodities
(cowpea) and the number of value-added
products (cassava events, sorghum), build a
more commercial and competitive orientation
among farmers and small entrepreneurs, and
improve the policy environment.

48. Phase II
Expansion of services both in scope and
content. Direct collaboration with
stakeholders and provided technical support
for the first ever Confined Field Trial ,
support for passage of bill passage,
supporting an outreach through OFAB
(NABDA) which ensures that the potentials of
biotechnology are brought to the grassroots,
developing Biosafety guidelines and
preparing for regulations required for
implementing laws.

49. Current Programs
 Programs drawn up to deal with the
identified areas needing technical
expertise in preparation of Nigeria for the
coming into law.
 The development of regulations for
implementing the law to be developed
include guidelines and manuals on:

50. Taskforce to draft regulations
 A crucial aspect and determinant in ensuring
further progress in the attainment of a lasting
and workable Biosafety regime in Nigeria.
 Risk assessment and Risk Management
• System for monitoring and enforcement: e.g.,
LMO inspections, equipment purchase,
development of protocols and guidelines
• Need for joint planning and coordination of
activities
• Procedures for the regulation of laboratory
research and confined field trials

51. Regulations & Guidelines
 Procedures for the commercial release of GMOs
into the environment
 Procedure for the import, export and transit of
GMOs
 Advanced field trial guidelines and SOPs
 Guidelines for general releases
 Advanced field trial guidelines, regulations for the
enforcement of the Biosafety Act

52. Legal Analysis
 To ensure an efficient Nigerian biosafety
regulatory system that reduces redundancy
while meeting all international and national
legal obligations. A Biosafety Act is one part
of a broader national regulatory system for
biotechnology. In addition to the Biosafety
Act, there are other existing Nigerian laws
that may impact biosafety and/or regulate
GMOs or their products.

53. Other legislations
 Other relevant legislations-- food safety
legislation, seed laws and phytosanitary laws
may impact plant materials (including GMO
plants) and general environmental legislation
may apply to the release of a GMO into the
environment.
 International obligations, such as consensus
documents from Codex Alimentarius, may
impact national biosafety regulation.
 PBS legal expert & in-country lawyers are
working to provide a roadmap of options to
reconcile those legal obligations.

54. Process Management
 Upon passage of the National Biosafety Bill
into Law, technical and organizational
management advisory services will be
required to ensure that the newly established
NBMA has adequate capacity to function and
execute its mandated duties.

55. Management tools
 One tool to accomplish this is Process
Management Training, which can be useful in
articulating the ―who, what, when, where and
why‖ of a given process and among various
regulatory / legal functions in a clear and
methodical stepwise process. Process
management, currently applied in several PBS
partner countries, will help implement a
coordinated framework that is
transparent, predictable and efficient.

56. PIPELINE PRODUCTS
 Biocassava+-Pro-vitamin A
 Cowpea—insect resistance
 Sorghum-lysine, Zn
 THE NEAR FUTURE
 Demand driven ????

57. CONCLUSION
 PBS has helped reduce uncertainty
surrounding biotechnology and biosafety and
increase technical knowledge and confidence
on biosafety systems in Nigeria.
 The collaboration between PBS and Nigerian
entities has been fruitful and rewarding for all
concerned
 A robust biosafety administrative regime will
emerge arising from PBS engagement in
Nigeria

58. Title Page
Identifying Key Land Governance
Policy Issues in Nigeria*
By:
Peter Olufemi Adeniyi
Chairman, PTCLR
⃰ Paper Presented at the National Conference of Nigeria strategy Support Programme (NSSP); Under the
Auspices International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Rockview Hotel Royale, Wuse
2, Abuja, Nigeria; 13 – 14 November 2012

59. Outline of Presentation
 Importance of Land
 What is Land Governance
 Governance and Policy Making
 Emergence of Land Governance Assessment Framework
(LGAF)
— Purpose, Content and Implementation Arrangement
— LGAF Study in Nigeria
— Summary of its Substantive Results
— Some of the Policy Recommendations
 Why PTCLR
— The Objectives, Goal and Expected Benefits of PTCLR
— Key Features of the PTCLR Activities
— Challenges 59

