Improving Land Sector Governance in Nigeria Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework November 26, 2011 Peter O. Adeniyi Department of Geography University of Lagos Lagos, Nigeria Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Acknowledgement I thank the World Bank/IFPRI and other partner organisations first, for selecting Nigeria as one of the countries for this pilot study and secondly, for giving me the opportunity to serve as the Country Coordinator for the study. It has been an eye-opener and a rewarding experience for me and for the appointed Expert Investigators and Expert Panel Members, all of whom I express my appreciation. I also wish to thank all the participants who attended the Technical Validation Workshop and the Policy Dialogue Meeting. My sincere appreciation goes to Ruth Menzen-Dick, Klaus Deininger, Hosaena Ghebru, Rachael Beach, Catherine Ragasa and Daniel Ali for their support and cooperation. Let me specially thank the Global Coordinator – Victor Endo whose encouragement, understanding and advice greatly facilitated my work. I also thank him for his patience. The admirable commitment of my Research Assistant – Gbolahan Badru and my Secretary – Victor Ogunsakin is deeply acknowledged and appreciated. I also thank Mr. Valentine Ofogba, one of the Expert Investigators who had to forgo several days court appearances to assist with the report preparation. Peter O. Adeniyi November 26, 2011 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page iii Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table of Contents Acknowledgement iii Table of Contents v List of Tables ix List of Figures xi Acronyms xiii Executive Summary 1 2.0 Process for Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment 17 Framework (LGAF) 2.1 General Description of the Process 18 2.2 Expert Work 20 2.3 Expert Panels 23 2.3.1 Organisation and Conduct of the Panel Workshops 24 2.3.2 Adequacy/Inadequacy of Panel Composition and Allocation of LGI 28 Dimensions to the Different Panels 2.3.3 Divergence of individual opinions and agreement on panel ranking 29 2.3.4 Suggestions for the improvement of the panel workshop 31 2.4 Technical Validation Workshop and Policy Dialogue Meeting 32 2.5 Tasks undertaken by the Country Coordinator 33 2.6 Assessment 34 3.0 Background Information 35 3.1 General Data and Information 36 3.1.1 Spatial Distribution of Population in Nigeria 37 3.1.2 Ethnic Composition of Nigeria 42 3.1.3 Land Use Types in Nigeria 42 3.1.4 Nigeria Political System 43 3.1.5 List of Key Legal and Policy Documents Related to Land 44 3.2 Land Issues 45 3.2.1 Typology of Tenure Situations in Nigeria 45 3.2.1.1 Private Landholding 46 3.2.1.2 Public Landholding 48 3.2.1.3 Communal Landholding 49 3.2.1.4 Estimating the relative rough area/population covered by the major 51 tenure types 3.2.2 History and Current Status of Land Policies 58 3.2.2.1 Land Management Prior to the Colonial Administration 58 3.2.2.2 Land Management during the Colonial Period 59 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page v Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3.2.2.3 Land Management immediately after Political Independence in 1962 up 61 to 1976 3.2.2.4 The Land Use Act of 1978 62 3.2.2.5 Responses to the Problems/Constraints of the LUA 65 3.2.2.6 Future Challenges 67 4.0 Substantive Findings 69 4.1 Legal and Institutional Framework 70 4.1.1 Recognition of rights 70 4.1.2 Enforcement of Rights 75 4.1.3 Mechanisms for Recognition of Rights 77 4.1.4 Restrictions on Rights 80 4.1.5 Clarity of mandates and practice 81 4.1.6 Equity and non-discrimination in the decision-making process 85 4.1.7 Conclusion and Recommendation 87 4.2 Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation 90 4.2.1 Transparency of Land Use Restrictions 90 4.2.2 Efficiency in the land use planning process 92 4.2.3 Speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land uses 95 4.2.4 Transparency of Valuations 99 4.2.5 Collection efficiency 101 4.2.6 Conclusion and Recommendation 102 4.3 Management of Public Land 105 4.3.1 Identification of Public Land and Clear Management 105 4.3.2 Justification and time-efficiency of expropriation processes 109 4.3.3 Transparency and fairness of expropriation procedures 112 4.3.4 Transparent process and economic benefit 114 4.3.5 Conclusion and Recommendation 117 4.4 Public Provision of Land Information 119 4.4.1 Completeness 119 4.4.2 Reliability of Records 123 4.4.3 Cost-effectiveness and sustainability 124 4.4.4 Transparency 127 4.4.5 Conclusion and Recommendation 128 4.5 Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management 129 4.5.1 Assignment of Responsibility 130 4.5.2 Low level of pending conflict 134 4.5.3 Conclusion and Recommendation 136 4.6 Large Scale Land Acquisition 138 4.6.1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered [LSLA-1] 138 4.6.2 Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed 138 expeditiously and transparently. [LSLA-2] 4.6.3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified 139 [LSLA-3] Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page vi Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.6.4 Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear and 140 consistent manner [LSLA-4] 4.6.5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent [LSLA-5] 140 4.6.6 Benefit sharing mechanisms regarding investments in agriculture (food 144 crops, biofuels, forestry, livestock, game farm/conservation) are regularly used and transparently applied [LSLA-6] 4.6.7 There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and 144 investors [LSLA-7] 4.6.8 Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the 145 desirability of projects on public/communal land [LSLA-8] 4.6.9 For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors 146 provide the required information and this information is publicly available [LSLA-9] 4.6.10 Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from communities 146 or the public are required by law to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and risks will be shared. [LSLA-10] 4.6.11 The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is 147 reasonably short [LSLA-11] 4.6.12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly 147 defined and implemented [LSLA-12] 4.6.13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture 148 are clearly defined and implemented [LSLA-13] 4.6.14 For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have 148 procedures in place to identify and select economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement these effectively. [LSLA-14] 4.6.15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is 148 checked [LSLA-15] 4.6.16 There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do not 149 comply with requirements [LSLA-16] 4.6.17 Conclusion 149 4.7 Summary of LGAF Substantive Findings 150 5.0 Policy Analysis and Policy Recommendation 153 6.0 Conclusion 177 7.0 Annexes 181 Annex 7.1 Brief Report on the Review of Land Governance Assessment 183 Framework (LGAF) Annex 7.2 Expert Investigation Reports 195 Annex 7.2.1 Expert Investigator Report on Land Tenure 196 Annex 7.2.2 Expert Investigator Report on land Use Planning 199 Annex 7.2.3 Expert Investigator Report on Management of Public Land 202 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page vii Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.2.4 Expert Investigator Report on Land Administration 204 Annex 7.2.5 Expert Investigator Report on Large Scale Land Acquisition 206 Annex 7.3 Panel Reports 209 Annex 7.3.1 Panel Report on Land Tenure 210 Annex 7.3.2 Panel Report on Institutional Arrangements 219 Annex 7.3.3 Panel Report on Urban Land Use Planning and Development 225 Annex 7.3.4 Panel Report on Rural Land Use and Land Policy 235 Annex 7.3.5 Panel Report on Land Valuation and Taxation 242 Annex 7.3.6 Panel Report on Management of Public Land 249 Annex 7.3.7 Panel Report on Public Provision of Land Information 262 Annex 7.3.8 Panel Report on Dispute Resolution 274 Annex 7.3.9 Panel Report on Large Scale Land Acquisition 284 Annex 7.4 Individual Scorecards for Each Member of the Panel 293 Annex 7.5 Additional Information 331 Annex 7.5A The Myths and Realities of the Land Use Act 332 Annex 7.5.B The Land Issues in Nigeria‘s Development 338 Annex 7.6 Report of the Technical Validation Workshop and the Policy Dialogue 345 Meeting Annex 7.7 Validated Country Scorecard 372 Annex 7.8 References 375 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page viii Contract No. 2011X028.ADE List of Tables Table 1: Time-Table for the Accomplishment of LGAF Tasks 19 Table 2: Skill Requirements for Expert Investigators 21 Table 3: The Expert Investigators for LGAF 21 Table 4: Relationship between the dimensions assessed by the Panels and the 23 dimensions investigated by Expert Investigators Table 5: Proposed and Final Number of Experts for each Panel 24 Table 6: Final Composition of the Expert Panels 25 Table 7: Dimensions where consensus ranking differ from all the initial individual 30 panel rankings Table 8: Distribution of Consensus Ranking by Panels 31 Table 9: Basic Facts about Nigeria 37 Table 10: Population and Population density distribution in Nigeria 38 Table 11: Growth in Urban and Rural Population (1921 – 2006) 39 Table 12: Distribution of Ethnic Group by share of Population 42 Table 13: Land Use in Nigeria 43 Table 14: Key legal and policy documents related to land 44 Table 15: Typology of Tenure Situations in Nigeria 53 Table 16: Consensus Ranking on LGI 1 on Recognition of Rights 74 Table 17: Compensation Paid for Change of Use 76 Table 18: Consensus Ranking on LGI 2 on Enforcement of Rights 77 Table 19: Consensus Ranking of LGI 3 on Mechanisms for Recognition of Rights 79 Table 20: Types of Restrictions 80 Table 21: Consensus Ranking of LGI 4 on Restriction on Rights 81 Table 22: Land Management Institutions 83 Table 23: Consensus Ranking of LGI 5 on Clarity of Mandates of Land Management 85 Institutions Table 24: Equity Goals in Land Policy 87 Table 25: Consensus Ranking of LGI 6 on Equity and Non-Discrimination in the 87 Decision-Making Process Table 26: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Legal and Institutional 88 Framework Table 27: Consensus Ranking of LGI 7 on Transparency of Land Use Restrictions 91 Table 28: Consensus Ranking of LGI 8 on Efficiency of Land Use Planning 95 Table 29: Procedures to be followed for the Approval of Building Permit 96 Table 30: Consensus Ranking of LGI 9 on Speed and Predictability 98 Table 31: Consensus Ranking of LGI 10 on Transparency of Valuation 100 Table 32: Tax Collection Efficiency 102 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page ix Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 33: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Land Use Planning, 104 Management and Taxation Table 34: Title documents issued by federal government and registered at the federal 106 land registry across the different states as at December 2009 as presented at zonal workshops of national technical development forum on land administration (NTDF) Table 35: Institutional Overlap of Land Management Responsibilities 108 Table 36: Consensus Ranking of LGI 12 on Identification of Public Lands 109 Table 37: Land Acquisition in Kwara State (2007 – 2011) 112 Table 38: Acquisition of Land in Akwa Ibom State (1990 -2005) 112 Table 39: Consensus Ranking of LGI 13 on Incidence of Expropriation 112 Table 40: Consensus Ranking of LGI 13 on Transparency of Procedures 114 Table 41: Disposal of Public Land 115 Table 42: Consensus Ranking of LGI 15 on Transparency of Procedures 117 Table 43: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Management of Public Land 118 Table 44: Completeness of Registry 122 Table 45: Reliability of Records 124 Table 46: Cost Effective and Sustainability 127 Table 47: Transparency 128 Table 48: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Public Provision of Land 129 Information Table 49: Consensus Ranking of LGI 20 on Assignment of Responsibility 133 Table 50: Duration of Dispute 135 Table 51: Consensus Ranking of LGI 21 on Low Level of Pending Conflicts 135 Table 52: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Dispute Resolution and Conflict 136 Management Table 53: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Large Scale Acquisition of Land 150 rights Table 54: Strenght and Weakness of Land Governance based on consensus ranking by 155 Expert Panels Table 55: Policy Issues and Reform Actions 156 Table 56: Matrix of Policy Recommendations 173 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page x Contract No. 2011X028.ADE List of Figures Figure 1: Population Density of States in Nigeria 40 Figure 2: Population Density of States in Nigeria 41 Figure 3: Population Density of Geo-Political Zones in Nigeria 41 Figure 4: Process of Land Acquisition 144 Figure 5: Filing of compensation claims 144 Figure 6: Summary of the Validated Consensus Ranking of the LGAF Dimensions 151 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page xi Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Acronyms ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution ADRC Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre AGIS Abuja Geographic Information System C of O Certificate of Occupancy CAC Corporate Affairs Commission CC Country Coordinator CMC Citizen Mediation Centre COREN Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria D.O District Officer DFRRI Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructures DLR Director of Land Regularization DRCM Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management EI Expert Investigator EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EILA Expert Investigator on Land Administration EILT Expert Investigator on Land Tenure EILUP Expert Investigator on Land Use Planning EIPLM Expert Investigator on Management of Public Land EP Expert Panel EPDR Expert Panel on Dispute Resolution EPIA Expert Panel on Institutional Arrangement EPLET Expert Panel on Land Evaluation and Taxation EPLT Expert Panel on Land Tenure EPM Expert Panel Member EPMPL Expert Panel on Management of Public Land EPPPLI Expert Panel on Public Provision of Land Information EPRLU Expert Panel on Rural Land Use Planning and Development EPULU Expert Panel on Urban Land Use Planning and Development EPW Expert Panel Workshop ES Executive Secretary ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMP Environmental and Social Impact Assessment FAAN Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria FCDA Federal Capital Development Authority FCT Federal Capital Territory FCTA Federal Capital Territory Authority FELIS Federal Land Information System FEPA Federal Environmental Protection Agency FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development FMLH&UD Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development FoI Freedom of Information GC Global Coordinator Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page xiii Contract No. 2011X028.ADE GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System GM General Manager H.E His Excellency ICT Information and Communication Technology IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute LGAF Land Governance Assessment Framework LGI Land Governance Indicator LIF Legal and Institutional Framework LIS Land Information System LPO Local Planning Offices LSLA Large Scale Land Acquisition LTL Land Tenure Law LUA Land Use Act LUAC Land Use Allocation Committee MoA Memorandum of Agreement MoU Memorandum of Understanding MPL Management of Public Land NALDA National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) NBA Nigerian Bar Association NGN Nigerian Naira NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NIESV Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers NITEL Nigeria Telecommunications NNPC Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation NPA Nigerian Ports Authority NTDF National Technical Development Forum on Land Administration NUC National Universities Commission PHCN Power Holding Company of Nigeria PPLI Public Provision of Land Information PPSK People Per Square Kilometre PS Permanent Secretary PTCLR Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reforms R&D Research and Development SERAP Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project SERVICOM Service Compact with all Nigerians SSA Senior Special Assistant TDP Title Deed Plan UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlement Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page xiv Executive Summary Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Executive Summary Background Information Nigeria is in the West African sub-region, lying between latitudes 4º16' and 13º53' north and longitudes 2º40' and 14º41' east. It is bordered by Niger Republic in the North, Republic of Chad in the Northeast, Republic of Cameroon in the East, and Republic of Benin in the West. To the south however, it is bordered by approximately 850 kilometers of the Atlantic Ocean, stretching from Badagry in the west to the Rio del Rey in the east. With a total land area of 923,768 km2, Nigeria is the fourteenth largest country in Africa1. Spanning over about 10 degrees of latitude, Nigeria enjoys a wide range of climatic, vegetational and soil conditions and these make the country to have great potentials for various agricultural production. The total amount of rainfall and the length of the wet season decrease progressively from the south to the northern part of the country. Along the coast in the south east, the mean annual rainfall is about 400 cm while it is only 50 cm in the north east. Nigeria is covered by two major types of vegetation – (i) the forest types consisting of mangrove swamp, freshwater swamp and the tropical rainforest dominantly found in the south and (ii) the savanna types consisting of Guinea, derived, Sudan and Sahel savanna covering the middle belt and northern part of Nigeria. Because of the spatial variation in climatic regime, vegetation and soil types, Nigeria is able to grow different types of crops including: cereals, root crops, legumes, cash/tree crops and fruits and vegetables. The rich agricultural endowment is complemented by equally rich mineral resources including energy resources (oil and gas, coal and lignite, bituminous sand, hydropower, biomass energy and of course, solar energy); metallic minerals (iron ores, columbite, manganese, molybdenum, tungsten, titanium, tin, lead, zinc, etc.) and non-metallic minerals such as gravel, sand, various kinds of clays (benthonic clays, limestone and gypsum, marble, feldspar etc.). With a population of over 140 million in 2006, and an annual growth rate of 3.2%, Nigeria is simply the most populous nation in Africa. The population density varies widely from as low as about 41persons/km2 in Adamawa State to over 2, 480/km2 in Lagos State (see figure below). The average population density is 150 persons/km2. Nigeria, with over 350 ethnic groups has nearly 29 million households with average household in both urban and rural areas being 4.6 and 5.4 respectively. Over the years, Nigeria has experienced tremendous urbanization such that the proportion of rural population which accounted for 92.8% of Nigeria‘s population in 1921 has been reduced to 52.5% in 2006, while that of urban increased from only 7.18% to 47.5% during the same period. In spite of the rich endowments, Nigeria is still facing a lot of development challenges. At independence in 1960, agriculture, which accounted for more than 50% of gross domestic product (GDP) and over 75% of export earnings, was the most important sector of the Nigerian economy. Since the discovery of crude oil in the 1960s and its exploitation in the early 1970, the situation changed and Nigeria moved from a position of food self-sufficiency to one of heavy dependence on importation of food and manufactured goods. The importation of food items, for instance increased from US$ 353.9 million in 1995 to US$ 1.6 billion in 1998 and to over US$ 4 billion in 20112. 1 National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria] and ICF Macro. 2009. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2008. Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission and ICF Macro. 2 Ahmed I and Hassan T (2011, July 6): Food imports cost Nigeria N630 billion; Daily Trust Newspapers. www.dailytrust.com Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 2 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Population Density of States in Nigeria Nigeria operates a federal system of government presently consisting of three tiers prescribed by the Constitution, viz: the federal government, the state (36) and the local governments (774). Each of these tiers of government also have three arms separating the powers of government into the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, each being independent of the other. The country presently operates a presidential democratic system with its executive and legislative officers being elected on the platform of political parties (currently numbering 63) for determined periods of four (4) years. The Executive office holders are elected under the universal adult suffrage of one man one vote without restrictions as to the gender of the citizens except the adult as defined to be anyone aged 18 years and above. The Land Issue The basic Legal framework on land, the Land Use Act (a federal enactment attached to the Constitution) has prescribed that all land in Nigeria within the territory of each state of the federation is vested in the control and management of the State governor in question. It has also prescribed the State High Court as having jurisdiction to try matters relating to land in urban areas of a State or issued with a Statutory Right of Occupancy and a Customary Court (in the South) or Area Court (in the North) as the appropriate court for Customary land matters. The apex court of the land is the Supreme Court before which all appeals from the hierarchy of the court system terminate. Prior to the introduction of the Land Use Act (LUA) in 1978, the system of landholding in Nigeria was regulated essentially by the customary and received English legal system. Under the customary land tenure, land was either vested in the community or family. Ownership and management of land in many communities were governed by the customary law of the indigenous community with its varying characteristics and peculiarities3. Land was corporately owned by the community or family, and only in isolated cases could land be owned by an individual. Individual landholding, in the form of the English freehold System, was then relatively smaller than other forms of landholding4. Also, the state had power, under the Compulsory Acquisition Law, to acquire land for public purpose only. 3 Otogbolu v Okeoluwa & Ors. (1981) 6 - 7 S.C.62, 76; Lewis v Bankole (1908) 1 N.L.R. 81 at 100 -101. 4 Meek, C. K. (1957) ―Land Tenure and Administration in Nigeria and the Cameroons‖, London, HMSO Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 3 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Thus, the typologies of land tenure that can be said to exist in Nigeria today are: (i) private landholding (family landholding, individual landholding, and customary tenancy) – roughly estimated to cover 70 – 75% of area of Nigeria (i.e. 644, 638 to 692, 826 km2) and about 75 – 80% of its population (i.e. 105 to 112 million); (ii) public landholding – roughly covering between 15 and 20% of the land area of Nigeria (138, 565 to 184, 754 km2) and between 10 and 15% of population (14 – 21 million); and (iii) communal land with about 10% (92, 377 km2) and 5% (7 million) of area and population respectively. The LUA was promulgated because of the following reasons: (i) the rising demand for land by the Federal and State Governments for public purposes (large-scale housing projects, irrigation schemes, industrial projects, etc.; (ii) the increasing cost of compensation for land acquisition by government; (iii) the desire to introduce a uniform land tenure system in the country; and (iv) the desire to improve access to land for all Nigerians in any part of the country. Accordingly, the Act, with 51 provisions, approached the land issues through the investment of proprietary rights in the state; the granting of user rights to individuals; and the use of administrative system rather than the market in the allocation of rights in the land. The act intended to make investment in agriculture attractive by removing the uncertainty in the control over land; to curb speculation in urban lands; to make opportunities to occupy land generally available to all Nigerians throughout the country. The LUA replaced the traditional institutions of obaship and chieftaincy in their roles as managers of communal land. The LUA makes provision for an ad hoc body to be known as the Land Use and Allocation Committee to be set up in each state to advise the Governor on the management of urban land and an ad hoc body to be called Land Allocation Advisory Committee in each Local Government Area to advise the Local Governments on management of land in rural areas. As it stands today, the LUA is the most controversial, least understood by majority of Nigerians, very confusing and contradictory in its provisions, highly undemocratic and has woefully failed to create a right and just environment to facilitate its implementation5. It will suffice here to indicate few of the problems and constraints of the LUA. In addition to the mixed nature of the LUA (mixture of customary and statutory), some of the other problems associated with the LUA include the following: (i) it has not eliminated speculation in land. It has only driven it underground or fuelled it; (ii) it concentrates both economic and political powers in the hands of political leaders; (iii) it is not acceptable to a cross-section of Nigerians, especially, the traditional rulers, lawyers, land professionals and peasant farmers; (iv) it has not succeeded in removing the uncertainties in title to land; and (v) difficulty in its amendment based on the fact that it is enshrined in the constitution. Most of the problems above are not unknown by many stakeholders. Various individuals and groups of researchers, government functionaries, professional bodies, private sector operators and traditional chiefs made calls for the review, modification or outright expurgation of specific sections or clauses of the Act. Suggestions were made for amendments to a number of sections such as: sections 5 (1) (2), 34, 28 (6) and 36: dealing with certainty of title under the Act; section 39 – intention of the Act as it relates to customary tenure should be made explicit; sections 6, 21, 36 (5) and 50 – contain contradictions about community ownership of land; section 22 – consent of the Governor before alienation of any land; section 38 – revocation of land rights by the Governor for overriding public interest; section 47 – unquestionable powers of the Government in the Act (which is against the rule of natural justice and fair play). 5 Many scholars, professional bodies, traditional institutions and civil societies have commented on the LUA and have called for its full review. The write-up by the EI on Land Tenure for this study on (i) the myths and realities of the Land Use Act; and (ii) the land issues in Nigeria‘s development are reproduced as Annexes 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 4 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE While no concrete effort was made to rectify the defects of the LUA as suggested above, the administration of late President Umaru Musa Yar‘Adua took two bold steps in 2009. First, the Presidency considered it imperative to call for a fairly comprehensive review of the Act by sending 14 amendment clauses (titled Land Use Act (Amendment) Act 2009 or the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 2009) to the National Assembly for this purpose. The proposed bill seeks to vest ownership of land in the hands of those with customary right of ownership, and also enable farmers to use land as collateral for loans for commercial farming to boost food production in the country. The bill also seeks to restrict the requirement of the governor‘s consent to assignment only which will render such consent unnecessary for mortgages, subleases and other land transfer forms in order to make transactions in land less cumbersome and facilitate economic development. The bill is yet to be passed by the National Assembly. In addition to existing initiatives, the Federal Government set up a Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform (PTCLR) in April 2009 to undertake the implementation of its Land Reform program for the country. The mandate includes collaborating with States to provide technical assistance for undertaking land cadastral inventory nationwide; determining individual "possessory" rights using best practices to identify and register titles to land; encouraging States and Local Government s to establish an arbitration mechanism for land ownership conflict resolutions; establishing and maintaining a national depository for land title holdings and records in all States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory and establishing a mechanism for land valuation in both urban and rural areas in all parts of the Federation. The Committee is working to undertake a comprehensive inventory of individual land holdings and documenting same. This is an ambitious but needful exercise requiring a high level of collaboration with State and Local Government authorities. Individual States would also be encouraged to reorganize their land agencies especially their Land Registries to inter-phase with the proposed National Land Depository. The ultimate aim is to introduce an effective, transparent, enforceable and integrated approach to sustainable land governance in Nigeria. The Committee is expected to more effectively coordinate the individual efforts of Local Governments, States and those at the Federal level and to harmonize the outcome. It has set to work and has mapped out a number of strategies, including nationwide sensitization, investigating best practices for land titling and registration, making arrangement for both institutional and human capacity building. The Committee is also making arrangement to carry out pilot studies in two states of the federation. It is envisaged that the Committee would transmute to a National Land Reform Commission to coordinate all the land administration issues in the country and to develop and implement standards for land administration operations. It will also develop a National Land Policy document for the country. The bill for this purpose has been submitted to the National Assembly for consideration. Implementing the Land Governance Assessment Framework Set against the above background information, the inclusion of Nigeria as one of the six countries benefiting from the World Bank/IFPRI and other partner organisations in this LGAF pilot study at this point in time is one of the best things to happen to Nigeria and especially, to the PTCLR. Designed as a diagnostic instrument for rapid national evaluation of various aspects of land governance, the LGAF is to be implemented by in-country experts. The LGAF study started in February 2011 in Nigeria. The LGAF has 21 indicators to be assessed and these indicators have been broken down to 80 dimensions. The indicators were grouped into the following five thematic areas: legal and institutional framework; land use planning, management and taxation; management of public land; public provision of land information; and dispute resolution and conflict management. The Nigerian study included a complementary module on Large Scale Land Acquisition (LSLA) with 16 dimensions. The LGAF study process involves the following steps: Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 5 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE (i) Appointment of Country Coordinator to guide and drive the process but must remain neutral during the whole process; (ii) The recruitment of Expert Investigators (EI) to gather data and information on a number of LGAF/LSLA dimensions for use of Expert Panels. In this study, four EIs were engaged to investigate 59 out of the 96 dimensions; (iii) The selection and composition of Expert Panels to study, assess and rank a number of LGAF dimensions. The assessment, with the consensus ranking of the dimensions by each panel is the strategic process for the LGAF. Nine panel were established for the study and a total of 37 Expert Panel Members, consisting of 35 males and two females were used. The nine panel workshops were conducted between April 27 and May 13, 2011, three of them in Abuja and the remaining six in Lagos. (iv) Preparation of the ‗panel workshops‘ reports (aide memoires) and circulation of same with panel members for comments and confirmation; (v) Preparation of the LGAF Country Report based on the above process; (vi) Conduct of Technical Validation Workshop and Policy Dialogue Meeting where the report in (v) above is presented and discussed with a view to assuring the consistency of the result, identifying areas for policy reform, proposing actionable solutions with mechanisms to monitor progress as well as suggestions on the next steps towards the sustainability of the LGAF process; (vii) Production of the final LGAF Country Report based on the above processes. Summary of the LGAF Substantive Findings The validated consensus ranking of the LGAF 96 dimensions reveals considerable weakness in land governance in Nigeria as only 5 (5.21%) and 14 (14.58) of the dimensions were ranked A and B respectively while 41 (42.71%) and 36 (37.5%) were ranked C and D respectively. As shown in the figure below, land governance in terms of nearly all the thematic areas is very weak. The order of weakness based on the percentage of dimensions scoring C and D are: (i) land use planning, management and taxation with 94.12%; (ii) large scale land acquisition, 93.76%; (iii) Management of Public Land , 87.5%, (iv) the legal and institutional framework, 74.07%; (v) public provision of land information, 69.24%; and (vi) dispute resolution and conflict management, 42.86%. Summary of the Validated Consensus Ranking of the LGAF Dimensions Legal and Institutional Framew ork 7.41 18.52 44.44 29.63 (27 Dimensions) Land Use Planning, Management 5.88 52.94 41.18 and Taxation (17 Dimensions) Public Land Management (16 12.5 62.5 25 Dimensions) Thematic Areas Public Provision of Land 15.38 15.38 23.08 46.16 Information (13 Dimensions) Dispute Resolution and Conflict 14.29 42.85 14.29 28.57 Management (7 Dimensions) Large Scale Land Acquisition (16 A 6.25 37.5 56.25 Dimensions) B C All the Dimensions - 96 5.21 14.58 42.71 37.5 D 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 % Score Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 6 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The summary of the findings along the thematic areas is presented below. The Legal and Institutional Framework The 27 dimensions in this thematic area are grouped under the following six indicators; (i) recognition of rights; (b) enforcement of rights; (iii) mechanisms for recognition of rights; (iv) restriction on rights; (v) clarity of mandates; and (vi) equity and non-discrimination. With reference to the recognition of rights, most holders of relevant tenure types (about 90%) in the country are recognized by the existing legislation, while the few unrecognized ones can gain recognition through other means (corporate law). Opportunities for tenure individualization is also available even though procedures are not affordable or clear, leading to widespread discretion or failure to apply even for cases where those affected desire to do so. Enforcement of rights of the recognized tenure types is however a problem because most individual land rights (in rural and urban areas) are not mapped/registered while the rights of women even though recognized by law are discriminated against informally based on cultural norms and beliefs. Condominium rights, although also recognized lack legislation for management while compensations for change in land use are also arbitrarily paid. The mechanisms for rights recognition is poor because the absence of legislated procedures makes land management agencies develop administrative procedures for recognizing land rights which are often implemented arbitrarily. For instance, although non-documentary forms of evidence can be used to obtain claims to property, they have less strength than the documented evidences and are acceptable based on the judgment of the officer in charge. Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession of land is also unclear since the law (limitation law) allows the continuous occupation of a private or communal land by an individual after 12 years of unchallenged occupation without making prescriptions or arrangement for the registration of such rights. The cost for first time sporadic registration of land in the country for a typical urban property is noted to exceed 5% of the property value. This situation is largely caused by variety of extraneous fees especially the consent fee and fees charged by intermediaries . Such fees make the land registration process largely unaffordable by farmers and low income earners. In few cases, the formalization of the informal occupation of public lands is possible through regularization processes which are often unclear, unaffordable and diverse. Despite this however, some inhabitants of informal urban areas still struggle to satisfy the formalization requirements. The restrictions on land rights (in rural or urban area) in most cases are justified based on the fact that it is for the overall public interest but they are rarely implemented. Thus, except for the restriction on prices of land which is largely existent controlled by the market forces, restrictions on land transaction, ownership, ownership types, and size of holdings are selectively enforced especially for those instances where the institutions in charge have special interest. As regards the clarity of mandates, it was revealed that there are some separations in the institutional and administrative land management functions in the country but cases of conflicts related to responsibility overlaps abound both horizontally and vertically. This, in most cases, is due to the ignorance of the agencies, absence of clear cut directives and inefficiency of some others in carrying out their mandates. Accessing information from these institutions, although possible at reasonable cost, is difficult since the information is not maintained in a uniform way. The LUA, which is the country‘s principal land policy, although formulated in a non participatory manner, incorporates some equity and non-discrimination standards/objectives. These objectives are however not regularly and meaningfully monitored due to the absence or ineptitude of the implementing bodies. Thus some equity objectives are constrained by the varying customs of the people like land ownership rights of women. The policy enacted in 1978 has also never been reviewed to address Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 7 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE emerging issues. Also not done is the costing of the implementation of the policy while reports of progress in policy implementation are largely non-existent. The Land Use Planning, Management, and Taxation The assessment under this theme is based on 17 dimensions which have been grouped into the following five indicators: (i) transparency of land use restrictions; (ii) efficiency in the land use planning process; (iii) speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land uses; (iv) transparency of valuations; and (v) tax collection efficiency. This thematic area is the weakest as none of its 17 dimensions was scored A, only one was scored B while C and D scores account for 94.12%. There is absolutely no transparency on Land Use restrictions in the country since most land use plans in rural and urban areas and changes to these plans are not normally based on public inputs. The benefits accruing from land use changes are also applied in an arbitrary manner while the speed of land use change, although can be observed to be high, cannot be properly measured due to the absence/obsoleteness of land use plans which should serve as the control mechanisms where the destined use of such land use changes can be gotten. The land use planning process in the country was also assessed to be highly inefficient because, in all major cities of Nigeria, (Lagos, Ibadan, Kaduna, Kano and Port Harcourt), hierarchies of regional/detailed land use plans, although specified by law, are not used in practice. Thus, urban development occurs in an ad hoc manner with little if any infrastructure provided in most newly developing areas. The urban planning authorities are thus struggling to cope with the increasing demand for serviced units/land as evidenced by the fact that most new dwellings are informal. Despite the explicit requirement as stated in various state planning legislations, existing requirements for residential plot sizes are met between 50% and 70% of plots. Due to the absence of a national land use plan and the ineffectiveness of the monitoring agencies, forest and other rural agricultural lands which are expected to be 25% of the total lands in a standard land use plans for any country covers a meager 9.9% in Nigeria with most of them presently being cleared for agricultural purposes. As with the speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land uses, it takes a long time and procedure to obtain approval for development plan in some few states like Lagos, Rivers, and Abuja where they have back logs of applications while in most others, it can be obtained in a relatively short time. There is the dearth of professionals in the property valuation profession which leaves the valuation exercise to the non professionals who create confusion in service delivery, especially in the area of property categorization. Apart from this, property valuation rules differ from state to state and even within states, the rates published are often at variance with the open market charges. Thus, despite the prospects of huge revenue that can be generated from property valuations and taxation in the country, they are rarely based on clear principles, with flat rates applied in some instances. Valuation rolls are rarely present and where they are, they are not regularly updated due to the abnormal growth of major cities in the country and the difficulty faced by the planning officials in keeping up with the developments. The property valuation process in the country was therefore regarded as opaque. The property tax collection process is also highly inefficient with arbitrary exemptions given in some instances for unjustified cases. There is also the lack of efficient monitoring agencies which makes the change of use of properties granted exemption go unnoticed. Only in few states are property holder‘s names listed on tax rolls with 50-70% of these taxes collected. The cost of collecting these taxes in most instances exceeds the amount collected. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 8 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Management of Public Land Public land ownership is justified on the ground that such lands are held in trust by the government at various levels for the common interest of the citizenry. The management of these lands is however faulty with different levels of government taking up responsibilities which do not belong to them while some others systematically abandoned responsibilities assigned to them. There is also the poor recording of publicly held land in the country since less than 30% of public land can clearly be identified on the ground or on maps. Most mapped and easily identified public lands are those covered by government institutions like educational institutions, health facilities, and residential estates among others. Management of Public Land responsibilities overlaps also exist. This, in most cases, causes conflicts between the various institutions with land management mandates. Access to the public land inventory and information on public land concession is also poor. With regards to the justification and time-efficiency of expropriation processes, a procedure for land expropriation exists in the country, although it is rarely followed, reducing the percentage of land transferred to private interest and delaying the rate of transfer of the land to its destined use. For instance, records show that out of the total 10, 749.6 hectares of land expropriated by the Akwa-Ibom state government between 1990 and 2005, only 4,621 hectares (i.e. 43%) have been developed. The situation is generally the same in most states of the federation. The transparency and fairness of land expropriation procedure in Nigeria was assessed to be very poor with the payment of compensation taking long period of time. In addition, some of the unregistered rights are not recognized, while the avenues to appeal against expropriation are dependent on the government, through the Land Use Allocation Committee (LUAC) However, most public land transactions are carried out openly and payment for most public leases are collected before offers are granted. The overall validated consensus assessment of the 16 dimensions under this thematic area shows that 87.5% of the dimensions were ranked C and D, reflecting the very poor state of the management of public lands in the country. Public Provision of Land Information An important aspect of good land governance is the provision of relevant, accurate and affordable land related information to the public as well as the accessibility, affordability and sustainability of service delivery. Thus, the 13 dimensions assessed under this thematic area are grouped into the following four indicators; (i) completeness of the registry; (ii) reliability of records, (iii) cost effectiveness and sustainability; and (iv) transparency. The mapping of registry records is incomplete with only 3% of the country‘s land mass surveyed and registered mainly in urban areas. The few registered parcels however have all economically relevant private encumbrances recorded on them and records can be searched either using right holder name or parcel. Records can only be obtained by holder, intermediaries (lawyers, surveyors) and those who can demonstrate an interest in the property upon payment of the necessary formal fee. It takes more than one week after request to produce a copy of the land records or extracts while in few other cases it may take months. This is because in all cases the registries are located in state capitals and their records are in analogue form. Customer service standards are rarely established in most registries in the country and where they exist they are seldom enforced. The delay in the processing and registering of transfer of properties make users, in some instances, resort to other methods (like the use of the powers of Attorney) to confirm transfer of property rights which makes record updating in the registry difficult. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 9 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE With regard to the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the registry, the cost of registering a property transfer is regarded to be extremely exorbitant and most often out of the reach of the common man. Most registries are also not sustainable since generated revenues are deposited into the central treasury while their operating cost is dependent on the budgetary allocations which are often inadequate. Capital investments for both the federal and some states‘ registries are provided for but such investments are usually inadequate. Although the schedule of fees to be paid for land registration in most cases are available , they are often not adhered to, since non receipted payments are made to ensure quick processing of documents. Avenue to report illegal staff behaviour are also inefficient. The summary of the validated consensus ranking of the 13 dimensions under Public Provision of Land Information shows that 69.24% of the dimensions were ranked C and D. The Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management Institutions for providing a first instance of conflict resolution in Nigeria are accessible at the local level in less than half of communities but where these are not available informal institutions perform this function in a way that is locally recognized. The informal or community-based dispute resolution system in Nigeria also resolves disputes in an equitable manner and decisions made by this system have some recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute resolution system. With the presence of parallel avenues for dispute resolution in the country, forum shopping is possible where evidence and rulings may be shared between institutions. These two systems cannot however be used concurrently. It therefore implies that one cannot pursue the same case in two courts at the same time. The failure or unsatisfactory resolution of a conflict in the informal institutions often leads to the transfer of such cases to the formal institutions. Even within the formal institutions, land conflict cannot be treated simultaneously in the different courts. Conflicts in the customary courts cannot be treated simultaneously in any other court even in the alternative dispute resolution centres. A process also exists to appeal rulings on land cases in Nigeria but costs are high and the process takes a long time. With regards to the level of pending conflict, land disputes in the formal court system are between 10% and 30% of the total court cases. A decision in a land-related conflict is reached in the first instance court within 1 year for less than 50% of cases. The share of long-standing land related conflicts can thus be regarded to be greater than 20% of the total pending land dispute cases in courts. The Large Scale Land Acquisition Module Most Forest lands owned by governments are mapped and rights registered while those owned by communities across the country are hardly ever surveyed or registered even though their location and boundaries are known to the owners. Land conflicts related to use or ownership rights and directly or indirectly related to land acquisition are relatively frequent (more than 5% of rural land area affected) and the inability to address these conflicts expeditiously and in a transparent manner results in long pending disputes. The land use restrictions applying to any given plot of rural land can be unambiguously determined on site for land occupied by less than 10% of the population especially land with high tension wires, electricity transformers, electricity poles, and oil pipelines among others. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 10 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Lots of arbitrary steps are taken by public officers in the process of large scale land acquisition in the country. This translates to the fact that standards of ethical performance for institutions that promote, channel or acquire land are not clearly defined and accounts are not regularly audited. There are written but unclear provisions in law or regulations regarding incentives for investors and their applicability have to be negotiated on a case by case basis in a way that is often discretionary. Mechanisms to allow the public to obtain benefits from the investment (or investing party) other than compensation (e.g., schools, roads, etc.) are rarely used or applied in a discretionary manner. Transfer of land use or ownership rights for large scale investment requires previous acquisition of these rights by the state which follows a clear, transparent, and time-bound process with decision-making authority clearly assigned. Investors are consistently required to provide information on company background or financial/technical analyses but this information is not sufficient to assess viability and benefits from the project. Investors provide some or all the information required from them but this information is not publicly available. Contracts do not have to specify either risk sharing or benefit sharing arrangement. In most cases, investment application related documents are reviewed and receive a response within 6 months of date of submission, but Social, Environmental safeguard requirements for investors are not clearly documented and defined Procedures to fully cover social, economic and environmental issues are in place but not implemented effectively while responsible government agencies do not follow up on the agreements to check for compliance. There is also no clear process by which affected parties or the public at large can lodge complaints regarding investor compliance with safeguards. The LGAF country validated scorecard for all the 96 dimensions is shown in Appendix 1. Conclusion and Recommendation The LGAF findings reveal the poor state of land governance in Nigeria. This poor state is reflected in the inadequacy of the principal land policy – the LUA, the weak and fuzzy institutions, the absence of relevant spatial data to guide decision making, absence of current land use and land use plans both in urban and rural areas, absence of legislated regulations to guide policy implementation, poor service delivery, opaque public land transactions, etc. An attempt has been made to suggest some reform actions few of which is presented below, in line with the LGAF thematic areas. In terms of Legal Framework, a variety of land rights are legally recognised through customary and statutory tenure regimes but the lack of clarity of rights arising from the absence of information on the spatial extent of most rights makes enforcement of rights very difficult. This is further compounded by the fact that none of the key pieces of regulation envisaged to enhance the implementation of the LUA has been passed since the inception of the law over 30 years ago. To improve the situation and to enable the National Council of States to pass needed regulations and to monitor land system performance in the country, there is a need to establish a National Land Commission to be responsible for providing technical assistance to the National Council of States and for coordination and monitoring of land sector performance. However, pending the establishment of such a commission, the PTCLR should carry out pilot studies in suitable locations in the country to provide evidence that could be used for the development of the required key regulations for land registration and survey/mapping. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 11 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE With regards to the Institutional Framework, the current high degree of both vertical and horizontal overlap among land sector institutions creates confusion and high level of transaction costs. To correct this situation which seriously undermines good land governance, an evaluative study to identify the nature, type and effects of both vertical and horizontal overlap should be carried out, perhaps, by the PTCLR with actionable recommendations. Land use plans at all levels are a rarity in Nigeria. The level of informal development in Nigerian cities is very high. Thus, land use planning is inefficient and largely not transparent. Land valuation is less transparent and not cost-effective. This is further compounded by the absence of property tax administration. There is therefore a need to: (i) prepare strategic land use development plans with adequate implementation and enforcement regulations; sensitize the public on their existence, importance and use of the same; (ii) review planning standards, plot size, land use class, and adoption of model plans for public use; and (iii) develop, disseminate, and help implement transparent systems for property tax administration, assessment, and collection for use by local governments at different sizes. On the issue of Public Land Management, lack of information on the location and extent of public land makes it impossible to properly manage and protect this critical asset. A large number of acquisitions occurs without prompt and adequate compensation, thus leaving those losing land worse off, with no mechanism for independent appeal even though the land is often not utilized for a public purpose. Divestiture of public land is less transparent and therefore does not generate revenues for the public sector. In order to improve the situation, it will be necessary to (i) undertake a comprehensive inventory of land owned by all tiers of government; (ii) harmonize various legislations into a clear single simple process for acquisition of land by all government agencies to ensure due process for land acquisition by requiring publicity, adequate and prompt compensation in line with global best practice and ensure availability of independent avenues for appeal. Put in place sanctions for misbehaviour; and (iii) ensure publicity of the detailed agreement, including schedules of applicable charges. Public Provision of Land Information is an important element of good land governance. In Nigeria however, the low level of registered parcels (less than 3% of the country covered) and the incomplete spatial reference of registry information fosters conflict, corruption, undermines investment, land market functioning, and housing finance. In addition, lack of processes for automatic updating undermines the value of the land registry as a tool for private sector development. Among the proposed actions to be taken to improve the situation are the following: (i) establish software tools to manage textual and spatial data jointly and to link existing ones; (ii) develop procedures for systematic expansion of registered area by building on the pilot study results; (iii) study and recommend processes and requirements to streamline and control different registration services and based on this, establish a registry service charter (including sanctions and avenue for appeal) that is publicly available and binding on both user and officials; and (iv) design and implement awareness campaign as well as training programs for officials. In the area of Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management, lack of awareness of the rights and avenues to enforce them reduces the ability to access and properly utilize land especially for vulnerable groups. In addition, the existence of high level of pending conflicts undermines investment and efficiency of land use. To improve the situation, the following actions, among others, will be required: (i) disseminate existing laws and sensitize different groups about their rights under the law and ways to enforce them (ii) link spatial and textual data (see above) to reduce boundary disputes; (iii) mainstream traditional institutions and the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) into the justice system to reduce backlogs and improve access to justice, especially for vulnerable groups; and (iv) increase the ability of formal institutions to speedily resolve dispute by building capacity and rationalizing assignment of responsibilities. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 12 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The key policy issues regarding Large Scale Land Acquisition include: (i) lack of clear and efficient procedures for large scale investment in land reduce Nigeria‘s ability to attract technically qualified investors; (ii) realized investments often are technically, environmentally, and socially unsustainable; (iii) the need for government to expropriate land before it can be transferred to investors opens space for discretionary behaviour and, due to procedural weaknesses (see up), often undermines the livelihood of local people; and (iv) lack of local involvement, non-transparent contracts, and lack of monitoring undermine the scope for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) potential to provide benefits to locals and contribute to development. The proposed actions for the improvement of the above situation include the following: (i) review and streamline regulations for land-related foreign investment. Create a one-stop shop/intervention and conduct publicity campaigns among potential investors; (ii) adaptation of existing EIA and SIA mechanisms to the needs of land-related investment, mandatory publication of these documents, and increased efforts at enforcement. Review of other relevant procedures in light of international standards and best practice; (iii) ensure those affected by large scale land acquisition have the choice of receiving compensation in kind and provide options for direct negotiation between investors and local communities; and (iv) ensure arrangements for large scale land transfer are negotiated and agreed upon by local land users, that mechanisms for benefit sharing and arbitration are specified, and that contract terms are publicly available to facilitate monitoring. The findings and the recommendations of this study are potentially capable of revolutionalising land governance in Nigeria. For this to happen, first, the report must be widely circulated among the major stakeholders (public and private organizations, professional bodies, academia, civil society organisations, and non-governmental organizations). Second, the following strategic actions may be taken: (i) present the key findings, policy recommendations to the National Council on Land (comprising Federal Ministers and State Commissioners responsible for land matters as well as the affected regulated professional bodies, especially those in the built environment, law, accounting, taxation, etc); (ii) conduct series of national, regional and local enlightenment campaigns for key land sector actors and the general public to highlight the fact and the effects of week land governance in the country; and (iii) establish a land governance council in the nature of IoD centre for corporate governance or the financial reporting council. Thirdly, the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform should act as the national body, not only to take several of the next steps but also to collaborate with other land related organizations in furtherance of the sustainability of the land reform process. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 13 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Appendix 1 – Validated Land Governance Scorecard for Nigeria Validated Country Scorecard for Nigeria – Core Set of Indicators Score LGI-Dim Topic A B C D Recognition of Rights 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)  1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)  1 iii Rural group rights recognition  1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas  1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization  Enforcement of Rights 2 i Surveying/mapping and registration of claims on communal or indigenous land  2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  2 iv Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban/rural)  Condominium regime that provides for appropriate management of common 2 v  property 2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  Mechanisms for Recognition 3 i Use of non-documentary forms of evidence to recognize rights  3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  3 iii First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay formal fees  3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  3 v Formalization of residential housing is feasible and affordable  Efficient and transparent process to formally recognize long-term unchallenged 3 vi  possession Restrictions on Rights 4 i Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability  4 ii Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and transferability  Clarity of Mandates 5 i Separation of institutional roles  5 ii Institutional overlap  5 iii Administrative overlap  5 iv Information sharing  Equity and Non-Discrimination 6 i Clear land policy developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with the benefits and is adequately 6 iii  resourced 6 iv Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation  Transparency of Land Use 7 i In urban areas, land use plans and changes to these are based on public input  7 ii In rural areas, land use plans and changes to these are based on public input  7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use  7 iv Speed of land use change  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 14 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Efficiency of Land Use Planning 8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city  8 ii Process for planned urban development in the 4 largest cities (exc. largest)  8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Plot size adherence  8 v Use plans for specific land classes (forest, pastures etc) are in line with use  Speed and Predictability Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and 9 i  processed in a non-discretionary manner. 9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling  Transparency of Valuation 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  Tax Collection Efficiency 11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified  11 ii Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll  11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Identification of Public Land Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate level of 12 i  government 12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public.  Incidence of Expropriation 13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  Transparency of Procedures 14 i Compensation for expropriation of ownership  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Appealing expropriation is time-bounded  Transparent Processes 15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Completeness of Registry 16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  16 iv Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land rights)  Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on land 16 v  rights) Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or 16 vi  organization with information on land rights) Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 15 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Reliability of Records 17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  Cost Effective and Sustainable 18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  Transparency 19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Assignment of Responsibility 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms  20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution  20 iii Forum shopping  20 iv Possibility of appeals  Low Level of Pending Conflicts 21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system  21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system  21 iii Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 year)  Validated Country Scorecard for Nigeria – Large Scale Acquisition of Land Rights Score LSLA Topic A B C D 1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered  2 Conflicts generated by land acquisition and how these are addressed  3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified.  4 Public institutions in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner.  5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent.  6 Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture  There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and 7  investors. Information required from investors to assess projects on public/community 8  land. 9 Information provided for cases of land acquisition on public/community land.  Contractual provisions on benefits and risks sharing regarding acquisition of 10  land 11 Duration of procedure to obtain approval for a project  12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture  13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture  Procedures for economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial 14  investments. 15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture  Procedures to complain if agricultural investors do not comply with 16  requirements. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 16 Process for Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.0 Process for Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) 2.1 General Description of the Process LGAF is a designed diagnostic instrument for rapid national evaluation of various aspects of land governance, ranging from the legal perspective to institutional arrangements; land use planning, management and taxation; management of public land; public provision of land information; and dispute resolution and conflict management. Its essence is to objectively identify all aspects of land governance requiring some improvement and to suggest possible solutions either in terms of policy or research recommendations. Another objective of the LGAF is the identification of best practice. As designed, the LGAF is to be implemented by in-country experts. To this end, a detailed implementation manual has been developed which provides a systematic guidance on how to coordinate and implement the LGAF; gives the details of requirements for recruiting experts; provides instructions for preliminary data gathering, the organisation of panel workshops as well as a reporting structure for compiling the results. Set against these guidelines, the general process of implementing LGAF involves the following steps: (i). Appointment of a Country Coordinator (CC); (ii). Recruitment of a set of Expert Investigators who are to assess a number of LGAF indicators and to provide data and information on them; (iii). Review of the LGAF documentation including the review of the standard definitions and development of a national tenure typology; (iv). Selection and composition of Expert Panel Members for the conduct of panel workshops on a number of pre-determined LGAF indicators; (v). Panel workshops and the development of panel workshop reports [Aide-Memoires] and the confirmation of same by the Expert Panel Members; (vi). Preparation of the LGAF Country Report based on the above process; (vii). Conduct of Technical Validation Workshop and Policy Dialogue Meeting; and (viii). Production of the final LGAF Country Report based on the above processes. The process also includes obtaining the support of government and other stakeholders. This is to ensure that the outcome of LGAF impacts positively on the land governance of the country and by extension, the improvement of socio-economic development of the country. The CC was formally engaged in the last week of January, 2011. The due dates for the accomplishment of the above processes as contained in the study contract document and the actual dates they were accomplished are shown in Table 1. There was no major departure from the proposed procedure except that the panel workshop was organized in two locations – Lagos and Abuja. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 18 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 1: Time-Table for the Accomplishment of LGAF Tasks Contract Due S/No Tasks Date Accomplished Remark Date Draft: Feb. 23, 2011 Delivery of Report on Panel 1. Feb. 25, 2011 Revised: Feb. 28, Composition 2011 Draft of Tenure Typology – March The LGAF standard definitions Revision/Review of LGAF 4, 2011 were not revised as they were 2. (including completion of Tenure March 4, 2011 Revised Tenure found to be suitable for the Typology) Typology and Nigerian situation. LGAF Review, April 1, 2011 Comments were still being Background Report based on March 31, 3. April 14, 2011 received on this report up to Expert Investigations 2011 mid-June. Cancelled based on the GC instruction that all panel Delivery of Aide-Memoires from 4. April 8, 2011 NA workshops would take place 1st 2 Panels Expert Workshops after the consultation workshop on April 18, 2011 Delivery of report on web 5. dissemination and contributions April 17, 2011 NA This has not been done from consultation This workshop would have been most effective and informative if 6. Consultation Workshop April 18, 2011 April 18, 2011 conducted before the formal commencement of the LGAF. Most members of the Expert The draft Aide panel have either confirmed or Memoires for the 9 commented on the Aide panels were sent out Delivery of Aide-Memoires for Memoires (some after five 7. May 27, 2011 for comments and the last Expert Panel Workshops weeks). I have also received the confirmation GC comments on all the 9 between May 26 and Panels; the last came on July 6, June 6, 2011 2011 The delay in receiving Delivery of report based on panel June 30 and comments on the panel reports 8. conclusions and the delivery of August 12, 2011 July 15, 2011 and the indisposition of the CC final report accounted for the delay. Comments on the draft country report came too late and there Technical Validation Workshop September, 22 November 3 – 4, 9. was not enough time to get the and Policy Dialogue Meeting – 23, 2011 2011 hard copies to the participants, hence, the change of dates. The final report cannot be produced without the integration September 30, 10. Delivery of Final Report November 26, 2011 of the outcome of the Validation 2011 Workshop and the Policy Dialogue Meeting. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 19 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE On the issue of possible improvements or modification to the proposed procedure, it would appear that the major drawback of the procedure is the mechanically setting of time limit and resources for the implementation of LGAF without due consideration to the size (population and administration arrangement), and level of development of each country. These variables must be fundamentally considered in the future deployment of LGAF. This consideration should take place at the proposed pre-commencement workshop for CC. Other possible improvements will be examined under appropriate sections (e.g. sections 2.2 and 2.3) On getting government and other stakeholders‘ involvement in LGAF, the CC, being a member of the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform (PTCLR), decided to use it as a platform to reach out to relevant public and private organisations. Through the PTCLR Chairman, the following key stakeholders have been contacted:  The Federal Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development (FMLH&UD);  The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD);  National Planning Commission (NPC);  The Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV);  Nigerian Bar Association;  Members of the National Technical Committee Forum on Land Administration (NTDF). These include Directors of Lands and Surveyors-General in the States and FCT; and  Some Civil Society/Organisations While individuals from the above Ministries/Organisations/Forum are members of the Expert Investigators and members of Expert Panels, formal positive responses have been obtained from PTCLR, FMLH&UD, FMARD and National Planning Commission. The members of the NTDF have all been aware of the LGAF. All these bodies and others are keenly interested in getting the result of the LGAF. 2.2 Expert Work One of the main processes of implementing the LGAF is the search for, and the engagement of a number of Expert Investigators (EI) who are to gather data and information on a number of LGAF and complementary Large Scale Land Acquisition (LSLA) indicators. As designed, the products of the Expert Investigators are to serve as important input into the discussions and assessment of the Expert Panels. The type of Expert Investigators required for the main LGAF is illustrated in Table 2. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 20 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 2: Skill Requirements for Expert Investigators6 Qualification Position Expertise (min 10 years professional experience) Legal / sociology background with substantial experience in tenure and policy Expert A Land Tenure related to tenure. Land management and land use planning with substantial experience in land Expert B Land Use/ Policy management in both urban and rural sectors Experience with government authorities involved in Management of Public Management of Expert C Land , with substantial experience in expropriation cases and public lease Public Land arrangements. Land Related experience in areas including law, survey, ICT, records management Expert D administration and substantial experience in the land administration in the country. In line with the above requirements, two to three prospective experts for each of the topics including that of the LSLA were identified and were provided with information about LGAF (Annex 1 of the manual), objectives of the expert investigation, description of tasks relative to their area of expertise (as contained in LGAF Annex 3), required qualification and experience, instructions for the conduct of the investigation and assessment scoring boxes. This was done with a request for the prospective investigators to indicate their interest. It must be noted that the online communication was complemented by series of telephone discussions and explanations. While most of the individuals contacted expressed their interest in the study, many declined to serve as EI because of the very short time allowed for the study and because of previous engagements. At the end, the four selected EI for both the LGAF and LSLA module, as shown in table 3, met the stipulated requirements. Table 3: The Expert Investigators for LGAF Topic of S/No Name of Expert Profession Justification Investigation He has his own firm with many colleagues to deploy for the Mr. Valentine Ofogba Practicing land lawyer based in 1. Land Tenure study. He is also a member of (Expert A) Lagos the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform Has many years of teaching and practical research University Professor, Department Dr. Leke Oduwaye experience and a member of 2. Land Use Policy of Urban and Regional Planning, (Expert B) relevant professional bodies in University of Lagos. the field of urban and regional planning. He is the coordinator of the  Management of An Estate Surveyor and Valuer. Ven. Andrus N. Federal Land Information Public Land Federal Ministry of Lands, 3. Ukaejiofo (Expert C & System and a member of the  Land Housing and Urban Development, D) Presidential Technical Administration Abuja Committee on Land Reform. University Professor, Department Large Scale Land of Agricultural Economics, He has had similar experience 4. Dr. Adeolu Ayanwale Acquisition Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile- on a World Bank assignment. Ife, Osun State 6 LGAF Implementation Manual, January 21, 2011, Page 27. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 21 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE After the formal appointments of the EIs, the CC had series of meetings and discussion sessions complemented by emails and follow-up telephone discussions with the EIs. In addition, relevant materials were searched for and made available to them. As illustrated in table 2, four EIs were to be used to investigate 43 out of the 80 LGAF dimensions as follows:  Expert A: Land Tenure – 11 dimensions  Expert B: Land Use Policy – 10 dimensions  Expert C: Management of Public Land – 5 dimensions  Expert D: Land Administration – 17 dimensions However, because of cost consideration and the need to separately accommodate the LSLA module with its 16 dimensions, three EIs, as indicated in table 3, were appointed for the LGAF. This was accomplished by the acceptance of one of the EIs to cover the pre-selected dimensions for both Management of Public Land and Land Administration. The increased dimensions covered by the EI marginally delayed the completion of the assignment. Another possible departure from the assumed intention of LGAF is that not all the EIs are domiciled in the same city as the CC. For this study, only two of the EIs live/work in Lagos, one lives/works in Abuja and the fourth one lives/works at Ile-Ife, western Nigeria. Apart from the capacity of the EIs, choosing them from the various locations was done in order to maintain a semblance of spatial justice in the data/information collection process. The initial difficulty for the expert work was getting the EIs to fully understand what is expected of them. On achieving this, the unavailability of a national database on all components of land governance became a major problem. This problem was further compounded by the limited time and resources for the study as well as the large number of institutions dealing with land matters at federal level and in all the 36 states and 774 local governments. Unfortunately, most of the institutions are yet to computerize their operations; thus to obtain any data/information require direct physical contact. Given the poor state of available data, the quantitative specificity of the coded assessment options for many of the dimensions, is another challenge. Given the above scenario, the EIs had to rely heavily on the intensive literature search and review, contact/interview with professional colleagues and their personal knowledge and professional experience to gather the required data and information (see further in Annex 7.2.1 to 7.2.5). On the issue of the usefulness of the expert work for panel Assessment, it must be noted that the LGAF is largely a new assessment concept to most land practitioners. Apart from its technical nature, most of the expert panel members may not have the ―assumed‖ luxury of time to critically work on the assigned LGAF dimensions. Thus, the use of EIs to collect some of the relevant data and information and make them available to the panel members would appear to be an excellent idea. However, the usefulness of the expert work in this regard would not only depend on the quality of data/information so provided, but also on the use of the data/information by the panel members. It is equally plausible that the work of a panel would be enhanced if the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 22 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE data/information provided by EI covers a large proportion of the dimensions to be assessed by a panel. In this regard, it should be noted, as shown in table 4, that none of the seven dimensions for Panel 4 (Rural Land Use and Land Policy) and the six dimensions for Panel 5 (Land Valuation and Taxation) was assigned to any EI. Note also that while all the 16 dimensions of Panel 9 (LSLA) and 14 out of the 16 dimensions of Panel 7 (Public Provision of Land Information) were assigned to EIs, only six out of the 16 dimensions for Panel 6 (Management of Public Land ) were assigned to EIs. Table 4: Relationship between the dimensions assessed by the Panels and the dimensions investigated by Expert Investigators Panels P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 Total No of Dimensions assessed 13 4 11 7 6 16 16 7 16 96 by Panels No of Dimensions studied 8 3 9 0 0 6 14 3 16 59 by Expert Investigators To improve the work of the expert investigators, the following suggestions should be considered: (i) An EI should be assigned dimensions within the confine of a panel‘s work not across panels as was the case in this study where, with the exception of the EI for LSLA, all the other 3 EIs had dimensions involving 2 to 3 panels. (ii) The EIs should be assigned at least 75% of the dimensions (especially those requiring quantitative data) to be assessed by a panel. (iii) More time and resources should be given to the EIs to collect needed data and information. With more financial resources, an EI would be able to hire a number of research assistants to collect data on specific dimensions. (iv) The number of panels should be reduced and streamlined along the LGAF five thematic areas. The implication of the suggestions (i) and (iv) is that five EIs would be ideally required (one each for the five LGAF thematic areas). The five EIs should be able to investigate 75% of the 80 LGAF and 16 LSLA dimensions with reasonable time and resources. The required time and resources should be based on the size and administrative nature of a country and its level of economic and technological development. This is to ensure that necessary and essential conditions are provided to obtain data and information needed for the achievement of the primary objective of LGAF. 2.3 Expert Panels An important strategy for the implementation of LGAF involves the conduct of Expert Panel Workshops (EPWs), each on a number of predetermined LGAF indicators. A total of nine EPWs (comprising eight LGAF and one LSLA) were conducted between April 28 and May 13, 2011. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 23 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE In line with the provisions of the LGAF implementation arrangement, a panel is to be composed of, at least, three, and at most, five experts. In this way, the nine panels could make use of, at least, 27 or at most, 45 experts. For this study, 40 experts were originally proposed but 37 experts were finally used for the nine EPWs. (See table 5). The 37 panel members included 12 public officials drawn from federal and state relevant agencies including members of the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform; 18 from private sector (Lawyers, Estate Surveyors, Town Planners, Civil Societies/NGO Representatives, etc) and 7 Academia. In addition to the search conducted by the CC, the Expert Investigators assisted in searching and recommending experienced panel members in line with LGAF suggestion. Table 5: Proposed and Final Number of Experts for each Panel Panel Name of Panel No of Proposed Expert No of Final Expert Used Notes 1 Land Tenure 5 4 1 2 Institutional Arrangement 4 3 2 3 Urban Land Use Planning and Development 5 5 - 4 Rural land Use Planning and Development 4 4 3 5 Land Valuation and Taxation 4 4 - 6 Management of Public Land 5 5 - 7 Public Provision of Land Information 5 5 - 8 Dispute Resolution 4 3 3 9 Large Scale Land Acquisition 4 4 - Total 40 37 Notes: 1. A member of this panel (Sur. Afolabi Solesi) informed the CC less than 24 hours before the workshop that he would not be able to attend because of a business interview. The time was too short for a replacement. 2. Panel 2 was originally scheduled to take place on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 but because of the rescheduled national election, the date for the workshop was shifted to Saturday, April 30, 2011. Two of the original members of this panel, Mrs. G. O. Ogbutor and Mr. Festus A. Esekhite could not attend because of previous engagement outside the country on this new date. While Mrs. G. O. Ogbutor recommends a substitute – Mr. Olurotimi Olubiyi Onabanjo of the same ministry to replace her, we were not able to get a substitute for Mr. Esekhite. It is sad to report that one of the original members of this panel – Mr. P. C. Njoku died before the workshop. His ministry recommended Mr. Sule Musafau Omotayo to replace him. 3. Dr. Niyi Okunnola, an original member of panel 4, regrettably reported that he would not be able to attend owing to circumstances beyond his control. Since it was too late to select another member and because of the need for a legal practitioner in the panel, Mr. Tokunbo Fayemi, a member of panel 8 was moved to panel 4. By this arrangement, panel 4 still has four members as originally proposed while panel 8 was reduced from 4 original members to 3. Each of the panel was essentially composed of a reasonable mix of both public and private officials, professionals and university teacher/researcher and representative of civil societies/NGOs. However, because of limited financial provision and time for the study, the spread of the experts were limited to Lagos and Abuja and environs. The retained panel composition is shown in Table 6. 2.3.1 Organisation and Conduct of the Panel Workshops Given the size of Nigeria and in order to extend the spatial horizon where the Experts come from, the EPWs were organized in two locations in Nigeria – Abuja and Lagos. Three of the workshops – Institutional Arrangement (panel 2), Management of Public Land (panel 6) and Public Provision of Land Information (panel 7) took place at the Virtual Library of National Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 24 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Universities Commission (NUC), Abuja while the remaining six panel workshops took place at the University of Lagos Guest Houses and Conference Centre, Lagos7. Prior to the actual conduct of the workshops, the Expert panel Members (EPMs) were provided with the following materials:  LGAF annex 1  LGAF Annex 4  Land Tenure Typology in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Relevant information provided by the Expert Investigators Most of these materials were sent to the panel members online, at least, two weeks before the commencement of the workshops. This was done in order for the experts to gain an understanding of the LGAF assessment process as well as national land administration issues. Each day of the workshop was divided into two sessions. In the first session, the LGAF objective was introduced to the EPMs as well as the procedure to follow in carrying out their assessment. With the aid of digital projector, each of the dimensions to be assessed by each panel was displayed and explained. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if already completed), otherwise the rest of the first session was used to complete the scoring, which when competed were handed over to the CC. The rankings by the individual EPM were recorded on a master scoring sheet. The second session of each workshop was devoted to intensive discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy recommendation. The use of a digital projector to display the contents of each dimension to be assessed and the coded assessment options facilitated the interaction of the panel members. Some of the panel members did not complete the scoring sheets before the workshops. Some also did not access some of the materials earlier sent to them online. For this reason, hard copies of some of the materials were produced to assist the panel members. Thus, not all the panel members were on the same page at the start of the workshop but the innovative strategy of the workshop brought out the best in each panel member. Table 6: Final Composition of the Expert Panels Panel Panel Members Addresses Email Addresses Telephone Nos Department of Private and Property Law, 0802 300 6055 1) Dr. Dayo Amokaye dayoamokaye@yahoo.co.uk University of Lagos, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos. 0803 666 1711 Land Tenure 2) Mr. Olusola Adun 6 – 8 Ozumba Mbadiwe, Victoria Island, Panel 1 Legal Consultant for sola@ngex.com 0802 320 2959 Lagos. Nigeria Exchange 3) Mr. Babatunde Ladipo 22, Adebola Street, Off Adeniran Ogunsanya, 0803 322 0176 Estate Surveyor and ladipobabatunde@yahoo.com Surulere, Lagos. 01 – 775 4576 Valuer 7 The original arrangement was to use Rockview Hotel, Abuja for the workshop. However, because of the high cost of using the hotel (which the study‘s fund could not support), an alternative venue was found. The Executive Secretary of NUC allowed us to use the committee room in the Virtual Library free of charge. This support is highly appreciated. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 25 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Executive Director, Socio-Economic Rights 4) Adetokunbo Mumuni and Accountability Project (SERAP), 4, adetokunbomumuni@yahoo.co.uk 0802 313 9190 Executive Director Akintoye Shogunle Street, Off John Olugbo Street, P. O. Box 14037 Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria Executive Secretary, Centre for Land Rights and Environmental Development 1) Mr. Charles Nwoji (CLARED), Apartment E, Block 29, Road charlesnwoji@gmail.com 0816 035 5035 Institutional Arrangement 111, Gwarinpa, P. O. Box 8030, Wuse, Abuja. 2) Mr. Sule Musafau Panel 2 Federal Ministry of Agriculture Omotayo and Rural Development, musafauomotayo@yahoo.com 0803 419 3201 Assistant Director/ Abuja. Land Management Land Administration 3) Mr. Olurotimi Olubuyi Federal Ministry of Land, Housing and rotbolonabanjo@yahoo.com Onabanjo 0803 308 1642 Urban Development, mgb_emos@yahoo.com Deputy Director Abuja. MOA Planners Limited, 1) Mr. Moses Ogunleye Consulting Urban and Regional Planners, moaplannerslimited@yahoo.com 0802 340 1480 Urban Land Use Planning and Development Ikeja, Lagos. Lagos State Ministry of 2) Mr. Ayo Adediran LLB Physical Planning and Urban Development, ayoadediran@yahoo.com 0802 312 1334 (Hons.) LLM Alausa, Ikeja. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 3) Prof. J. Fasakin Federal University of Technology, bunmif_4u@yahoo.com 0806 849 5302 Panel 3 Akure, Ondo State. Department of Geography, 4) Dr. Demola Omojola University of Lagos, demola_omojola@yahoo.com 0803 322 8622 Akoka, Yaba, Lagos. 5) Mr. Waheed Kadiri Principal Partner, Kadiri Associates, Former National Oscar House, 11 Ewupe Road, President, Nigerian Off Ilogbo Road, P. O. Box 560, waheed.kadiri@yahoo.com 0803 337 9393 Institute of Town Ota, Ogun State Planners Department of Urban and Regional Planning, salauti@gmail.com 0802 329 6519 1) Taofiki I. Salau University of Lagos, Rural Land Use and Land Policy salau_ti@yahoo.com 0706 769 1733 Akoka, Yaba,Lagos C/o Presidential Technical Committee on 2) Prof. Y. L Fabiyi Land Reform yfabiyi@yahoo.com 0803 706 4475 Panel 4 Abuja Lagos State Ministry of Physical Planning 3) Mr. Funmi Osifuye and Urban Development, funmiosifuye9@yahoo.com 0802 304 6973 Alausa, Ikeja Fayemi Fatokun Associates 4) Mr. Tokunbo Fayemi 22, Atiba Osborn Street, tokyfay@yahoo.com 0802 303 8010 Mende, Maryland, Lagos Deputy Director, Lands Bureau, L/S, Block 1) Mr. Adeyemi Alli 14, Lagos Secretariat, Alausa, deyemi86@yahoo.com 0803 300 9541 Land Valuation and Taxation Estate Surveyor/Valuer Ikeja, Lagos. MOA Planners Limited, Consulting Urban 2) Mr. Gbenga Enisan gbengafoundation@yahoo.com 0803 497 0665 and Regional Planners, Ikeja, Lagos Panel 5 Department of Estate Management, 3) Prof. Simon A. Asaju Federal University of Technology, bunmif_4u@yahoo.com 0806 013 6529 Akure, Ondo State. Assistant General Manager (AGM) Zonal Business Coordinator, 0803 422 2399 4) Mr. C. Nwaobiala nwaobiala@yahoo.com Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc 0802 313 2762 153 Ikorodu Road, Lagos. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 26 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Cadastral Department, 1) Surv. Femi Ekundayo Office of the Surveyor-General of the ekundayofemi@yahoo.com 0806 091 5143 Federation, Abuja 2) Chief Jude Egwuekwe Jude Egwuekwe & Co., Retired General Suite 206, Williands Plaza, 0806 559 0855 Management of Public Land judey5@yahoo.com Manager, Plot 511, Herbet Macauley Way, 0802 744 4412 Nitel Properties Wuse, Zone 4, Abuja 3) Mr. Emenuwa Jaja- 2nd Floor, NICON Plaza, Panel 6 0803 701 6206 Wachuku 424 Muhammed Buhari Way, jajawachuku@yahoo.com 0805 343 9122 Legal Practitioner CBD, Abuja. 4) Mr. Ayodele Ibuoye Ayodele Ibuoye & Co Suites 1 & 2, Garachi ayo.ibuass@lycos.com Practising Estate Plaza, Plot 1965, Conakry Street, Zone 3, 0705 649 4239 ayodele.ibuoye@gmail.com Surveyor & Valuer Wuse, Abuja. Abuja. 5) Mr. Ayo Elvis Oniemola Secretary, Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and oniemola200@yahoo.com 0803 787 2549 Land Use And Urban Development, Abuja Allocation Committee Federal Ministry of Land, Housing 1) Alhaji Abubakar Lawal yelwa1@yahoo.com 0803 315 8584 and Urban Development, Abuja. Land Administration (Registry) Public Provision of Land Information 2) Sir. G. T. N. Tabansi Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and tabansigtn@yahoo.com 0803 787 4976 Deputy Director Urban Development, Abuja. Executive Director, 0802 249 0018 3) Ms. Priscilla Achakpa Women Environment Programme, pmachakpa@yahoo.com 0807 774 1166 Panel 7 Gaduwa Housing Estate, Abuja. Department of Estate Management, 4) Mr. Muhammad Bashar Federal University of Technology, mbnuhu@futminna.edu.ng 0803 725 0279 Nuhu Minna, Niger State. 5) Dr. Akin Fapohunda Former Director of Aflon Digital Institute, Planning, Malam Shehu Plaza, director@aflon.org 0803 312 1004 Research and Statistics, 365, Awolowo Way, Jabi, Abuja. NALDA. The Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse, caroline.etuk@lagosmultidoor.org 1) Mrs. Caroline Etuk 0803 307 6534 Dispute Resolution High Court of Lagos, Igbosere Road, Lagos. nene_etuk@yahoo.com Department of Private and Property Law, Panel 8 2) Mr. Tunde Otubu Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, bullet20042003@yahoo.com 0802 325 3416 Akoka, Yaba, Lagos 3) Mr. S. B. Joseph (Jnr.) 140 Borno Way, sbjj@sbjosephlaw.com 0802 303 8010 Legal Practitioner Ebute Metta, Lagos 1) Sir Remi Omotoso Former Director- 18, Alake Onilere Crescent, General 0803 302 9055 Gbagada Estate, Phase 2, remiomotoso@yahoo.com Large Scale Land Acquisition Lagos State Chambers 0703 410 7107 Lagos State. of Commerce and Industry Lagos State Ministry of Environment, Panel 9 2) Engr. M. O. Odumeru engrodumeru1@yahoo.com 0802 336 4611 Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos. 3) Dr. Sola Atilola Network Geomatics Limited, Former President 116 Obafemi Awolowo Way, 0802 330 7887 solaatilola@yahoo.com Nigerian Institution of P. O. Bix 7585, 0807 307 4917 Surveyors Ikeja, Lagos. 4) Adewumi Fatunde Adewumi Fatunde & Co., Legal Practitioner and 13B Oladele Kadiri Close, adewumifatunde@yahoo.com 0803 301 0792 Notary Off Oluwa Street, Ogba, Ikeja, lagos. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 27 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The CC, who moderated all the panel workshops, was assisted by two assistants. The workshop draft reports (aide memoires) were prepared and forwarded to the respective workshop panel members for their comments/confirmation. Some of the panel members who promised to supply additional information were constantly contacted. With the exception of a few, most of the panel members have largely confirmed the Aide Memoires; some with minor adjustment and nearly all those who promised to provide additional information have done so. All of these have now been used to finally produce the nine Aide Memoires. All the retained panel members were paid a token honorarium of Thirty Thousand Naira (N30,000.00) each except the three panel members of Panel 2 who were paid Twenty-Five Thousand Naira (N25, 000.00) each (i.e. US $200/167 respectively). All panel members from outside Lagos and Abuja were paid transport allowance of Fifteen Thousand Naira (N15,000.00) only each and they were given full hotel accommodation (feeding inclusive). Refreshments and lunch were provided to all panel members during each workshop. 