**4. Results and Discussion**

Secure, legally enforceable and marketable land rights are critical for cities in developing countries to be able to ensure that urban land is allocated to its most productive use [17]. The Federal Urban Land & Real Property Registry & Information Agency (FULRPRIA) is an institution established with the Proc. No. 251/2011 [46], and given responsibility of registering all urban lands in accordance with Proc. No. 818/2014 [26]. In order to implement this proclamation, cadastral surveying regulation, landholding adjudication and registration regulation, and enforcement guidelines have also been prepared and approved. In addition to these laws, five universities have developed curricula to address the challenges of urban land administration and management. Apart from this, the urban land sector developed 12 occupational standards (OS) to help build the competency of the land administration professionals. In this regard, the sector recruited 4192 professionals from four regions (Tigray, Amhara, Oromiya, and Southern nations) trained and assessed them starting from Level II-IV professions [25]. All these interventions are made to develop and strengthen the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of land administration professionals, which in turn foster performance of land administration institutions. Despite these efforts and interventions, as stated in the annual report [27], institutional performance of the cadastral system was not possible to evaluate as successful. In connection with this, the report provides the following challenges for its poor performance; silence of the law about sporadic registration procedure, low emphasis by the right provider for cadastral related activities, delayed responses from the right provider for the cases registered in the dispute registry book, low commitment and engagement by the upper management, and existence of incomplete title evidence for the stated owned lands. Hence all these challenges delayed the smooth implementation of urban cadastral system. In the same manner, these issues have been mentioned in the works of Likinaw [47], Chekole [35], Burns [24], and Daniel [21] as challenges for the hindrance of successful cadastral system implementation.

The results from the semi-structured interviews, guided by a previously designed questionnaire (see Table A1), indicate that the achievement of institutional objectives are delayed by varieties of problems, which among others, lack of commitment by the leadership, lack of consistent and organized land information documentation, and lack of proper follow-ups, lack of comprehensive performance evaluation in order to identify its strengths and weaknesses and to propose the redesign strategies, lack of comprehensive review of the cadastral system experiences, lack of adequate study to identify appropriate strategies, poor cooperation between land right providing and registering institutions. According to the directors of ULDMB and ULARIA, despite the importance of follow-ups, leaders' commitment, institutional collaboration, and proper geospatial documentation to ensure sustainability of the cadastral system, in most cases these components are neglected in the strategic plan. Due to this, they are not performing according to their strategic plans. Since the natures of the two institutions' operational tasks are interlinked, independent working could not lead them to achieve their targets. Among the challenged stated above,

most are directly related to problems associated with poor institutional collaboration. In connection to this, Auzins [48], asserts that the major source of problem in malfunctioning land administration and management system is miss-arrangement of institutions [48]. As a result, each institution could not achieve the targeted objectives rather they are repeating the same institutional strategic plans every year. In this regard, a study by Wayumba [49] indicated that any cadastral system requires a comprehensive evaluation in order to identify its strengths and weaknesses and to propose the redesign strategies. In the same manner, it is possible to consider available resources during the development of strategic plans. Table 3 presents response rate from both interview and focus group discussions.


**Table 3.** Interview and FGD results from ULDMB and ULARIA Institutions.

In order to verify and validate results of interviews and FGDs, strategic plan (GTP II) and annual performance reports were assessed. According to the strategic plan (GTP II) of Addis Ababa, 430,000 parcels were planned to be adjudicated and registered within 5 years from 2015–2019. However, only 149,584 parcels are adjudicated and registered, which amounts 34.78% performance achievement. This performance level is rated as low based on the scale level indicated in Table 2.

According to the institutional directors, even if the strategic plan formulated for five years, there is an update every year since the strategic plan by itself is an ambitious, which cannot be realized. It was planned to reach on the target by recording 430,000 parcels within five years. Despite these ambitious plans, the reality on the ground was otherwise. They believe that the main challenges for this to happen are lack of proper consideration of available resources: such as human resource, and money during the planning process; communication gaps among land administration stakeholders; commitment, and poor institutional coordination within the land sector; irregular assignment and replacement of institutional leaders. Hence, they believe these are the major causes for the low institutional performance. Similarly, the Kenyan cadastral system has been hindered by the same challenges mentioned above though they could able to solve the problem through redesigning the overall processes, including strategic plans, and institutional arrangements [49]. In this regard, studies; Carlos, et al. [50], and Nicholas [51] suggest that strategic planning process requires considerable thought and planning on the part of the institution's upper-level management. Before setting a strategic plan and then determining how to strategically implement it, the upper management of the respective institutions first needs to take into account available resources. In contrast to the cases of Ethiopia and Kenya, the most exemplary experience of Rwanda has laid remarkable story of success across African cadastral system. Across the country, 10.67 parcels have been completed in less than five years with an average of USD7 cost per parcel [17]. This achievement is attributable to nine years of dedicated reform efforts, which started with a comprehensive review of Rwanda's policy legal and institutional framework, now regularly updated. Preparations for implementation immediately followed, starting first with piloting to identify scalable approaches for achieving the government's ambitious targets, with concurrent monitoring and impact evaluation helping to identify problems that could then be discussed by policy makers [18]. This exceptional experience of Rwanda gave lessons to other countries. In line with this, the findings by Enemark et al. [52], and UN-GGIM [7] indicate that the process of formulating strategic plan first needs to assess its current situation by performing an internal and external audit to identify the institution's strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities

