Paper short abstract:

Despite common perceptions, Ethiopian land tenure contains significant ambiguity due to the co-existence of state ownership with ethnic federalism and neo-customary tenure. The paper examines these competing ideas and institutions on land through a case study of conflict in Oromiya.

Paper long abstract:

There is a common perception that Ethiopia is unusual in Africa in having a relatively uniform system of state land ownership. While highly influential, state ownership is not the only body of law with implications for land administration in Ethiopia. This paper demonstrates that the institutionalization of ethnic federalism and the persistence of neo-customary tenure result in considerable ambiguity in land administration, particularly regarding the land rights of non-indigenous ethnic minorities. The analysis highlights tensions between these three sets of institutions and associated ideas, and their implications for minority land rights. This ambiguity is explored through the analysis of a case study of land-based conflict in Oromiya based on fieldwork conducted in 2009/10. This case study demonstrates the continuing relevance of these three ideas in land debates in Ethiopia, the use of these ideas by protagonists as means of justifying land claims and the ambiguous state response to the conflict, which appears to go well beyond the provisions of the land policy. As such, while there are certainly particular characteristics of the Ethiopian case, many of the key issues regarding ethnicity and land mirror debates taking place across the continent.