Ways Forward? Technical Choices, Intervention Strategies and Policy Options 379land reorganization have not been major features of land policy under the current
government, with the land redistribution efforts in the Amhara region in the mid-
1990s not being repeated elsewhere. Movement between sites instead tends to be
more spontaneous, with families resettling to new areas (particularly in the low-
lands) through informal connections with relatives and other contacts.
In Ethiopia there is continued debate at national level concerning further changes
to land tenure (Dessalegn, 1994). The government insists that all rural land will
remain the property of the state, but that this should not undermine security of land
holdings and customary inheritance arrangements. However, given past government
policies – particularly of land reform and villagization – many farmers remain scepti-
cal about government intentions and a sense of uncertainty continues (Worku,
1998). Yet despite this, farmers continue to invest in long-term soil-fertility improve-
ment in their garden sites, and the growth in on-farm tree planting in the area sug-
gests that farmers are not thinking only for the short term (Carswell et al, 2000).
Regionalization, involving a form of political and administrative decentraliza-
tion, has been a central plank of the post-1991 government’s policy. While a proc-
ess of devolving certain powers to the different regions which make up the country
has occurred, it is unclear as yet how far this will lead to major changes in agricul-
tural policy, given the continued political and administrative tensions between
central government and ministries at the federal level and the new regional admin-
istrations, where capacity and political authority often remains weak. This is par-
ticularly apparent in the southern region which is made up of a wide range of
disparate ethnic groupings (Young, 1996).
In Mali, the ongoing process of decentralization and land tenure reform pro-
vides an evolving landscape within which farmers must plan their strategies. Con-
trol over land currently being farmed seems relatively secure, with customary rules
predominating (Lavigne Delville, 1999), but there is much greater uncertainty
over management of collective resources such as grazing, woodlands and water
(Joldersma et al, 1996; Hilhorst and Coulibaly, 1998). These common resources
provide a variety of important products, including pasture for livestock which
transport nutrients from bush to cropland. In addition, it is also not clear how the
powers of the newly established rural communes will relate to customary struc-
tures at village level. While the tenure reforms (Code domaniale et fonder) propose
allocating firmer rights to community groups to control access to resources within
their territory, this may conflict with the claims that rural communes may wish to
assert over resources now under their formal responsibility (IIED, 1999). Where
communes see the allocation of rights as an important source of income and
patronage, serious difficulties may arise over the prerogatives of village and com-
mune-level structures. Given that the new Communes Ruraux were elected in May
1999 and are currently in the process of establishing themselves, it is too early to
judge their likely impact. However, it should be remembered that the rationale for
decentralization in Mali (and many other countries) has been based far more on
service delivery and political considerations, rather than ensuring more effective
management of land and natural resources.