*5.1. Land Tenure Disputes*

As noted in the results part of this study, high frequencies of respondents in peri-urban areas are victims of land tenure disputes compared to those from rural areas. This finding has also been documented in other studies. For instance, Mbiba and Huchzermeyer [62] noted that peri-urban areas in Africa are dominated by land-related disputes. Though there are locational variations, land can be seen as the direct or indirect source of most disputes in agrarian societies [52,63,64]. In most developing countries, even if horizontal urban expansion is the major cause of peri-urban land disputes [38], the problem is exacerbated in situations where there is a lack of sound spatial planning and where there are institutional problems, inadequate compensation payments, and the absence of effective land tenure security for all landholders [6,49,65]. In addition, in a study conducted in China, it was reported that the lack of institutional competence, i.e., the exercise of power by lower governments without getting into agreements with farmers and inadequate compensation payments, are the main causes of land expropriation disputes [66]. Different types of land disputes were identified in the study. These are boundary disputes, landholding disputes, land rental disputes, divorce-related land tenure disputes, land bequeath disputes, parcel exchange disputes. and land use-related disputes. Boundary disputes are disputes which arise due to trespassing of the parcel boundary between bordering parcel owners/holders and can arise between individuals, between groups, between public agencies, and between individuals and public institutions [10]. From the identified plethora of land disputes, boundary trespassing disputes are the most dominant. The lack of surveying to fix cadastral boundaries is the main challenge even if land has already been registered. Researchers in other African countries also confirm that boundary disputes constitute a significantly high share of land dispute types [12,46,47]. As confirmed in this study, the asymmetric boundary conflicts between municipalities and individuals are a complex challenge for peri-urban landholders. The boundary between urban and peri-urban territory is obscure. Urban municipalities usually want to have control over the surrounding land, assuming that it is municipal land, while suburban landholders claim rights to challenge the supremacy intentions of municipalities. As confirmed by the participants of the focus group discussions, this has increased the incidence of landholding disputes in peri-urban areas and leads to greater tenure insecurity for peri-urban subsistence farmers.

Since 2007, the territory of Debre Markos town has expanded by about 5 km in all directions, based on the municipal master plan. As a result, former rural areas have been designated as urban areas and landholders whose houses are within the expansion radius are assigned as residents of the urban areas. These are the areas which face institutional problems of land administration. For example, as reported by a farmer in the interview, some of his parcels are now dedicated to urban territory, while other parcels are still registered as rural areas. One parcel even is bisected into urban and rural territory. As the rural land administration institution is responsible for the portion of the parcel in the rural territory and the urban land administration institution is responsible for the portion designated to the urban territory, the landholder sometimes faces contradictory rules. For instance, the rural land administration legislation allows the landholder to use the land for houses, agriculture, animal husbandry, forest management, or other activities, if no written land use plan has been prepared by a competent body (often land use plans are

absent in peri-urban areas). In contradiction, the urban land administration rule prohibits constructing or renovating buildings or fences without building permits. Constructions of any sort may lead to sanctions and even demolition. Thus, peri-urban landholders are sometimes subject to two different sets of regulations from two different authorities, which jeopardize the security of their land tenure and leads to disputes. Deininger et al. [40] and Nega et al. [67] have also noted that the unclear assignment of institutional responsibilities causes land tenure conflicts. Peri-urban expansion by a municipality is often not based on a sound spatial plan but on the spontaneous desires of a municipality [49]. Property rights in peri-urban areas are often uncertain due to a lack of institutional arrangements to manage peri-urban land [67]. To manage these areas by urban administration is challenging since the focus of the municipalities is to expand urban territory by expropriating peri-urban land. Most of these land disputes are interest-based disputes since they are competing for the scarce resource of land.