2.3.2 Adequacy/Inadequacy of Panel Composition and Allocation of LGI Dimensions to the Different Panels The design to use 3-5 experts per panel would appear to be adequate. Given the nature and requirements of LGAF, the issue of adequacy/inadequacy of panel composition would have to do with the requisite knowledge and practical experience of individual members, the right combination of the members of a panel and the geographical spread (spatial distribution) of the panel members. All the members of the panels were selected on the basis of their requisite knowledge and practical experience. It was however observed that some of the panel members had actually devoted considerable time to search for data and information for the assessment of the assigned dimensions than others. Most of the panel members considered the LGAF as innovative but that the benchmark set by it is very high given the uninspiring and opaque nature of land administration in the country. However, whatever ―weakness‖ or ―knowledge gap‖ of an expert was compensated for by other panel members. Thus, a critical success factor for the panel composition is the right mixture of the members. It is ideal to have, in each panel an academia, and expert from both the public and private sector, and representative of Civil Society/NGO/Professional Bodies. An attempt was made in the study to achieve such a combination. In this regard, a panel of five experts would make it possible for an excellent mixture of panel members. Given the great cultural diversity and the large number of administrative units in the country, the panel composition is inadequate in terms of the spatial distribution of the expert members. In the absence of a national database on all aspects of land administration, having expert panel members from various regions of the country would have enhanced the assessment process. We were not able to achieve this in this study owing to limited resources. Another inadequacy is that only two of the 37 panel members are women. An attempt to increase the number of women did not materialize. This, of course, did not in any noticeable way affect the assessment result. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 28 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE In future, the EIs may be empowered to hire research/field assistants to collect specific set of data in each of the six (6) geopolitical zones of the country. The gathered data will enrich the work of the panel members. Alternatively, and if cost will permit, the future implementation of the LGAF in Nigeria may be based on the six geopolitical zones. The allocation of LGI dimensions to different panel is not equitable. While some panels have 16 dimensions to assess, many others have less than 8 dimensions to assess. As earlier indicated, five panels in line with the LGAF five thematic areas would appear to be most ideal for the implementation of the LGAF. In this regard, some of the dimensions in some of the current 9 panels can be logically merged with other panels. For example, those dimensions dealing with conflicts in LSLA (Panel 9) can be merged with Panel 8 (Dispute Resolution). In fact, all the dimensions of LSLA can be distributed into the five LGAF thematic areas. The issues addressed by Panel 2 (Institutional Arrangement) cut across all the five LGAF thematic areas and thus they can be logically placed in any of them. Using the five LGAF thematic areas as a basis of establishing the panels will make the compilation of the result easier and faster. 2.3.3 Divergence of individual opinions and agreement on panel ranking The ranking of the dimensions by the individual members of the panel exhibits a measure of divergence of opinion. Out of the 96 dimensions assessed in the nine panels, there was no divergence of opinion on 11 of the dimensions as they were given the same ranking by the respective panel members. Three of such dimensions are from Panels 2, 4 and 6 while four dimensions each are from panels 8 and 9. In the remaining 85 dimensions, there were variations in their rankings by the panel members. Such variations are not uniform. For example, in a 5-member panel, three members may rank a dimension in the same way while the other two chose different options. Each of the two parties, in this case, tries to justify their option in order to convince themselves in deciding the consensus option. In most of the cases, the initial divergence of opinion was observed, during the discussion at the workshops, to be caused largely by the following factors: (i) The occupation or work place of a panel member. In this regard, the public officers among the panels were very diplomatic in their assessment of the indicators. However, they did not find it difficult to agree with others on consensus ranking as they are not unaware of the under-achievement of the land administration in the country. Those in the private sector assessed most of the dimensions on the basis of their professional/business practice while those in the universities rely more on research output. (ii) The location of where panel members live/work/state of origin. In the absence of a national database on various components of land administration, the assessment by the panel members was largely influenced by the knowledge of their local environment. Those who live/work in Lagos and environs used the situation in the region to assess some of the dimensions. The same applies to those from other areas. In the same way, members of the panel used the knowledge of their state of origin to assess/justify their options. By re-emphasizing that each dimension is to be nationally assessed, this notion guided the discussion and the consensus assessment of a number of dimensions. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 29 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE (iii) Specific/subject/practical knowledge versus general knowledge of a dimension. Some members of a panel have deeper knowledge of some dimensions (arising from their educational and training background as well as practical experience) while others have general knowledge of the dimensions (based on workplace and professional experience). In such situations, the agreement on a consensus ranking was based on the explanation of those members with deeper knowledge of the specific dimensions. Of course, there were situations where individual members with considerable workplace experience and field knowledge were able to provide sufficient information to convince their colleagues. In all, and notwithstanding the panels acknowledgement of the dearth of national data that could have been used to enhance the assessment process, especially those requiring quantitative data, it was not difficult to reconcile the divergence of opinions and to agree on consensus ranking of the dimensions. Even those who did not rank particular dimensions as was the case with dimensions LGI 7(iv) (speed of land use change) and LGI 9 (ii) (time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling), all of panel 3 (Urban Land Use Planning and Development) did not find it difficult to agree to the consensus assessment of the dimensions. Each dimension was critically discussed to the point that the panel members ignored all of their initial rankings on five of the dimensions and settled for new rankings based on the debate at the workshops (table 7). Table 7: Dimensions where consensus ranking differ from all the initial individual panel rankings Consensus Individual rankings ranking Panel LGI Description of dimensions after Debate 1 2 3 4 5 1 1(i) Land tenure rights recognized (rural) B D D B A Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for 1 3(i) B D D B C recognition of property claims Exceptions from property taxes are justified and 5 11(i) D D C C B transparent 5 11(iv) Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection C B C C D 7 19(i) Schedule of fees is available publicly A A A D A C The distribution of the consensus ranking by the nine panels (see table 8) shows that only 5 of the 96 dimensions were ranked A (i.e. 5.2%), 13 (13.5%) B, 40 (41.7%) C and 38 (39.6%) D. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 30 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 8: Distribution of Consensus Ranking by Panels No of Assessed No of Consensus Ranking Panel Description Panels Dimensions A B C D 1 Land Tenure 2 - 7 4 13 2 Institutional Arrangement - 3 1 - 4 3 Urban Land Use Planning and Development - 1 7 3 11 4 Rural Land Use Planning and Development - 1 2 4 7 5 Land Evaluation and Taxation - 1 2 3 6 6 Management of Public Land - 2 10 4 16 7 Public Provision of Land Information 2 1 4 9 16 8 Dispute Resolution 1 3 1 2 7 9 Large Scale Land Acquisition - 1 6 9 16 Total 5 13 40 38 96 Percentage 5.2 13.5 41.7 39.6 100 2.3.4 Suggestions for the improvement of the panel workshop In addition to selecting appropriately knowledgeable individuals from both public and private sectors, academia, professional organizations, civil society and NGOs, the following suggestions should be considered for the future deployment of the LGAF. (1) The membership of the panels should be spatially selected across different ethnic cultural groups. The local knowledge of the members will at least compensate for the lack of appropriate national database. In essence, adequate fund should be appropriated to enable the CC actualize this suggestion. (2) Given the strategic importance of panel workshop in accomplishing the LGAF objective, as well as its technical and innovative concept, opportunity should be created for the CC to meet all the panel members upon their selection prior to the actual conduct of the workshops. This pre-workshop meeting is to allow the CC to explain the whole concept of LGAF to them as well as explain the critical role they are expected to play. That opportunity was not enjoyed in this study although series of emails and phone discussions were exchanged with the members. (3) As earlier suggested, the number of panels should be streamlined with the five LGAF thematic areas. If this suggestion is accepted, a minimum of five and a maximum of seven members should be adopted for the constitution of each panel. (4) With additional time and resources to hire research assistants, data on some indicators/dimension requiring quantitative data may be collected through sample surveys. In this regard, only the EIs on Land Ten ure and Dispute Resolution made some attempts to collect some data through random sampling. However, the coverage of their effort was limited by time and resources. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 31 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.4 Technical Validation Workshop and the Policy Dialogue Meeting On the completion of the LGAF Country Report, the study promoters amended the original contract of the study to include Technical Validation Workshop and Policy Dialogue Meeting. The objective of the Technical Validation Workshop is to present and discuss the result of the LGAF process with a technical group to: (i) assure consistency of the result‘ (ii) promotes the integration of the result through interaction between the different LGAF content areas; (iii) discuss and prioritize areas for policy reform; and (iv) propose next steps to provide sustainability to the LGAF process. The objective of the Policy Dialogue Meeting is to present and discuss the results of the LGAF process with a policy group to: (i) discuss and prioritize areas for policy reform and solutions recommended by LGAF panels; (ii) propose next steps to provide sustainability to the LGAF process, including mechanisms to monitor progress and fill identified data gaps. Thirty (30) and twenty (20) participants with requisite knowledge and experience were to be invited to participate in the events respectively. The two events were planned to take place between September 22 and 23, 2011. This was however contingent on making the digital or hard copy of the reports (after integrating comments received into the report) available to the participants at least two (2) weeks before the two events take place. Unfortunately, the comments came just barely a week before the scheduled periods. This led to the shifting of both the Technical Validation Workshop and Policy Dialogue Meeting to November 3 and 4, 2011. The first important step is the selection of participants for the two events. With regards to the Technical Validation Workshop, the participants were selected in all the six geo-political zones of the country. As designed, the participants are to include a selected number from the EIs and EP members as well as public officials and land experts from civil society organisations (academia, NGOs, private practitioners, etc). The participants to the Policy Dialogue Meeting are to include policy makers at appropriate levels from relevant ministries, representative of national professional bodies as well as parliamentarians. Because the original dates for the two events were moved forward, some of the participants who already accepted the invitation to the events declined. Others were therefore invited to replace those who declined. Having sent the hard copies of the report to the first set of participants to the two events, additional copies had to be produced to meet the needs of the newly invited participants. The two events took place at Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja. Forty-three participants comprising thirty (30) Nigerians and thirteen (13) representatives of international organizations such as the World Bank, IFPRI, UNECA, GEMS, etc, attended the Technical Validation Workshop. The Policy Dialogue Meeting was attended by thirty-seven (37) participants comprising twenty-eight (28) Nigerians and 9 representatives of international organisations. Apart from validating the LGAF report, a matrix of Policy Recommendation was also produced. The two events were very successful. The report of the two events is shown in Annex 7.6. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 32 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.5 Tasks undertaken by the Country Coordinator The Country Coordinator (CC) is responsible for the implementation of the LGAF in the country. Thus, the summary of the various task forces undertaken by the CC and as contained in the LGAF Implementation Manual include:  Review of the LGAF with respect to the Nigerian situation  Identification of individual specialists to be hired to serve as Expert Investigators (EIs)  Identification of individuals, through networking with various stakeholders, for the purpose of selecting those to be invited to serve as Expert Panel Members (EPMs)  Initiation of Government and other stakeholders‘ buy-in of the LGAF  Provision of guidance, instructions and materials to the hired EIs and the selected EPMs to enhance the performance of their assigned responsibilities  Conduct of meetings and series of telephone discussions with EIs and EPMs  Preparation of tenure typologies with the EI on Land Tenure  Compilation of the background report based on Expert Investigations  Organisation and conduct of the 9 LGAF Expert Panel Workshops  Preparation of the Aide Memoires on all the 9 panels  Preparation of LGAF Country Report  Arrangement and conduct of Technical Validation Workshop and Policy Dialogue Meeting  Production of the report on Validation Workshop and Policy Dialogue Meeting  Production of the Final LGAF Country Report. All of the above tasks were carried out under the admirable guidance of the Global Coordinator (GC) for the LGAF. The GC, through his expert advice and constant telephone discussions, lightened the burden of CC. The carrying out of the above tasks has not been all that easy. The LGAF is relatively new both in its concept and design. The understanding and the facilities for the implementation of the LGAF have been largely assumed to be available. Unfortunately, this was not the case, at least, in Nigeria. Thus, the major difficult encountered was how to satisfactorily accomplish the number of parallel tasks to be carried out within the first few weeks of the start of LGAF implementation (e.g. hire EIs, compose expert panels, develop tenure topologies, etc). Nigeria is a relatively large country and given the difficult access to whatever data that may be available, getting the EIs to meet deadlines, in spite of their admirable cooperation, was not easy. Poor infrastructural facilities, especially the inadequate electricity supply and the unavailability and/or non-functioning of internet facilities affect the coordinating activities. For instance, the CC put considerable pressure on the EI on Management of Public Land who happens to be the Coordinator of Federal Land Information System (FELIS), to request all the States Directors of Lands to provide information on land expropriation in their states. After three months, he got incomplete information from Kwara State only. The Katsina Director of Lands sent the following text message to the EI ―Happy Easter Mr. Felis. It would be difficult to provide you with the needed data in as much as we are yet to go digital‖. Hundreds of man-hours were spent on the phone to the EIs, EPs and many stakeholders. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 33 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The ‗coordination‘ of the LGAF is a full time assignment and it requires more resources than what was provided for it. Equally more time and resources should be allocated to data and information collection. The implementation of the LGAF should be simplified in order to enhance the overall outcome and performance of the CC. In this regard, and has been earlier indicated in this report, the number of EIs and EPs should be streamlined along the five LGAF thematic areas. This will considerably simplify the compilation of the final LGAF report. Doing so may be more cost- effective. In addition, a formal briefing session, perhaps in form of a workshop should be organized for the CCs prior to the commencement of the actual implementation of the LGAF. The CCs must also be given time to organize themselves before the take-off of the LGAF. They should also have the resources to formally hold briefing meeting with the selected expert panel members prior to the actual conduct of the expert panel workshops. 2.6 Assessment The issue addressed here is whether any of the LGI dimensions is inadequate to the country‘s specific context or whether there are dimensions which could not be properly assessed. None of the LGI could be described as inadequate; even though the benchmark of the LGIs is very high. However, it was observed that there was no direct indicator/dimension on the process of cadastral information production (either analogue or digital), whether the process is sporadic or systematic and who pays for their production and maintenance. Given the status of property titling and registration, such indicator/dimension may throw more light on the status of land administration. Most of the LGI dimensions requiring quantitative information are somehow difficult to assess. The reason for this is because of the absence of a national depository for cadastre and land use information. For example, LGI 17 dimension (iv) on ―actual land use changes to the assigned land use in a timely manner‖ was difficult to assess because of lack of temporal land use plans on which to properly base the assessment. This problem is further compounded by lack of access to the available data which are usually inconsistently named and improperly documented in different locations. In this study, and as earlier indicated, the assessment of such indicators was based largely on the empirical knowledge, experience and judgment of the panel members. In this regard, and notwithstanding the quantitative specificity of the pre-coded options to some of the dimensions, the assessment of most of them did not constitute a major problem because of the very poor situation of land administration in the country. For instance, it is generally known that most of the area under communal or indigenous land has no boundary demarcated, surveyed with associated claims registered. It was not difficult for the panelist to assess LGI 2(i) in spite of the fact that there is no quantitative data. In fact, the worst scenarios in many of the coded options to some dimensions are better than what obtains in Nigeria. To improve the issue of access to data, the recent passage of ‗Freedom of Information‘ (FoI) bill which has been signed by the President may open a new vista but the bill can only assist to access what is available. However, to improve the availability of data will require a complete institutional restructuring, capacity building and change of attitude of the public servants. This may take a long term to achieve. Thus, on a short term basis, field data collection may be organized for the collection of specific data required. Even such field data collection must be for specific purpose and there must be appropriate institutions to manage such data. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 34 Background Information Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3.0 Background Information 3.1 General Data and Information Nigeria is in the West African sub-region, lying between latitudes 4º16' and 13º53' north and longitudes 2º40' and 14º41' east. It is bordered by Niger Republic in the North, Republic of Chad in the Northeast, Republic of Cameroon in the East, and Republic of Benin in the West. To the south however, it is bordered by approximately 850 kilometers of the Atlantic Ocean, stretching from Badagry in the west to the Rio del Rey in the east. With a total land area of 923,768 square kilometers, Nigeria is the fourteenth largest country in Africa8. Spanning over about 10 degrees of latitude, Nigeria enjoys a wide range of climatic, vegetational and soil conditions and these make the country to have great potentials for various agricultural production. The climatic conditions over Nigeria gives rise to four seasons in the south and two in the north. The four seasons in the south are; (i) the long raining season (March to July); (ii) the short dry season (3-4 weeks in the month of August); (iii) the short raining season (early September – mid October); and (iv) the long dry season (late October to early March). The two broad seasons in the north are the long dry season (October to mid-May) and the wet season (late May to September). The total amount of rainfall and the length of the wet season decrease progressively from the south to the northern part of the country. Along the coast in the south east, the mean annual rainfall is about 400 cm while it is only 50 cm in the north east. Nigeria is covered by two major types of vegetation – (i) the forest types consisting of mangrove swamp, freshwater swamp and the tropical rainforest dominantly found in the south and (ii) the savanna types consisting of Guinea, derived, Sudan and Sahel savanna covering the middle belt and northern part of Nigeria. The soil types in Nigeria are highly correlated with the vegetation pattern. While the coastal mangrove and the fresh water swamp vegetation is characterized by alluvial soils, most of the rain forest areas is characterized by ferralistic soils. The areas covered by the derived savanna, guinea savanna and Sudan savanna are underlain by ferruginous while the extreme northern part of Nigeria is characterized by brown and reddish brown soils developed mainly on aeolion deposits and are therefore loose, sandy and poorly aggregated. Because of the spatial variation in climatic regime, vegetation and soil types, Nigeria is able to grow different types of crops including:  Cereals (maize, rice, millet, guinea corn, wheat)  Root crops (yam, cassava, Irish potatoes, ginger, cocoyam)  Legumes (cowpeas, soyabeans, groundnut)  Cash/tree crops (coconut, kolanut, coffee, cocoa, oil palm, tobacco, sheanuts, cashew nuts, beniseeds, rubber, cotton, sugarcane)  Fruits and vegetables (melon, plantain, banana, citrus, guava, mango, pawpaw, pine apple, etc and vegetables such as okro, pepper, tomatoes, cabbage, spinach, etc) 8 National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria] and ICF Macro. 2009. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2008. Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission and ICF Macro. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 36 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The rich agricultural endowment is complemented by equally rich mineral resources including energy resources (oil and gas, coal and lignite, bituminous sand, hydropower, biomass energy and of course, solar energy); metallic minerals (iron ores, columbite, manganese, molybdenum, tungsten, titanium, tin, lead, zinc, etc) and non-metallic minerals such as gravel, sand, various kinds of clays (benthonic clays, limestone and gypsum, marble, feldspar etc). In spite of these endowments, Nigeria is still facing a lot of development challenges. At independence in 1960, agriculture, which accounted for more than 50% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and over 75% of export earnings, was the most important sector of the Nigerian economy. Since the discovery of crude oil in the 1960s and its exploitation in the early 1970, the situation changed and Nigeria moved from a position of food self-sufficiency to one of heavy dependence on importation of food and manufactured goods. The importation of food items, for instance increased from US$ 353.9 million in 1995 to US$ 1.6 billion in 1998 and to over US$ 4 billion in 20119. The basic facts about Nigeria in 2009 are presented below (Table 9). Table 9: Basic Facts about Nigeria10 Description Amount Population total (millions) 154.73 Population growth (annual %) 2.3 Surface Area (sq. km) thousands 923.80 Life expectancy at Birth, total (years) 48 Literacy rate, youth female (% of females ages 15-24) 65.3 Prevalence of HIV, total (% of population ages 15-49) 3.6% GDP (current US$) (billions) 173 GNI (current US$) (billions) 186.66 GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 1,190 Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP) 5,787 Time required to start a business (days) 31 3.1.1 Spatial Distribution of Population in Nigeria According to the most recent population census, (2006 Population and Housing Census) the country‘s population is put at 140,431,79011 (Table 10), with the national growth rate estimated to be 3.2 percent per annum. With this population, Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa. The Nigerian population is characterized by very high rate of natural increase, high juvenile dependency ratio, high infant mortality rate and rapid and increasing migration of people to the major urban centres (see table 11) 9 Ahmed I and Hassan T (2011, July 6): Food imports cost Nigeria N630 billion; Daily Trust Newspapers. www.dailytrust.com 10 World Bank(2009) Nigeria-Data and Statistics: Nigeria Country Data Profile. Available online at http://ddp- ext.worldbank.org/ [22nd February, 2011] 11 National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria] and ICF Macro. 2009. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2008. Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission and ICF Macro. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 37 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 10: Population and Population density distribution in Nigeria States Population(2006) Area Sq (Km) Population Density Abia 2,845,380 4,900 580.69 Adamawa 3,178,950 38,700 82.14 AkwaIbom 3,902,051 6,900 565.51 Anambra 4,177,828 4,865 858.75 Bauchi 4,653,066 49,119 94.73 Bayelsa 1,704,515 9,059 188.16 Benue 4,253,641 30,800 138.11 Borno 4,171,104 72,609 57.45 Cross River 2,892,988 21,787 132.79 Delta 4,112,445 17,108 240.38 Ebonyi 2,176,947 6,400 340.15 Edo 3,233,366 19,187 168.52 Ekiti 2,398,957 5,435 441.39 Enugu 3,267,837 7,534 433.75 Gombe 2,365,040 17,100 138.31 Imo 3,927,563 5,288 742.73 Jigawa 4,361,002 23,287 187.27 Kaduna 6,113,503 42,481 143.91 Kano 9,401,288 20,280 463.57 Katsina 5,801,584 23,561 246.24 Kebbi 3,256,541 36,985 88.05 Kogi 3,314,043 27,747 119.44 Kwara 2,365,353 35,705 66.25 Lagos 9,113,605 3,671 2482.59 Nassarawa 1,869,377 28,735 65.06 Niger 3,954,772 68,925 57.38 Ogun 3,751,140 16,400 228.73 Ondo 3,460,877 15,820 218.77 Osun 3,416,959 9,026 378.57 Oyo 5,580,894 26,500 210.60 Plateau 3,206,531 27,147 118.12 Rivers 5,198,716 10,575 491.60 Sokoto 3,702,676 27,825 133.07 Taraba 2,294,800 56,282 40.77 Yobe 2,321,339 46,609 49.80 Zamfara 3,278,873 37,931 86.44 FCT, Abuja 1,406,239 7,607 184.86 Total 140,431,790 909,890 154.34 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 38 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 11: Growth in Urban and Rural Population (1921 – 2006) Population („000) Year Rural (%) Urban (%) Total 1921 17,375 (92.82) 1,345 (7.18) 18,720 1931 18,625 (92.86) 1,431 (7.14) 20,056 1952/53 27,166 (89.35) 3,237 (10.65) 30,403 1962/63 44,925 (80.70) 10,745 (19.30) 55,670 1991 57,185 (64.3) 31,807 (36.7) 88,992 12 13 2006 73,727 (52.5) 66,705 (47.5)* 140,432  The urban population estimate of 2005 provided by UN was used to calculate the population distribution in rural and urban areas for the 2006 population figures not provided by the National Population Commission. The proportion of rural population which accounted for 92.82% of Nigerian population in 1921 has been reduced to 52.5% in 2006, while that of urban increased from only 7.18% to 47.5% during the same period. The average population density for the country in 2006 was estimated to be 150 people per square kilometer (PPSK) with Lagos, Anambra, Imo, Abia, and AkwaIbom having some of the highest (Lagos has the highest with 2,483 ppsk) while Taraba, Yobe, Borno, Nassarawa and Niger have some of the lowest (Taraba has the lowest with 41 ppsk) (See Table 10 and Figures 1 and 2). Geo-politically however, the South-western zone of the country has the highest density while the North-Eastern zone has the lowest (Fig. 3). In 2006, there were 28, 900, 472 households in Nigeria. The average household in urban areas was 4.6 while that of the rural areas was 5.414. 12 UN common Database (UN Population Division Estimate, 2005) 13 National Population Commission, 2006 14 National Bureau of Statistics (2009); Social Statistics in Nigeria Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 39 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Zamfara Yobe Taraba Sokoto Rivers Plateau Oyo Osun Ondo Ogun Niger Nassarawa Lagos Kwara Kogi Kebbi Katsina Kano States Kaduna Jigawa Imo Gombe FCT, Abuja Enugu Ekiti Edo Ebonyi Delta Cross River Borno Benue Bayelsa Bauchi Anambra Akwa Ibom Adamawa Abia - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Population Density Figure 1: Population Density of States in Nigeria Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 40 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Figure 2: Population Density of States in Nigeria Figure 3: Population Density of Geo-Political Zones in Nigeria Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 41 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3.1.2 Ethnic Composition of Nigeria Nigeria has about three hundred and seventy-four (374) identifiable ethnic groups15 which include those living in kingdoms and emirates with traditional but sophisticated systems of government while others which are relatively small but strong live in small towns and villages. These ethnic groups include; the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Ibibio, Kanuri, Tiv, among others. The share of population of the major ethnic groups that can be found in Nigeria as presented below (Table 12) shows that the Hausa-Fulani ethnic group has the highest share of population (29%) followed by the Yoruba (21%) and then Igbo (18%). Table 12: Distribution of Ethnic Group by share of Population16 S/N Ethnic Groups Percentage of Population % 1 Hausa-Fulani 29 2 Yoruba 21 3 Ibo 18 4 Ijaw 10 5 Kanuri 4 6 Ibibio 3.5 7 Tiv 2.5 8 Others 12 3.1.3 Land Use Types in Nigeria The total surface area of Nigeria is put at 923,768 sq km, out of which the land surface covers 910,768 sq km while the water surface covers 13,000sq km17. This surface area is put to a variety of uses among which is agriculture, forestry, waste land, fishing, settlement and so on. The areas covered by the different use to which land is put in Nigeria in presented in Table 13. 15 National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria] and ICF Macro. 2009. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2008. Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission and ICF Macro. 16 CIA (2010) Background information CIA World-fact book, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/ni. html [22 February, 2011]. 17 CIA (2010) Background information CIA World-fact book, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/ni. html [22 February, 2011]. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 42 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 13: Land Use in Nigeria18 S/N Land Use Types Area (Km2) % of country 1 Intensive (crop) agriculture 365,491 40.2 2 Extensive (grazing) agriculture 187,236 20.6 3 Dominantly Shrubs/Grasses 81,694 9 4 Dominantly Trees/Woodlands/Shrubs 81,386 9 5 Floodplain Agriculture 20,918 2.3 6 Disturbed 18,990 2.1 7 Gullies 18,517 2.0 8 Forested Freshwater Swamp 16,499 1.8 9 Undisturbed Forest 12,114 1.3 10 Dominantly Grasses 11,983 1.3 11 Discontinuous Grassland 11,248 1.2 12 Mangrove Forest 9,977 1.1 13 Shrub/Sedge/GraminoidFreshwater Marsh/Swamp 9,248 1.0 14 Extensive Agriculture with Denuded Areas 9,206 1.0 15 Grassland 7,989 0.9 16 Natural Waterbodies 7,851 0.9 17 Montane Forest 6,759 0.7 18 Urban (major+minor) 5,444 0.6 19 Riparian Forest 5,254 0.6 20 Sand Dunes 4,829 0.5 21 Montane Grassland 3,112 0.3 22 Reservoir 2,888 0.3 23 Rocky outcrop 2,632 0.3 24 Agricultural Tree Crop Plantation 1,641 0.2 25 Forest Plantation 1,573 0.2 26 Teak/Gmelina Plantation 1,156 0.1 27 Irrigation 988 0.1 28 Graminoid/Sedge Freshwater 871 0.1 29 Salt marsh/Tidal flats 545 0.1 30 Rain-fed Arable Crops 485 0.1 31 Alluvial 269 <0.1 32 Livestock Project 139 <0.1 33 Mining Areas 62 <0.1 34 Canal 29 <0.1 3.1.4 Nigeria Political System Nigeria operates a federal system of government presently consisting of three tiers prescribed by the Constitution, viz: the federal government, the state and the local government. At independence in 1960, Nigeria had three regions which were increased to four in 1963. The four regions were divided into twelve states in 1967, 19 in 1976, 21 in 1978, 30 in 1987 and 36 in 1996 while the number of Local Governments increased from 330 in 1978 to 774 in 1996. Each of these tiers of government also have three arms separating the powers of government into the Executive, the Legislature and the judiciary, each being independent of the other. The 18 Geomatics International/Beak/Unilag (1995). This is the most recent information with national coverage. The information was essentially derived from the interpretation of SPOT Satellite data and field work. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 43 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Constitution provides for the main arms of the government in all the tiers of the government except for the judiciary in the local government areas. The legislature in every tier makes Laws and regulations which are enforced by the executive subject to the interpretation of such rights by the judiciary. The enactments passed by the federal government are designated as Acts while those passed by the state legislature are referred to as Laws and those passed by the local government legislature are referred to as Bye-Laws. The basic Legal framework on land, the Land Use Act (a federal enactment attached to the Constitution) has prescribed that all land in Nigeria within the territory of each state of the federation is vested in the control and management of the State governor in question. It has also prescribed the State High Court as having jurisdiction to try matters relating to land in urban areas of a State or issued with a Statutory Right of Occupancy and a Customary Court (in the South) or Area Court (in the North) as the appropriate court for Customary land matters. The apex court of the land is the Supreme Court before which all appeals from the hierarchy of the court system terminate. The Country presently operates a presidential democratic system with its executive and legislative officers being elected on the platform of political parties (currently numbering 63) for determined periods of four (4) years. The Executive office holders are elected under the universal adult suffrage of one man one vote without restrictions as to gender of the citizens except the adult as defined to be anyone aged 18 years and above. 3.1.5 List of Key Legal and Policy Documents Related to Land The list of the key legal and policy documents related to land in Nigeria is presented in table 14. Table 14: Key legal and policy documents related to land S/N Law/Policy Document Area Applicable Date 1 Land Use Act (1978) Throughout the federation 1978 2 Land Tenure Law (CAP 59) Northern parts of the country 1963 3 Public Lands Acquisition Law Throughout the federation 1917 4 Water Resources Act CAP W2 Waterfronts along interstate rivers 1993 throughout the federation 5 Minerals and Mining Act All states of the federation 1999 6 Oil Pipelines Act (CAP 07) All states of the federation 1956 7 Acquisitions of Lands by Aliens Law 1971 Lagos State 1971 8 Central Lagos Land (Acquisition) Law C7 Lagos State 1975 9 Designation of Urban Area order Each State has its own order 1981 10 The Land Use Act (Delegation of Powers Lagos State 1992 & 2006 Notice) 11 Registered Land Laws CAP R1 Lagos State 1965 12 Registration of Titles Law CAP R4 Lagos State 1935 13 State Lands Law CAP S11 Lagos State 2003 14 Land Use (Allocation Committee) Each State has its own regulation 1981 Regulations 15 Notices of Revocation of Rights of Each State has its own notice 1995 & 1998 Occupancy No. 1 & 10, No. 14 & 15 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 44 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3.2 Land Issues In this subsection, the following two issues are addressed:  Typology of tenure situations in Nigeria; and  History and current status of land policies 3.2.1 Typology of Tenure Situations in Nigeria Land tenure is a system of landholding in any given society. Its evolution is usually complex and dynamic involving social, economic and traditional political system, the modern legal system and Islam. Land tenure systems can be generally defined as the bundles of rules and practices that regulate people‘s right and obligations in relation to land, including any conditions and time limit on the use of land resources19. It is therefore not only a major economic and political issue; it also plays critical roles in urban, rural and agricultural development. Prior to the introduction of the Land Use Act (LUA) by the Federal Government of Nigeria in 1978, the system of landholding in Nigeria was regulated essentially by the customary and received English legal system. Under the customary land tenure, land was either vested in the community or family. Ownership and management of land in many communities were governed by the customary law of the indigenous community with its varying characteristics and peculiarities20. Land was corporately owned by the community21 or family22, and only in isolated cases could land be owned by an individual23. Individual landholding, in form of English freehold System, was then relatively smaller than other forms of landholding24. Also, the state had power, under the Compulsory Acquisition Law, to acquire land for public purpose only. Thus, the typologies of land tenure that can be said to exist in Nigeria today are: 1) Private Landholding - Family Landholding - Individual Landholding - Customary Tenancy 2) Public Landholding 3) Communal Landholding25 A brief description of each tenure types is presented below. 19 Adedipe, N. O., Olawoye, J. E., Olarinde, E. S. and Okediran, A. Y. (1997) ―Rural Communal Tenure Regimes and Private Landownership in Western Nigeria‖ http://www.fao.org/docrep/w6728t/w6728t13.htm 20 Otogbolu v Okeoluwa&Ors.(1981) 6 - 7 S.C.62, 76; Lewis v Bankole (1908) 1 N.L.R. 81 at 100 -101. 21 AmoduTijani v Secretary of Southern Nigeria (1921) A.C. 399. 22 GB Coker, Family Property Among the Yorubas(1966) 40; Elias (n 3 above);CO OlawoyeTitle to Land in Nigeria (1974) 26 - 38; Lewis v Bankole (n 4 above). 23 AmoduTijani Ibid 24 Meek, C. K. (1957) ―Land Tenure and Administration in Nigeria and the Cameroons‖, London, HMSO 25 Adedipe, et al. Ibid; Famoriyo, S. (1973): Land Tenure and Food Production. Land Tenure Centre Newsletter No. 41. University of Winsconsin, Madison, USA; Famoriyo, S. (1980): Land Tenure Systems and Small Farmers in Nigeria. In S. O. Oludipe, J. A. Emeka & V. A. Bello-Osagie, eds. Nigeria-Small Farmers: Problems and Prospects in Integrated Rural Development, p 115-132, CARD, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 45 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3.2.1.1 Private Landholding All lands which were originally not owned together by the community were held by the individual families or individuals in their private capacity with their recognized rights to ownership, use and or disposal. The initial right may have arisen from first settlement, partition, distribution or purchase. The land was initially that of one individual invariably turns out to be family land on the demise of the individual if not partitioned. The right to private ownership of land or other property is a fundamental right recognized and guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution. The right of an individual to personal or family property is secured by the LUA. Individual customary rights to inheritance, in so far as they are not discriminatory, are recognized and enforceable over those owned lands. A private owner of land once identified can secure his/her recognized rights by registering same within the available legal framework or even obtain a certificate of occupancy when desired. However, the privately secured right identified herein may be rights in perpetuity or rights for a term certain as to time or an event. It is for this reason that some of these private ownership rights are further categorized as freehold, for tenure with indefinite duration and leasehold, for time based tenure as is now the case under the Right of Occupancy issued pursuant to the Land Use Act. Where a private owner decides to create a subsidiary tenure for another on terms recognized by customary law the new tenure created is called a customary tenancy. This kind of private right to land confers right to use land for an indefinite period over land known to belong to another. This subsidiary right is however recognized by the LUA and can qualify for the grant of a customary Right of Occupancy to the customary tenant. Thus, the private landholding as described above consists of: (i) family landholding; (ii) individual landholding; and (iii) customary tenancy Family Landholding Family land is land vested in a family as a corporate entity. Family landholding is firmly established in various communities (both rural and urban areas) in Nigeria. In some rural communities, as opposed to communal landholding, family ownership of land is most dominant. Families could also derive their grant from communal holding if the progenitor of such family was part of the original settlers in a community and was granted land for agricultural, social and other economic purposes by the community. Since the decision of Nigerian court in Lewis v. Bankole the right of family as a significant mode of holding, owning and using of land is well recognised under the Nigerian law. Family in this sense relates to a group of persons who are entitled to succeed to the property of a deceased founder of a family usually the children of both sexes. But in other customs such as Ibo26, female children have been held not to be entitled to inherit the property of their late father. 26 Arua, O. Emea and Okorji C. Eugene (1997) ―Multidimensional Analysis of Land Tenure Systems in Easter n Nigeria‖, SD, Department, FAO Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 46 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Family member excludes widow, brothers, sisters, grandchildren, cousins, and uncles except the deceased by will declare them to be so. The individual member of the family, therefore, has no separate claim of ownership to any part or whole of it. A member has no disposable interest in family property either during his life time or under his will. However, a family member has the right to be allotted part of the family property, right to participate in management and if a principal member or family head to alienate the property to strangers. Other characteristics of this tenure type as regards registration and/or recording of family land parcels are summarized below:  There is normally no formal title to evidence ownership but reliance on long and undisturbed acts of possession and ownership.  Title is vested in the family as an entity.  Power to transfer land to members and non-members is in the head of family and principal members of the family.  Transfer of land to members does not confer absolute ownership but user rights only27.  Except for land in urban areas where registration is compulsory, no formal requirement of registration of title is required and no formal titling system is put in place by the Government. However, a family may voluntarily register their interest if desired at the Land Registry.  After the Land Use Act, application may be made by the family to the Governor if the property is in urban area or to Local Government if the property is in non-urban area for Statutory or Customary Right of Occupancy over the family land and therefore becomes formalised. Individual Landholding Today, unlike in the past, individual land holding is gaining prominence28 following the monetisation of the economy which allow many people to buy land from community and family land owners. Again, an individual can also get allocation from Government through the State Land scheme under the State Land Law or LUA. It is also possible for any individual to own or inherit land individually after the lawful partition of family land by family members or absolute grant by the community or through adverse possession. Individual land-holding is in fact the principal and most common form of land-holding in the urban areas today29. 27 The concept of inheritance of family land is distinguishable from that of personal ownership of land. It should be understood that under the concept of family ownership of land, the law of inheritance is akin to that of perpetual succession. Family land remains family land administered for the common use of all members of the family. The concept of individual transmission of family land through inheritance does not usually arise under the land has been individualised through any process of partition or sale. Otherwise family land remains family land in perpetuity. 28 Afolabi Aribigbola; Urban Land Use Planning, Policies and Management In Sub-Saharan African Countries: Empirical Evidence From Akure, Nigeria (2007) in a survey conducted in Akure, the capital of Ondo State for instance, private individuals and family holdings were found to account for about 70% of land held by respondents to a survey carried out in 2006. It is the opinion of this writer that this situation remains substantially the same today. 29 See Park, Sources of Nigerian Law published in 1963 at page 65 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 47 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The position of registration/recording of individual land holding usually depends on the source of acquisition as detailed below:  Where land is acquired from Government under State Land, the title is evidenced by a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Governor and registered under the formal Register of Deed kept in the Lands Registry.  Where land is acquired from family in urban areas, prior to Land Use Act, a conveyance may be obtained and registered at the Land Registry.  Where the individual does not have a conveyance but a purchase receipt the individual could apply after the Land Use Act, 1978 for a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued to formalise the holding.  Where the land is in non-urban areas and the land is not used for agricultural purposes, the individual could apply to the Local Government for a Customary Right of Occupancy evidenced by a Customary Certificate of Occupancy.  Where the interest has been formalised, transferability of interest in land is possible and registrable. Customary Tenancy Customary Tenancy is a traditional system30 whereby a land-owning individual, family or community grants a right of occupation of land to another person or group of persons who are usually strangers or immigrants to live in or farm in return for which they acknowledge the title of their grantor by the payment of customary tribute. Under section 36(2) of the LUA, in non- urban areas, a customary land owner or occupier for agricultural or grazing purposes shall continue to use and enjoy the land for the same purpose as if the appropriate local government had granted him a customary right of occupancy to him. Land used for agricultural purposes includes land which is allowed to fallow for the recuperation of the soil31. The right of customary tenant to apply for a grant of certificate of occupancy by the Governor or Local Government was upheld in Abioye v Yakubu32. 3.2.1.2 Public Landholding This category of tenure consists of land whose ownership resides with the government whether Federal, State or Local and their departments and the use of which is exclusively dedicated or reserved for the general public beyond the claim of any private individual or group. Prior to the enactment of the LUA, the State could acquire land for public purpose under the Public lands Acquisition (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Also Section 28 of the LUA, 1978, empowers the Governor to acquire land for overriding public interest by the Federal, State and Local Governments by revoking the Right of Occupancy of the original owners. The Act, in section 29, details the procedure for compensating affected landholders. 30 Lasisi v. Tubi (1974) 1 All NLR 438, Taiwo v. Akinwunmi (1975) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 202, Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 157. 31 Sec 36(2) of LUA. 32 Abioye v Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 190) 130. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 48 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE For avoidance of doubt, the Act also defines what constitutes ―public purpose‖ in section 51 (1) to include: (i) Requirement of land for exclusive government use or for general public use; (ii) Use by anybody corporate directly established by law or by any corporate body registered under the company law; (iii) Sanitary improvement of any kind; (iv) Control over land contiguous to any part the value of which will be enhanced by the country of any railway, road or other public work or convenience about to be undertaken or provided by the government; (v) Development of telecommunication, electricity and mining; (vi) Rural development or settlement; (vii) Industrial or agricultural development; and (viii) Educational and other social services The acquisition of land for public purpose is not intended to benefit another private interest, such as private development companies, sharing land among government officials, or access to genetic resources by foreign nationals. There exists another category of lands described as public lands by virtue of legislation. Among these are the areas now forming the Federal Capital Territory declared to be Lands of the Federation by virtue of Section 1 of the Federal Capital Territory Act 1976. Others include lands at the water front on interstate rivers, land within certain distance of public highways, land within the rights of way of electricity transmission cables, lands previously designated as grazing routes and even forest reserves. This category of public lands is deemed public land simply by the passing of a law of general application on a specific subject. Thus, all over Nigeria, parcels of public land litter the landscape with their uses varying from public schools, hospitals, universities, airports, railway lines, roads, court premises, military settlements, etc. The organizations which hold public land at all tiers of government include ministries, departments and agencies such as Power Holding Company of Nigeria, Nigerian Ports Authority, Agricultural Development Programme, River Basins, Housing Corporation, Stadia, Secretariats and Offices, Military, Police, Immigration, Aviation, Customs, Educational Institutions, including secondary and tertiary, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), mines and mining sites as well as all public sector operators. (See further characteristics in table 15). 3.2.1.3 Communal Landholding Before the existence of the formal modern day state, several indigenous and even non-indigenous communities existed with their rules of operation now termed as customary laws. Within these rules are those where for the advancement of the common good of the community, lands are set aside by whatever mode and designated to the knowledge of members of the community as communal or community land for use as: Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 49 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE (i) Public square, markets, burial sites, common farmland, etc; (ii) Religious lands which include shrines, groves, other sacred sites; and (iii) Stool land that is normally assigned to the traditional ruler‘s office for whatever farming, hunting or other exclusive rights of the occupier of the office of the communal head and or his court. The decision of the Privy Council in Amodu Tijani v. Secretary of Southern Nigeria33 recognized the age long custom of Nigerian people to own, hold and use land in Nigeria communally. Similarly, interest under communal land can be registered by the community under the Land Instrument Law of each State or under the Registration of Title Law. Under this system of landholding, title to land is vested in the community as a corporate whole. No individual member of the community could, therefore, claim ownership of any portion of such land as their own. Although land is vested in the community, the management of the land is vested in the headman, chief or traditional ruler of the community who administers the land in trust for the benefit of the members of the community34. In states within the old Western Region (Ogun, Oyo, Ondo, Ekiti, Osun Edo and Delta States), the trusteeship has been incorporated into the law known as Land Rights (Vesting in Trustees) Law, Cap. 24 Laws of Western Region, 1959. Under this law, the rights in or over communal land might be vested by Government by an order in the Chiefs or Obas who were the traditional authorities as trustees, charged with the responsibility of exercising powers of ownership on behalf of the community in accordance with the trust investment. Access to land for most small and large scale agricultural farming or other non-agricultural uses particularly in the Southern parts of Nigeria are derived from this form of land holding since majority of people in Nigeria (52%)35 lives in non-urban (rural) areas. In some communities in the Northern part of Nigeria where the custom recognised the community as titular land owners, such as Middle Belt area of the Northern part of Nigeria, this system of customary land holding is still respected. Members of the community have definite rights in communal land which vary from locality to locality. Generally, however, a member of the community has equal right to a portion of communal land upon which to build and to farm. Upon an allocation of a portion, the member allotee does not become the owner of the land but enjoys exclusive possession while the title to land remains with the community. Consequently, while the allocation subsists, the chief or headman cannot reallocate the land to another member without consultation and the agreement of the original allotee. In certain customs, such as Benin customary tenure system, a grant of land by the traditional authority assigns in the allotee permanent right in land equivalent to ownership. Unlike a 33 (1921) A.C. 399. 34 For a seminal treatment of this holding, see Lord Haldine remark in Amodu Tijani‘s Case. See also GB Coker, Family Property Among the Yorubas (1966) 40; TO Elias, (1971) Nigerian Land Law 147. Chapter 5, CO Olawoye, Title to Land in Nigeria (1974). 35 CIA (2008) Background Information; CIA World-Fact Book; www.cia.gov/library/publications/the worldfactbook/goes/ni.html (22 February, 2011) Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 50 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE member, a stranger is not entitled to a portion of communal land upon which to live or farm as of right. In appropriate cases, however, where he is a refugee immigrant, he may be granted a portion of communal land as a customary tenant in return for a tribute in acknowledgement of the community title to land. Today, the status of a communal landholding is diminishing in urban and peri-urban areas but not in some rural areas. For example, ―communal tenure accounted for between 8 and 65 percent of the landholdings in the Eastern Nigeria comprising Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Cross River, Enugu, Imo and Rivers State. In some communities, all the land is communally owned except residential quarters which have been allocated to individual families by the community leaders. In many of the communities, only distant farmlands are communally owned; in others, it is the forest lands; while, in a few, it is just the market square and other festive grounds‖ 36. However, several factors are responsible for the reduction of communal lands in other places. The most dramatic one has been the application of state power of eminent domain to compulsorily acquire land under various statutes for public purpose. Next is the urban sprawl which led to many people buying lands within villages adjoining major cities. Notwithstanding, communal land still exists in relation to market places, communal shrines, sacred bush, stool or chieftancy land, communal play ground and communal farms and ponds. 3.2.1.4 Estimating the relative rough area/population covered by the major tenure types The exercise here would not have been necessary if there is comprehensive national land parcel information, complemented by cadastral maps and information as well as up to date national coverage of medium to large-scale topographic maps. In the absence of a national depository for cadastral information, the less than 3% coverage of registered land parcels which are scattered in 36 States Land Registries including Abuja and the Federal Land Registry, is less useful for this exercise. Unfortunately, most of the Land Registries are yet to computerize their records, hence, the opportunity to access their data (notwithstanding the lack of national information policy) within the given time for this study is foreclosed. Given this situation, a very rough estimate of the area covered by the three major tenure types with the estimate of population within each tenure type is attempted here: (i) Public/State Land: It is estimated that the publicly held land by the Federal Government alone ranges from 60, 000 to 65, 000 sq km (i.e. 6.5 to 7.03% of the total area of Nigeria – 923, 768 sq km)37. In Akwa Ibom State, it was reported that 10,747.6 ha (i.e. 1.56% of the State‘s 690, 000 ha of land) was acquired by the State Government between 1990 and 2005 for various purposes including health, housing, agriculture, recreation, education, road, commercial, industrial, open space and administration38. This state was created in 1987. It is therefore plausible that the older 21 States 36 Arua O. & Okorji (1997), Ibid 37 Personal correspondence with the Coordinator of the Federal land Information System (FELIS), Ven. Andrus Nnaemeka Ukaejiofo 38 Akaninyene Mendie, Jacob Atser and Beulah Ofem (2010): ―Analysis of Public Lands Acquisition in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria‖ J. Hum. Ecol., 31 (3): 197 -203 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 51 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE before it would have acquired more land. Many of the older states have been involved with land acquisition for residential and agricultural purposes. For example, 25, 267 ha was acquired between 2007 and 2011 by Kwara State39 which was created in 1967. Using a rule of thumb, it is estimated that the 36 states, would have acquired between 1½ and 2 times the land acquired by the Federal Government. It is therefore estimated that the total area of land under public landholding will be between 15 and 20% of total area of Nigeria. Given the nature and the use to which public land is put, the population within such tenure type can only range between 10 and 15% of the total population of Nigeria. (ii) Private Landholding This tenure type, as earlier indicated, is the most predominant in Nigeria. The size of individual family land in rural areas is usually larger than the size of family or individual landholding in urban areas. In the opinion of several Expert Panel Members, this tenure type is said to cover between 70 and 75% of total area of Nigeria and 75 to 80% of the total population of Nigeria. (iii) Communal Landholding Communal land, which has been claimed to suffer from large scale land acquisition is estimated to cover less than 10% of the area of Nigeria and with a population of about 5%. The summary of the main characteristics, including legal recognition, registration and other issues in respect of the above tenure types is presented in Table 15. 39 Personal correspondence with the Coordinator of the Federal land Information System (FELIS), Ven. Andrus Nnaemeka Ukaejiofo Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 52 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 15: Typology of Tenure Situations in Nigeria Tenure Sub-Categories Registered or Recorded Comments (including overlap with other S/No Tenure Type Area/Population (Description of General Legal Recognition (State which institution is Rights Characteristics) responsible) All lands which were not  Family Landholding  The procedure for the sale of family land is originally owned together by fraught with difficulties and uncertainties the community were held by  No formal title to evidence particularly in locating the appropriate the individual families or ownership but reliance on persons or group of persons to transfer the individuals in their private long and undisturbed acts land. Hence potential conflict with capacity with their recognized of possession and individual landholding. rights to ownership, use ownership.  Many cases in court are related in one way and/or disposal.  Title is vested in the family or the other to simultaneous transfer of as an entity. land by different family members to It is the most prevalent form of  Power to transfer land to private or corporate organisation without land ownership in Nigeria. members and non- authority since there is absence of formal members is in the head of registration and titling system. The sub-categories of private family and principal  Conflict could also arise where two families ownership of land include: members of the family. litigated over ownership of land allotted Population:  Transfer of land to them by the Community Head at one time  Family Landholding members does not confer of the other. 75–80% of total absolute ownership but  Further, is the conflict between this tenure Family land is land vested in a population (i.e. about user rights only. and that of state ownership and control of family as a corporate entity. 105 – 112 million)  Except for land in urban land after the Land Use Act, 1978. Family landholding is firmly Private Landholding is areas where registration is  Land under this tenure are easily established in various recognized both by the Private compulsory, no formal susceptible to frequent revocation by the 1. communities (both rural and customary and statutory laws Landholding requirement of State Government under the Land Use Act urban areas) in Nigeria. In especially the Land Use Act, Area: registration of title is for public use or overriding public interest. some rural communities, as 1978. required and no formal  Although the Act recognizes its existence opposed to communal Area is estimated to be titling system is put in under section 36(2) of the Act, section landholding, family ownership about 70-75% of area place by the Government. 36(6) prohibits and criminalises the of land is most dominant. of Nigeria (i.e. 644,638 However, a family may disposition of land. – 692, 826 km2) voluntarily registered his  Where a family land is located in the non- Family in this sense relates to interest if desired at the urban areas and has been granted under a group of persons who are Land Registry. customary tenancy holding to stranger, the entitled to succeed to the  After the Land Use Act, potential for conflict may arise. This is property of a deceased application may be made because the Land Use Act also allows a founder of a family usually the by the family to the customary tenant who occupies the land children of both sexes. But in Governor if the property is before the commencement of the Act to other customs such as Ibo, in urban area or to Local apply for a Certificate of Occupancy from female children have been held Government if the proper the Local Government without the not to be entitled to inherit the is in non-urban for concurrence of the customary overlord, in property of their late father. Statutory or Customary this case the family, who grants such a Right of Occupancy over stranger the right to use and occupation of This sub-category is more the land acquired and the land. This usually creates tension prevalent in the rural areas. therefore becomes between the customary tenants and formalised. customary overlords. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 53 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Individual Landholding  Individual Landholding This includes land held by individuals or corporate This will depend on the source bodies. Such land could be of acquisition, to wit: acquired through the partition of family land, purchase from  Where land is acquired family or state owned land. from Government under State Land, the title is It is most prevalent in urban evidenced by a Certificate areas though they are equally of Occupancy issued by the found in the rural areas. Governor and registered under the formal Register  Leases over Customary of Deed kept in the Lands Landholding Registry.  Where land is acquired  It is granted by the from family in urban areas,  Individual land holding may conflict with customary land owners to prior to Land Use Act, a communal land holding where the strangers or emigrants. conveyance may be allocation from the State Government was  The grant only allows the obtained and registered at improper and/or challenged by communal tenant to enjoy the right of the Land Registry whether land owners for many reasons. possession and use in it is within registrable  Where the land is not procured from the perpetuity provided the districts or not. rightful source either from the family or customary tenant is of  Where the individual does community, it often leads to litigation. good behaviour by not not have a conveyance but  Like any other transfer on land after the challenging the title of the a purchase receipt he could Land Use Act, consent fee and other land customary owner and pays apply after the Land Use charges and tax must be paid for effective his tributes or rents Act, 1978 for a Certificate transfer to another person. regularly. of Occupancy to be issued  The tenant cannot transfer to formalise his holding. the title in the land to  Where the land is non- anybody at all. urban areas and the land is not used for agricultural purposes, he could apply to the Local Government for a Customary Right of Occupancy evidenced by a Customary Certificate of Occupancy.  Where the interest has been formalised, transferability of interest in land is possible and registrable. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 54 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Customary Tenancy  It is potentially conflicting with communal  Interest is not formally and family land holding after the Land Use recognised and registrable Act, 1978. under the Registration of Title Law.  It is also subject of compulsory acquisition  It is a recognisable interest and eminent domain power of the State under the Land Use Act, Government when required for public 1978 by virtue of sections purposes or overriding public purposes. 36(2) and 50.  State land holding often overlaps and conflict with communal or family land holding in both urban and non-urban areas where land purportedly revoked under Section 28 of the Land Use Act or acquired  Land acquired by the for public purpose under the Compulsory Federal Government are, Acquisition Law from the Community or until recently, registered in family did not meet the requirements for the Federal Land Registry proper revocation and compensation. of the States where the There are several cases decided by the land is located and Supreme Court and lower Courts on this Recognized by the: recorded in the gazettes. matter.  Lands acquired by the  In any of these cases, land owners may Population:  Land Use Act State and Local  Land acquired by the challenge the revocation procedure,  Minerals and Mining Act Governments are normally Federal, State or Local adequacy of compensation and/or non- Population ranges which vests all lands with registered in the Governments and their payment of compensation. State land from 10 – 15% (i.e. 14 mineral resources and respective State Land agencies through the where property acquired either under the – 21 million) land used for quarry Registries and recorded in revocation of existing Compulsory Acquisition Law or Land Use activities in the Federal the gazettes. private/community Act may not potentially conflict with other Public/State Government  Lands donated to all tiers 2. interests in, or over land. tenure. Land Ownership Area:  Water Resources Act also of government are usually  Land donated to any tier of  Where a speculative acquisition of large vests all water front land neither registered nor government by portions of land acquired by government is Area is estimated to be along inter-state rivers in recorded. communities, families or not utilized for a very long time, previous between 15 and 20% the Federal Government  Lands acquired by the individuals for public use land owners do resell the land to of the area of Nigeria  Public Lands Acquisition State Government for (e.g. for schools, hospitals, unsuspecting general public who may build (i.e. 138, 565 – Miscellaneous Federal Government etc) on the land and render the Certificate of 184,754 km2) (Provisions) Act Agencies are: Occupancy issued by Government useless  Federal Capital Territory and unusable. Act  The over-centralisation of land in a State Governor and the lopsided implementation of the Act encourages State monopoly of Note: Efforts are being made land ownership, management and by many of the State administration in the country with the Governments to upgrade their concomitant hardship on individuals and Land Registries. institutional investors.  The existence of duality of land tenure system despite the existence of the Land Use Act that purports to unify land tenurial system in Nigeria. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 55 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Lack of transparency in land management by the public officials entrusted with the management of public land including the problem of corruption and land racketing. The revelations from the public hearing on the rate of maladministration, corruption and land racketing of the land in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja underscored this assertion.  The recurring problems of just and adequate compensation for expropriated and environmental degraded lands.  The procedure for transferring land is cumbersome and lengthy.  The transaction cost relating to consent, capital gain tax and associated fees to obtain Governor’s consent and often increase transaction cost on land transactions particularly to owners of land seeking to transfer by way of mortgage, assignment and lease or sublease.  The practice of dual ownership, control and management of land particularly as relating to Federal and State Governments’ control over the land in a territory of a State often lead to conflict between the two tiers of government and our courts are presently inundated with litigations over the ownership status of the Federal Government in respect of land in Ikoyi and other parts of Lagos State. Communal lands could be Recognized under the  No formal recording of  The sale of communal land has resulted in found in all the States of the Customary law. For instance, communal rights. several land-related litigations in courts Population: Federation. They are more in Western Nigeria, the Although, the Land Use Act because private land owners do sell the predominant in the rural Property and Conveyancing provided provisions for same land to different persons Population is about areas and can be grouped as Act of 1959 and Registration the formalization of simultaneously since there is absence of 5% (i.e 7 million) follows: of Title Law recognized ownership rights, most formal registration and titling system. communal form of communities have not  Conflict could also arise where two families  Public Square, Markets, landholding. Under this law, taken the advantage of the litigated over ownership of land allotted Communal 3. Burial Sites, Common the rights in or over provision. The major them by the Community Head at one time Landholding Area: Farmland, etc communal land might be disincentive to formal of the other.  Religious lands (e.g. vested by Government by an recording is high cost of  Inter-communal land conflicts arising from Area is estimated to be Shrines, Groves and other order in the Chiefs or Obas surveying, documentation boundary disputes is also drawback of this about 10% of the area Sacred Sites) who were traditional and registration as well as tenure. of Nigeria (i.e.  Stool lands which are not authorities as trustees, the lack of institutional  Next is the conflict between this tenure and 92,377km2) subject to alienation by charged with the support and that of State ownership and control of land way of inheritance, responsibility of exercising encouragement for land after the Land Use Act, 1978. mortgage, sale, etc. The powers of ownership on titling in the Communities.  Land under this tenure are easily Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 56 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE property is only for the use behalf of the community in susceptible to frequent revocation by the and benefit of the occupier accordance with the trust State Government under the Land Use Act of the Office of Traditional investment. for public use or overriding public interest. Head only.  Although the Act recognizes its existence  Title is vested in the However, religious land is under Section 36 (2) of the Act, Section 36 community as a whole recognized under Section 15 (6) prohibits and criminalizes the  Power to transfer land to of the Oil and Pipelines Act, disposition of land. members and non- CAP 07.  The Land Use Act also allows a customary members is in the Head of tenant who occupies the land before the Community and his Chiefs commencement of the Act to apply for a in Council. Certificate of Occupancy from the Local Government without the concurrence of the customary overlord who grants such a stranger the right to use and occupation of the land. This usually creates tension between the customary tenants and customary overlords. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 57 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3.2.2 History and Current Status of Land Policies Land is a fundamental resource. It is a strategic but most sensitive platform for all human activities. Thus, land policies, guiding access to and use of land, defining land rights as well as how the rights are exercised and managed are strategically important to national social, political and economic development. Indeed, land policies basically represent the political choices made concerning the distribution of power among the state, its citizens and the local systems of authority. The objective of this sub-section, therefore, is to provide an overview of the history and current status of land policies in Nigeria. In doing so, attention is focused on:  Land management prior to the advent of colonial administration;  Land management during the colonial period;  Land management immediately after independence in 1960 up to 1977;  The Land Use Act of 1978;  The responses to the problems/inadequacies of the Land Use Act; and  Some of the future challenges 3.2.2.1 Land Management Prior to the Colonial Administration Prior to the advent of the British Colonial Administration, management of land in Nigeria was basically guided by the customs and traditions of over 350 ethnic groups in the country. The principle guiding all types of customary land tenure in Nigeria then was that land belongs to God and humankinds only have the use of the land. In this principle, the right of use belongs to the ancestors, but is also for the living and future generations (Craigwell-Handy, 1939)40. However, it is equally believed that no land existed without an owner. Land ownership is established by the first family or community to occupy a place. The management of such a family or community land, especially the allocation and transfer of land, is vested in the head of the family and traditional ruler who operate according to the tradition and customs of their people. Every member of a family or community has right of use but members cannot alienate their family or community land/property (see Famoriyo 1973, Nwosu 1991)41 especially to aliens. Individuals‘ use-rights are heritable as a family property is shared out among the heirs according to the rules of inheritance which vary from across the various ethnic groups. Generally, the customary tenure provides a basis for access to land and resources notwithstanding its principle of group ownership of absolute rights in land where individual members of the group only acquire usufructuary rights. The three core principles of the customary tenure system as noted by Famoriyo (1973) are: 40 Craigwell – Hardy, E. S. (1939): The religious significance of Land. Royal Africa Society, 38: 114 – 123. 41 Famoriyo, S (1973): Land Tenure and Food Production in Nigeria. Consolidated report of the Land Tenure Inquiries 1968/1969, 1969/1970 and 1970/1971. Lagos, Government of Nigeria. b Nwosu, A. C. (1991): The Impact of the Large-Scale Acquisition of Land on Small Holder Farmers in Nigeria. In C. Doss and C. Olson, eds. Issues in African Rural Development. Morrilton, AR, USA, Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 58 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Each individual member of a landholding family was entitled to a portion of land enough to feed himself and the members of his family;  No member of the community could dispossess another of his or her stake in family land; and  No one could alienate members‘ interests in family land without the knowledge and consent of those members. The customary system also attaches great importance to the issue of boundaries to the extent that various methods (e.g. walls, trenches, stone fences, planting of special trees at the boundaries, etc) were devised to establish community/village/township boundaries, family land, individual farmland boundaries. The concept is so entrenched, especially in Yoruba land, to the point that both father and son cannot have farms without a known boundary. The overall prevailing system among most ethnic groups is that of partible inheritance with strong gender bias in favour of male children. Primogeniture, as an inheritance system that protects parcels of land from further subdivision at the death of its owner, is limited to a very few ethnic groups in the country, the Edo being the most notable. The gender bias is perhaps most obvious in this case as only the first-born son can inherit the land. Elsewhere in the country, land inheritance in most ethnic groups is by the male children although a few groups allow land to be inherited by all the children, male and female. The general system was however interrupted by the conquest of most parts of Northern Nigeria by the Fulani Caliphate of Sokoto in 1804. Thus, the indigenous land tenure system was replaced by the Muslim Maliki Law. The Maliki School of jurisprudence recognizes five categories of land: (i) mamluka; (ii) amiriyya; (iii) matruka; (iv) mawat; and (v) wakf (subdivided into private and territorial wakf). Land in the mamluka category can be held in absolute ownership by individuals, while individuals and families can only be granted usufructary rights on amiriyya land. Commons such as grazing or hunting land are open to all community members, and these are matruka. Mawat or ‗dead‘ lands are those farther away, and may be used after reference to the appropriate authority. Wakf are trustor endowment lands donated for the sake of Allah and for the benefit of the generality of people. At the local level, these lands are held in trust by Emirs or village heads who allocates usufruct rights to members of the community (usually household heads) according to need and farming capacity. 3.2.2.2 Land Management during the Colonial Period The colonial administration, in recognition of the entrenched indigenous land tenure system, did not make effort to interfere with the operations of the system. Instead, it made laws for land administration which superimposed its preoccupation for law and order on the communal land tenure42. Thus, in northern Nigeria, the colonial administration inherited from the ruling class, a system of land tenure which vested the ownership and control of the land in the rulers while the natives were only given the right of use. This system was retained by the colonial administration and it formed the basis for the Land and Native Proclamation of 1910 and later reenacted with 42 Adalemo, I. A. (1993), Land Management In Nigeria, in Nigeria, Giant in the Tropics, edited by I. A. Adalemo & J. B. Boba, Gabumo Publishing, Vol. 1, pp 77- 80. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 59 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE amendment by the Land and Native Ordinance, 1916. This ordinance declared all lands as native lands and that the Governor shall hold and administer the land for the use and common benefit of the native peoples. Based on this Ordinance, it was relatively easy for the government to control and supervise land transactions between natives and non-natives. Any native who is lawfully using land in accordance with the native law and custom, his Right of Occupancy is protected by the Ordinance and no rent is paid in respect of such right. For the non-natives, only the Governor is empowered to grant Rights of Occupancy, impose conditions including rent. In contrast, the situation in southern Nigeria, with its multiplicity of customary tenure regimes, was different. The Native Lands Acquisition Ordinance of 1900 which was designed by the colonial administrator for the colony and protectorate of southern Nigeria, prohibited any alien from acquiring interest or right in or over land unless the written approval of the Governor was obtained. In order to facilitate the acquisition of land for its programmes, the colonial administration promulgated the Public Land Acquisition Ordinance of 1917. The ordinance provided for compensation to be paid only in respect of occupied land. Formal land registration, involving the recording of rights, interests, obligations, etc was started by the Colonial Administration in Lagos in 1863 shortly after it became operational in Great Britain in 1862. It was only in 1985 that a Title Registration Act was enacted. The operations of the land registries were then negatively affected by inefficient production of cadastral maps and very weak institutional arrangement. Although an indication about the importance of cadastral information in land administration was made in 1880, its practical application started on a small scale in 192843. It was only in 1953 that a law relating to the survey of landed property was formulated.44 The primary objective of the law was to delimit every parcel of land of the country unambiguously. To do this, the law stipulated the following steps: (i) The extension of control points in order to provide the density needed for cadastral surveys; (ii) The actual property surveys; (iii) The maintenance of cadastral survey control and property boundaries; and (iv) The preparation of cadastral maps. None of this has been achieved. Towards the end of the Colonial Administration, the operating customary tenure, especially over communal lands in Western Nigeria was abused by the traditional rulers and their chiefs who alienate the community lands for personal benefits. To curb the excesses of the traditional rulers, the Communal Land Rights Vesting in Trustee Law of Western Nigeria was enacted in 1959. The traditional rulers were divested of their customary powers of managing communal lands. 43 Adebiyi, E. (1972) ―Cadastral Survey in Nigeria‖ Unpublished M. A. Thesis, University of Lagos, Nigeria 44 Adeniyi, P. O. (1970) ―Some Fundamental Issues in Land and Land Use Planning in Nigeria‖, Nigerian Geographical Journal, Vol. 22, pp 59-76 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 60 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Such powers were vested in a body of trustees appointed by the government. Unfortunately this law had little effect as the means and materials to monitor compliance were not available. The colonial administration also provided opportunity for town and country planning through the Nigerian Town and Country Planning Ordinance of 1946. This ordinance created opportunity for the Planning Authority to acquire land for its various schemes. 3.2.2.3 Land Management immediately after Political Independence in 1962 up to 1976 At independence in 1960, the ordinances enacted by the colonial administration continued to be used alongside the customary tenure systems of the people. However, the Land and Native Rights Proclamation Law 1910 for Northern Nigeria was repealed and re-enacted as the Land and Native Rights Ordinance of 1961. This was later replaced with the Land Tenure Law (LTL) of 1962. The law was not substantially different from the 1910 Land and Native Land Proclamation. The LTL of 1962 formally recognized customary land held by the people without proof or written evidence45. The need for urban, industrial, residential and agricultural development by the young independent Nigeria led to greater demand for land by government as well as individuals. Arising from the increasing role of land speculators in collaboration with the Obas (Kings) and elite chiefs, it gradually became very difficult for both government and individuals to get land at reasonable prices. The situation was made more complex by the fact that most family and communal lands were not surveyed and therefore did not have identifiable boundaries. The problem arising from this situation is captured thus: ―A man who wishes to purchase or lease land cannot find out who are the right people to convey it to him, many men buy their land twice from rival claimants or from two sections of a family. Having acquired the land, a man is reluctant to develop it, being unsure of his rights to it. Creditors are extremely reluctant to advance money to build a house on what seems likely to be a family land, or to loan money with a house on family land as security‖(Jegede, 1971)46. Without making effort to improve land titling and registration, the government believed that a decree would make it easier for government to acquire land for its projects. This brought about the promulgation of the Public Lands Decree of 1976. Unfortunately, this did not stop the wide- scale speculative purchases of large tracts of communal and family lands without land taxes by the wealthy non-farmers who hold the land idle waiting to capitalize on an appropriate market situation while food production is on the decline (Fabiyi, 1974)47. 45 Udo, R. (1990): Land Use Policy and Land Ownership in Nigeria, Lagos, Ebieakwu Ventures 46 Jegede (1971): ―The changing features of family ownership of land in Nigeria‖, Nigerian Law Journal, Vol. 5 47 Fabiyi, Y. L. (1974): Land Tenure Innovations in Rural Development: The problems with Western Nigeria with some Tanzania comparisons. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 61 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE It was against this situation and the need for a National Land Policy that the then Federal Military Government set up in 1977, a Land Use Panel with the following terms of reference: (i) to undertake an in-depth study of the various land tenure, land use and conservation practices in the country and recommend steps to be taken to stream-line them; (ii) to study and analyse the implications of a Uniform Land Policy for the country; (iii) to examine the feasibility of Uniform Land Policy for the entire country, make necessary recommendations and propose guidelines for their implementation and (iv) to examine steps necessary for controlling future land use and also opening and developing new lands for the needs of the government and Nigeria‘s growing population in both urban and rural areas and make appropriate recommendations. The resulting Government White Paper, which led to the promulgation of the Land Use Decree of March, 1978 (now Land Use Act) made only brief reference to some important issues which were extensively addressed in the panel‘s recommendations. These issues include: land ownership, land use, land tenure, land speculation and the registration and transferability of land. 3.2.2.4 The Land Use Act of 1978 Arising from the above situation, the factors that motivated the Federal (Military) Government to promulgate the Land Use Act (LUA) include the following:  The rising demand for land by the Federal and State Governments for public purposes (large-scale housing projects, irrigation schemes, industrial products, etc;  The increasing cost of compensation for land acquisition by government;  The desire to introduce a uniform land tenure system in the country. The Act sought to unify and harmonize the land tenure system for the entire country. This it did by extending the northern system, based essentially on the Colonial Land and Native Rights Proclamation of 1910); and  The desire to improve access to land for all Nigerians in any part of the country. Accordingly, this Act, with 51 provisions, approached the land issues through the investment of proprietary rights in the state; the granting of user rights to individuals; and the use of administrative system rather than the market in the allocation of rights in the land. The act intended to make investment in agriculture attractive by removing the uncertainty in the control over land; to curb speculation in urban lands; to make opportunities to occupy land generally available to all Nigerians throughout the country. The LUA replaced the traditional institutions of obaship and chieftaincy in their roles as managers of communal land. The Land Use Act differentiated, rather arbitrarily, the Nigerian land into rural and urban lands with somewhat different policies. Prior to the promulgation of the Land Use Act, the pervasive problem in most urban areas of the country are: speculations in urban lands, and the inability of migrants to cities to secure housing. The urban land speculators accumulate large tracts of land which are held undeveloped in anticipation of a rise in site value in the absence of land taxation. The LUA therefore intends to combat the two problems by limiting private ownership rights in urban land by providing that an individual may hold not more than 0.5 ha of undeveloped land. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 62 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Undeveloped lands in excess of 0.5 ha are to be surrendered to government. Holders of conveyances or fee simple title to urban properties are to convert same to statutory certificates of occupancy to be given by the Governor of the State. This implies that the holders of such certificates (rights) have been converted to lease-holders for as term of years, and as state tenants, are obligated to pay rent to the State. An ad hoc body to be known as the Land Use and Allocation Committee is to be set up in each state to advise the Governor on the management of urban land. With regard to the rural areas, land for agricultural purposes and (except those in which minerals have been discovered or exploited) is to be under the jurisdiction of local governments. Local governments are to issue customary certificates of occupancy rights to any person or organization for the use of land for agricultural, residential or other purposes. Furthermore, they are authorized to grant customary occupancy rights in such rural lands in amount up to 500 hectares for agricultural purposes or 5,000 hectares for grazing purposes [Section 6 (2)]. And these ceiling may be exceeded by consent of the governor. Also an ad hoc body to be called Land Allocation Advisory Committee is to be set-up in Local Government Areas to advise the Local Governments on management of rural areas within the Local Government Area. The LUA further provided that: (i) all land which has already been developed remained the possession of the person in whom it was vested before the act became effective; (ii) the consent of the Governor must be secured for the transfer of a Statutory Right of Occupancy through either mortgage or assignment; and (iii) the consent of the Local Government or that of the Governor in appropriate cases must be obtained for the transfer of customary right of occupancy. As it stands today, the LUA is the most controversial, least understood by majority of Nigerians, very confusing and contradictory in its provisions, highly undemocratic and woefully failed to create a right and just environment to facilitate its implementation 48. It will suffice here to indicate few of the problems and constraints of the LUA. First, is the issue concerning the creation of ‗trust relationship‘ between the state and the people. Trust relationship is normally a voluntary act of its creator and it is normally based on confidence and strict accountability. A trustship is an office of very high fiduciary responsibility which must not be assumed by ―force‖ as was the case with the proclamation of the LUA. The LUA ―vests all land comprised in the territory of each state (except land vested in the Federal Government or its agents). Solely in the Governor of the State, who would hold such land in trust for the people and would henceforth be responsible for allocation of land in all urban areas to individual residents in the State and to organizations for residential, agriculture, commercial and other purposes while similar powers with respect to non urban areas are conferred on Local Government‖. 48 Many scholars, professional bodies, traditional institutions and civil societies have commented on the LUA and have called for its full review. The write-up by the EI on Land Tenure for this study on (i) the myths and realities of the Land Use Act; and (ii) the land use in Nigeria‘s development are reproduced as Annexes 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 63 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE This trustship was never negotiated with, or agreed to by the people. It is an enactment without accountability as section 47 of the LUA ousts the jurisdiction of the courts concerning the most germane aspects of the Acts and its implementation. It is an unjust arrangement to create trust with powers vested on the trustee to convey property to any one he pleases, including oneself, without question. Second, and arising from the above is that most Nigerians do not have faith in the LUA especially the assumption that land proprietorship is now vested in the government. After 31 years of the existence of the LUA, people still behave as if land belongs to communities, families and individuals as was the case before the LUA. One finds everywhere in the country, public notices indicating that a piece of land belongs to community/family/individual or that such land is not for sale. This is the case with the following newspaper advertisement. ―This is to notify the General Public that the extensive tract of land … comprising over 200 villages … belong absolutely to the families of the persons after whom each of the villages is named both in fee simple and under Native Law and Custom. It is notified generally that only the accredited heads of the said families who have settled on the land during the last two centuries have full and absolute authority to deal with the various family lands‖49. The implication of the above situations is a clear indication of the rejection of the LUA. The people were never given opportunity to indicate whether they are willing to entrust their land and its management to the government. The third issue is that the trustees, the State Governors do not have information about the identity of the lands and their owners. Worst still is that they have not made any arrangement to acquire such information. The Federal Government that promulgated the LUA, has only recently included the acquisition of such fundamental information as part of the terms of reference of committee set up on Land Reform. Fourth, no permanent institutional arrangement backed by appropriate legislation for the implementation of the LUA. Indeed and in practice, the LUA is largely perceived by the larger society as ―Land Allocation Act‖ for the benefit of ―people in power‖. Compounding this situation is the unavailability of manpower to implement the LUA both at the Federal, State and Local Government levels. The situation is worse at the local government levels. Unfortunately no discernible arrangement is being made to change this undesirable situation. In addition to the mixed nature of the LUA (mixture of customary and statutory), some of the other problems associated with the LUA include the following:  It has not eliminated speculation in land. It has only driven it underground or fueled it;  It concentrates both economic and political powers in the hands of governors, and military elites who use it to dispossess their political opponents and/or peasant farmers through large scale acquisition of land for commercial agriculture; 49 Sunday Times (1989): Public Notice‖ July 9, 1989, P 13 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 64 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  It is not acceptable to a cross-section of Nigerians, especially, the traditional rulers, lawyers, estate surveyors and peasant farmers;  It has not succeeded in removing the uncertainties in title to land;  Difficulty in its amendment based on the fact that it is enshrined in the constitution. 