60. Importance of Land
In the book of Genesis 2:7, it was stated that man was created from the dust of the
land and will return to the land at the end of his life. It was also indicated that
while alive, man will keep on working, “tilling the land” for his or her survival (Gen.
3:23).
Still in the Holy book (Deuteronomy 12: 9 – 10; 25: 8 and 25:21) it was noted that
land is our home, our means of survival and our place of rest, safety and
enjoyment of good life. It is therefore not an overstatement to say that without
land there would be no human existence since land provides humans with items
like food, fuel, clothing, shelter, and medication which are very essential for
survival.
Land is the source of all material wealth. From it we get everything that we use or
value, whether it be food, clothing, fuel, shelter, metal, or precious stones. We live
on the land and from the land, and to the land our bodies or our ashes are
committed when we die. The availability of land is the key to human existence, and
its distribution and use are of vital importance. Land records, therefore, are of
great concern to all governments. The framing of land policy, and its execution,
may in large measure depend on the effectiveness of ‘land registration’, as we can
conveniently call the making and keeping of these records. (Rowton Simpson,
1978, Page 3)
60

61. Land Governance and Elements of
Good Land Governance
 What is Land Governance?
— Land Governance is about the policies, processes and institutions by which land, property and natural
resources are managed. This includes decisions on access to land; land rights; land use; and land
development. Land Governance is about determining and implementing sustainable land policies
(Ememark, 2009)
 Elements of Good Land Governance
— Land administration systems are efficient, effective and competent;
— Land policies that embody value judgments and are endorsed by elected politicians after consultation
with interested and affected parties;
— Land information is freely available subject to the protection of privacy;
— Land laws and regulations are freely available, well-drafted in a participatory transparent manner,
responsive and consistent and able to be enforced by the government and citizens;
— Land administration agencies are independently audited and publish their accounts and performance
indicators;
— Land administration services are provided for all without discrimination e.g. on the basis of gender,
ethnicity, religion, age, or political affiliation;
— Sustainable land development is encouraged;
— Land services should be provided close to the user;
— Land registration and legal systems should provide security of tenure for those with legitimate interest
in a parcel of land;
— Land administration officials behave with integrity and give independent advice based upon their best
professional judgment. (FAO, 2007)
61

62. Basic Steps in Governance and Public Policy
Making and Implementation
Understanding
Issues
(Scoping Studies)
Evaluating Policy
Evaluating
Consequences
Options (Monitoring and Evaluation)
Selecting Policy Implementing
Policy
Piloting and
Testing
62

63. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF)
Why LGAF?
— Need for a robust and comprehensive methodology to assess the various
components of Land Governance
— The need for a framework that provides governments with objective assessment
tool that can be used to identify areas where improvements are required
What is LGAF?
It is a diagnostic instrument, developed by the World Bank in collaboration with
IFPRI and other partners, for rapid national evaluation of various aspects of land
governance. Its methodology is based on 21 indicators. The indicators are further
broken down to 80 dimensions which are then grouped into the following five
thematic areas:
— Legal and Institutional Framework
— Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation
— Management of Public Land
— Public Provision of Land Information
— Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management
— Plus additional 16 dimensions on Large Scale Land Acquisition
63

64. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) (Cont’d)
Its Methodology is Strategic and Novel
— Strategic because of the use of in-country experts thereby ensuring
credibility and buy-in of the process and outcomes
— Novel not only because of the development of comprehensive
indicators but also because its implementation is based on
participatory approach involving:
 Use of Expert Investigators to collect background information
on a number of the dimensions
 Composition of Expert Panel Workshops for consensus
assessment of a number of dimensions
 Conduct of Technical Validation of the Consensus Assessment
Report
 Conduct of Policy Dialogue where key policy recommendations
and monitoring indictors are developed.
64

65. Implementation of LGAF in Nigeria
Period of Study: February to November 2011
Four Expert Investigators were appointed to provide
background information on 59 out of the 96 dimensions
Nine Expert Panel Workshops were conducted for the
consensus assessment of a number of dimensions
between April 27 and May 13, 2011
Conduct of Technical Validation Workshop involving 30
multi-stakeholders Nigerian participants and 13
participants from International Organisation
Policy Dialogue meeting involving 28 Nigerians and 9
participants from International Organisations
65

66. Summary of LGAF Findings
Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Land Tenure
Ranking by Expert EPM
LGI Dimension Description Panel Members (EPM) Consensus
Ranking
1 2 3 4 5
1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural) B D D B A
1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban) A D B B A
1 iii Rural group rights recognition C D D B C
1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas D C B C C
1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization B C D C C
Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to communal
2 i A D D B D
land
2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas C D D C D
2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas A D C B D
A condominium regime provides for appropriate
2 v D C D C C
management of common property
2 vi Compensation due to land use changes C C D D C
Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for
3 i B D D B C
recognition of property claims
3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession C D C C D
3 vi Efficient and transparent process to formalize possession C B B D C
66

67. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)
Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Urban Land Use
Planning and Development
Ranking by Expert Panel EPM
LGI Dimension Description Members (EPM) Consensus
1 2 3 4 5 Ranking
3 v Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible and affordable B D B C C C
Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability
4 i B D B B B B
are justified
In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based
7 i C C D D B C
on public input
7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use C B C C D C
7 iv Speed of land use change C C D D D
Process for planned urban development in the largest city in the
8 i D D C D C D
country
Process for planned urban development in the four largest cities in
8 ii D D D D C D
the country, excluding the largest city
8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth D C D C C C
8 iv Residential plot size adherence in urban areas C C D C C C
Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are
9 i C C B B D C
affordable and processed in a non-discretionary manner
9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling D C A C C
67

68. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)
Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Rural Land Use
and Land Policy
Ranking by
EPM
Expert Panel
LGI Dimension Description Consensus
Members (EPM)
Ranking
1 2 3 4
Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and
4 ii B C B B B
transferability are justified
Clear land policy is developed in a participatory
6 i B D B C C
manner
Meaningful incorporation and monitoring of equity
6 ii C D C C C
goals
Policy for implementation is costed, matched with
6 iii C D C D D
benefits and adequately resourced
Regular and public reports indicating progress in
6 iv D D C D D
policy implementation
In rural areas, land use plans and changes in these
7 i D D C C D
plans are based on public input
Use plans for specific rural land classes (forests,
8 v D D D D D
pastures, etc) are in line with use
68

69. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)
Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Management of
Public Land
Ranking by Expert
EPM
Panel Members
LGI Dimension Description Consensus
(EPM)
Ranking
1 2 3 4 5
Public land ownership is justified and
12 i implemented at the appropriate level of B B C C C C
government
12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land C A B C A C
Assignment of management responsibility for
12 iii C A C C D C
public land
Resources available to comply with
12 iv D C D C D D
responsibilities
Inventory of public land is accessible to the
12 v B C C C C C
public
Key information on land concessions is
12 vi C B B B B B
accessible to the public
69

70. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)
Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Management of
Public Land (Cont’d)
Ranking by Expert
EPM
Panel Members
LGI Dimension Description Consensus
(EPM)
Ranking
1 2 3 4 5
13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests A C D B C C
13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land C B C C C C
Compensation for expropriation of registered
14 i C B C B C C
property
14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights A A C C C C
14 iii Promptness of compensation D D D D D D
Independent and accessible avenues for appeal
14 iv B A C D D D
against expropriation
Timely decisions regarding complaints about
14 v C A D C D C
expropriation
15 i Openness of public land transactions D D D C C D
15 ii Collection of payments for public leases A C A C C C
15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land B B D B B B
70

71. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)
Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Large-Scale Land
Acquisition
Ranking by Expert EPM
LSLA Dimension Description Panel Members (EPM) Consensus
Ranking
1 2 3 4
LSLA-1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered C D C C D
Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed
LSLA-2 D D D D D
expeditiously and transparently
Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be
LSLA-3 C C D D D
identified
Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear
LSLA-4 D B C C D
and consistent manner
LSLA-5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent C B D C C
Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture (food
LSLA-6 crops, biofuels, forestry, game farm/conservation) are regularly C C C D C
used and transparently applied
There are direct and transparent negotiations between right
LSLA-7 D C C C C
holders and investors
Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the
LSLA-8 C C C C C
desirability of projects on public/communal land.
71

72. Summary of LGAF Findings (Cont’d)
Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Large-Scale Land
Acquisition (Cont’d)
Ranking by Expert EPM
LSLA Dimension Description Panel Members (EPM) Consensus
Ranking
1 2 3 4
For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors
LSLA-9 provide the required information and this information is publicly C C C C C
available
Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from
LSLA-10 communities or the public are required by law to explicitly mention D C D D D
the way in which benefits and risks will be shared.
The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is
LSLA-11 D D B C B
reasonably short
Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are
LSLA-12 D C D D D
clearly defined and implemented
Environmental requirements for large scale investments in
LSLA-13 D C D D D
agriculture are clearly defined and implemented
For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have
procedures in place to identify and select economically,
LSLA-14 C C C D C
environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement
these effectively.
Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is
LSLA-15 C C D D D
checked
There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do
LSLA-16 D D D D D
not comply with requirements
72