and threats (SWOT analysis). Based on this analysis, the institutional directors decide on which priority areas they should focus on, how to best allocate the institution's resources, and whether to take actions such as expanding operations through merger. After setting the strategic plan in this way, it is important for the upper management to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategic plan after the implementation phase [7]. Strategic plan evaluation involves three crucial activities: reviewing the internal and external factors affecting the implementation of the strategy, measuring performance, and taking corrective steps to make the strategy more effective [25]. The findings by de Vries et al. [8] give a good insight in how administrators that encourage and intensify collaboration and integration among public agencies could derive an organizational transformation. In this regard, a framework for effective land administration, FELA [7], indicates the role of establishing partnerships and collaboration in enhancing effective land administration system. According to this framework, partnerships and collaborations bring different but complementary skills, experiences, knowledge, and resources altogether to improve institutional goals. Likewise, one of the seven underpinning principles of Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF) is collaboration and cooperation between land administration institutions. In this regard, IGIF [53] asserts that at the national the level, there needs to be more institutional collaboration and integration across the various land administration institutions. However, in situations where the level of collaboration between related institutions is very weak, according to de Vries et al. [54] one possible solution is to merge those institutions to effectively provide collective services, based on a single institutional and organizational framework [8]. From the land management perspective, Yin and Shanley [55] reveal that operational efficiency is a rational justification for merger. The primary discourse of mergers is rationalist, emphasizing economic gains of increasing efficiency and technical gains of standardization and reduction of redundancy [54]. In addition, mergers fundamentally change the individual organizations, the responsibilities and accountabilities, the work practices and conventions, the physical location of people and resources, and augment effective authority of the merged organization [56].

According to the legal framework of the two institutions, they clearly need to cooperate and, even in some way, they need to be integrated. This is mentioned in Art. 14 sub-article of 2 and 3 of Proc. No. 818/2014 [26], and it reads, in cases where there is inconsistency between the evidences from the empowered right providing institution and the landholder, the issue shall be referred to the right providing institution for verification. In response to this, the right providing institution shall notify its decision relating to the issue raised to the registering institution within fifteen working days. Despite this dictate, survey results show that in most cases, the requested information is not responded within the stated time limit. According to the directors, one of the possible reasons for this to happen is poor coordination between these two institutions. In fact they have a common goal that is securing urban lands in support of sustainable land administration system. However, the reality on the ground seems competing institutions for individual profits. In addition to this, the professionals working in these two institutions are paid differently, regardless of their expertise and experience. This difference came from the fact that ULARIA is established at agency level and supported with project funds. In this case, the professionals working in this institution are paid better than the professionals working in ULDMB. Justified with the weak cooperation and integration, the directors suggested institutional merger between the two institutions and governing with the same legal and institutional framework leads to a better operational performance. According to their perception, providing responsibility to a single institution would be effective than two or more institutions. In this regard, Yin and Shanley [55] argue that institutional mergers lead to a more effective and transparent processes and to similar services than if only collaboration and integration would increase. This argument is also supported by the works of de Vries et al. [54], de Vries et al. [8], Koroso et al. [4] and Wang et al. [57] that confirmed single institution can perform operations more efficiently than multiple organizations. Lessons from best experience in land administration show that institutional

merger achieves the highest, effective, and sustainable service delivery to the customer. In support of this, countries with merged institutions rank, on average, 38 out of 189 countries in Doing Business [19]. Countries with separate institutions rank, on average, 47. The report show that merged organizations work better than unmerged organizations [19].

The other question provided to the directors was concerning the delivery of services in the land administration sector through one window in one place. Among the total 20 interviewees, 80% of the respondents described that the major challenge for the customer is getting land related services in different institutions. For instance, one investor may ask for a plot of land for real estate development. The procedure to obtain this land starts in ULDMB specifically under the directorate for land right creation (provision). This institution creates interests (bundle of rights attached to the land, such as right, responsibility, and restriction. In short, interest in land refers to the right, responsibility, and restriction attached to the landholder). The investor then goes to the ULARIA and request for cadastral surveying and registration of the plot. According to the Proc. No. 818/2014 [26], it is only when this plot of land is registered by ULARIA said to be legal owner of the parcel. However, these two institutions are physically located in different addresses, which mean the customer has no access for one window service. In this regard, the investor is obliged to visit both institutions to get the service. Although the requested services are interrelated and could be performed by a single institution, the system does not provide one-window service to the customer. This bureaucratic procedure, according to DB [19], Turisova et al. [58], and Carlos et al. [59], creates inconvenience to the customer since it consumes time, energy and cost compared to a single entry point to get the service. Therefore, merging these institutions would provide better services to the customer through one-window service. Jouni [60] and the World Bank Group [61] support one-window services in the land administration sector to create simple and smooth processes in executing the tasks of land administration.