3.2.2.5 Responses to the Problems/Constraints of the LUA. Most of the problems above are not unknown by many stakeholders. Attempts to reform the Act have been made in the past, but without much success. When it was discovered that certain ambiguities exist in the Act, former military governments attempted at various times to review it. Various individuals and groups of researchers, government functionaries, professional bodies, private sector operators and traditional chiefs made calls for the review, modification or outright expurgation of specific sections or clauses of the Act. For example, in 1991, the military government initiated concrete moves through the Law Reform Commission to review the Act. Submissions were made by various interest groups, culminating in a workshop held in Lagos that year. Suggestions were made for amendments to a number of sections such as: Section 5 (1) (2), 34, 28 (6) and 36: dealing with certainty of title under the Act; section 39 – intention of the Act as it relates to customary tenure should be made explicit; section 6, 21, 36 (5) and 50 – contain contradictions about community ownership of land; section 22 – consent of the Governor before alienation of any land; section 38 – revocation of land rights by the Governor for overriding public interest; section 47 – unquestionable powers of the Government in the Act (which is against the rule of natural justice and fair play). In the same vein, the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers for example, submitted a Land Use Policy document to the Federal Government. The crux of the policy reform advocated by the institution is that, the land market should be allowed to flourish through land title registration, title adjudication, and sale/purchase of land, whether urban or rural, and that land ownership in fee simple should be reintroduced. While no concrete effort was made to rectify the defects of the LUA as suggested above, the administration of late President Umaru Musa Yar‘Adua took two bold steps in 2009. First, the Presidency considered it imperative to call for a fairly comprehensive review of the Act by sending 14 amendment clauses (titled Land Use Act (Amendment) Act 2009 or the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 2009) to the National Assembly for this purpose. The proposed bill seeks to vest ownership of land in the hands of those with customary right of ownership, and also enable farmers to use land as collateral for loans for commercial farming to boost food production in the country. The bill also seeks to restrict the requirement of the governor‘s consent to assignment only which will render such consent unnecessary for mortgages, subleases and other land transfer forms in order to make transactions in land less cumbersome and facilitate economic development. the bill, which involved expunging the Land Use Act from the constitution, is yet to be passed by the National Assembly. The current second step was the setting up in April 2009, a Presidential Technical Committee for Land Reform (PTCLR) which has the following seven terms of reference: Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 65 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE (i) to collaborate and provide technical assistance to State and Local Governments to undertake land cadastral nationwide; (ii) to determine individuals‘ ―possessory‖ rights using best practices and most appropriate technology to determine the process of identification of locations and registration of title holdings; (iii) to ensure that land cadastral boundaries and title holdings are demarcated is such a way that communities, hamlets, villages, village areas, towns, etc will be recognizable; (iv) to encourage and assist State and Local Governments to establish an arbitration/ adjudication mechanism for land ownership conflict resolution; (v) to make recommendations for the establishment of a National Depository for land Titling Holdings and Records in all States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory; (vi) to make recommendations for the establishment of a mechanism for land valuation in both urban and rural areas in all parts of the Federation; and (vii) to make any other recommendations that will ensure effective, simplified, sustainable and successful land administration in Nigeria. The PTCLR has, since its inauguration, been focusing on the following: (i) Nation-wide sensitization to explain to the Nigerian people, public and private organizations, professional bodies, civil society organizations, etc, the objectives of the Committee; to share with them the potential social, economic and environmental benefits of good land governance based on modern land titling and registration, to learn from them as well as to seek for their appreciated participation and support for the whole process. (ii) Determination of the technical requirements for land/parcel boundary demarcation, titling and registration based on the application of remote sensing, Global Position System (GPS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) as well as the investigation and establishment of appropriate institutional infrastructure and arrangement for the process. This involves various levels of capacity building involving image interpretation, field verification and recording, adjudication, confirmation, codification, titling and registration. (iii) Designing of 2 pilot projects involving both rural and urban areas in two states of the federation (one in the south and one in the North). The essence of the pilot project is to learn about the salient issues and possible problems that need to be resolved prior to the full scale implementation of the committee‘s programme. In the meantime, the committee has submitted to the National Assembly, a bill for the establishment of a National Land Reform Commission. The proposed Commission is to provide a permanent and sustainable platform for the vigorous pursuit of the committee‘s mandate. The committee‘s work is ongoing and its success will be based on how some of the challenges indicated below are addressed. 3.2.2.6 Future Challenges Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 66 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Given the uninspiring and the undesirable underachievement of the current land governance in the country and notwithstanding the recent establishment of a committee on land reform, improving land governance in Nigeria will have to contend with a number of challenges. Some of such challenges are outlined below. 1) How to convince the political leaders at all levels about the great potential of a good land governance and to legitimately make moral, financial, material and legislative commitment for the process. This is a real challenge because those who benefit from the underdevelopment of a nation are often reluctant to participate in any process that would assist the nation to improve its lot. To such people, a dedicated educational and sensitization programme would be required to let them know that good land administration and management will not only yield greater dividend to them than they are currently getting, but that it will also create sustainable and productive opportunity to the society. 2) Given the negative effect of the current government imposed Land Use Act on the majority of Nigerians, convincing them about the current effort of government on land reform is also a major challenge. In this regard, government must adopt a transactive approach such that all the people that will be affected by the land reform programme are made to contribute and participate in the process. This means that mechanisms must be devised to obtain information about their feelings, fears, and expectations. 3) How to deal with the duality of the current legal system is a challenge – customary versus statutory; tenure regularization based on leasehold versus freehold which the people are used to; and how to formulate consensual policy that reflect societal choices and power relations. 4) Given that most Nigerians and Nigerian families as well as communities don‘t have titles to their land and are therefore not registered and the devastating effects of this on their social and economic development, designing an acceptable, fast, efficient and cost effective means of land and property titling and registration remains a formidable challenge. 5) Challenge of structural fragmentation without institutional/administrative framework for integration in the cities. Most of the large cities in Nigeria are divided into two or more local government areas and each operating in diverse ways without any legal or administrative means of coordination. This situation is further compounded by lack of up-to-date land-use plans and current land-use information. 6) Institutional and human capacity building – a real challenge. Addressing this will require a strategic study based on an evaluative inventory of what currently exists. 7) Making the emerging land policy compatible with other sectoral policy is another challenge. These challenges cannot be wished away. And if Nigeria is to meet the development imperative of the 21st century, the challenges must be given priority attention and commitment. In this regard, the government at all levels and all stakeholders should give priority consideration to the LGAF report as presented in the sections to follow. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 67 Substantive Findings Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.0 Substantive Findings The findings presented in this section are organized along the following five LGAF thematic areas:  Legal and Institutional Framework;  Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation;  Management of Public Land;  Public Provision of Land Information; and  Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management The sixth subsection of this section concerns the findings on Large Scale Land Acquisition Module. The findings are largely based on the report of the nine (9) LGAF Panels that carried out consensus assessment on the 96 LGAF/LSLA dimensions. The findings were later validated at a Technical Validation Workshop attended by 30 Nigerians with requisite knowledge and experience as well as 13 representatives of international organisations. 4.1 Legal and Institutional Framework Legal and institutional framework is fundamentally important for any good land governance as it provides a basis for the recognition of variety of land rights that can be cost-effectively enforced, and reviewed temporally in line with socio-economic realities of a nation. The findings in this subsection are based on the assessment of 27 LGAF dimensions, grouped into six (6) LG indicators focusing on:  Recognition of Rights;  Enforcement of Rights;  Mechanisms for Recognition of Rights;  Restriction on Rights;  Clarity of Mandate and Practice; and  Equity and non-discrimination in the decision-making process 4.1.1 Recognition of rights The recognition of rights is important to the extent that, it can be a way of improving tenure security for land users, thereby reducing conflicts, preventing unnecessary expenses for the protection of land plots, and enhancing investments in land. It may also reduce transaction costs and improve the transferability of land, thus facilitating gains from trade and the allocation of land to more efficient uses. In the assessment of this indicator, the following 5 dimensions were considered:  Recognition of the tenure rights held by most rural population  Recognition of the tenure rights held by most urban population  Recognition of tenure rights held by most rural groups Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 70 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Recognition of tenure rights held by most urban informal groups  Opportunities for tenure individualization To begin, it may be necessary to indicate that, the land ownership rights that exist in Nigeria is basically classified as; rights held by the Government (Federal, State and Local) to acquire land which are referred to as public lands; rights held by private individuals, families and groups and indeed; communally held land ownership rights by groups under customary tenure such as community markets, community religious lands and shrines or stool lands. These rights are guaranteed by the existing legal frameworks such as; the Constitution of the country, Public Lands and Miscellaneous Acquisition Act, Petroleum Pipelines Act, Mines and Mineral Act, The Federal Territories Act, and the Land Use Act (LUA, 1978), which is the principal legislation governing land matters in the country. The LUA enacted by the Military government sought to unify and modify the Northern and Southern land tenure systems, which were in existence during and after the colonial era as a means of ensuring easier access to land for government and presumably for individuals in the country. This is bearing in mind that, the previous tenure systems made access to land in the country very difficult because control over land was uncertain as the laws governing land ownership were diverse, speculations in urban land was uncontrolled, while the fragmentation of rural land was in top gear. The law thus laid emphasis on the public purpose of protecting the rights of all Nigerians to the land of Nigeria by recognizing all relevant land tenure types in the country with them being characterized as either customary occupancy rights, or statutory occupancy rights. The ownership rights of lands existing before the enactment of the LUA is also recognized as spelt out in Sections 34 and 36 of the Act with different provisions relating to the location and condition of the land. It can thus be stated that the existing legal framework in Nigeria recognizes the land ownership rights held by more than 90% of the rural and urban population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes. Legal recognition is also accorded land ownership rights held by rural groups (customary) especially where such groups have affinity with chieftaincy or royalty [LUA, 1978 (Sec, 36) and Property and Conveyance Act of 1959]. These group rights continue to exist even where the holders of the right have no formal customary right of occupancy. Although recognition is accorded these rural groups, procedure for securing legal representation for them is unregulated since these non-urban group land rights are often held according to local customary rights and with the varied localized customs, the process of identifying and grouping legal representation may not be widely known beyond each particular area. Where organizations are known by law, they are often those registered as friendly societies, farmers or traders, co- operatives and are required to be registered under the state laws on co-operatives or under the federal enactment. Under the Co-operative Societies Law, which applies in Lagos state, applications for registration is made to the Director of Co-operative Societies by a group of at least 10 qualified persons. The application is expected to be accompanied with details of the objects of the group and the application is made subject to the approval of the endorsement of the Commissioner. After endorsement, there is the requirement to confirm that the bye-laws of the group are in compliance with the law before the body is registered50. 50 See CAP C15, Laws of Lagos State., sections 6-11 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 71 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Despite the aforementioned, some specific rural group rights which are not legally recognized still exist in some parts of the country. A good example is the group rights of Fulani herdsmen found in most parts of the country. This rural group, in the course of their seasonal migration, settles intermittently within communities along their grazing routes. While they are usually accommodated by such communities, there is a mutual understanding that they are only allowed to graze their herds in areas outside the community‘s farmlands, residence or shrines. This migratory lifestyle makes it rather difficult to accord them group tenure recognition by any local government even though they are in occupation of land used for agricultural purpose. The difficulty in ascertaining the administrative heads of this group and their workings also makes their formal recognition very difficult. Apart from the rural areas, some unrecognized group rights exist in the urban areas. These are the group rights of informal settlements dotting the landscape of most Nigerian urban centers. In Lagos for instance, urban dwellers occupying land outside the legal land tenure system, whether through the occupation of land in the periphery as illegal subdivisions by private agents, direct invasion of public lands by settlers, or the invasion of vacant public lands in central areas with limited or as a result of the lack of access to public utilities, are rampant (Olajide 2010)51. The number of these informal settlements is also increasing on daily basis, from 42 settlements in 1984 (UNCHS/Lagos State Government), to about 100 in 2004 (UN-Habitat/Lagos State Government, 2004). In fact according to World Bank (2006)52 over two-thirds of the population of Lagos lives in informal settlements or slums that are scattered around the city. The state government, in response to this problem, has devised a means of returning sanity to the city through the establishment of the Directorate of Land Regularization which is under the Ministry of Lands. Any informal urban group in Lagos willing to acquire group right after being registered as a group by the Corporate Affairs Commission must then apply to the Directorate of Land Regularization (DLR) and follow the under listed procedures53:  A covering letter by the agent or person filing the application for regularization must accompany the application. This covering letter must contain the following contact details: address, telephone or mobile phone numbers and where possible an e-mail address.  A duly completed application made on (Land Regularization Form 1) obtainable from the Lands Bureau. Alternatively, the Form is available by down loading same from the Ministry of Lands website at www.lagoslands.net.  The Form must be dated and signed by the applicant and sworn to before a magistrate or notary public  Four passport sized photographs of the applicant  Land Information Certificate  Photocopy of Purchase Receipt duly stamped 51 Olajide, O. (2010): Confronting the Lagos Informal Land Use: Issues and Challenges. www.corp.at/archive/ corp 2010_148.pdf 28/7/2011 52 World Bank (2006). The World Bank Project Appraisal Document for the Lagos Metropolitan Development and Governance Project, 7 June 2006. p. 2 53 Lagos State Ministry of Lands, www.lagoslands.net/lreg.doc4/8/2011 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 72 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Current Special Development Levy  Tax Clearance Certificate or Electronic Tax Clearance Certificate  Sketch Map of Site Location  Original Survey Plan  Where building plan approval is required, the additional requirements are as follows: o 5 Sets of Architectural Drawings o 5 Sets of Structural Drawings o Clearance Letter in lieu of Title Documents o Sun print Copy Of Survey Plan o Coren Letter of Supervision o Calculation Sheet o Sworn Affidavit in Lieu of Tenement Rate o EIA report if land Title to be granted is commercial (2Copies) o Payment of processing fee for building plan approval o Photograph of property The policy of the Directorate is that applicants will receive their Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) within 30 working days from the date the Directorate receives evidence of payment of land charges. Inferences which can be made from this therefore is that even though group tenure in informal urban areas are not legally recognized, opportunity provided by the registration of the group and regularization of rights can give legal recognition to the group. It is however, another issue whether the current low level of such group would allow them to take the advantage of this opportunity. As regards the individualization of tenure, the provisions of the LUA, Sect (21) stipulates that the transfer of ownership rights (right of occupancy) or any part thereof must be with the consent of the Governor or the approval of the appropriate Local Government, indicating that opportunities for tenure individualization exist in the country. The process of seeking approval for individualization however varies among the different states of the federation. It is also not transparent because, notwithstanding the payment of the official fees, the process is incomplete without the payment of some gratification to induce the processing of the documents within the States or the local government Lands department. The process is also rarely completed in three months and in certain states, it may take years. In Lagos state for instance, the application for a certificate of occupancy over land within the government owned land scheme is meant to be completed in 21 days with the following procedure:  Applicant purchases and submits application pack to Land Use Allocation Committee (LUAC) and collects acknowledgement slip.  Applicant collects letter of offer of allocation  Applicant pays for allocated land (within 90 days).  Applicant issued with letter of confirmation with plot and block number. (Full payments must be made before Plots & Blocks are allocated)  Scheme Officers processes application for C of O, signs off on the file and forward files to ES LUAC. 5 Days Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 73 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Surveyor General provides Scheme Officer with digitized survey – 2 Days  Executive Secretary LUAC approves processing and signs letter of allocation. ES LUAC signs off on the file, send file to the Senior Special Assistant to His Excellency (Lands), (SSA Lands). 2 Days  SSA (Lands) vets entire file and sends file/application with a covering memo to the Permanent Secretary Lands Bureau (PS Lands) – 2 Days  If file has a query, message is relayed back by notification  PS Lands signs off on the memo and sends file to His Excellency – 2 Days  His Excellency approves file and electronically signs the C of O – 2 Days  If file has a query, message is relayed back by notification  Upon approval and signing of C of O by His Excellency, H.E signs off and sends file to the Deputy Registrar for further processing – 2 Days  Deputy Registrar processes file further, signs off and sends file to Registrar of Titles for final registration – 2 Days  Registrar of Titles registers the C of O, signs off and request for printing of C of O. – 1 Day However, hardly is a case where a C of O has been granted in 21 days, with respect to government development schemes or 30 days, with respect to private land in the state, which therefore translates that, the law provides opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenures to fully or partially individualize land ownership/use but procedures are not affordable or clear, leading to widespread discretion or failure to apply even for cases where those affected desire to so. A certificate of occupancy issued by the appropriate office will usually prescribe some restrictions to the use and or transfer of the land. It will also stipulate fees payable as annual ground rent to the issuing authority. With or without the stipulated restrictions on alienation or transfer, the law subjects any transfer, mortgage or transaction on the land to the prior consent of the governor or local government. Usually, every C of O issued by the governor is expected to be registered in the Lands registry of the respective State as they qualify as Instruments under the Lands Instrument Registration Law of Lagos State and other laws of the various states where they exist. With all that has been said about the continuum of land rights recognized by the existing legislation in Nigeria, and as presented in table 16 below, it can be concluded that the country is relatively doing well in this regard, since most relevant tenure types are recognized by the law, while those not recognized can gain recognition through other means. Table 16: Consensus Ranking on LGI 1 on Recognition of Rights LGI Dimensions A B C D 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)  1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)  1 iii Rural group rights recognition  1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas  1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization  Total 5 2 0 3 0 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 74 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.1.2 Enforcement of Rights This indicator is designed to assess if the systems in place can legally enforce the rights recognized by law, both for individual and group rights. In essence, it will be dealing with dimensions like:  Surveying/mapping and registration of claims on communal or indigenous land  Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban/rural)  Condominium regime that provides for appropriate management of common property. As noted earlier, all relevant land tenure rights in the country are recognized by the LUA. These land rights are however meant to be enforced by; the state governors who are authorized to allocate and issue statutory occupancy rights for land in urban areas as well as all other land under the control and management of the Local Government, within the area of jurisdiction of the state and; the local government councils which are authorized to allocate land and issue customary right of occupancy for lands located within rural areas. It is interesting to note, however, that these bodies (state and local governments) with special mention of the local government areas neither have the resources nor the expertise to undertake the process of land cadastration in the country. The absence of structured land recording systems in all the Local Government Councils of the federation and the ineffectiveness of the few existing ones available in the states attest to this fact. Any title thus issued by Local Councils is not a registerable instrument since it does not have a precise delineation and description of the land in terms of size and location. Formal documentation for Land in rural areas is thus scarce, although traditional monuments or natural features to indicate boundaries of these lands (indigenous and communal) exist. With the prevalence of informal documentation processes and the absence of quantitative data, it can be deduced that less than 10% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered‘ in rural areas. The cost of the registration process, the conditions that must be satisfied and the prescriptions in the eventual certificate in addition to the limitations on tenure (usually 99 years) along with the prevailing ignorance and suspicion the people have for the government dissuade most owners, occupiers or land holders in rural and urban areas from formalizing their rights. Little registration of rights to individually held properties can be found in the urban areas where individuals are prompted to secure their property rights and in other cases use the registered property as collateral but the absence of this push in most rural areas coupled with the notion of submitting their freehold of perpetual ownership in exchange for leasehold leaves most land in this areas unregistered. The use of the land registration process as a means of generating revenue for the government also makes it difficult and unaffordable to most people. The percentage of registered land held by individuals either in the rural or urban area is thus noted to be less than 50%. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 75 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The LUA aside, there are no additional legislation to provide for the surveying and mapping of the country and so today, no maps of the entire country really exists. The office of the Surveyor- General of the Federation is also not a creation of statute and so the expansive duties of the Surveyor- Generals in all state of the federation as it relates to land ownership identification is not defined. There has also been no uniform legal framework for the creation of the Lands Registry for the entire country. With regards to the registration of land in the name of women, it can be stated that, formal gender restrictions on land ownership in the country are nonexistent in view of the fact that the legal framework guiding the management of land has not in any way restricted the acquisition or registration of land by any gender, however, informal restrictions exist. This can be noticed as we move from one geo-political zone of the country to another. For instance, in the northern part of the country, women have land ownership rights especially through inheritance, but this is not the case in the South-South, South–East and the Middle belt geo-political zones. There are also variations in the level of recognition of women right to landholding between the rural and urban areas. In the urban centers for instance, women are relatively free to buy any parcel of land they desire and register same in their names, but this is not the case in rural areas where indigenous custom and belief system are still very much in operation. Even in the urban areas, lands bought by women in some cases are not registered in their names because of the respect for the family. Thus, such lands are registered in the name of their husbands or sons. By implication, less than 15% of land registered to physical persons is registered in the name of women either individually or jointly. The provisions for subletting as stipulated in Sect (23) of the LUA points to the fact that ownership and registration of joint property is also recognized by the law. Using this provision, deed of assignment can be given to an individual for the ownership of an apartment within a block of apartments indicating that some recognition exists but, the arrangement for management and maintenance of this common property is not established in the law. As regards the payment of compensation to property owners affected by publicly-induced land use change like rural-urban conversion or urban rejuvenation, the LUA stipulates that it is compulsory. This is however often done upon presentation of proof of ownership, land titles or approved building plans. Compensation to be paid shall be equal to the rent, if any, paid by the occupier and the cost of replacing the improvement on the land. Also to be paid for is, the value of the crop on the land if any. The compensation regime used by the country is however unclear which gives room for corruption and the use of discretion by the officers in charge. Table 17: Compensation Paid for Change of Use Compensated Process Level of compensation Implementation rights Compensation paid in cash or in kind Implemented in Rural-urban No secondary but at significantly lower level than Highly discretionary conversion rights recognized. compulsory acquisition; manner. Implemented in Establish No secondary Little or no compensation paid. Highly discretionary reserved land rights recognized. manner. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 76 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 18: Consensus Ranking on LGI 2 on Enforcement of Rights LGI Dimensions A B C D Surveying/mapping and registration of claims on communal or 2 i  indigenous land 2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system 2 iv  (urban/rural) Condominium regime that provides for appropriate management of 2 v  common property 2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  Total 6 0 0 2 4 From the discussion and table 18 above, inferences can be made that even though most land rights in the country are recognized by the existing legislation, enforcement of these rights is a problem. The poor state of property registration, the ignorance of most citizens about the existence of these rights and the absence of the Land Use and Allocation Committee in most states of the federation and the Land Use Advisory Committee in most Local Government Areas may be responsible for this. Thus, even where rights are not enforced, most Nigerians do not know how to go about claiming their rights while the very few who try to, meet brick walls. 4.1.3 Mechanisms for Recognition of Rights This indicator aims to assess the consistency and affordability of rights recognition mechanisms (formalization) with existing tenure practices. To be effective, it is important that these processes hinge upon a consistent definition and interpretation of rights in line with existing practices, that they be affordable and accessible to the concerned population, and that they be transparent. If formalization processes are not consistent with practices, there may be increased ambiguity in land rights and increased tenure insecurity. If they are not affordable, they may benefit richer households at the expense of the poor. If they are not transparent enough, they may encourage corruption and capture by the privileged. The dimensions designed for this indicator include:  Use of non-documentary forms of evidence to recognize rights  Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay formal fees  First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  Formalization of residential housing is feasible and affordable  Efficient and transparent process to formally recognize long-term unchallenged possession Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 77 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The LUA under Sec 36(3) indicates that an applicant at his discretion can present a sketch or diagram or other sufficient description of the land in question to claim its possession. This indicates that in the absence of documented evidences like receipts, sketches, and so on, „any other sufficient description‟ of the land which can be oral history may be used to claim ownership rights. In fact, this is the most prevalent method used to claim land ownership in the country especially those acquired before 1978. A good example is the case of the Crown grant of Lagos Island where non-documented evidences through oral history were used to claim ownership. Thus, non-documentary forms of evidence can be used to obtain recognition of a claim to property along with other documents (e.g. tax receipts or informal purchase notes) when other forms of evidence are not available even though the non documented evidences have less strength than the documented evidences. As regards the existence of legislation to recognize long-term, unchallenged possession of private or public land in the country, there is the limitation law which allows the continuous illegal occupation of a public land by an individual who has been on the land for more than twelve (12) years54. However, there exists no procedure for the registration of rights. Long-term, unchallenged possession of private and communal land is however lawful and can be registered upon the presentation of evidence of ownership which may also be non-documented. A number of factors is said to affect both the formal and informal cost of registering a title in land with the government whether at the state or local level. Some of these factors are the location of the land and how easily accessible it is, the size of the land and how fast the title holder wants his/her title to be ready55. Putting all these factors together, the cost for first time sporadic registration of land in the country for a typical urban property was assessed to exceed 5% of the property value. Indications are that the cost can be as high as 20.9%56. This can be attributed to the extraneous formal and informal fees often paid for land registration in the country. The formal cost is the official fees imposed on the title holder by the government and it is sometimes a certain percentage of the assessed value of the land sought to be registered. The informal cost however comprises of money given to officials of the government who work in the lands registry, survey and mapping department and or lands ministry to facilitate the processing of the registration. Apart from these fees paid as inducement to officials of the registry, the sum paid to private land surveyors, estate surveyors, lawyers and other property management officials which are often employed to fast-track the land registration process can also be described as informal fees. It can thus be concluded that there are informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration and the level of informal fees is about the same as the formal fees. As noted earlier, most urban centers of the federation are dotted with informal settlements despite the availability of the opportunity for formalization. In Lagos State for instance, the interaction between the Expert Investigator and the officials of the Lagos State Directorate of Land Regularization revealed that out of the 1, 100 applications received annually, about 880 54 Section 16(2) of the Limitation Law Cap.118 of Lagos State 55 Interviews with legal practitioners in Cross-Rivers State and Benue State. This is also the practice in Lagos and states all over the country. 56 Doing Business in Nigeria Report (2011). www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/nigeria/ Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 78 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE (80%) are usually successful. The rejected applications in many cases are those which fall short of minimum planning regulations and standards especially lands falling within government committed areas, road alignments, lands under high tension power lines, petroleum product pipes, canal setbacks amongst others. Other obstacles to the feasibility and affordability of formalizing urban housing include the following:  Most land/property owners who may want to formalize their residential housing occupy customary lands and to them formalization is deemed very difficult since it requires the presentation of documents which are difficult to acquire.  Most informal land settlers are low income earners often unable to pay the cost of formalization  Absence of documents for sensitizing the public on the process of formalization  Inadequate monitoring and non enforcement of the provisions of the LUA  Absence of a universal procedure for formalization in the country  The formalization requirements are also not statutory but only administrative which often necessitate the use discretion by the officer in charge  In most cases, lots of informal fees are paid along with the formal fees and other requirements to formalize properties. The impact of these obstacles on formalization is such that most housing units in urban areas remain informal. Some inhabitants of informal urban areas however still struggle to satisfy the formalization requirements despite the unclear, ineffective or inconsistent implementation process. Table 19: Consensus Ranking of LGI 3 on Mechanisms for Recognition of Rights LGI Dimensions A B C D 3 i Use of non-documentary forms of evidence to recognize rights  3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to 3 iii  pay formal fees 3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  3 v Formalization of residential housing is feasible and affordable  Efficient and transparent process to formally recognize long- 3 vi  term unchallenged possession Total 6 0 0 4 2 This indicator designed to assess the available mechanism for recognition of continuum of rights in the country was rated poor (table 19). This may be attributed to the absence of the appropriate legislation for the proper enforcement of the rights which result in the use of discretion by the enforcement agencies in the course of their duties. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 79 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.1.4 Restrictions on Rights This indicator assesses the justifications of restrictions on land rights. These restrictions can be in relation to ownership, owner, nature of use, size of holding, or transactions such as restrictions on transfer by sale, gift or exchange, lease, transfer price or rent, mortgage, etc. Two (2) dimensions were assessed under this indicator and they include;  Restrictions on ownership, transferability, land use or plot characteristics of urban land are justified and enforced.  Restrictions on ownership, transferability, land use or plot characteristics of rural land are justified and enforced. Generally, the current state of the country is such that the Land Use Act makes provision for the overall public interest which is in most cases justified, but these provisions are rarely implemented. Except for the prices of land which is often controlled by the market forces, restrictions exist on land transaction, land ownership, ownership types, and size of holdings (see table 20). For instance, the provision of LUA restricts an individual from owning more than half hectare of undeveloped land in the urban areas. It also restricts the sub-division or laying out in plots and transfer of lands in the rural areas. Table 20: Types of Restrictions Restrictions on land ownership (for each one of the restrictions Exists, Non- Exist & Brief description of restriction and listed below, tick appropriate but not existent Enforced Comments column and provide comment enforced where relevant) Restrictions on: According to the land use act  Rural: Non sale of agricultural lands Land transactions   Urban: Non sale of land without the consent of the governor Land ownership NIL Formerly in existence during the Owner type  indigenization era but have been removed with the introduction of the land use act. Use  The few land use plans where they exist Land Use Act  Rural: 500 ha for agriculture and 5000ha Size of holding  for grazing.  Urban: 0.5 ha of undeveloped land Influence of market forces Price  Government assessment Rent  The rent edict These restrictions are meant to curb land speculators in urban areas and also discourage land fragmentation in the rural areas. Enforcement of these restrictions is however rare as it is evident that the ownership of more than half hectares of undeveloped land by individuals in urban areas is rampant while the sale of land without the consent of the Governor is common. Indeed neither the governor nor the local government has information about the lands and their owners. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 80 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The need for land and normal urban population growth often force urban residents to move out of the original urban areas to acquire and develop land in otherwise agricultural and rural neighbouring communities for primarily residential and associated purposes. In effect, rural lands adjoining existing major towns and cities are being sold and developed to the knowledge and approval of the local government councils notwithstanding the illegality of the transactions as stipulated by the LUA. There is no record of any individual being prosecuted for sale of land the subject of customary Right of Occupancy contrary to Section 36 (6). In fact, instruments of transfer referred to in the Section 36 are used daily in the courts as proof of purchase of land and for the obtaining of Certificates of Occupancy from the appropriate government, (state, or local). It can thus be summed up that even though series of regulations on land restrictions in rural and urban areas that are for the most part justified on the basis of overall public interest exist in the country, they are however rarely enforced. It is also correct to say that since the LUA is not fully understood, many rights are not only unknown to most of the people, but even worse, avenue for securing them are not in place. Table 21: Consensus Ranking of LGI 4 on Restriction on Rights LGI Dimensions A B C D Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and 4 i  transferability Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and 4 ii  transferability Total 2 0 2 0 0 In conclusion, the assessment of this indicator (table 21) reveals that the laws theoretically provides restrictions regarding urban and rural land use, ownership and transfer which are in most cases justified, but in practice, these restrictions are rarely enforced. This may be attributed to lack of basic land use and cadastral information as well as the absence of efficient monitoring infrastructure. 4.1.5 Clarity of mandates and practice Overlaps or gaps in mandates or actual functions performed by land administration institutions (either horizontally or vertically) allow for discretion, which may cause ambiguity and increase transaction costs for those who need to use these institutions, thereby pushing potential users into informality. They can also create confusion or parallel structures that can threaten the integrity and reliability of documents and information provided by land sector institutions, thus undermining confidence in property rights and creating threats to good governance. The assessment of this indicator therefore made use of four (4) dimensions concerned with; the clarity of mandates of land institutions, the effectiveness of the land administration system in avoiding horizontal and vertical overlaps, and the ability to share land related information. To begin, it should be noted that there are several institutions in Nigeria that have mandates relating to land and its management. Primarily, the Land Use Act prescribes that State governors Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 81 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE be vested with the land management responsibilities in their States 57while the local governments are charged with management of land in the non-urban areas of the States58. In spite of these, the Act stipulates that the regulation of the issuance of certificates of Occupancy resides in the National Council of States59. The Law also preserves the rights of Federal government to their existing lands through their respective institutions prior to the Land Use Act. This provision of the law and other legislations empowers the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing now Federal Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development to control and manage Federal lands in various parts of the nation. It can thus be inferred that some separation in the roles of policy formulation exist in the country. Implementation of the land management and administration policies and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of the policy is however a problem because overlapping and conflicting responsibilities that lead to occasional problems abound. This, in most cases, may be due to the ‗ignorance‘ of some institutions on the limit of their responsibilities which makes them take up the responsibilities of other institutions. Instances of horizontal overlap of mandates include; the case of the Federal Ministry of Housing and Urban Development which is charged with the development of Federal Lands and has carried out its mandate in establishing housing estates throughout the nation which it now sells to private individuals all over the country. It however carries out its mandate within the Federal Capital Territory independent of another arm of the federal government, the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA). These two federal institutions carry out the same service of developing and selling lands and housing units in the FCT, Abuja, operating under different Laws. These two federal bodies by virtue of the Registration of Lands Law of the Northern Nigeria (Abuja) and the Lands Registries (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act have established two distinct Lands Registries, Abuja Geographic Information System (AGIS) and Federal Land Information System (FELIS) respectively. The Federal Lands Registry is by law required to keep its headquarters in Lagos for the registration of title of all Federal Government Lands whereas the AGIS in Abuja registers all lands in the FCT. The truth therefore is that the FCT consists of lands belonging to the Federal government and so the FMLH&UD has conflicting mandates with the FCDA on the management and administration of lands in Abuja. Other arms of the government including the Federal Airports Authority, the Nigerian Army, Air force, Navy, and Customs among others have all also embarked on mass housing estates development for sale to their Staffs and the general public. The mandates of these institutions are thus overlapping those of the FMLH&UD. It can thus be seen that although the mandated responsibilities of the various authorities dealing with land administration issues in the country are defined, institutional overlap with those of other land sector agencies and inconsistency is a problem. 57 Section 2(1)(a) of the LUA 58 Section 2(1)(b) of the LUA. 59 Section 46(1) LUA. The state governors are however in violation of this provision making regulations on matters outside the scope of their power as prescribed by the LUA. The Lagos State government for instance in their Land Use Regulations of 1981 prescribed a term limit for Customary Right of Occupancy in spite of the absence of any provision in the LUA attempting to limit the tenure of a grant of Customary Right of Occupancy. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 82 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 22: Land Management Institutions Institutions (Central Separation of Overlap occurs Type of Land/ Responsibility/ S/N and decentralized policies and with which other Resources Mandate authorities) functions institution? Federal Ministry of  Mapping Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural  Assessment Separation of Lands, Housing and 1 Agricultural land Development  Upgrading policies exists Urban Development (FMARD)  Maintenance (FMLH&UD)  Acquisition Federal Ministry of Federal Ministry of  Management Agriculture and Lands, Housing and All types of Land for Separation of 2  Administration Rural Development Urban Development all purposes policies exists  Valuation (FMARD) and other (FMLH&UD)  Registration Federal Ministries Land for Acquisition of land for Federal Ministry of Federal Ministry of infrastructural the construction of Separation of Lands, Housing and 3 Power purposes (transmission transmission lines and policies exists Urban Development (PHCH) lines and power power stations (FMLH&UD) stations) Power stations, Federal Ministry of Federal Ministry of Acquisition of land for Distribution stations, Separation of Lands, Housing and 4 Petroleum the construction and offices and residential policies exists Urban Development (NNPC) laying of pipeline, estates (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry of Construction and laying Transportation Federal Ministry of Land for Railways of rail-line  Nigeria Railways Separation of Lands, Housing and 5 station, Rail lines and Management and Corporation policies exists Urban Development Port development maintenance of  Nigeria Ports (FMLH&UD) waterways Authority Federal Ministry of Water Resources Federal Ministry of Construction and  Dams Land for Dams and Separation of Lands, Housing and 6 management of Dams  River Basin Irrigation policies exists Urban Development and reservoirs Development (FMLH&UD) Authorities Federal Ministry of Federal Ministry of works Federal Government Highways construction Separation of Lands, Housing and 7  Roads and Roads and maintenance policies exists Urban Development Highways (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry of Acquisition of land for Federal Ministry of Aviation Airports and the construction of Separation of Lands, Housing and 8  Federal Airport residential estates Airports and residential policies exists Urban Development Authority of Nigeria estates. (FMLH&UD) (FAAN) Federal Ministry Of Acquisition of land for Federal Ministry of Defence Military Barracks, the construction of Separation of Lands, Housing and 9  Army Bases and training Barracks and training policies exists Urban Development  Navy ground grounds. (FMLH&UD)  Air-Force Federal Ministry of Federal Capital Acquisition of land for Separation of Lands, Housing and 10 Territory Authority Land within the FCT the development of the policies exists Urban Development FCTA federal capital territory (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry of Acquisition of land for Interior Federal Ministry of Barrack, Stations, the construction of  Prison Separation of Lands, Housing and 11 Prisons, and training Barrack, Stations,  Police policies exists Urban Development grounds Prisons, and training  Immigration (FMLH&UD) grounds  Custom Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 83 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Federal Ministry of Federal Ministry of Acquisition of land for Separation of Lands, Housing and 12 Land for schools. Education educational purposes policies exists Urban Development (FMLH&UD) Acquisition of land for Federal Ministry of Central Bank of Offices and residential the construction of Separation of Lands, Housing and 13 Nigeria estates offices and residential policies exists Urban Development estates (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry of Acquisition of land for Lands, Housing and All lands (urban & Separation of 14 State Governments the development of the Urban Development rural) within the state. policies exists state (FMLH&UD), Local Governments Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Acquisition of land for Separation of Urban Development 15 Local Governments All rural lands the development of the policies exists (FMLH&UD), State local government. Governments Agencies Vertical overlap of responsibilities also exists. Instances of conflicts between institutions at different levels of government saddled with the responsibility of managing public lands are prominent. Cases where the Certificates of Occupancy given by the federal government are not acknowledged by the states also exist. Other instances where state governments take over the management of land (roads, coastal areas, estates and so on) owned by federal government also exist especially in states like Lagos and Ondo. State governments in the whole of the federation have also been accused of taking over the responsibilities of the local governments under the excuse of inadequate funds and manpower on the part of the local government. This problem may be attributed to inadequate understanding of the independent roles of each government level. Still on vertical overlaps, there is the instance of the Ministry of Petroleum whose mandate is to grant oil prospecting leases over oil blocks in the territories 60 of Nigeria without regard to local government or state governors in whom the land in a state is vested. The registry for these leases granted by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources is not the State Land Registry and it has not been in the mandate of the Federal Lands Registry. There is also the case of the Minister in charge of Mines whose mandate is to grant leases for quarrying activities 61 notwithstanding the mandate of the local government over land in rural areas and as it is always the case; the local government is never consulted in the grant of quarrying license. While the federal government claims right over lands in water-fronts of inter-state rivers, the governors in whose states these lands exist also grant rights to the same lands in their territories. The mandate and criteria for designating lands as urban area is clearly that of the federal government in the mandate granted to the National Council of States (Section 3 & 5 (51) (1) h) but the states have exercised this mandate and others without consultation with the federal government. The mandate of prescribing condition for grant of Certificate of Occupancy has been clearly usurped by state government in clear violation of the provisions of Section 46 of the 60 Section 2 of the Petroleum Act, CAP P10, LFN 61 Minerals and Mining Act, section 195. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 84 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Land Use Act. It is therefore opined that the division of land-related responsibilities between the different levels of government is clear with minor overlaps. With regards to the access to land information, it is only possible at the headquarters of the registries located in the state capitals or the federal capital territory. Lots of discrepancies in the land registration procedure make the process very difficult. The recording formats which are often different, with the different states and the federal government using different designs also makes the accessibility to land information difficult. For instance, accessing information on Agricultural land should normally start from the local government area where the land is located. The local government authorities will identify the land and invite the owners. They will also serve as observers during the negotiation process between the land owners and buyers. For industrial lands, sensitization and awareness process are made to inform the public of their availability after which applications are made. The procedure is however often marred with corruption where public officials hoard information due to their plans of buying majority of them from the government because of the lack of public awareness and later sublease them at exorbitant prices to the members of the public who truly need the land. It can thus be noted that information related to rights in land is available to interested institutions and although this information is available at reasonable cost, it is not readily accessible as the information is not maintained in a uniform way. Table 23: Consensus Ranking of LGI 5 on Clarity of Mandates of Land Management Institutions LGI Dimensions A B C D 5 i Separation of institutional roles  5 ii Institutional overlap  5 iii Administrative overlap  5 iv Information sharing  Total 4 0 3 1 0 Inferences which can be made from the discussion and table 23 above is that there is a separation of institutional and administrative land management roles in the country, however cases of institutional and administrative overlap abound both at the horizontal and vertical levels resulting in occasional conflicts. This in most cases is due to lack of administrative policy, the ignorance of the agencies, absence of clear cut directives and inefficiency of some agencies in carrying out their roles. 4.1.6 Equity and non-discrimination in the decision-making process This indicator assesses the equity and transparency of land policy formulation and implementation. This is because there is a risk that land policies could serve the interest of well established groups at the expense of others (e.g. to the detriment of women, ethnic minorities, the landless, migrants, or the indigenous population), it is important that the interests of all relevant Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 85 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE stakeholders are taken into account when the policy is designed and when it is implemented. This indicator was assessed using the following 4 dimensions:  Clear land policy developed in a participatory manner  Meaningful incorporation of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with the benefits and is adequately resourced  Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation With reference to the availability of a comprehensive policy for national land management in the country, there is the Land Use Act (1978) which is meant to cater for land management in the rural and urban parts of the country. Apart from the LUA, specific attempt at rural land development have also been made with the formulation of the Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI) after which no concrete plan for rural land development for the country was attempted. Regional and local urban land management policies also exist in various states of the federation. The formulation of these land management policies are however rarely participatory. For instance, the LUA was enacted without an attempt at engaging the majority of the people in understanding its true purpose. The Act, with some of its good intentions, therefore remains socially unacceptable by the people and is at best seen as a tool in the hands of government to exploit the people further. Even though a few persons in urban areas are aware of the statutory right of occupancy provided by the law, hardly will anyone with a registered interest, especially a Freehold interest, apply to have his unlimited interest transferred and converted into a 99 year right of occupancy i.e. 99 year lease. In the rural areas, the situation is worse either as a result of ignorance, apathy, or outright rejection. Thus, hardly has any existing private owner (family or individual) applied to be issued a customary right of occupancy over their land. The few instances where public consultations on land policy formulation have been carried out in the country are also mostly cosmetic where Local government officials or nominations from political parties represent the communities in these consultations. It can therefore be concluded that policy exists or can be inferred by the existing legislation but it is incomplete (some key aspects are missing or only covers part of the country such as only urban or only rural areas) or land policy decisions that affect some sections of the community are made without consultation with those affected. As regard equity of land policies, (see table 24), the LUA does not discriminate between groups of people irrespective of their gender, status or ethnic composition. In fact, the law was established to enable easy access to land by all and sundry. It can thus be inferred that the National Land policy (LUA) incorporates some equity objectives but these are not regularly and meaningfully monitored. Informal disparities in the land right held by different groups of people residing in different parts of the country however exist. For instance, women are not allowed to own land in the eastern part of the country but in the north, the Sharia law which is in operation there gives 1/3 of the right of males to the females. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 86 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 24: Equity Goals in Land Policy Considered in Meaningfully Impact compared to Rights of Policy Monitored other policy instruments Considered but could Indigenous Not monitored; Impact not compared; be improved; Migrants Not considered; Not applicable Impact not compared; Landless Not considered; Not applicable Impact not compared; Considered but could Women Not monitored; Impact not compared; be improved; With regards to the costing and reporting of implementation progress of land policies, it should be noted that no land use plans exist for all rural lands in the country while the few existing urban plans are outdated. Inferences from this can then be that, no resource or budget have been allocated for the implementation of the non-existent plans. There is thus hardly any report or reporting process for rural land policy implementation. This is because rural land plans are absent; there is therefore nothing to report on. Table 25: Consensus Ranking of LGI 6 on Equity and Non-Discrimination in the Decision- Making Process LGI Dimensions A B C D 6 i Clear land policy developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with the 6 iii  benefits and is adequately resourced Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy 6 iv  implementation Total 4 0 0 2 2 Equity and non discriminatory practices are not observed as shown in table 25 and discussions. This can be attributed to the fact that land policy formulation and reforms are not participatory. It is thus a case of the government planning for the people and not with the people. Its insertion into the constitution has also made it difficult to amend. 4.1.7 Conclusion and Recommendation The findings arrived at, from the assessment of the legal and institutional framework of land management and administration in Nigeria, can be summarized thus:  It recognizes relevant land rights held by most Nigerians through the existing legislation although this may look useless since they are rarely enforced. The few unrecognized land rights can gain legal recognition using administrative methods which are unlegislated and often carried out with high level of discretion. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 87 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  The mechanism for the recognition of rights is also faulty since they are not clearly spelt out in the laws leading to the use of discretion in most cases.  The restrictions on land rights in the country are in most cases justified but are rarely implemented.  There exists some separation in the roles of policy formulation in the country but implementation of these policies and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of the policy is a problem because overlapping and conflicting responsibilities that lead to occasional problems abound.  The principal land policy which is presently being used in the country is detested by the public, since it lacks their inputs and is not protecting their interest. The consensus ranking of the legal and institutional framework for Nigeria is shown in Table 26. Table 26: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Legal and Institutional Framework LGI- Score Topic Dim A B C D Recognition of Rights 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)  1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)  1 iii Rural group rights recognition  1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas  1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization  Enforcement of Rights Surveying/mapping and registration of claims on communal or 2 i  indigenous land 2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system 2 iv  (urban/rural) Condominium regime that provides for appropriate management 2 v  of common property 2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 88 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Mechanisms for Recognition 3 i Use of non-documentary forms of evidence to recognize rights  3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to 3 iii  pay formal fees 3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  3 v Formalization of residential housing is feasible and affordable  Efficient and transparent process to formally recognize long- 3 vi  term unchallenged possession Restrictions on Rights Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and 4 i  transferability Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and 4 ii  transferability Clarity of Mandates 5 i Separation of institutional roles  5 ii Institutional overlap  5 iii Administrative overlap  5 iv Information sharing  Equity and Non-Discrimination 6 i Clear land policy developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with the benefits 6 iii  and is adequately resourced Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy 6 iv  implementation Total 27 2 5 12 8 To improve this situation there may be the need to:  Amend the land use act using the participatory approach. Through this method, the views of the public will be captured and they will respect and take the law as their own. Instances where the rights recognized by the amended law are not enforced will be challenged by the public since they know the law. The law should also be removed from the constitution to ensure easy amendment as event unfolds.  Development of a model law (to be adopted by the states) for regulating arrangements and maintenance of public property.  Strengthen the mechanism for land rights recognition which can be done with the proper funding of the agencies and the legislation of their roles.  Make restriction on land rights effective through effective monitoring by the land management agencies. The law breakers must be punished to serve as deterrents to others. Capacity building in all aspects of land administration should also be given a priority consideration. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 89 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Ensure a seamless integration of responsibilities among all bodies concerned with land management in the country. Institutional reforms for land management institution are therefore a must.  Create a national depository for land information which will serve as the central pool from which land information in the country can be accessed. The input to the national depository will come from the local government and state land registries. In this regard, a legislated policy will be required to achieve this goal over time. 4.2 Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation The five indicators with 17 dimensions that were assessed in this section are:  Transparency of land use restriction;  Efficiency in the land use planning process;  Speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land uses;  Transparency of valuations; and  Collection efficiency 4.2.1 Transparency of Land Use Restrictions The dimensions assessed under this indicator include; the level of public input into land use plans and changes in both urban and rural areas, public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use and speed of land use change. Transparency of land use restriction refers to the nature and level of information available to the public as it relates to land use restrictions. In the Nigerian context, many of these restrictions are in the form of legislative tools among which are the various hierarchies of land use plans. These plans are the major means through which different institutions guide the use of land under their control. For public institutions, national, regional, sub-regional, and district land use plans among others, are developed by federal, state and local governments to manage land within their purview while private institutions like individuals, corporate bodies, and universities, develop subject plans to guide the development of their estates. While some public plan developers sought public inputs in preparing and amending changes in their land use plans, others do not or pretend to. For instance, the developers of the Alimosho model city (Lagos state) and the Ogun State regional master plans sought public input even though this was done when the plans were nearing completion. Others organize make-believe public hearings where public inputs are sought in the preparation or amendments of plans but the real stakeholders at the grass root are not considered. These are cases where public hearings are organized and few local government officials and politicians are asked to make input to the plans leaving out the local people. It is thus, mostly a case of the government planning for the people and not with the people since even when public inputs are sought in preparing and amending land use plans, the public comments are largely ignored in the finalization of the plans . This description is applicable to the rural and urban areas of the country with the urban areas in some instances receiving better dealing than the rural areas. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 90 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE As regards the mechanism for capturing gains coming from changing land uses , the state and local governments often capitalize on change in land use such as road improvement and increasing commercial activities to increase their annual tenement rate, property taxes, and sometimes infrastructure development charge. Increases in these rates are discretional as there are no precise documents to support the rationale for their increase. The payment of these levies also does not automatically make the payer benefit as the levies are deposited into a central purse and redistributed in form of development without taking cognizance of the areas with the highest contribution. The benefits accruing from the payment of the levies are thus applied in a discretional manner where the public are only allowed to capture significant share of the gains from changing land use (e.g. betterment taxes, levies for infrastructure, property tax) in no definite or regulated manner. The Land Use Charge law just developed in Lagos, for instance, is supposed to be the consolidation of similar laws, unfortunately, this is not the case as the various sections affected by the consolidation are not explicitly stated. Consequently, other clauses of similar older laws are still implemented. Therefore it has been a subject of litigation, especially from the commercial and industrial sectors. Due to the fact that it is an annual liability, it has been regarded as an encumbrance to commerce and industry. Some of the companies, as stated in Afolayan and Babawale (2010), are considering relocation to other states where the business environment is more conducive. Also, Oni (2010) is of the opinion that the basis of assessment should be the net annual value. All these are evidences pointing to the discretionary nature of charges and gains on land use changes especially in terms of taxes and levies. As noted earlier, most land use plans developed by institutions in charge of land management in the country are obsolete. Land use changes in most cases are therefore unchecked and erratic due to the absence of the controlling mechanism. It is also difficult to assess how far the changes to the destined use are, in the absence of current plans. Government agencies most often rely on their personal experience or obsolete planning information to satisfy developers‘ wishes or political exigencies. Significant land use changes are however noticeable, especially conversion from residential to commercial premises in urban areas and extensive change especially from agriculture to residential land use in the urban fringes and rural areas. It can therefore be opined that less than 30% of the land that has had a change in land use assignment in the past 3 years has changed to the destined use since it is the closest to the present situation of the country. Table 27: Consensus Ranking of LGI 7 on Transparency of Land Use Restrictions LGI Dimensions A B C D In urban areas, land use plans and changes to these are 7 i  based on public input In rural areas, land use plans and changes to these are based 7 ii  on public input Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted 7 iii  land use 7 iv Speed of land use change  Total 4 0 0 2 2 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 91 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE This indicator designed to assess the transparency of Land Use restriction revealed that there is absolutely no transparency in the Land Use restriction in the country (table 27) because most land use plans and changes are not based on public inputs. Benefits accruing from land use changes are also applied in a discretional manner while the speed of land use change to its destined use cannot be measured due to the absence of land use plans. The major problem is therefore the non-existence of land use plans in most parts of the country. There is also the problem of the non-participatory nature of making the few existing ones. 4.2.2 Efficiency in the land use planning process In this sub-section, the following dimensions were assessed:  Process for planned urban development in the largest city;  Process for planned urban development in the 4 largest cities (excluding the largest);  Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth;  Plot size adherence;  Use plans for specific land classes (forest, pastures, etc) are in line with use. Lagos, which is the largest city in Nigeria, has no current/operative, regional/detailed land use plan. The present practice is the use of the expired 1985 master plan to guide the general use and management of land in the city. The situation may, however, improve with the re-organization and restructuring of the Lagos state Physical Planning and Development Authority whose responsibilities include the preparation and approval of the following hierarchies of physical planning plans:  Regional plan  Sub-regional plan  District plans  Model plans  Urban/town plans  Urban regeneration/development plans  Local/Layout plans  Subject plans This authority has, over the years, been preparing model city plans for land management in different parts of the city. In this sense, the Ikeja and Victoria Island/Ikoyi Model City plans have been promulgated into law while the Alimosho Model City plan is currently in the public domain for final comments from the stakeholders. Still ongoing, however, is the Apapa, Badagry and Mainland Model City plans which have already been presented to the stakeholders and the draft final reports have been submitted for consideration. Despite the efforts of the government, the need to prepare an up to date higher order master plan that will cover the whole of the city cannot be overemphasized. The obvious uncoordinated development experienced in the city with informality taking over the landscape may explain this. The ‗planlessness‘ of the informal areas also makes service delivery impossible. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 92 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE In addition to the development of current master plans, the Lagos State Physical Planning and Development Regulations (2007) made set-back provisions for water bodies, highways, roads and rail lines as presented below. Similar provisions are applicable in other states of the federation.  Standard proportion of land use coverage allowed for different classes of land uses (residential density types i.e high, medium and low density): Generally in many states of Nigeria, 60% land use coverage is allowed for high density residential plots as built-up area, while 50% and 40% respectively are allowed for medium and low density residential plots.  Water bodies set-back requirements: According to section 16 (5) of the Lagos planning regulations it shall not be less than 150 meters between the building and ocean/sea shore: 50 meters, 15 meters and 10 meters for lagoons, river/creek, and gorge/canal/drainage respectively.  Maximum land use coverage for other land uses are as follows: commercial -70%, industrial – 60%, place of worship/ assembly/conference centre – 50%.  Setbacks for highway and roads are also specified in section 16 (1) for various road categories as follows:  Primary Road (federal/or state) 90 meters right-of-way, 45metres from the centre  Secondary road (60 meters right –of- way) – 30 metres from the centre,  Local road (state) (24m, 18m, 15m, 12m) 12m, 9m, 7.5m and 6m respectively from the center of the road and;  Access road/street – 9 meters – 6 meters from the edge.  Set back to rail lines shall not be less than 21 meters from the edge of the rail line to the building as specified in section 16 (2).  The minimum horizontal distance between a building and the center line of the overhead wire cable as stated in section 16 (3) shall not be less than the following: 11KV- 6 meters, 33KV- 9 meters, 132KV – 15 meters.  Also provisions are made for car parking space requirements for various land uses and number of family units allowed in various residential plots as stated in section 17 (1-5) and section 19 respectively. Despite all these restrictive clauses made to achieve orderly and safe urban environment, many of these clauses are not practically implemented on site, even though at the proposal stage on plans submitted to various planning agencies, these requirements are satisfied. It can thus be concluded that in Lagos, the largest city in the country, a hierarchy of regional/detailed land use plans may be specified by law but in practice urban development occurs in an ad hoc manner with little if any infrastructure provided in most newly developing areas. Therefore to achieve the spirit of various planning regulations in different parts of Nigeria, planning agencies should embark on post building permit inspection especially after the setting out and during the construction of foundation stage of building to enforce and ensure that what is constructed on site is the same as what was approved. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 93 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The situation in Lagos is not very different from those of Kano, Ibadan, Kaduna, and Port Harcourt which are the four other largest cities in the country. Thus, these cities do not have up to date master plans and like all other urban centers in the country are developing in ad hoc manners with informal settlements everywhere. Lower level plans like subject and layout plans are the most common plans in existence and are in most cases disjointed and uncoordinated. It can thus be concluded that in all major cities of Nigeria, hierarchies of regional/detailed land use plans may be specified by law but in practice urban development occurs in an ad hoc manner with little if any infrastructure provided in most newly developing areas. Plan Preparation and Administration, and the types and levels of physical development plans required for orderly development of urban areas as stated in the Nigeria Urban and Regional Planning Decree No 88, 1992 Part I, are classified into three (3). The first are the plans that should be prepared at the Federal level which include the following: the National physical development plan, regional plans, sub-regional plans, urban plans, and subject plans. The second are to be prepared at the state level and they include: Regional plans, sub-regional plans, urban plans and local plans while at the third level which is the Local level, there shall be the town plans, rural plans, local plans and subject plans. For the implementation of these plans at various levels, the Federal Government is to set up the National Urban and Regional Planning Commission while the States are to set up various State Urban and Regional Planning Boards and at the Local level, the Local Planning Authorities in each of the Local Government Area. Unfortunately, the National Urban and Regional Planning Commission have not been set up while it is only in few states that functional State Planning Boards exist. This is the major reason why the various levels of development plans expected to be prepared have not been done across the country. Since the mechanism for urban development and land use planning have not been given the pride of place it deserves, the preparation of the necessary planning documents and setting up of the appropriate implementation mechanism to effectively cope with the rate of urban development is at loss. With the absence or indolence of these agencies, the government in most cases therefore lacks the information on the rate or level of urban growth. Authority in most cases are thus seen struggling to cope with the increasing demand for serviced units/land. It can hence be inferred that, in the largest as well as the other four largest cities in the country, the urban planning process/authorities are struggling to cope with the increasing demand for serviced units/land as evidenced by the fact that most new dwellings are informal. As regards the existence of standard sizes for residential plots for the country, 60x120 ft is used for the Southern part of the country while 50 x100 feet is used for the North62. These plot sizes are often adhered to by most urban dwellers since land allocations by the government and customary owners are done using these measures. The percentage building coverage permitted by planning regulation is however rarely adhered to. Even though the design proposals presented for planning development permit often indicate that maximum buildable area is 60%, actual construction normally covers more than that in all Nigerian urban areas as developers / plot owners always encroach on all setbacks (fronts, sides and back). For plots located along major roads, the tendencies of land owners are to erect shops along the front property lines to serve as 62 Professional experience of the panel members Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 94 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE another source of revenue or to be used by a member of the family as a business transaction point. Despite the explicit requirement as stated in various state planning legislations, existing requirements for residential plot sizes are met between 50% and 70% of plots. It should also be noted that, with the absence of a national land use plan and the ineffectiveness of the monitoring agencies, forest and other rural agricultural lands which are expected to be 25% of the total lands in a standard land use plans for any country covers a meagre 9.9%63 in Nigeria with most of them presently been cleared for agricultural cultivation. The share of land set aside for specific use that is used for a non-specified purpose in contravention of existing regulations is thus greater than 50%. Table 28: Consensus Ranking of LGI 8 on Efficiency of Land Use Planning LGI Dimensions A B C D 8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city  Process for planned urban development in the 4 largest cities 8 ii  (exc. largest) 8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Plot size adherence  Use plans for specific land classes (forest, pastures etc) are 8 v  in line with use Total 5 0 0 2 3 It can be inferred from the discussion and table 28 that, the land use planning process in the country is highly inefficient. The planning agencies have not been able cope with urban growth in any of the major cities of the country since all these cities lack current land use plans. The absence of efficient monitoring teams in the planning agencies also makes the non adherence to plot sizes go unchecked. 4.2.3 Speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land uses Under this indicator, the affordability, mechanism and the time it takes to process applications for building permits for residential dwellings are assessed. This dimension is very important since obstacles to obtaining building permits may not only lead to the arbitrary treatment of land users but can also lead to an inefficient allocation of land (if the users who would put the land to its best use do not obtain the permission to do so) and hinder investments and economic development given the uncertainty and costs associated with the procedure. Furthermore, an opaque and lengthy process may facilitate corruption and the rent seeking behaviour of administration officers at the detriment of land users. 63 World Bank (2010) Forest area (% of land area) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS 4/8/2011 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 95 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Generally, it takes a long time to complete the processing of documents on land matters in Nigeria. Obtaining building permits in urban areas of the country may thus be regarded as a herculean task. This may be attributable to the lack of land use master plans which leaves the process of decision making to the whims and caprices of planning officials who in most cases rely on the obsolete land use master plans or their personal experiences on the job (Kadiri, 2009)64. Coupled with this is the issue of inadequate and poor quality of staff in the services of the planning authorities. There is also the problem of low quality and quantity of equipment for planning. The cost of fulfilling the requirements (table 29) needed for the granting of these approvals (with the introduction of informal fees) is also so high that it gets out of the reach of the poor. Obvious in most urban centres of the country therefore are informal settlements, sub-standard buildings and structures built without regards to the planning laws. This may be as a result of property owners building without approvals or inappropriate approval given by planning officials due to corruption or lack of infrastructure for planning as noted earlier. Table 29: Procedures to be followed for the Approval of Building Permit Efficiency & Technical Justification for Estimated Steps Agency Justification Transparency of the key steps time (days) the process. Local Planning To prevent arbitrariness in Charting Not stipulated Authority development Submission of Necessary for checking drawings i.e. Local Planning Clearly minimum building Not stipulated architectural and Authority justified standards prescribed survey plans Plan assessment To prevent arbitrariness in Clearly Ditto Not stipulated for payable fees payment of fees justified Payment of fees through delegated To prevent embezzlement Clearly banks and Ditto of fees paid by individuals Not stipulated justified collection of in the approving agency receipts State To enforce compliance to Inspection of Environmental Clearly approved site Not stipulated Not very Efficient development site Protection justified characteristics and transparent Agency Report of existing situation before To prevent mismanagement Clearly Ditto Not stipulated starting of site development justified development Recommendation of proposals for To ensure that approvals Clearly Ditto Not stipulated approval and follow due process justified Approval Assessment and Payment of To raise revenue for the Clearly Ditto Not stipulated development government justified charges To ensure that approvals Clearly Plan Dispatch Ditto Not stipulated follow due process justified 64 Kadiri, W.A (2009). Our Cities, Our Future: Dialogue on Urban Planning Challenges and Management. Abeokuta: GAA Publishers, 191 – 209. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 96 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Generally, it can be summed up that even though requirements to obtain a building permit are technically justified, they are however not affordable for the majority of those affected. The volume of the documents required for building permit is quite wholesome and expensive to procure. Processing of development permit or building plan approval is based on the following requirements which may vary depending on the nature or type of proposal.  Proof of ownership/title document with C of O mandated as pre-condition for submission of building plans  Copy of sun print Survey Plan (Beacon Sheet, in case of Government Estate)  5 sets of architectural drawing  5 sets of structural drawing with calculation sheets  Letter of supervision from a Registered Engineer (COREN)  Current income tax clearance certificate  Current Special Development Levy Receipt.  Tenement rate / sworn affidavit in lieu  Clearance letter from relevant government agencies like:- Drainage, Urban Renewal Authority, PHCN, Fire Service, Sewage etc. where applicable  2 Copies of Technical Report (where applicable), prepared by a registered Town Planner  Infrastructure development charges Given these requirements, the plan approval process follows the following procedures, with the key officers of the District Town Planning Office (DO) or Local Planning Offices (LPO) performing different functions as described.  District Town Planning Officer As professional and administrative head of the District Office, the District Officer (DO) vets application plans for assessment and registration; refers application for inspection, charting, E.I.A.R. clearance, vetting special clearance either from drainage PHCN, Fire Service Sewage etc; Send plans to Stamp and Seal, and finally, recommend to General Manager (GM) for further clearance prior the final approval.  District Engineer As a registered engineer covering the District Office, the officer assesses structural, mechanical/electrical drawings and calculations; gives advice on the suitability for approval or disapproval of the plan.  District Recommending Officer The officer checks documentation (Drawings, proof of ownership, C of O, tax papers etc.); check payment receipts; charting report; site sketch and report; check engineering drawings and calculations; check approval E.IA.R; and recommend plan for approval or disapproval to the District Officer  Site Inspection Officer The officer inspects the site for collection of physical development and planning data; and writes site report to assist in decision making on the application. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 97 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Charting Officer The Charting Officer role is the determination, confirmation and recording of the true position/location of the subject site on the state‘s land use zoning, acquisition / revocation, excision and drainage maps and relevant schemes. The charting officer stamps and seals application approved or disapproved. The approval procedure wields approval power to the top State functionaries, while the technocrats are striped of this power. Specifically, the District Officer only approves a bungalow on the advice of General Manager (GM), while the GM approves Storey Building only, the Permanent Secretary approves 2-4 floors; Honourable Commissioner approves 5 – 6 floors, while His Excellency the Governor approves 7 floors and above. The effect of the cumbersome process with long list of documents and high cost required to obtain building permit has discouraged prospective developers from seeking building permit. The implication of this is reflected in the current waves of illegal developments and increasing wave of collapse buildings in major cities of Nigeria. The time required to obtain a building permit however varies between the different states of the federation. While in some states, approval can be granted within one week, others grant approvals in about six months and above. It can thus be summed up that all applications for building permits receive a decision within 12 months. In addition to the cost of sourcing the required documents, other factors causing the delay in obtaining a building permit for residential dwelling include the following:  Use of quacks by some applicants  Ignorance on the side of applicants  Incomplete payment of fees  Incomplete or wrong information  Non provision of model plans by the government to the developers  Difficulty in carrying out sight inspection Table 30: Consensus Ranking of LGI 9 on Speed and Predictability LGI Dimensions A B C D Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are 9 i  affordable and processed in a non-discretionary manner. Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential 9 ii  dwelling Total 2 0 0 2 0 In summary, the speed and predictability of obtaining building permit for residential dwellings in the country can be described as fairly good (table 30). However, while it takes a long time to obtain building permits in some few states like Lagos, Rivers, and Abuja where we have back logs of applications, in most others, it can be obtained in a relatively short time. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 98 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.2.4 Transparency of Valuations Land taxes can generate significant revenue for the government and generate important incentives against land speculation. There is therefore the need for land and property valuations to be transparent, accurate, and publicly available so as to avoid treating taxpayers unequally, to prevent the collusion of taxpayers and officials involved in tax collection (as this may lead to reduced public financial resources), and to establish the credibility in the institution of property and land taxation. Thus, this indicator assesses the clarity of the process for property valuation as well as the public availability of valuation rolls. In this regard, there is a dearth of professionals in the field of property valuation. Except in states like Lagos, Kano, Rivers and the Federal capital city, Abuja where relatively high number of professional Valuers can be found in the services of the government, most other states often use non professionals to carry out the property valuation process. The assessment of land/property for the tax purpose is therefore mostly done by non professionals who create confusion in service delivery, especially in the area of property categorization. Lack of standard rules for property valuation also makes the officers in the tax office carry out their activities with discretion. Apart from this, land use charges differ from state to state and even within states, the rates published are often at variance with the open market charges. Land/property assessment for taxation purposes is therefore unclear in most states of the federation as market price is not the basis for the property land assessment. This consensus option was however seriously debated during the validation exercise where it was argued that some land/property assessments in the country are done based on market prices. With the diverse opinions which might be related to the location and expertise of the participants, the CC subjected the re-assessment of this dimension to a vote with those in support of option C which states that the assessment of land/property for tax purposes has some relationship to market prices, but there are difference between recorded values and market prices across different uses or types of users. Valuation rolls are not updated regularly numbering 15 while those in support of option D which states that the assessment of land/property for tax purposes is not clearly based on market prices are 7 in number. The consensus was thus changed from D to C. The different types of land/property taxes in existence in Nigeria include the following:  Capital gain tax: a tax on capital gain made on sale/dispose of chargeable assets  Value Added Tax (VAT): a levy on the amount that a business firm adds to the price of a commodity during production and distribution.  Capital transfer/Inheritance tax/Gift tax: these are groups of taxes that are normally considered together since they all involve the transfer of property from one person to the other. They are imposed on the capital value of properties transferred.  Withholding tax: a compulsory deduction from rent receivable from a property and payable to the tax authority in the locality where is situated. It is a form of a tax on the landlord‘s personal income (rent) which he is compelled by law to pay to government. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 99 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Site value rating: a tax levied on land cleared of buildings. It is a tax on unimproved capital value of the site and it is normally based on the determined market value of the land.  Land Use charge or tenement rate:  Special assessment tax: a tax imposed on owners of landed properties as the need arises. They are meant to raise funds to meet specific public improvement such as road, water supply, street lighting and other specific public improvement which enhance the value of the property taxed  Documentary tax/Stamp duty: a form of tax payable on all instrument or documents executed within a country where the tax is applicable. According to the law, documents must be stamped before they can be tendered as evidence in court or presented for registration.  Betterment tax: a tax levied on all beneficiaries of public works, development and planning control activities.  Severance tax: a tax levied to ensure that all benefits from the natural resources of the country are shared by all.  Property rating: a form of land valuation where annual levies are imposed on occupiers of land and buildings in respect of profitable or beneficial occupation.  Planning tax: a fee charged by the planning office in respect of the location or conformity in use of the property.  Estate fee/Probate tax: a tax paid before granting letters of probate following the death of the owners of property. The tax assessment or chargeable amount is based on the open market value of the deceased‘s estate as at the date of death. Issues of improper valuation were attributed to the non enforcement and inadequate monitoring of the valuation laws which makes the laws useless; difficult public accessibility to information; and unlegislated land tax rates. With reference to the accessibility of valuation rolls, a policy stating that valuation rolls be made publicly accessible is available in the country and it is embedded in the tenement edict. In consonance with this policy, Lagos State for instance has a list where properties assessed and responsibilities of the owners are recorded. The land use charge office also has an estimate of valuated properties with the tax responsibilities of the owners. The Lagos experience is however not universal as most other states do not have valuation rolls. Where they are available the general public does not have easy access to these rolls and so the property owners do not know their responsibilities. It can thus be concluded that there is a policy that valuation rolls be publicly accessible and this policy is effective for a minority of properties that are considered for taxation. Table 31: Consensus Ranking of LGI 10 on Transparency of Valuation LGI Dimensions A B C D 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  Total 2 0 0 2 0 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 100 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE It can be inferred from the assessment (table 31) and discussions above that, despite the prospects of huge revenue that can be generated from carrying out an accurate valuation of properties in the country, this opportunity is neglected. This in many cases is attributable to the absence of standard rules for property valuation in the country and the dearth of professionals in the land valuation profession. 