73. LGAF Validated Findings
Summary of the Validated Consensus Ranking of the LGAF Dimensions
Legal and Institutional Framew ork
7.41 18.52 44.44 29.63
(27 Dimensions)
Land Use Planning, Management
5.88 52.94 41.18
and Taxation (17 Dimensions)
Public Land Management (16
12.5 62.5 25
Dimensions)
Thematic Areas
P ublic Provision of Land
15.38 15.38 23.08 46.16
Inf ormation (13 Dimensions)
Dispute Resolution and Conf lict
14.29 42.85 14.29 28.57
Management (7 Dimensions)
Large Scale Land Acquisition (16 A
6.25 37.5 56.25
Dimensions)
B
C
All the Dimensions - 96 5.21 14.58 42.71 37.5
D
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Score
 The order of weakness based on the percentage of dimensions scoring C and D are:
— Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation with 94.12%;
— Large Scale Land Acquisition, 93.76%;
— Management of Public Land, 87.5%;
— The Legal and Institutional Framework, 74.07%;
— Public Provision of Land Information, 69.24%; and
— Dispute resolution and Conflict Management, 42.86% 73

74. LGAF Validated Findings (Cont’d)
Areas of great weakness
— Enforcement of rights; — Speed of conflict resolution in the formal
— Mechanisms for recognition of rights; system; and
— Institutional overlap; — Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older
— Equity and non-discrimination issues; than 5 year)
— Transparency of land use planning;
— Efficiency of land use planning;
— Transparency of valuation;
— Tax collection;
— Difficulty of identifying public land;
— Speed of use of expropriated land;
— Transparency in land expropriation procedures;
— Promptness of Compensation;
— Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation;
— Openness of public land transactions
— Mapping of registry records;
— Reliability of records;
— Cost of registering a property transfer;
— Financial sustainability of the registry;
— Capital investment; 74

75. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators
POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS
1. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
 More than 30 years after  To enable the National Council of States to  Establishment of the
its passage, none of the pass needed regulations and to monitor Commission
key pieces of regulation land system performance on a regular  Evaluation of results of the
envisaged in the Land Use basis, a National Land Commission as a pilots available
Act (LUA) (Sections 3 and technical body with representation from  Regulations drafted
46) has been passed. This key actors needs to be established.  Provision of information and
has seriously undermined Pending the establishment of the National institutional arrangements to
good land governance Land Commission, the Presidential monitor outcomes.
and effective land use Technical Committee on Land Reform  Study conducted and
planning in the country. (PTCLR) should carry out the tasks below. recommendations
 A high degree of vertical  Conduct and carefully evaluate pilot disseminated & discussed.
and horizontal overlap studies in relevant areas to provide - % increase of land
among land institutions evidence to inform the drafting of key registration, leases and
creates confusion, high regulations for land registration and land transfers, C of Os
levels of transaction survey/mapping in two states within one - reduced boundary
costs, and undermines year. conflicts
good governance in the  Carry out a study to identify horizontal and - reduction in transaction
sector. vertical overlaps in the land system and costs and time
recommend solutions. - reduction of vertical and
horizontal overlaps
75

76. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)
POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS
2. LAND USE PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND TAXATION
 While land use plans are  Prepare strategic land use  Initial establishment of land use
necessary to guide development plans with development plans.
development in urban and adequate implementation and  Mechanism to monitor
rural areas, they are mostly enforcement regulations; compliance with plans in place
unavailable leading to sensitize the public on their and results
haphazard growth. existence, importance and use of monitored/publicised.
 Absence of property tax the same.  Property tax guidelines
administration, assessment  Review planning standards, plot available, explained to and
and collection hinders size, land use class, and adoption understood by citizens,
decentralization and of model plans for public use. professionals (e.g. estate
effective provision of local  Develop, disseminate, and help surveyors and valuers), and
services. implement transparent systems local governments.
for property tax administration,  Increase in property tax
assessment, and collection for assessments and actual
use by local governments at collection.
different sizes.  Number of states that have land
use plans, land administration
machinery and property tax
rolls.
76

77. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)
POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS
3. PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT
 Lack of information on the  Undertake a comprehensive  Inventory has been
location and extent of public inventory of land owned by all established and
land makes it impossible to tiers of government. mechanisms to
properly manage and protect  Harmonize various legislations maintain it currently
this critical asset. into a clear single simple process exist.
 A large number of acquisitions for acquisition of land by all  Legislation to regulate
occurs without prompt and government agencies to ensure expropriation has been
adequate compensation, thus due process for land acquisition enacted and is
leaving those losing land by requiring publicity, adequate effectively applied.
worse off, with no mechanism and prompt compensation in line  Share of allocations of
for independent appeal even with global best practice and government (public)
though the land is often not ensure availability of independent land and transactions
utilized for a public purpose. avenues for appeal. Put in place that are advertised.
 Divestiture of public land is sanctions for misbehaviour.
less transparent and therefore  Ensure publicity of the detailed
does not generate revenues agreement, including schedules of
for the public sector. applicable charges.
77

78. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)
POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS
4. PUBLIC PROVISION OF LAND INFORMATION
 The low level of  Establish software tools to manage textual and  Share of registry
registered parcels (less spatial data jointly and to link existing ones. records with textual
than 3% of the country  Building on the pilot study results, develop and spatial
covered) and the procedures for systematic expansion of information
incomplete spatial registered areas. integrated.
reference of registry  Study and recommend processes and  Share of the land
information fosters requirements to streamline and control under private use that
conflict, corruption, different registration services and based on is registered and
undermines this, establish a registry service charter mapped.
investment, land (including sanctions and avenue for appeal) that  Implementation of
market functioning, is publicly available and binding on both user service charter leads
and housing finance. and officials. to higher levels of
 Lack of processes for  Design and implement awareness campaign as customer satisfaction.
automatic updating well as training programs for officials.
undermines the value  Make transparency issues more comprehensive
of the land registry as a by publishing list of all allottees upon or at
tool for private sector allocation.
development.  Ensure implementation of global best practice
on access to public land information.
78

79. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)
POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS
5. DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
 Lack of awareness of  Disseminate existing laws and  Knowledge of relevant
the rights and sensitize different groups about legal provisions and
avenues to enforce their rights under the law and ways avenues for
them reduces the to enforce them. enforcement in the
ability to access and  Link spatial and textual data (see population and
properly utilize land above) to reduce boundary disputes. specific groups (e.g.
especially for  Mainstream traditional institutions women).
vulnerable groups. and the Alternative Dispute  Reduction of backlog
 High level of pending Resolution (ADR) into the justice of conflicts.
conflicts undermines system to reduce backlogs and  Number of new
investment and improve access to justice, especially conflicts reaching the
efficiency of land for vulnerable groups. formal system
use.  Increase the ability of formal decreases.
institutions to speedily resolve
dispute by building capacity and
rationalizing assignment of
responsibilities. 79

80. Major Policy Recommendations and Monitoring Indicators (Cont’d)
POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS
6. LARGE SCALE LAND ACQUISITION
 Lack of clear and efficient procedures  Review and streamline regulations for land-  Establishment of the
for large scale investment in land related foreign investment. Create a one-stop one stop intervention
reduce Nigeria’s ability to attract shop/intervention and conduct publicity for large scale land
technically qualified investors. campaigns among potential investors. acquisition.
 Realized investments often are  Adaptation of existing EIA and SIA  Number of viable
technically, environmentally, and mechanisms to the needs of land-related investment proposals
socially unsustainable. investment, mandatory publication of these increases.
 The need for government to documents, and increased efforts at  Number of failed
expropriate land before it can be enforcement. Review of other relevant projects due to
transferred to investors opens space procedures in light of international standards technical,
for discretionary behaviour and, due and best practice. environmental, or
to procedural weaknesses (see up),  Ensure those affected by large scale land social problems and
often undermines the livelihood of acquisition have the choice of receiving conflict decreases.
local people. compensation in kind and provide options for  Living standards in
 Lack of local involvement, non- direct negotiation between investors and local areas affected by FDI
transparent contracts, and lack of communities. improve.
monitoring undermine the scope for  Ensure arrangements for large scale land
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) transfer are negotiated and agreed upon by
potential to provide benefits to locals local land users, that mechanisms for benefit
and contribute to development. sharing and arbitration are specified, and that
contract terms are publicly available to
facilitate monitoring.
80

81. Why a PTCLR?
 The Land Use Act (1978) has had noble intentions...
— Offer all Nigerians access to land
— Facilitate the acquisition of land by governments for projects of public interest
— Combat land speculation
 … but poor results:
— Information about who owns land anywhere in the country is largely unavailable as only about 3% of
the land parcels in Nigeria has been demarcated and registered
— Land speculation is thriving and prices are prohibitive
— Land registration is cumbersome, time consuming and expensive (Nigeria is no. 180 out of 183
countries assessed)
— Increased informal land development everywhere
— State revenue levels, from ground-rent, are very low
 Increasing concerns about the failure of LUA by both public and private organizations, CSO,
NGOs, business and professional organization, academia, etc
 As social and economic pressure increase, there is an urgent need to put more land into
productive use through improved land governance anchored on evidence-based land
policies
 As a response to this, the PTCLR was established in April 2009 by the Federal Government
 The LGAF result further justifies the constitution of PTCLR and it further assists in
redesigning of programme activities and seeking support for their implementation
81