As noted in the result part of the study, the three predominant types of peri-urban land use disputes are inappropriate waste disposal, misuse of land, and communal land encroachment. The municipality of Debre Markos town disposes waste materials in the surrounding peri-urban areas haphazardly without taking into account the consequences of their actions for the well-being of peri-urban dwellers. Both liquid and solid waste materials are disposed of at open-air waste sites, which are expanding over time by consuming productive agricultural land. Even the land near the disposed waste material cannot be properly cultivated because of the noxious smell of the waste. Some wastes, like plastic cases, are also blown by wind and pollute other properties. Face-to-face interviews carried out in the study gave evidence that peri-urban landholders are concerned by this abhorrent a situation, as they are affected in multiple ways. They are victims of expropriation, and their landholdings are being polluted and spoiled by waste. Consequently, landholders are suffering from the unpleasant smells due to environmental pollution. These findings are in line with those of other studies. Allen et al. [51] also noted that peri-urban areas are often used as waste disposal sites, while Alemu et al. [68] noted that many peri-urban dwellers spend their whole lives in polluted environments. The municipality, responsible for waste disposal, has never consulted the peri-urban farmers about the suitability of sites for waste disposal. Even though the active involvement of the affected farmers and discussion with the relevant stakeholders are essential to reduce land disputes, the lack of participatory land use planning is one of the basic challenges of peri-urban land management in most African countries [69,70].

The current economic growth in Ethiopia is exhibiting promising results. The government desires to transform the country from an agrarian economy to industrialization based on agricultural development. Thus, the policies promote small enterprises as well as medium- and large-scale industries. Most of the private and public enterprises find it the most feasible to establish their firms close to towns. Thus, peri-urban areas become primary choices for investment by many governmental and non-governmental organizations, and the municipalities incorporate industrial zones in their master plans in the peri-urban areas. Accordingly, Debre Markos has delineated industrial zones along the urban fringe in its master plan. For the establishment of this industrial zone, the authorities expropriated many parcels and transferred individual land to municipal ownership. After the transfer, the municipality usually makes this land available to those coming with development projects and with the intention to establish firms. However, some of those firms are abusing land. For instance, enterprises carry out earthworks to construct company buildings and infrastructure and indiscriminately dump the excavated material, polluting peri-urban grazing land. It would be better to transport the excavated soils to the hinterland and use them for filling eroded gullies and ravines, even though this would be more expensive.

In Amhara National Regional State of Ethiopia, there are four types of landholdings: private, common, communal, and state property [71]. Private, communal, and state property regimes are similar in definition to those terms in different literature [72,73], though landholders lack exclusive rights in the case of Ethiopia. The use of the term common

property regime differs in Ethiopia from other countries: this refers to a property type commonly held by small groups of individuals. In order to minimize land fragmentation, the minimum parcel size (0.25 hectares) is specified in the rural land administration Regulation No. 159/2018 of Amhara National Regional State [74]. Thus, if any property formation measure results in an area of less than 0.25 hectares, two or more individuals will own the parcel commonly as common property [23,71,74]. As noted in the results of this study, disputes on this type of property regime are few in number. The main reason for this is that the common landholding regime is found in small amounts in peri-urban areas and the nearby rural kebeles. Disputes on this property regime are expected to increase in the future, however, because land fragmentation is legally prohibited and there will be many common landholders.

As with common property regimes, disputes on state property regimes are also few in number. However, in some areas, state property regimes in lowland areas are becoming sources of dispute between the local community and investors engaged in agricultural production [16,75–77]. This is because some farmers have possessed land in these lowland areas informally, and because of increasing immigration to these formerly remote areas.

Although the rural land administration proclamations grant full rights to communal landholders [23,71], these rights are not properly practiced. The absence of clearly defined property rights to communal land [23] and a lack of enforcement contribute to increased competition and encroachment on the communal land. The registration for these property regimes is not well managed and even the book of possession has not yet been issued, and as a consequence, compensation is not often paid for the expropriated communal lands. When farmers raise the issue to the municipality, they are told that it is the right of the municipality to use communal land for urban expansion without paying compensation. Communal property regimes in peri-urban areas are targets of expropriation by municipalities. This finding is confirmed by Puppim de Oliveira [78], who also observed that municipalities focus on expropriating communal property regimes without titles.

The encroachment of communal land generally increases problems in peri-urban areas. This is because farmers, who have parcels adjacent to the boundary of the communal land, assume that converting pastures into arable land is a way to get at least some compensation in the case of expropriation. For this reason, farmers whose plots border communal land are encroaching on it and converting communal grazing land into arable land. During the past few decades, communal forests have been encroached upon to such an extent that there are only sparse areas left. Currently, communal grazing lands are becoming new areas of interest for encroachment, even though this has a detrimental effect on the livestock sector.
