Land Certification in Madagascar:

Formalizing f(or) Securing?

Perrine Burnod, CIRADRivo Andrianirina – Ratsialonana,

Madagascar Land Observatory Zo RavelomanantsoaNational Land Program

Foundation elements :• Downfall of the land title system (archive, cost,

time)• Congestion of land administration services,• Need to document rights : large practice of

“petits papiers” ; assumption of prevailing land insecurity,

• Assumption of a mass demand for formalization,• Formalized rights would boost investment, formal

land markets, access to formal credit, Two major innovations :• Revocation of the principle of state ownership. • Decentralization of land management to

communes (non – titled occupied land) : land certificates.

1.The 2005 Malagasy Land reform

• Around 500 Local Land Office (1/3 of the territory).

• > 200.000 (on – demand) requests – over 100.000 land certificates issued ,

• End of the monopoly of the land administration on land management and formalization,

• Participation of local communities in land rights recognition

2. An unprecedented revolution…

• Lower cost and quicker issuance,

• Access and legal empowerment of women, migrants and vulnerable groups,

• Land governance and empowerment of Communes (disputes arbitration)

2. An unprecedented revolution…

• Limited demand (9 %) for certificates: perception of security through customary system, collective tenure.

• Land certificate price (15 USD) is still an issue

• Sporadic applications , dispersed coverage

• Uphold of the practice of “petits papiers”,

3. …though emerging controversies

11 %

60%

23 %

5,5 %

0,5%

Written evidence

Not docu - mented Land

Certifi-cate

Land Title

Land taxreceipt

• Asymmetry of legal value : land certificate < land title: credit, transformation

• Link land certification and taxation not established,

• Non – systematic link and little added – value between formalization – investment – formal market – credit.

• Few formalized property transfers on certified land,

• Financial sustainability of LLOs, dependence over technologies.

• Weak enforcement of local land governance (LLO focused on formalization),

3. …though emerging controversies

• Mass demand for formalization: myth? At what scale? With which document? For whom? Against whom? Perception of security over time?

• Main reasons to certify lands: reaffirm ownership (in case threats or conflicts), opportunistic response to promotional campaigns,

• Land rights are already socially recognized, • Statutory vs. customary: the mayor seen as

a representative of central government. Fear of the State and of administrative office.

4. Formalizing vs. securing

• Households generally adopt more than one securing mode: complementarity more than substitution,

• Explore in – depth more options of formalizing the petits papiers (standardization of deeds, delineation, validation).

• Assign special status for pastureland and collective tenure. Do not have compulsorily to be certified.

• LLO and land certificate : a mean, not an objective? Promote systematic land registration for the purpose of taxation, land use planning. Land certification optional.

4. Formalizing vs. securing

Thank you for your attention

www.observatoire-foncier.mg