82. Example of Informal Development Around Lagos
82

83. PTCLR’s Terms of Reference
 To collaborate and provide technical assistance to States
and Local Governments to undertake land cadastral
nationwide;
 To determine individuals’ “possessory” rights using best
practices and most appropriate technology to determine
the process of identification of locations and registration of
title holdings;
 To ensure that land cadastral boundaries and title holdings
are demarcated in such a way that community, hamlet,
village, village area, town, etc, will be recognizable;
 To encourage and assist States and Local Governments to
establish an arbitration mechanism for land ownership
conflict resolution;
83

84. PTCLR’s Terms of Reference (Cont’d)
To make recommendations for the establishment
of a National Depository for Land Title Holdings
and Records in all States of the Federation and
the Federal Capital Territory;
To make recommendations for the establishment
of a mechanism for land valuation in both urban
and rural areas in all parts of the Federation; and
To make any other recommendations that will
ensure effective, simplified, sustained and
successful land administration in Nigeria.
84

85. Goals of the Reform
 To empower Nigerians from all walks of life to
have easy access to incontestable certificate of
occupancy.
 To bring about sustainable socio-economic
growth and development anchored on secure
land tenure system and effective land titling.
 To promote wealth creation and economic
empowerment of Nigerians by optimizing the
use of land as an economic commodity.
85

86. What the Reform is All About
 Collaborating with State and Local Governments to
provide technical assistance and enhance their capacity
for modern land administration.
 Undertaking a train-the-trainer programme for Field
Officers and other technical personnel required for
effective nationwide cadastral survey.
 Putting in place a time defined process of clarification of
Land boundaries or adjudication of land for the purposes
of registration.
 Identifying and removing the bottlenecks that are
embedded in the current land titling and registration
procedures and processes within the existing land
delivery process.
86

87. What the Reform is All About (Cont’d)
 Scaling up the quality and adequacy of institutional
capacities required to administer and promote land
transactions.
 Mainstreaming best practices in the documentation of
land transactions, land titling and registration processes
and procedures.
 Installing a nationwide land information infrastructure
that is required for the efficient networking of databases
of cadastral and land title records.
 Undertaking a comprehensive survey involving the
mapping of the country on a scale large enough to show
land holdings of individuals or group of individuals or
corporate bodies.
87

88. Direct Benefit of the Reform
 Guaranteed land tenure security and possessory rights for all
land owners and occupiers.
 Economic empowerment of individuals through the use of their
certificates of occupancy as credit collateral to promote their
economic ventures.
 Improved efficiency of land administration especially for revenue
generation for Local, State and Federal Governments.
 Reduction in the cost of land transactions, and by extension,
reduction in the cost of housing.
 Reduction or elimination of fraud and other risks in land transactions
due to transparent processes and procedures.
 Effective and early resolution of land disputes.
 Direct and easy access to reliable, complete and up-to-date land
information.
 National economic growth and development resulting from optimal
use of land in various economic engagements.
88

89. Key Features of the Reform
 Intensive and extensive awareness building
 Conduct of Strategic Stakeholders’ Meetings
 Densification of geodetic stations across the
country through the installation of
Continuously Operating Reference Stations
(CORS)
o CORS have been installed in Ondo, Katsina and Imo
States while that of Kano State is about to be installed
89

90. The CORS being Installed in Ondo State
90

91. The CORS being Installed in Katsina State
91

92. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)
 Conduct of scoping studies to provide necessary background information
for the development of regulations and a toolkit for systematic land titling
and registration
 Perception Study
 Studies on Land Administration Service Delivery in Nigeria
 Socio-economic base line Study
 Strategic studies into Valuation Mechanisms
 Design and development of a toolkit for systematic land titling and
registration, involving: (i) a streamlined systematic registration work flow,
(ii) a detailed manual that provides sufficient information to enable field
staff to implement the procedure, including copies of all the field forms,
and (iii) the training material necessary to train State, LGA, village and
field staff in the implementation of the procedures.
 Development of registration software package (e.g FAO Open Source
SOLA Software)
 Conduct of pilot systematic land titling and registration in Ondo and Kano
States
92

93. Land Registration in Nigeria
The process of registering property is cumbersome, time-consuming
and unaffordable to majority of Nigerians. Nigeria ranks 180 out of 183
countries on the issue of registering property.
93

94. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)
Land titling and registration can be sporadic or systematic. The
sporadic system is usually part of a user-pays government initiative
that allows individual landholders to gain titles or more secure
tenure at their own initiative and cost. The systematic titling on the
other hand is equally part of a large government initiative to deliver
secure land titles or tenure to a wide cross section of the population
at little or no cost to the landholders.
The sporadic system is the system being used in Nigeria and this is
responsible for the abysmal low level of registered parcel in Nigeria.
Today, most land titling projects adopt a systematic approach as
exemplified by the well-known Thailand Land Titling Project. The
same approach is being adopted across Africa in such countries as
Ghana, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, etc.
94

95. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)
The advantages of the systematic land titling registration
include:
 Low initial cost for landholders;
 Government can effectively manage land since it knows
who owns what and where it is;
 A vital end product is a complete map of all land in a
jurisdiction or country to support land management and
sustainable development;
 A systematic approach is much more equitable than a
sporadic approach, especially when the base map is used
for land taxation, to identify encroachments, or other
planning or environmental controls;
 Titling is completed relatively quickly (15 – 20) years is
possible for most countries. 95

96. Designed Field Party Structure for the Systematic Registration
State
Coordinator
Field Party Leader
(PL)
Deputy Field Party
Leader (DPL)
FieldTeam (3)
Team (3)
FieldTeam (3)
FieldTeam (3)
Sensitisation Office GIS Officer (1) Field
Field Team (3) Village
Field Team (3)
Officers (3) Assistance (3) Field Team (3) Officials (2)
State/LGA Official Employed Staff Village Officials
96

97. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)
Each of the four field parties will be structured as follows:
 Field Party Leader (FPL, either a land surveyor or an estate
surveyor) who is responsible for the management of the overall
activities of the party including: liaison with the community, leading
the sensitisation activity in the villages, oversight of the dispute
resolution process, preparation of reports to the state coordinator.
 Deputy Field Party Leader (an estate surveyor if the PL is a land
surveyor or a land surveyor if the PL is an estate surveyor) who
assists the PL in managing the work.
 Sensitisation Officers (3 staff) – responsible for planning and
coordinating the village sensitisation program with the field teams,
implementing the village sensitisation program, facilitating dispute
resolution, assisting with the public display, helping distribute
registration information.
97

98. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)
 Office Assistants (3 staff) – responsible for checking the data
gathered by the field teams, entering the data into the computer,
producing reports, producing material for public display, helping
resolve disputes, preparing registration material.
 GIS Officer (1 staff) – responsible for entering the spatial
information in the GIS, preparing large scale plots for the field
teams, preparing the maps for public display, preparing and spatial
data for registration.
 Field Teams (7 teams each comprised of a field officer, adjudicator
and field assistant – a total of 21 staff) – responsible for the
demarcation and charting of property boundaries, the gathering of
information on rights, the completion of the field forms with the
necessary signatures and supporting information, chasing land
holders not present in the field, the correction of incomplete or
incorrect information on the field forms, settling disputes, assisting
with the office processing and other tasks. 98

99. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)
The deployment of the procedures involves the following three
(3) stages:
(i) First Stage (Front Office) which entails:
 Village or ward sensitization
 Field survey to identify the boundaries of land parcels.
 Taking inventory of the possessory rights of individuals or
family groups or corporate bodies over the parcels of land,
which must be carried out in the presence of all adjacent
owners of such parcels of land in the community.
 Field adjudication for minor disputes
99

100. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)
(ii) Second Stage (Middle Office) which entails:
 Entering, analyzing and processing of the cadastral and attribute
data collected in the field.
 Quality control of the data so collected.
 The timely process of adjudication of land disputes which could
not be resolved in the field by the local adjudicator. This will be
done at the Local community level.
 Where the claims are not contested or the contestation had been
resolved, the rights of individual to the parcels being presented for
validation are then confirmed.
 The confirmation will be done through the issuance of a
receipt that entitles the owner of the parcel of land to apply for a
title or certificate of occupancy from the appropriate authority.
10

101. Key Features of the Reform (Cont’d)
(iii)Third Stage (Backroom Office) which entails:
 The presentation of the receipt from the middle office
represents application for the issuance and registration of the
title documents or certificates of occupancy by the appropriate
authority.
 Development of computerized land registries at Local and State
Government levels.
 Provision of computerized backup facilities in a National
Depository at the Federal level.
 Promotion of the development of the National Cadastral data
infrastructure.
10

102. Importance and Relevance of Land Reform (Cont’d)
 Land Reform will strengthen the capacity of State
Governors and Local Government Chairmen to administer
land in their States and Local Governments.
 Land Reform will protect all land owners and occupiers
from illegal encroachment.
 Land Reform will enhance the security of all Statutory and
Customary Certificates of Occupancy.
 Land Reform will make land more viable for economic
activities and this will lead to economic empowerment
and wealth creation.
10