4.2.5 Collection efficiency Under this indicator, the following elements of collection efficiency are assessed:  Exemptions from property taxes are justified;  Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll;  Assessed property taxes are collected; and  Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection Exemptions from the payment of land/property taxes exist in the country. Religious properties like churches, mosques and public buildings like hospitals, schools and other non-profit making organizations are exempted from paying taxes. Exemptions are based on the rationale that these institutions are meant for the general good of the public and that they are non-profit making. The bases for these exemptions are however not often consistent. These institutions are sometimes changed from the use for which they have been given exemptions to other uses. For instance, a religious property given exemption can later be changed to other commercial uses and the absence of an efficient monitoring agency makes this go unnoticed and the exemption granted may not be revoked. There are also discretional exemptions such as gratis whose rationale is based on the property owner‘s affiliation with government. It can thus be concluded that there are limited exemptions to the payment of land/property taxes, and the exemptions that exist are clearly based on equity or efficiency grounds but are not applied in a transparent and consistent manner. As noted earlier, tax rolls are available in most states of the federation even though they are not accessible to the public. These rolls in most cases are outdated leaving out substantial property owners. It also in some other cases aggregate together and apply flat rates to areas without considering the type or value of property. Updating the tax rolls is thus a problem due to the extensive informal land transactions going on in the country and the uncontrolled development of informal settlements in the country. For the country, less than 50% of property holders liable for land/property tax are listed on the tax roll. The use of land/property taxation may not be an effective revenue generation tool by the local government in Nigeria since they are often unable to follow through on collections, as the costs of collections in most cases exceed the amount collected. The inadequate and poor quality of professionals in the valuation and tax offices, is also a problem with most assessments been done by non professionals who do not have the adequate knowledge of valuation. Cases where flat rates have applied are rampant making the returns coming to the government insignificant. Thus, it can be concluded that between 50% and 70% of assessed property taxes are collected. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 101 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE There is also the inefficient process of assessing properties which involves:  valuation of the property by the valuation officer;  the development of the valuation list by the valuation officer;  the preparation of property tax rolls and then dispatching the notice to Landlords; and  the landlords are then expected to go to the valuation offices to pay. This process is meant to be an annual event which in most cases, is not done. Land/property owners also do not have the culture of paying tax on their own except when forced. Lagos State can claim to receive lots of property tax payment where lots of payments are made by corporate entities due to their statutory status. Table 32: The Consensus Ranking of LGI 11 on Tax Collection Efficiency LGI Dimensions A B C D 11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified  Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the 11 ii  tax roll 11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Total 4 0 1 1 2 The assessment of this indicator revealed that, the collection of property taxes in the country is very poor with some exemptions given arbitrarily while most property holders liable to pay taxes are not listed on the tax rolls. Even taxes on properties that have been assessed may not be collected due to the inefficiency of the process and the lack of manpower. 4.2.6 Conclusion and Recommendation In summary, the assessment of the thematic area concerned with land use planning, management and taxation revealed that:  All major cities in the country lack current land use plans/maps; development is therefore often controlled using the dated plans or discretion of the planning agencies.  Public inputs are rarely sought in preparing and amending changes in land use plans in the country. In the few instances where they are sought these responses are not explicitly referenced by the public body making the exercise only cosmetic.  Mechanisms to enable the public capture significant share of gains coming from changing land use even though in existence in the country are not applied in a transparent manner.  The process of obtaining a building permit in the country is relatively fair but the procedure takes a long duration in some states while in others; it can be concluded in a relatively short time.  Property valuations are rarely based on clear principles, with flat rates applied in some instances. They are also not regularly updated due to the abnormal growth of major cities Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 102 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE in the country and the difficulty faced by the planning officials in keeping up with the developments.  The process of property tax collection is faulty with the cost of collection in most instances exceeding the amount collected. To improve the present situation of land use planning, management and taxation in the country, it is recommended that:  A study on the existence and status of land use plans for all major cities of the country should be carried out.  A research on the origin and growth of informality in Nigerian cities should also be carried out.  A comprehensive national land use plan for the country should be developed where genuine public inputs are sought and are applied. In order to achieve this long term goal, it is recommended that a study on the existence and status of land use plans for all major cities in the country be carried out. In addition, a research on the origin and growth of informality in Nigerian cities should also be carried out.  Manpower development in the area of valuation is needed to enhance the revenue generated through property taxation which can be channelled for the development of the country.  To achieve the desirable benefits of changes in permitted land use there is the need to take peculiar social and economic environments in different parts of Nigeria into consideration,  Harmonize land use taxes and levies with the broader government fiscal policy, and satisfy the canon of taxation.  The public need to be educated and informed about regularization and possible implications of negating the procedure on the environment.  A central implementation manual should be developed for land institutions in the country with each land management office having its clear mandates stated.  Land Planning procedures must also be legislated to reduce the use of discretion and corruption.  There should be a political will on the part of the government where enforcement and monitoring at all stages of the property development can be de-centralized to enable all relevant stakeholders participate in the enforcement.  Government could also outsource property valuation responsibility to private consortium to enhance effectiveness in areas where it has little strength. With this more revenue is generated.  Research to survey the different situation of urban land use problem in each state of the federation should be established. This could lead to the development of framework that would be adaptable to the peculiarity of each city.  Land use map for the entire country should be produced and should be detailed enough to enable changes in land use to be effectively monitored.  Cadastral map defining urban and rural territory should be produced  Some of the processing powers should be given to the local government authorities  There should be political will for enforcement and monitoring at all stages of the property development so that deviation can immediately be noticed. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 103 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Enforcement should be de-centralized involving all the local unit for effectiveness  All relevant stakeholders can be involved in the monitoring  A model building plan from which people can choose can be produced and made available to intended house owners. Table 33: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation Score LGI-Dim Topic A B C D Transparency of Land Use In urban areas, land use plans and changes to these are based on 7 i  public input In rural areas, land use plans and changes to these are based on 7 ii  public input Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land 7 iii  use 7 iv Speed of land use change  Efficiency of Land Use Planning 8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city  Process for planned urban development in the 4 largest cities (exc. 8 ii  largest) 8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Plot size adherence  Use plans for specific land classes (forest, pastures etc) are in line 8 v  with use Speed and Predictability Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are 9 i  affordable and processed in a non-discretionary manner. Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential 9 ii  dwelling Transparency of Valuation 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  Tax Collection Efficiency 11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified  11 ii Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll  11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Total 17 0 1 9 7 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 104 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.3 Management of Public Land The four indications assessed here concerns:  Identification of public land and clear management;  Justification and time efficiency of expropriation process;  Transparency and fairness of expropriation procedures;  Transparent process and economic benefit; 4.3.1 Identification of Public Land and Clear Management The six dimensions assessed under this indicator include:  Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate level of government;  Complete recording of publicly held land;  Assignment of management responsibility for public land;  Resources available to comply with responsibilities;  Inventory of public land is accessible to the public;  Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public Public lands in Nigeria are the lands in the custodianship of the Federal, State, or local authority. These lands are borne out of the need of the government to provide public goods and services. The earlier difficulty involved in acquiring these land made the government in 1976 to enact the Public Lands Acquisition (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and later in 1978 the Land Use Act (LUA) which are meant to enable the government expropriate private properties for public use or in the public interest using the power of Eminent domain. Government at various levels(using these laws) have thus ever since been expropriating land for different purposes ranging from agricultural to commercial to industrial. Lands have also been expropriated for purposes of providing residential land parcels and housing estates. After acquisition and payment of compensation, these lands are regarded public and are documented appropriately in government gazettes. The ownership of public land in Nigeria can thus be regarded justified since these lands are held in trust by the government at various levels for public good. The problem however is in the area of management as the partial or non implementation of the laws is presently disrupting the smooth management of public lands in the country. The absence of clear cut directives and the lack of supervisory bodies make different levels of government take up land management responsibilities that do not belong to them. Instances of horizontal and vertical land management conflicts caused by overlapping or misplaced responsibilities between public institutions therefore abound in the country. A good example is the management of federal lands which is the mandate of the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (FMLH&UD). By implication, all land needed by the agencies of the Federal government are to be acquired and registered by this Ministry. This however is not done in most cases, since other Federal ministries and parastatals acquire land from the States independently without passing through the FMLH&UD and later return to the FMLH&UD for registration. Indeed, some Federal Ministries acquire lands from the States and obtain Certificate Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 105 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE of Occupancy from the States without consulting the FMLH&UD. The management of Federal lands by the state governments is another obvious example with states like Lagos and Ondo serving as culprits. The undertaking of the responsibilities of the Local governments by the state governments under the excuse of the incapacity of the local governments is yet another example. It can thus be summed up that, although the ownership of public land is justified by it been held in the interest of the public, its management is often out of order because the responsibilities assigned to specific institutions are often assumed by others. With regards to the recording of public lands, it can be noted that the locations of these lands in different parts of the country are known to the owners especially those of federal agencies. Records describing them, with those even acquired during the colonial era are in existence in the registries (Lagos and Abuja)65. For instance, the records of federal lands registered at the federal lands registries in different states of the federation are about 32,416. Physical identification of these lands on the ground is however a problem especially where government does not have immediate plan to develop such lands. Thus, most easily identified public lands are those covered by government institutions like educational institutions, health facilities, and residential estates66 among others where C of Os has been given to the occupiers. In the past when 1: 50, 000 topographic maps were available, some of the major public lands were clearly indicated. Today, such maps are a rarity. Other public lands which have not been so developed are being encroached upon by the public under the excuse of ignorance. A more realistic estimation therefore is that less than 30% of public land in Nigeria can clearly be identified on the ground or on maps. Table 34: Title documents issued by federal government and registered at the federal land registry across the different states as at December 2009 as presented at zonal workshops of national technical development forum on land administration (NTDF)67 Number of S/No State Registered Title 1. Abia 156 2. Adamawa 40 3. Akwa Ibom 18 4. Anambra 3, 329 5. Bauchi 40 6. Bayelsa 0 7. Benue 75 8. Bornu 22 9. Cross River 618 10. Delta 109 65 At the Lagos State Registry there is a document registered as No 3 Page 1 in Volume 1 Crown Grant dated 12 June, 1863 and signed by Lt General John Hawley ‗of the Island and Territories of Lagos.‘ Bearing in mind that documents at the registry can go as far back as 1863, one can imagine the volume of records at the Registry. 66 On federal government owned lands, close to 100,000 housing units have been built since 2002. These units have been sold / leased to the public and recorded in the registry. 67 Data obtained courtesy of the FELIS Coordinator Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 106 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 11. Ebonyi 5 12. Edo 42 13. Ekiti 2 14. Enugu 1, 467 15. FCT 2, 450 16. Gombe 0 17. Imo 702 18. Jigawa 12 19. Kaduna 239 20. Kano 334 21. Kastina 10 22. Kebbi 8 23. Kogi 16 24. Kwara 173 25. Lagos 17, 555 26. Nasarrawa 10 27. Niger 52 28. Ogun 3, 040 29. Ondo 172 30. Osun 10 31. Oyo 483 32. Plateau 440 33. Rivers 737 34. Sokoto 25 35. Taraba 4 36. Yobe 19 37. Zamfara 2 Total 32, 416 In relation to the assignment of Management of Public Land responsibilities, the mandates of the different institutions assigned with these responsibilities were noted to be unclear thereby introducing overlaps (see table 35). For instance, the mandate and criteria for designating lands as urban area is clearly that of the National Council of States (Section 3 & 5 (51) (1) h). However, the national council of States has to date failed to exercise this mandate by not making any regulation. The states whose duty it is to implement the mandate in the absence of the federal government‘s regulation have also prescribed their own condition. The mandate of prescribing condition for grant of Certificate of Occupancy has also been clearly usurped by state governments in clear violation of the provisions of Section 46 of the LUA. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 107 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 35: Institutional Overlap of Land Management Responsibilities Institutions Type of Land Managed Overlaps Federal Ministry of Lands All federal government land Yes Federal Capital Development Authority Land in the federal capital Yes Federal Ministry of Transport Land used for Transportation Yes NITEL Land for mast erection, offices and estates Yes NNPC Public lands for its operations Yes Federal Ministry of Agriculture Agricultural land Yes Central Bank of Nigeria Land for offices and estates Yes State governments Land within state territories Yes Local governments Land within local councils Yes The fact that, all local governments in almost all the states of the federation, have not developed any functional land registry to keep record of data on customary right of occupancy so far granted, points to the fact that Land owners have been virtually restricted to obtaining only Certificate of Occupancy from the State government even in several instances where the land in question falls under the control of a local government. It can thus be inferred that there is enough ambiguity in the assignment of management responsibility of different types of public land to impact to some extent on the management of assets. With regards to the availability of sufficient resources for Management of Public Land in the country, it was noted that only in few states are the land management institutions well funded. The funding to land management institutions is dependent on the budgetary allocation to that sector in the annual budget and is often inadequate leading to other problems like inadequate personnel and absence of arrangement for training and re-training of personnel. This has also resulted in the redundancy of most federal surveys and land management offices located in different states as they lack basic infrastructure. While recognizing the emerging relative improvement in funds allocated to land management institutions in Lagos, Imo as well as in the Federal Capital Territory, the country as a whole cannot be regarded as doing well in the area of resource allocation for land management. Thus, it was opined that there are either significantly inadequate resources or marked inefficient organizational capacity leading to little or no management of public lands in the country. The records of most public lands as noted earlier are mostly known to the owners of the land. In many cases these lands are not clearly demarcated, thus cannot be physically identified by the members of the public. This, in many cases, has led to the encroachment on these properties by the public. The lack of computerized or digitized data (records) also makes the availability and accessibility to this information extremely difficult. The public in most cases are therefore not well informed or lack information about public land since they are collected and recorded in analogue format in different locations which makes them difficult to access. For instance, access to information on federal government held lands may be hindered by the location of the registry (which is in Lagos) especially for individuals residing in states outside the south west. It can thus be concluded that all the information in the public land inventory is only available for a limited set of public property and there is little or no justification why records are not accessible. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 108 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Key information on land available for concessions is also difficult to access as there is inadequate publicity of information on lands available for concession. In most cases, information on land concession is published in the print media alone, leaving out the other means of disseminating information like the use of the electronic media, posters, handbills and radio. The fact that public lands are under the control and management of different institutions also makes the key information for land concession uncoordinated and thus partially accessible to the public. This is also true in that where it is available; it is only accessible to some stake holders such as consultants in the course of carrying out their assignments. The key information recorded for land concession includes:  Memorandum of understanding  Application for land  Land given to foreigners  Land given to the government by rural areas  Total expanse of land Table 36: Consensus Ranking of LGI 12 on Identification of Public Lands LGI Dimensions A B C D Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the 12 i  appropriate level of government 12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  Key information on land concessions is accessible to the 12 vi  public. Total 6 0 1 4 1 The identification and management of public lands as assessed by this indicator revealed that the ownership of public land is justified while its management is faulty. It was also discovered that there is a fair recording of publicly held lands but the assignment of Management of Public Land responsibility is not clear with overlapping responsibilities. The assessment also revealed that it was difficult to access public land inventory and information on public land concession. In all a fair performance can be given to the country (table 36) with regards to this indicator. 4.3.2 Justification and time-efficiency of expropriation processes This indicator assesses whether expropriation occur in the public general interest and whether it is resorted to resorted. Dimensions assessed include:  Transfer of expropriated land to private interests; and  Speed of use of expropriated land Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 109 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE As explained earlier, expropriation is the taking of private property by Government under the power of Eminent Domain for public use or in the public interest. In Nigeria this right was exercised under Public Lands Acquisition Act and Public Lands Acquisition (Miscellaneous Provisions) Decree No. 33 of 1976 until the Land Use Act was promulgated in 1978. The Law provides that the expropriating authority pay compensation to the owner of acquired property which will enable the owner maintain his/her previous social or economic status. As regards the justification of the expropriation process, with the transfer of state owned land to the private sector, it was opined that there is a wide divergence in the different uses to which expropriated lands are put to. Thus, apart from lands expropriated for residential purposes of which more than 50% expropriated in the past 3 years are used for private purposes‖, other lands like industrial, educational, etc, have less than ―10% expropriated in the past 3 years being used for private purposes‖. In the case of agricultural lands however ―between 10% and 30% of land expropriated in the past 3 years is used for private purposes‖. The frequency and extent of transferring expropriated land for private purposes is seen to be more for residential purposes while that of agriculture is rising. A good example is that of Kwara and Abuja where expropriated lands have given rise to commercial farmers and estate developers respectively in a timely manner. Aggregating all the uses it can be inferred that ―between 30% and 50% of land expropriated in the past 3 years is used for private purposes‖. While looking at the case of transparency and fairness of expropriation procedures, one would need to consider what the law of expropriation provides and how it is practiced. Section 28 of the Land Use Act Cap L.5 2004 provides that right of occupancy could be revoked for overriding public interest. Sub-sections 2 and 3 of that section also detail what is considered public interest. Section 28, sub-sections 1(b)-(c) and 3(a)-(c) specifically prescribes the reasons for acquiring land for public purposes. Section28, sub-sections 4, 6 and 7 prescribe the procedure for acquiring land for public purpose while Section 29 prescribes the method of determining the quantum of compensation payable to affected claimants. The reason for acquiring land and the procedure to be adopted in acquiring land is thus in existence with additional steps developed in some parts of the country to ensure transparency. Using this procedure, approximately 950 hectares of land have been developed under Public- Private-Partnership in different parts of the country by the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (FMLH&UD) in the last three years, and have been thrown open to interested members of the public to acquire. Similarly the houses developed on the sites allocated to private developers within the Federal Capital Territory and elsewhere are open to any interested persons to purchase/lease. The lease evidenced in a certificate of occupancy in either case is granted by Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (FMLH& UD) or the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA). This is also applicable to lands in the state. Land acquisition is generally meant to be requisitioned through the Ministry (at both Federal and State level) responsible for land matters. The particular government agency requiring the land would also justify the need for the land detailing the purpose for which the land is required and then bind itself to paying compensation as may be appropriately determined by the Government Agency responsible for land and property valuation. A Site Board is generally constituted Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 110 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE comprising the officials of the requesting agency and officials of relevant technical Ministry, namely Lands, Urban Planning, Survey and sometimes Works. The request is then taken up by this Board to identify suitable site for the prescribed need. Ideally the site is demarcated and notice of acquisition issued and possibly published in the official Gazzette inviting possibly affected claimants to indicate their interest on the site and be available for enumeration and assessment of their claims. Acquisition may not be said to be concluded until these processes are completed or at least appropriate notice is published in an official Gazette. Unfortunately, this procedure is rarely followed in most land acquisition exercises carried out in the country. Absence of published public notice in Newspapers and gazettes limits the circulation of the information while absence of complete information on acquisition boundary through survey information and delayed payment of compensation leaves room for encroachment and avoidable claims by people within the acquisition area. The report of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Committee of the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development revealed that, some allocated sites could not be accessed because compensation has not been paid. Recently, of an outstanding compensation claim of about N400million owed by the Ministry for land previously acquired for various housing projects in different parts of the country, it was only able to pay N135million in December 2010. With these impeding issues, timely transfer of acquired land to the destined use is negatively affected. Many sites are not developed because the claims for compensation was not addressed early and over time the expropriated owners resume occupation of the site making it cumbersome to evacuate and develop the sites. In some cases where sites have been duly acquired and allocated, especially for private estate development, the developers sometimes are not able to go into effective possession because of funding constraints. This situation is not limited to the federal government as records of land acquisition exercises carried by states like Kwara revealed that of the total land (25,267.41 Ha) acquired between 2007 and 2011, only a merger 17 hectares (0.0673 %) has been fully utilized while about 7,547.85 Ha (29.87%) is under partial utilization. It was also shown that an extensive 17,702.558 Ha (70.06%) has not been utilized at all (table 37). Another instance is that of the Akwa Ibom government which revealed that, of the total land acquired between 1990 and 2005, only 43% have been developed while the remaining 57% are left underdeveloped (table 38). The study carried out by Medie et al (2010)68 about public land acquisitions in Akwa Ibom state. 68 Mendie, A., Aster, J., and Ofem, B. (2010) Analysis of Public land Acquisition in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol. 31 (3) Pp 197-203. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 111 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 37: Land Acquisition in Kwara State (2007 – 2011) Project Land Acquired (Ha) Utilized Partial/Unutilized Cemetery 83.5 17 66.5 Agriculture 18,751.79 18,751.79 Education 5008.072 5008.072 Residential 1364.898 1364.898 Industrial 58.145 58.145 Total 25,267.41 (100%) 17 (0.0673%) 25250.41 (99.93) Source: Kwara state Ministry of Housing and Urban Development Table 38: Acquisition of Land in Akwa Ibom State (1990 -2005) Hectares Year Hectares acquired Hectares Developed Undeveloped 1990 - 2005 10747.6 (100%) 4621.7 (43.0%) 6125.9 (57.0%) Sources: Akwa Ibom State Ministry of lands and Housing (2006) Federal Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Uyo (2006) Without comparable data from all the other 34 states, it can therefore be roughly concluded that between 30% and 50% of the land expropriated in the past 3 years has been transferred to its destined use. Table 39: Consensus Ranking of LGI 13 on Incidence of Expropriation LGI Dimensions A B C D 13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  Total 2 0 0 2 0 In summary, the assessment of this indicator (table 39) has revealed that, even though a procedure for land expropriation exists in the country, it is rarely followed, reducing the percentage of land transferred to public interest and delaying the rate transfer of the land to its destined use. 4.3.3 Transparency and fairness of expropriation procedures Good governance requires transparent and accountable management of public land for the public interest, including processes by which land is acquired and released by the state. This thematic area will therefore be dealing with dimensions like: Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 112 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Compensation for expropriation of ownership;  Compensation for expropriation of all rights;  Promptness of compensation;  Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation; and  Appealing expropriation is time-bounded With regards to compensation, the general view of Nigerians is that expropriation in the first instance is unfair. It is seen as a case of dispossessing the poor to elevate the rich since in most cases lands expropriated from the poor are allocated to the rich. The government has also not being doing well in the area of paying compensation as the compensation paid for expropriated registered urban or rural property may enable owners to have comparable assets but they cannot maintain prior social and economic status. In terms of compensated rights, some secondary rights of registered urban or rural properties are recognized. Compensation for expropriated registered rural and urban properties is also mostly not paid within 1 year. The compensation payment duration is also often implemented with discretion in both rural and urban areas since there are no process manuals. Although there are no discriminations in the payment of compensation between registered and unregistered lands in the country, the amount paid is however dependent on the negotiating powers of the property owners or their agents. Compensation is also only paid for the improvement on land in line with the provisions of the LUA. It can thus be concluded that compensation, in kind or in cash, is paid for some unregistered rights (such as possession, occupation etc.), however those with other unregistered rights (which may include grazing, access, gathering forest products etc.) are usually not paid compensation. The speed at which compensations are paid to property owners is also very slow. This may be attributed to the lack of planning on the part of the expropriating institution and the inadequate understanding of the need to pay compensation on the part of the government which results in the poor budgetary allocation to the institutions saddled with the responsibility of land acquisition in the country. For instance in the preparation of the 2010 budget69, about 400 million naira was earmarked for the payment of the backlog of compensation by the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development. This amount was however reduced by the legislature under the excuse of inadequate funds leading to delays in the payment of compensation of land acquired as far back as the 90s. It can thus be concluded that less than 50% of expropriated land owners receive compensation within one year. Regarding the availability of independent and accessible avenues for appealing against land expropriation in the country, the only avenue available is the Land Use and Allocation Committee which is meant to treat matters of dispute regarding the amount of compensation payable (LUA Sec 30). This institution is however under the control of the government which makes it dependent. Sec 47 (2) of the LUA also stipulates that no court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into any question concerning or pertaining to the amount or adequacy of any compensation paid or to be paid under the Act. Any appeal against the quantum of compensation for land expropriation is therefore, the case of a judge in his own case and cannot be regarded as independent, easily accessible or fair. 69 Department of Lands and Housing Development, Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 113 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE In the instances where complaints about expropriation were lodged in the last three years, a few were listened to but decisions on them were rarely reached on time. A first instance decision has been reached for between 30% and 50% of the complaints about expropriation lodged during the last three years. Table 40: Consensus Ranking of LGI 13 on Transparency of Procedures LGI Dimensions A B C D 14 i Compensation for expropriation of ownership  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against 14 iv  expropriation 14 v Appealing expropriation is time-bounded  Total 5 0 0 3 2 The transparency and fairness of land expropriation procedure in Nigeria as assessed by this indicator (table 40) revealed that the situation of the country is very poor with the payment of compensation taking long period of time, while the avenues to appeal against expropriation is dependent on the government and it is not time-bound making it unfair. 4.3.4 Transparent process and economic benefit This indicator measured the extent to which the transfer of public land is carried out in a transparent manner ensuring that the government collects the full value of its disposed asset. In essence, the following dimensions are considered:  Openness of public land transactions;  Collection of payments for public leases; and  Modalities of lease or sale of public land The mechanisms for divesting public land (sale or lease) by public institutions in the country vary. For instance, under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) of the Federal Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development; the sites will be advertised in the newspapers and in the Federal Tenders (Procurement) Journals and the applicants will be thoroughly appraised before any one of them is selected. This procedure is however not often followed in other allocations. For instance, most Federal Government residential quarters sold across the country were not strictly valued at open market rate. They were valued at cost excluding land and essentially allocated to the occupier. The occupier had the ―the option of first refusal‖ before any other person could be allowed to bid for the property. There are also leases of undeveloped land granted to some individuals with many of them not openly advertised. In some cases only those who could afford the exorbitant premium charge could approach the allocating authority. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 114 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Specifically, the process for allocating land to its destined use for residential and commercial purposes are mostly done by open tender or auction while manufacturing and tourism use are mostly done by ways other than open tender or auction. The considered market values are less than 50% of the market prices for all the destined uses of allocated lands (table 41). Taking all the destined uses together, the share of public land disposed of in the past 3 years through sale or lease through public auction or open tender process noted to be less than 50%. Table 41: Disposal of Public Land Consideration Percentage of Destined use of Area leased out/sold in Transparent compared to market allocated lands allocated land last 3 years (ha) process values that were sold Dependent on the Most by open Less than 50% market Residential 90% institution in charge tender or auction prices Agriculture & Dependent on the Less than 50% market No data N/A NR institution in charge prices Most other than Dependent on the Less than 50% market Manufacturing open tender or N/A institution in charge prices auction Commerce/Buil Dependent on the Most by open Less than 50% market N/A ding institution in charge tender or auction prices Most other than Dependent on the Less than 50% market Tourism open tender or N/A institution in charge prices auction As regards the payment of public leases, the position of administrative policy for the sale or lease of public lands states that, all payments must be collected before lands are given out. Lease grants are veritable sources of revenue to the Government. Indeed Lagos State and the Federal Capital Territory rely a great deal on revenue from land charges. They have therefore continually reviewed the rate of charges for land to reflect current market situation. Many of the development partners also encourage this. The schedule of land charges by most of the allocating authorities like Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) is not discounted. The premium charge is about N2000 per square meter of land though there is now a percentage discount on the fees. As published in FCDA Fee Order in ―Recertification and Re-Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy‖ the charges for application and processing of transactions in land are as follows:  Land Application for Residential N1, 000 and Commercial N1, 000  Land Application processing fee for Residential N50, 000; Commercial N20, 000  Application for consent to assign Residential and Commercial N5, 000 They are essentially based on market situation. This is however not the case in some others like the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development where they are substantially discounted. The charges also vary among the States depending on the value of land in the States. But whatever charges there are, payments by the lessee is at the point of accepting the offer. Without the payment, the offer may not be processed further and may lapse. Few instances where private parties start development on public lands without completing the required processing and documentation however exist. This may be attributed to corrupt practices of the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 115 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE officials and the poor monitoring and supervision of public lands. It can thus be concluded that between 50% and 70% of the total agreed payments are collected from private parties on the lease of public lands. With reference to the modalities of lease or sale of public lands, it was noted that instances where public lands (like residential units) are publicly divested at market prices abound in the country. Public lands as noted earlier are lands acquired for the use of government for different purposes. They are, rarely acquired except they are required. By the time they are brought back into the market, they would have been well improved. While residential properties are subject to a variety of treatment by the different government agencies with regard to market forces, industrial and commercial properties, except on grounds of government policy, are granted at the full market rate irrespective of the investor‘s status. Since such properties are not in general demand and they are also not usually in small sizes, whoever desires them would often have a deliberate and elaborate programme with financial back up most of the time. In Cross River State for instance, the fees for various land charges was reviewed upwards and published in the Cross River State of Nigeria Gazzette, Gazzette No. 6 vol. 36 of 8th May 2003. In that gazette,  Premium for residential land in Calabar Zone (A) is N20/m2, Development Levy N15/m2. In Ogoja and Ikom which are in Zone B, premium for similar residential allocations is N18/m2, Development Levy N12/m2 and for Zone C covering other towns the charges for similar allocations (residential) are Premium N15/m2 and Development Levy N10/m2.  Annual Ground rent on State Land in Urban Areas is as follows : Zone A (Calabar) N6,888/Ha per annum; Zone B (Ogoja and Ikom) N5,120/ha per annum and Zone C (other Towns) N4, 320/Ha per annum.  For Commercial and Light Industrial plots in Zones A, B and C respectively, the annual rents are N23,680/Ha per annum, N19, 040/Ha per annum and N8, 000/ha per annum.  Annual Ground rents for Heavy Industrial plots for the same Zones A B, and C are N24,000/Ha, N19,000/Ha and N12,000/Ha per annum respectively.  The Survey Fees for residential Plots in the same Gazzette is N30, 000 per plot for residential land and N40, 000/plot commercial/industrial plots. In Kogi State the rate of premium for land charges are as follows:  Category A which includes areas serviced with road, electricity and water N166-66/m2, Category B which includes areas serviced with road only N83.33/m2 and Category C which includes areas without the basic infrastructure N33.33/m2.  Industrial Plots in the same categories A, B and C respectively are N347.22/m2, N173.67/m2 and N69.44/m2. For Commercial plots, the rates for categories A, B and C respectively are N208.33/m2, N104.44/m2 and N41.67/m2. Educational plots are charged at N6.33/m2; Religious plots N2.67/m2; Agriculture Nil; Petrol Station N189.67/m2 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 116 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE For the Fee Order of Bayelsa State Government,  The premium for land allocation is charged at a flat rate of N5, 000,000.00 per Hectare.  Application fees for residential plots is N14,372.00; Commercial Plots N29, 176.00; Industrial and Multinational Industrial plots N43,764.00; Agricultural plots N11,734.00 and Religious and Social Plots N9,396.00.  Annual ground rents are as follows: Low Density N73,000/Ha per annum; Medium Density N58,000/Ha per annum and High Density N43,000/Ha per annum. Annual Ground rent for Commercial plots is N272,000/Ha; Industrial plots N500,000/Ha; Agriculture N36,000/Ha and Religious and Social N30,000/Ha.  Development levy for residential plots is as follows: Low Density N109,410/Ha, Medium Density N57,000/Ha and High Density N21,127/Ha; Commercial plots N218,820/ha, Industrial N500,000/Ha, Agricultural/Religious/Social N20,000/Ha.  Survey Fees range from N25,000.00 for plots 500m2 and below to N200,000 for plots 5000m2-10,000m2. Plots above 1Ha range from N250,000 to N750,000 for 5-10Ha. There are still charges for registration and survey charting in all the States. It is evident that there are different charges for different land uses. It is also difficult to establish common methods of determining the charges. Many of the States seem to base their charges on the exigencies of the time. It can thus be concluded that only some types of public land are generally divested at market prices in a transparent process irrespective of the investor‘s status (e.g. domestic or foreign). Table 42: Consensus Ranking of LGI 15 on Transparency of Procedures LGI Dimensions A B C D 15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Total 3 0 1 1 1 The transfer of ownership or use-right of public land in Nigeria as assessed by this indicator reveals a poor situation (table 42) where few public land transactions are not carried out openly. Payments for most public leases (between 50% and 70%) are however collected before offers are granted. Some types of public land are generally divested at market prices in a transparent process irrespective of the investor‘s status (e.g. domestic or foreign) 4.3.5 Conclusion and Recommendation The assessment of the four (4) indicators under this thematic area revealed that:  In relation to the identification of public lands and clear management, it was discovered that there is a fair recording of publicly held lands but the assignment of management responsibility is not clear with overlapping responsibilities. It was also discovered that access to information on public land inventory and concessions are poor. Most Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 117 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Management of Public Land institutions are also poorly funded inhibiting their proper performance.  In respect of the procedure for expropriation, a fair situation exists in the country which would have been better if the procedures stipulated in the LUA are followed judiciously. Thus the partial use of the LUA has resulted in reducing the percentage of land transferred to public interest and delaying the rate transfer of the land to its destined use.  As it concerns the payment of compensation, a lot needs to be done, as the payment of compensation in the country often take ages while avenues to challenge expropriation are limited and dependent on the government.  In reference to the transparency and economic benefit coming from divesting public lands, it was discovered that, most public land transactions are carried out openly and payment for most public leases are collected before offers are granted revealing a fair situation. The overall score and grade for this thematic area as presented in table 43 below shows a fair performance of the country with regards to the management of public land. Table 43: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Management of Public Land Score LGI-Dim Topic A B C D Identification of Public Land Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate level of 12 i  government 12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public.  Incidence of Expropriation 13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  Transparency of Procedures 14 I Compensation for expropriation of ownership  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Appealing expropriation is time-bounded  Transparent Processes 15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Total 0 2 10 4 The situation as stated above can be improved if:  The principal land management law (LUA) is completely reviewed to pave way for better land governance in the country. The reviewed law should be comprehensive, clearly stating the implementation mechanism and powers of implementing agencies at all levels of government. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 118 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  All land information records are computerized or digitized and harmonized and a central database from which information on land can be accessed is established. Information technology can also be easily used to harmonize land information recorded in different media.  A central database for Land Information System (LIS) in the country is developed which should include a component for processing land acquisition by government  The public is enlightened about the locations of records of publicly held lands while protocols and institutional arrangements that ensure that land information is produced, transferred and kept up to date are made compulsory.  