In relation to the merits and demerits of institutional merger, institutional directors were asked if institutional merger provides advantages of cost reduction and increase efficiencies. In this regard, the directors (80% of interviewee) strongly believe that merger plays vital role in reducing the costs to be incurred, time to be consumed, and increase efficiencies of the merged institution. On top of this, the resource (e.g., human resource) to be deployed would be used efficiently and wisely. Based on counties experience, for instance Rwanda, the success behind their cadastral system relies mainly on the merged institutional arrangement, which is one of the principles in the cadastral statements. However, Jouni [60] and the World Bank Group [61] highlight that no institutional merging can be established overnight, rather it is important to take concrete steps to the right direction of merging. Coherently, the directors of ULDMB and ULARIA in Addis Ababa also believe that urban land right provision and registration activities are closely related fields, and should not be treated nor operated under separate institutions. The targets intended, the resources deployed, the processes involved, and the outcomes provided are more or less the same. The target of urban development and management office is providing landholding right, which needs to be ascertained through cadastral registration. In this case, they believe that land administrators working on the ULDMB can also be deployed in the ULARIA, so that human resources are managed properly. On the basis of these arguments, investigating these two related activities under two different and independent institutions seems an inefficient use of resources.

Finally, regarding the areas for institutional performance improvement to satisfy the needs of their customers, the directors believe that the two institutions first need to be collaborated to execute their planned tasks on the basis of clear guideline that shows their responsibilities and duties through, for instance, signing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This mechanism may increase the relation between the two institutions, which in turn positively affect their individual performance. After getting into deep and effective relationships, the cooperation may develop into merging into single institution. However, this does not mean that it can be done in a single stage; rather it should be through some

time since the issue needs discussion between the staffs of both institutions. In support of this, de Vries and Miscione [62] state that in a situation where mergers took place, the root of the transformation is embedded in gradual adaptation and so a merger gradually crystallizes instead of being established by decree. Meanwhile, the two institutions need to put a binding agreement that enforces them to execute the tasks they intended.

Merging cadastral information and land right providing institutions is normally supported from the administrative and legal point of view. The issue of institutional merging is directly linked to cost, time and quality, since time is important to deliver the service, cost determines the amount of money or resources available, and quality represents the fit-to-purpose that the service must be provided. In doing so, the components of merging processes: smooth communication, win-win strategy, achievable plan, common objective, and integration should be placed at the center of the merging process. Unless these elements incorporated and considered during merging process, the envisaged plan may not be achieved. Thus, all these components need to be discussed in front of the staffs who are working at both institutions. This process in turn fosters the initiative to commence the process of merging.

The second type of primary data was collected through focus group discussions (FGD) with experts working in both institutions to understand their perception about the current institutional performance, as well as the possibility to merge the ULDMB and ULARIA. The same questions (refer to Table A1) were also provided to them, so that their perceptions could be evaluated. All participants of the focus group discussion elaborated the procedures to execute their own tasks, and they all felt challenged by the poor coordination between the two institutions. Ferro and Sorrentino [63] indicate that institutional strategic partnership between institutions that have related goals is crucial in order to achieve the intended goals. Suitably, all respondents agreed on the basic ideas of merging, and they are trying to emphasize on the need for institutional merger, though they preferred to work gradually. Meanwhile, they emphasized on the use of collaborative mechanisms that can solve their immediate tasks. Accordingly, some kind of arrangements (written and legally binding agreement), which explains the duties and responsibilities between the two institutions may be needed to improve institutional performances. When compared with the insights of the institutional directors, individual staff members of these institutions perceive the merits of institutional merger the same way.

From the result obtained, it can be concluded that all respondents perceive that the cadastral registration institution demands the strong support (e.g., providing landholding related information) from the right providing institution to execute its tasks properly. Apart from this, the landholder must provide his/her holding document evidencing that he is the rightful claimant. It is this document which must be adjudicated with the copy document found in the right providing institution. In this regard, the right providing institution plays major role in providing and confirming that the land holder is the right claimant. This is also supported by the legal framework that dictates about urban land adjudication and registration. In connection with this, the law (Proclamation No. 818/2014) [26] coerces the right creating institution to provide the requested information within fifteen days. It is the failure to comply with this law that resulted in the poor institutional performance. The findings by, Muparari [14] asserts that overlaps in organizational functions and processes leads to duplication of data and efforts. Due to this, international research studies; Cadaster 2014 [13], Sulkowski et al. [41], Bogaerets et al. [39], FIG [60], the World Bank Group [61], and Peter et al. [64] advise to consider merging the two as one in order to: reduce the effects of duplication; provide services through one-window; reduce the cost of operations; fill the gaps in communication among the staffs; reduce time of operation; improvement of customer service; increase of efficiency within processes; and provide a more efficient operation of land markets. Accordingly, this study confirms that institutional merger between the two institutions may be a solution to the challenges faced by them.