103. Challenges
Attitudinal Change and lack of capacity to
appreciate and manage change
Poor perception of the fundamental importance of
land
Very weak capacity in Land Administration
Development of a comprehensive evidence-based
National Land Policy
Resource Mobilization for the nationwide conduct
of Systematic Land Titling and Registration
Sustenance of Stakeholders’ Interest
Establishment of a National Land Reform
Commission 10

104. The Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform
Thank you!
Conclusion
10

105. Challenges and Opportunities for Land
Governance in Nigeria:
- Insights from Case Studies in Ondo and Kano states
Hosaena G Hagos, IFPRI
NSSP National Conference 2012:
“Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda with Policy
Analysis and Research Evidence”
Abuja, Nigeria – November 13-14, 2012

106. Background: About This Research
• Very little is known about customary or statutory legal
provisions regarding women’s rights, the types of
ownership or use and management rights women hold;
• There is lack of clarity on mandates of institutions (formal
and customary) available to enforce land rights in case of
violation and the transaction costs associated with doing
so.
• IFPRI was asked by the PTCLR to do qualitative
assessment of the land governance system in Ondo and
Kano
• This report is based on case studies and exploratory
visits to the pilot intervention sites identified by the
PTCLR (in Ondo and Kano states)
•
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 106

107. Motivation: Why Land Governance Reform?
The demand for secure property rights to land
• Need for investment to increase agricultural productivity &
sustainability
• Increasing urbanization, escalating land prices,
• ‘Scramble’ for land in wake of bio-fuel boom (speculation)
Supply-side factors
• New land legislation in much of Africa in 90s
• Advances in IT and remote sensing reduces cost
But why has so little happened on the ground?
• Technical or institutional obstacles
• Limited benefits compared to cost
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 107

108. The Rationale for Land Right Formalization
• Theory predicts that formalized land rights
enhance tenure security of households
Economic benefits of formalization of land rights:
• Enhance land investment
• Conservation structures, technology adoption
• Transferability
• Gains from trade
• Reallocate land to more efficient users
• Credit access
• Land as collateral
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 108

109. Proposed Approach
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 109

110. Rational for the Demand Assessment
Study
Objectives of the survey
 Assess the general public’s knowledge and perception of land
regulations
 Understand the expectations with respect to benefits offormal and
informal property rights (e.g. land disputes, access to mortgage,
protection of women rights, etc.)
 Quantify the willingness-to-pay for a certificate of occupancy
 Inform the second phase assessment (design of the baseline survey)
and help refine registration process and sensitization strategy
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 110

111. Preliminary Findings: case studies
• The study shows that the costs of land
registration are around 10 percent of the land
value
• Household reported the disbursement of
compensation as a major problem rather than
the lack of land registration per se.
• The local governments play a rather limited, if
not completely nonexistent role, in providing land
governance services
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 111

112. Preliminary Findings: Cont.
• The law, both statutory and customary recognizes the right of
women to own and use land for productive uses.
• However, there is a regional variation in the rights of female to
land ownership (acquisition)
• Kano: In the event of the death of the husband, the wife has the right to
inherit ¼ the husbands property.
• Ondo: A woman according to custom has no right of inheritance from
her husband,
• Direct purchase, gift through inheritance and government
allocation are the dominant modes of land acquisition for
women
• Though joint ownership of land and properties with spouses is
constitutionally allowed, it is rarely practiced.
• Majority of respondents opposed this form of land ownership
(reason: potential cause for conflict in polygamous family)
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 112

113. Preliminary Findings: Cont.
• The willingness-to-pay for Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) varies in
both states
• Generally, there is a higher willingness (backed with ability) to pay in
the urban area, among male respondents, migrants and households
with earlier experience of land dispute
• Unaffordability was stated as the major reason for not having
(obtaining) certificate of Occupancy
• Land-related disputes are more common in urban areas than rural.
• Though a myriad of them exist in both states (Kano and Ondo
State), inheritance dispute , border dispute and dispute caused by
land expropriation are dominant cause of land related disputes in the
two states.
• Majority of the households have reported to have poor access to
formal dispute resolution mechanisms - mainly relying on traditional
(informal) mechanisms
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 113

114. Conclusions
• Sporadic land registration is more expensive and
less pro-poor (risk of elite capture)
• A need for a context-specific land governance
intervention as sources of risk of tenure insecurity
and customary practices vary from place to place
• In addition to lack of clarity in recognition of land
rights, poor organizational structure of institutions,
overlapping institutional mandates, and lack of
public awareness of the formal and traditional
rules (laws) are factor for poor land governance in
Nigeria
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 114

115. THANK YOU!
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 115