As part of the necessary guideline for the implementation of the Land Use Act, emphasis should be laid on the need to observe the rules and ensure complete acquisition processes at all times.  The budgetary allocation to institutions saddled with the responsibilities of managing public lands at the various levels should be increased and made regular.  Disputes which delay compensation payments are avoided at the implementation stages, where all stakeholders and their consultants are involved at the inception of the expropriation process (Authorities, Consultants, Concessionaires Consultants, and Community Representatives).  A comprehensive rule for expropriation is developed with independent avenues where affected parties can lodge complaints.  A land tribunal with the powers of a high court can be developed and which should be able to carry the appeal against expropriation from the beginning to the end. 4.4 Public Provision of Land Information Information provided by land registries has public good characteristics, providing a strong rationale for government involvement in the recording and maintenance of the registry, and allowing access to relevant land-related information to interested parties. In particular, the public availability of land related information can inform the public about transaction possibilities and foster the development of a unified and more efficient land-market. But in order to accomplish this, the registry needs to be complete, reliable, sustainable, and allow for an easy identification of rights both spatially and by party. This thematic area in recognition of these facts, presents findings related to the 13 dimensions grouped into the 4 Indicators which include:  Completeness  Reliability  Cost-effectiveness and sustainability  Transparency 4.4.1 Completeness This indicator assesses the extent to which the registry provides a complete geographic coverage of land parcels and its accessibility to land users. These are two main characteristics that determine its value as a public good. Indeed, if the information contained within the registry is incomplete, or if accessing specific data is difficult and time consuming, the utility of the registry Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 119 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE will be limited. In this regard, the findings derived from the assessment of this indicator are based on the following dimensions.  Mapping of registry records  Economically relevant private encumbrances  Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land rights)  Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on land rights)  Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or organization with information on land rights) With regards to the complete charting of registry records, the land registration system in Nigeria is in a parlous state as most registries are physically insecure and could easily be destroyed by water, fire damage or even insect attack70. Land Registries are also only functional at the Federal level and in some few States while all Local Government registries are non- existent or regarded as unreliable since they issue titles (customary) which do not contain the full technical survey description of the land concerned. The Federal and State land registries are thus the ultimate custodian of valid title documents where no title is registered unless appropriate checks have been carried out. With the condition of land documentation agencies in the country, it is therefore not surprising to know that the proportion of registered titles is less than 3%71 of the country‘s landmass and they are mainly in the urban areas. This may be attributed to:  absence of current land use maps and cadastre maps for all major cities of the country  absence of vectorized version of title deed plans (TDP) in most registries  inadequate funding of land information institutions  analogue system of keeping records  poor quantity and quality of staff Thus with reference to the completeness of registry records, it can consequently be concluded that ‗less than 50% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre‘ since it is the closest to the present situation of the country. The real situation could be as low as less than 5%. As regards the presence of records on private encumbrance in the registry , it can be stated that all existing land registries have intelligence sheets where all economically relevant information about any land registered is recorded. Thus, as long as a parcel of land is registered, any encumbrance on it is recorded. As it operates today in Nigeria, an indirect compulsory title registration is in operation where a certificate of occupancy is not valid and would not even be granted to the beneficiary until it is fully registered. Although an insignificant part of the whole country is registered, all titles in the registry can be classified reliable because they contain complete land records including the technical and legal description of title registered. 70 Ibid 71 FELIS http://www.felis.gov.ng/about.asp Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 120 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Encumbrances that can be recorded include:  mortgages  consent and assignment  partition and sub-division  extension and annexation While most Land Registries operate using the analogue system, all records are generally kept orderly. There is evidence, courtesy of the FELIS Coordinator, that some state have started the computerization of their registries as evidenced in table 44. Fees for searching or verifying records in the Registry are also relatively affordable and range from N500 –N5,000. Some registerable instruments and the rate of charges include: Sublease which could be at a fixed rate or a percentage of consideration (up to 3% or more); Mortgage which has a fixed rate of N2,000 in some cases and is charged at about 1% and more of consideration in many others; Assignment ranges from3% to 15% of consideration. Others are ‗Caution‘, Way Leaves, ‗court orders‘ etc. It can thus be concluded that ‗relevant private encumbrances are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion and can be verified at low cost by any interested party‘. In respect to the presence of economically relevant public restriction and charges in the registries, it can be stated that public restrictions do not automatically flow to land registries. Thus, public restrictions and charges like; easement rights; building codes; and change of use (planning control) may not be readily found in the registry records. This may be because these public restrictions are mostly not plot-specific. In cases where these restrictions become plot specific in developments like roads, housing estate, railway lines and other public services and utilities, the route will become a subject of public lands acquisition then the land in the area will be revoked. It can thus be concluded that relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded but this is not done in a consistent and reliable manner. With regards to the searchability of Land registries, as noted earlier, registries are the repositories of records of lands allocated, titled and registered within the jurisdiction of that Registry. Every plot registered is based on the presentation of a Certificate of Occupancy which of necessity must have a duly endorsed Title Deed Plan, certified by the appropriate survey authority, describing the spatial coverage of the plot and its geographic coordinates. Also included are the legal and locational description of the land, the holder and the terms of the allocation. These are then confirmed on the base map which provides a master map for lands allocated in the locality of the subject plot. Consequently, all rights are recorded with a full description of the plot and the right holder and any search could use either the name of the holder or the description of the parcel to access information on the plot. This is true whether it is an analogue Registry or a Digital Registry. Thus, as long as a plot of land has been registered it can be searched by right holder‘s name and parcel. With reference to the accessibility of registry records, there is a divergence of opinion as the information recorded in the registry is not open to all members of the public. This is because there are privities of contract between land holders and the granting authority and legislation has not yet permitted unrestricted access to land record information to everyone. The rule permits access to the records only to the title holder or his nominee provided that such a person shows a Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 121 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE proof of the authorization of the title holder or the title holder would rightly identify himself. Generally, it is believed that an inquiry backed up with a copy of the title document has the blessing of the holder as he is expected to hold his title from being accessed unduly by other persons. Professionals like surveyors, lawyers and the like can, however, easily access records of land information in the registry. It can thus be stated that copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can only be obtained by intermediaries and those who can demonstrate an interest in the property upon payment of the necessary formal fee. The requests for access to records in the registry also often take a long time. In fact, it generally takes more than 1 week after request to produce a copy or extract of documents recording rights in property. The request is often made to the Minister or Commissioner in charge of lands with the attention of the Director of lands. This official procedure often delays the response to requests. The archaic system of taking the proof of payment physically to the registry after paying the processing fees was also noted to be one of the reasons for the delay in responding to requests. There is also the problem of poor infrastructure and manpower. Table 44: Consensus Ranking on LGI 16 on Completeness of Registry LGI Dimensions A B C D 16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  Searchability of the registry (or organization with 16 iv  information on land rights) Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with 16 v  information on land rights) Timely response to a request for access to records in the 16 vi  registry (or organization with information on land rights) Total 6 2 1 2 1 The assessment of this indicator designed to assess the extent to which the registry provides a complete geographic coverage of land parcels and its accessibility to land users revealed as discussed and presented (table 44) that the mapping of registry records is incomplete with only 3% of the country‘s land mass registered. The few registered parcels all have economically relevant private encumbrances recorded on them and records can be searched either using right holder name or parcel. It can however only be obtained by intermediaries (lawyers, surveyors) and those who can demonstrate an interest in the property upon payment of the necessary formal fee. It also takes more than one week after request to produce a copy of the land records or extracts. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 122 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.4.2 Reliability of Records The reliability of the information held by the registry (including the frequency at which it is updated) is an important factor when considering the public good value of the registry. Outdated ownership information, inconsistencies between what is recorded in the registry and reality, and the vulnerability of the registries to attack by unscrupulous individuals who may wish to destroy, alter or simply steal documentation, all decrease the value of the services that are provided by the registry and may cause interested parties to cease to use it altogether. In the assessment of this indicator, the following dimensions are considered:  Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date With regards to the establishment and monitoring of service standards, most land registries in the country may be regarded as performing very poorly since standard service procedures are absent in most of them. Even where they exist, the number of days for processing applications by the different departments/units in the registry is not spelt out, codified or made public. Thus the service procedures are at the discretion of the officials. For instance, all fresh applications in the federal72 and most state73 registries are not expected to last for more than 21 days when all relevant requirements have been provided, applications are however seen waiting for longer periods of time. In fact the World Bank report on doing business in Nigeria (2011) 74 noted that it takes about 82 days to register a property in the country. The establishment of SERVICOM to help improve quality of services provided by federal establishments has also not helped in reducing this delay. With regards to the update of land information in the registries, the records in the Land Registries as indicated earlier contain details of plot description by survey and ownership. No title is thus registered in the Registry until it has been duly processed with all relevant details provided. Similarly, most subsequent transactions on land with title documents require the consent of the allocating authority. This, therefore, implies that subsequent transactions are meant to pass through the registry which updates them as they are being concluded. It is therefore expected that most land records should be up to date once they have been brought into the government system. Delay in processing transfer of title to land and the high costs of transfer which make some buyers operate with Power of Attorney could however affect the update of registry records. In addition to this are the poor state of infrastructure in most registries which also make updating records difficult. Thus in most cases, changes could be difficult to track because subsequent transactions by the title holders or assignees did not pass through the government system implying that less than 50% of the ownership information in the registry/cadastre is up-to-date. 72 Federal Lands registry procedure http://www.felis.gov.ng/faq.asp 73 Lagos land registry procedure http://www.lagosstate.gov.ng/index. 74 http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/nigeria/#registering-property Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 123 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 45: Consensus Ranking on LGI 17 on Reliability of Records LGI Dimensions A B C D 17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  Total 2 0 0 0 2 In summary, the assessment of the reliability of records in the country‘s registries (table 4 5) revealed that the customer service standards are rarely established in most part of the country and where they exist they are seldomly enforced. It was also discovered that the delay in the processing and registering transfer of properties make users in some instances resort to other methods (like the use of the powers of Attorney) to confirm transfer of property rights which makes record updating in the registry difficult. 4.4.3 Cost-effectiveness and sustainability This indicator assesses the cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability of land administration services in the country. As a land administration needs to find resources to finance its operations, charging user costs is justified. But if users cannot afford the services available from the registry there will be a tendency to avoid the registry completely. This type of environment can encourage informality and failure to record transactions through formal channels, which will erode the quality and credibility of the information held by the registry. The findings on indicator are based on the following dimensions:  Cost of registering a property transfer  Financial sustainability of the registry  Capital investment With regards to the cost of registering a property transfer, the World Bank report75 on doing business in Nigeria (2010) noted that formal property titles help promote the transfer of land, encourage investment and give entrepreneurs access to formal credit markets. The more difficult and costly it is to formally register or transfer property; the greater the chances that formalized titles will quickly become informal again. Eliminating unnecessary obstacles to registering and transferring property is therefore important for economic development. The cost incurred in the registration of a title in Nigeria is described below: At the Federal level, the cost of registration starts with a minimum of N5, 000.00, and could be as high as N250, 000.00 depending on the market value of the property. The fees for secondary transactions which include assignment and sublease are often higher. 75 http://www.comjul.com/Downloads/Circulars/WBBNGA.pdf Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 124 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The procedure adopted goes thus: On receipt of an application for allocation of land for any purpose, the Department of Lands, opens a file for the applicant and processes it in accordance with the request. If it is for a residential, commercial or an Industrial plot within an approved layout, the necessary processing fees are collected from the applicant. A plot is then earmarked per request and passed to the Survey Department for cadastral report and plan. After obtaining a favourable report from Cadastral Survey, the request is then processed to the Land Use and Allocation Committee for its recommendation and onward submission to the Governor/Minister for approval. When the Governor‘s/Minister‘s approval is obtained, an offer of lease grant (or Right of Occupancy) is then made to the applicant. The title deed plans are then obtained from the surveys department and an initial bill is prepared and passed to the applicant for settlement. After the settlement of the bill, a certificate of occupancy is then prepared and passed to the Governor/Minister for execution. When the certificate is executed, it is then registered and transmitted to the applicant. The steps noted above attract the range of cost76 described as follows:  Conducting a Property title search at the Land Registry: NGN 3,750 (search at Registry) + Legal fees as follows: NGN 7,500–10,000 + 7.5% of values above NGN 20,000 if acting for the buyer (5% of values above NGN 20,000 if acting for the seller)  Payment of the Charting Fee, Administrative Fees, Endorsement fee at a designated bank: Charting Fees (NGN 7,500) + Administrative fees (NGN 3,000) and Endorsement Fees (NGN 1,500) Capital gains tax of 2% is also paid, but are not included in the calculation  Payment of stamp duty , registration fees, consent fees, neighbourhood improvement charge at a commercial bank: 8% Consent Fee + 3% of property value for the registration fee + 2% of property value for the Stamp duty (Capital gains tax of 2% is also paid, but are not included in the calculation). The summation of these fees according to the World Bank report on doing business in Nigeria (2011)77 revealed that, the registration of a property may cost as much as 20.9% of a property value. It can thus be concluded that the cost for registering a property transfer is equal to or greater than 5% of the property value. In relation to the sustainability of the registry, the fact that registries are at the final end of Lands Ministry and generally operate within the Ministry‘s bureaucratic structure may make the assessment of their sufficiency difficult. This is because revenues generated by land registry are generally from fees charged for title registration and searching and are deposited into a central treasury, while Salaries and other expenses (operating cost) are paid for by the Ministry which is dependent on Ministry‘s budgetary allocation. Even where the generated revenue in some registries can sustain their operations, the registries are compelled to deposit their revenue into the treasury and wait for their running cost from government allocation which is always 76 World Bank (2011) Procedure and cost of registering a property in Nigeria., http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/ exploreeconomies/nigeria/#registering-property (20th of July, 2011) 77 Ibid Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 125 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE inadequate. A case at hand is the revenue generated by the Federal Land Registry which can be as much as N500 Million (US$ 3, 289, 494) annually while the usual annual budget estimates of the Registry is scarcely up to 100 Million (about US$ 657, 895). This scenario is however not widespread because apart from Lagos, Niger, Ogun and the Federal Capital Territory, most other states have not been generating enough revenue from the registry. In some cases, the generated revenue does not even get to the government due to corruption. The absence of functional manpower and infrastructure in the registries is noted as a problem making the total fees collected by the registry less than 50% of the total registry operating cost. In line with the issue of sufficient capital investment, most State Land Registries are housed in dilapidated buildings. Many of the equipment are obsolete and nearly abandoned. Generally the Registry is viewed as a dead end. Without the recent investments in land record computerization, the registries had nothing to offer. Unfortunately, the computerization of land records is not strictly targeted at the Land Registry but on the whole land administration process of the Ministries. This is primarily because the Land Registry would not make much impact except the preceding land administration is improved. The Federal and State Ministries have variously invested in land record computerization because it is helping to revolutionize land administration system. These are obvious in states like Lagos, Kwara, Plateau, Enugu, Benue and Kaduna. Unfortunately, these investments are not made in a consistent manner. Sustainable infrastructural provision is also poor. Servers, work stations, scanners and plotters are some of the equipment purchased but have not been maintained at optimum level. Internet infrastructure is also available but unreliable. Some of the State Ministries that have embarked upon modernization lack expertise and are not in control of equipment provided by Contractors because they do not understand what they require. They take whatever is supplied without asking questions. Many of the State Ministries also run their registries from dilapidated office buildings and scarcely think about modernization and computerization because of poor financial standing. The capital investments that the system may need to be sustainable include the following:  Software  Servers  Scanners  Large format printer  Ground controls  Auto photos  High resolution satellite images  Capacity building (High skilled manpower) The absence of base maps and well trained personnel is a major problem making the registration of land difficult. It can thus be concluded that there is little or no investment in capital in the system to record rights in land. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 126 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 46: Consensus Ranking of LGI 18 on Cost Effective and Sustainability LGI Dimensions A B C D 18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  Total 3 0 0 0 3 In summary, the assessment of this indicator as revealed in the table 46 above shows that the cost of registering a property in Nigeria is exorbitant, pushing a lot of people into informality. Despite the high cost charged by the registries, they are also unable to sustain their operations due to lack of autonomy coupled with bureaucracy and poor funding from government. 4.4.4 Transparency This indicator assesses whether fees are determined and collected in a transparent manner. This is a key governance issue to avoid unpredictability and corruption that could jeopardize the credibility of the land administration system and cause land administration reforms to fail. In the assessment of this indicator, the following dimensions are considered:  Schedule of fees is available publicly  Informal payments discouraged With regards to the transparency of registration cost, there is disparity in the procedure adopted by the different registries located in different parts of the country. Even though the schedules of fees to be paid are publicly accessible in most of them, informal fees for which receipts are not issued are in existence. These are fees paid to help fast-track the registration process. It can thus be implied that ‗clear schedule of fees for different services is publicly accessible, but receipts are not issued for all transactions‘ In relation to the discouragement of informal fees, the fact that most land registries in the country lack standard service procedure and complaint forms where poor service delivery and illegal staff behaviour can be reported shows that the Mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behaviour are largely nonexistent. This consensus option was opposed by some participants during the validation workshop where they noted that, mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behaviour in the registries are in existence. These mechanisms are designed to detect and deal with illegal staff behaviour in all government institutions, the registries inclusive. Some of these mechanisms include; the Public Service Rules (PSR); Financial Regulations (FR); the SERVICOM among others. The position of this group of participants is therefore that, the required mechanisms to deal with illegal staff behaviour in the registries do exist but what is lacking is the appropriate enforcement and execution of the regulations and mechanisms. On the strength of this argument and based on the votes of the participants at the workshop (option B – 19, option D – 5), the consensus option Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 127 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE was changed from D to B which states that, mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behaviour exist in all registry offices but cases are not systematically or promptly dealt with. Table 47: Consensus Ranking on the Indicators for Transparency LGI Dimensions A B C D 19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Total 2 0 1 1 0 The assessment of this indicator (table 47) revealed that, although the schedule of fees to be paid for land registration in most cases may be available, they are often not adhered to, since non receipted payments are made to ensure quick processing of documents. Avenue to report illegal staff behaviour are also inefficient and in most cases absent. 4.4.5 Conclusion and Recommendation The thematic area on public provision of land information was designed to assess four indicators concerned with the operations of the State and Federal registries. In the assessment (table 48), reveals that:  The land registries in different parts of the country do not contain complete information about most land in the country. In fact, it is the records of only about 3% of the entire land in the country that can be found in the registries. Searching the registered lot by name or plot is however possible. Any encumbrances on the registered plots are also recorded in the registry. Access to the information in the registry is however difficult to the general public whereas intermediaries (lawyers, surveyors) and those who can demonstrate an interest in the property upon payment of the necessary formal fee having better access.  The land registries in the country are not reliable because meaningful service standards in most of them are either non-existent or not monitored and their records are not regularly updated.  The cost for registering a property in the country is as much as 20.9% of the property value making it get out of the reach of the poor. The funding of the registry is also very inadequate and it is solely in the hands of the government.  The land registration fees are also not determined or collected in a transparent manner because clear schedule of fees are absent in most registries and where they exist the absence of complaint forms make the reporting of illegal staff behavior difficult. To improve this situation, there may be need to:  Carry out a study to investigate the present state of all land registries in the country  Develop a national land policy which must specify ways through which all land registries would be integrated  Develop national capacity training for all officers of land registries Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 128 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Standardize the land registration process. A strategy for incremental progress might be considered, including stages through which higher standards are progressively met considering resources availability (human capacities, material resources)  Create a Central depository for land information by integrating the records of all registries  Integrate the responsibilities of other bodies like town planners, surveyors with the land registries  Develop and effectively monitor standards service procedures for all land registries and efficiently prosecute offenders to deter others.  Invest in the registries and make them independent. Table 48: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Public Provision of Land Information Score LGI-Dim Topic A B C D Completeness of Registry 16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on 16 iv  land rights) Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with 16 v  information on land rights) Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry 16 vi  (or organization with information on land rights) Reliability of Records 17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  Cost Effective and Sustainable 18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  Transparency 19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Total 2 2 3 6 4.5 Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management It is important that, affordable, clearly assigned, transparent, and objective dispute resolution mechanism exist and these mechanisms are sufficiently efficient to maintain the level of unresolved disputes low enough to not to affect the productivity of land use or threaten social stability. This thematic area will therefore be concerned with indicators like: Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 129 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Assignment of responsibility  Low level of pending conflict 4.5.1 Assignment of responsibility This indicator assesses whether an efficient institutional framework which can limit the opportunity for costly disputes to arise before they have a chance to become established exist in the country and, if the institutional framework can deal with those disputes in reasonable time. In essence, the following dimensions were considered.  Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanism  Informal or community based dispute resolution  Forum shopping  Possibility of appeals Land related conflicts abound in Nigeria. For instance, clashes between farmers and pastoralists in Northern Nigeria are on the increase with Bauchi and Gombe States respectively recording 28 and 112 incidences between 1996 and 2002. The recorded human losses for these two states during the same period were 101 and 20 respectively along with associated large animal losses and crop damage (Ajuwon, 2004)78. Still in the North, ten people were reportedly killed and thousands displaced in the land dispute between Mumuye and Kona communities of Taraba state in 201179. Land related conflicts in the Southern part of the country are also ubiquitous, with the conflict between neighbouring communities and states like those of Akaeze in Iro and Osso Edda in Afikpo South local councils in 2001, Cross River and Ebonyi states in 2005, and Ezillo and Ezza of Ishielu district of Ebonyi state in 2008 leading to the death or displacement of people as well as the destruction of properties worth millions of Naira (IDMC, 2009)80. Prompt management and efficient resolution of conflicts is therefore essential if large scale social unrest is to be avoided. Formal and informal institutions established to attend to first instance land related conflict resolution exist in the country. These institutions along with their effectiveness in conflict resolution are discussed below: Formal  Customary court  Magistrate court  High court 78 Ajuwon, S.S 2004 Managing Conflicts of Interests In Community Development: Conflict in Fadama Communities - Case study on Fadama Conflicts Issues, http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/39228/ Conflict%20management.doc. 79 Ihejirika, C. (2011, Friday, 15) 10 killed in Taraba over land dispute. http://www.tribune.com.ng/ index.php/news/25126-10-killed-in-taraba-over-land-dispute, accessed July 29, 2011. 80 IDMC, 2009, NIGERIA: No end to internal displacement. A profile of the internal displacement situation, http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1 accessed July 29, 2011 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 130 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Alternative Dispute Resolution Centers  Citizen mediation center  Lagos Multi-door court house Informal  Police  Community/Village head  Family Head  Family gathering  Age group The area and customary courts depending on the state are at the lowest level of the formal dispute resolution institutions and they are classified into grades. In Lagos, they are graded as A and B. The courts are manned by a panel of one president and not less than three other judges referred to as members. The effectiveness of the customary courts is low in Lagos State but area courts are effective in the north. They have the power to resolve conflict on land subject to the customary rights of (occupancy) ownership. In Lagos state, they are more concerned with conflicts bordering on family affairs. (They cannot hear disputes bordering on land ownership at all). The area courts in the northern part of Nigeria and customary courts outside Lagos State are however more accessible to the rural dwellers and do resolve disputes faster and at less cost as their proceedings are not so formal. The magistrate courts in Lagos State are like the customary courts, they can however handle cases exceeding N500 (US$ 3.3) up to around N10 million (US$ 65, 359.5). The Lagos Judiciary for instance has seven (7) magisterial districts with one hundred and twenty (120) magistrate courts located in different parts of the state. Each district is headed by a chief magistrate grade 1. Magistrate courts are also mostly concerned with conflicts relating to possession of landed properties. Lawyers, in this case, are expected to appear, thus it is more expensive than the customary courts. Its proximity is also relatively high and it is more effective than the customary courts. Magistrate courts are however not empowered by the Land Use Act (Section 41) to resolve conflicts relating to ownership of land except they are equated as customary courts. In Lagos State, the high court takes the bulk of land matters especially those involving titles/ownership. They are, however, not easily accessible to the general public due to their cost and spread. The duration for resolution of cases is relatively long especially in Lagos State. The peculiar reason for congestion in the Lagos system of dispute resolution stems from the regulation made by Lagos State designating virtually all its territory as urban area, thereby leaving little or no portion of it territory as rural. The result of this designation is that by reason of section 39 of the LUA, only the high court can entertain and determine disputes over land in an urban area, as such lands qualify only to be issued statutory rights of occupancy. The LUA envisaged that customary right of occupancy disputes which is for non urban land will be resolved in the area or customary courts and not the high court. The Alternative Dispute resolution Centers include the Citizen Mediation Centre (CMC) and the Multi-door Courthouses. They were introduced to enhance access to justice in the country. The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 131 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE ADR system is new in Nigeria, although the initiative is growing fast all over the country. The CMC for instance has about nine centers in Lagos while the multi-door court houses are available in Abuja, Lagos, Kano, and Cross-River among others. In terms of grass root effectiveness, the CMC is better because the services provided are free and easily accessible to the local people. For instance 94% of all the cases handled at the CMC in 2010 81 were land/tenancy related conflicts. The Multi-Door courthouse is however more elitist since they charge for arbitration services. First instance informal institutions include Family, Compound, Peer Groups, Head of Village Units and Village or Community Heads. Access to these institutions in terms of coverage is bearable, while the cost is also affordable. The use of dialogue in settling disputes and the absence of a legal means of enforcing judgments only put these institutions at a disadvantage. Informal dispute resolution institutions although have their place, their failure often make the aggrieved take the conflict to the formal institutions. By implication, the resolutions by the formal institutions are presumed to be more binding and thus more effective than the informal institutions. Formal institutions are however more expensive than the informal institutions and thus less accessible. With all said, it can be concluded that, institutions for providing a first instance of conflict resolution in Nigeria are accessible at the local level in less than half of communities but where these are not available informal institutions perform this function in a way that is locally recognized. Having noted that, informal institutions are available for dispute resolution in the country, it can be indicated that, informal or community based dispute resolution institutions are recognized by the formal judicial or administrative system especially the case of customary arbitration whose decisions the court of law have declared bidding on disputants. The acceptance of oral evidence by witnesses in the formal judicial system also attests to this. Decisions made by this system thus have some recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute resolution system. Informal dispute resolution institutions are in most cases impartial. They resolve disputes in an equitable manner. The informal system involves family, age grade or peer groups, compound, units head and community heads. Whatever decision is taken over any dispute is binding on parties involved and an uncooperative disputant is compelled by social pressure and sanction. An unsatisfied party can however go to the formal court with sufficient evidence and witness that the informal system‘s decisions was unsatisfactory. It can thus be deduced that there is an informal or community-based system in Nigeria that resolves disputes in an equitable manner and decisions made by this system have some recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute resolution system. The ineffectiveness of the informal dispute resolution institutions are mostly in disputes involving large parties like land ownership conflicts between families or communities. With regard to the possibility of forum shopping, there exist in the country, as stated earlier, two (2) groups of institutions for land conflict resolution. They include:  Judicial (formal) – high court, customary/area court  Traditional (informal) 81 Citizen Mediation Centre (CMC); 2010: Annual Report Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 132 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE These two systems cannot however be used concurrently. It therefore implies that, you cannot pursue the same case in two courts. The failure or unsatisfactory resolution of a conflict in the informal institutions often leads to the transfer of such cases to the formal institutions. Even within the formal institutions, land conflict cannot be treated simultaneously in the different courts. Conflicts in the customary courts cannot be treated simultaneously in any other court even in the alternative dispute resolution centers. This position is secured by the LUA which prescribes that dispute on lands in the urban area are to be determined in the high court while disputes over land in non urban areas are to be determined in the customary or area court in the first instance. It can therefore be summed up that, even though parallel avenues for dispute resolution exist in the country cases cannot however be pursued in parallel through different channels and evidence and rulings may be shared between institutions so as to minimize the scope for forum shopping. With reference to the existence of mechanism to appeal ruling, the World Bank report on doing business in Nigeria (2010) indicates that, from the process of filing a matter till the delivery of judgment, it takes an average of 511 days and about 36.3% of the value of a claim to resolve a dispute through the courts. This average is regarded ‗generous‘ as an appeal may take an average of two, three or longer years before it is disposed. The cost and duration of executing a case (whether simple or complex), it was noted, depends on the skill, expertise and seniority of the lawyer involved. It is also dependent on the subject matter of the conflict; and the importance of the conflict to the client. A good instance is that of a case filed at Ikeja High Court (Lagos State) in 1990 which is still in court in 2011, because the ruling given by the court of first instance in 2006 was appealed against. The land was worth N2 million (about US$ 13, 072) in 1990 when the case was filed but is now worth N35 million (US$ 228, 758). The lawyers charged N500, 000 (i.e. US$ 3, 268) in 1990 but the case is now worth N3.5 million (US$ 22, 876). This then points to the fact that a process exists to appeal rulings on land cases in Nigeria but costs are high and the process takes a long time. Table 49: Consensus Ranking of LGI 20 on Assignment of Responsibility LGI Dimensions A B C D 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms  20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution  20 iii Forum shopping  20 Iv Possibility of appeals  Total 4 1 2 1 0 The assignment of responsibilities to institutions in charge of dispute resolution in the country can be regarded as relatively good (table 49). This may be due to the relative accessibility to institutions in charge of first instance conflict resolution and especially the presence and relevance of informal conflict resolution institutions. Other reasons may be due to the prevention of forum shopping and opportunity for appeals even though expensive. In any event the LUA Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 133 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE clearly prescribes the appropriate courts to resolve land disputes in the first instance i.e. customary/area court for non-urban land and high court for urban land. 4.5.2 Low level of pending conflict This indicator assesses whether an efficient institutional framework can limit the opportunity for costly disputes to arise before they have a chance to become established, or whether there are legitimate dispute, if the institutional framework can deal with those disputes in a reasonable time. The dimensions considered in this relation include:  Conflict resolution in the formal legal system  Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system  Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 years) While it might be difficult to state the percentage of all land in the country affected by pending conflicts, it might be instructive to note that, in a state like Benue for instance, 90% of cases pending at the High Court are matters affecting land while the Area/magistrate court has 60% of matters which come to it being land matters. In Kogi State, especially in Idah Local Government Area, a total of 150 matters on land were filed in the Upper Area court in 2010 while just about 25 were filed at the High Court82. Lagos is also a state beset with quite a large number of land-related conflicts. In the Lagos judicial division for instance, a total of 141 matters on land were filed by individuals and corporate bodies83 in 2010 and 364 matters were filed in the Ikeja judicial division during the same period84. Between January and March 2011, a total of 106 cases on land were filed in the Lagos judicial division of the high court of Lagos while 70 cases were filed in the Ikeja judicial division during the same period. Disputes in Lagos state are often prolonged and protracted and averaging 10 years or more. With the exception of Lagos and Benue State with record of several land matters in their courts system, the bulk of land related disputes are in the rural areas and, if not resolved by the local elders or chiefs, are speedily resolved by the local customary or area customary court as applicable. In States like Sokoto, Kebbi, and Zamfara (North Western Nigeria), where there are nomadic Fulanis, a study has shown that land disputes in the local courts constitutes only a small proportion of civil complaints85. It can thus be inferred by taking the country as a whole that land disputes in the formal court system are between 10% and 30% of the total court case. With regards to the number of land-related conflict resolved in a timely manner, the analysis of court records and interview with Judges, Court Registrar and Judicial Assistant in Lagos revealed that, a decision in a land-related conflict is reached in the first instance court within 1 82 Data obtained from the Nigerian Bar Association Chairman in Kogi State. 83 Data obtained from the records section of the Lagos judicial division of the Lagos State High Court 84 Data obtained from the records section of the Ikeja Judicial division of the Lagos State High Court 85 A. Waters-Bayer and E. Taylor-Powell; Settlement and land use by Fulani pastoralists in case study areas Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 134 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE year for less than 50% of cases. For instance, Hon Justice Atilade inherited 238 extant matters by reason of the periodic reshuffling of Judges at the first quarter of 2010, and had only 46 new matters assigned to that court in the first quarter of 2011. In 2010 the court of the honourable Judge, was only able to conclude one case within a period of three (3) months. Thus, with an average of 4 to 5 cases usually concluded by court in each quarter, it can be inferred that land related conflicts takes longer than usual time in the Lagos State High Court. Some of the reasons for the long delays in settling land disputes include:  Ineffective court time  Lack of electricity supply  Absence of Judges  Inadequacy of Judges  Extension of cases by Lawyers  Inadequate operational facilities Designation of all lands in Lagos as urban areas which amount to the abolition of customary right of occupancy in Lagos State, leaving all the claims in Lagos State to statutory rights of occupancy claims solely for the high court and so land matters are confined to the High Court. Long standing land conflicts also exist. For instance, the report on land dispute cases at the Lagos State High Court for the first quarter of 2011 revealed that 25 of the 41 cases resolved (i.e. 61%) were over five years as illustrated in the table 50 below. Table 50: Duration of Dispute Duration No of cases % Cases between 1 – 5 years 16 39 Cases between 6 – 10 years 12 29 Cases above 10 years 13 32% Total 41 100 Inferences drawn from this point to the fact that the share of long-standing land related conflicts can thus be regarded greater than 20% of the total pending land dispute court cases. Table 51: Consensus Ranking of LGI 21 on Low Level of Pending Conflicts LGI Dimensions A B C D 21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system  21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system  21 iii Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 year)  Total 3 0 1 0 2 This indicator designed to assess the level of pending land conflict in the country in summary revealed that the country is in a poor situation (table 51). This is because even though land disputes in the formal court system are between 10% and 30% of the total court cases, the slow Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 135 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE speed of conflict resolution elongates conflicts on land in the country making the share of long- standing land related conflicts to be greater than 20% of the total pending land dispute court cases 4.5.3 Conclusion and Recommendation The dispute resolution and conflict management thematic area of LGAF is composed of two Land Governance Indicators designed to assess the assignment responsibilities to the conflict resolution institutions in the country and the level of pending land conflicts. It was revealed (see table 52) that:  The assignment of responsibility is relatively good  The level of pending land related conflicts is high. Table 52: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management Score LGI-Dim Topic A B C D Assignment of Responsibility 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms  20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution  20 iii Forum shopping  20 iv Possibility of appeals  Low Level of Pending Conflicts 21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system  21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system  21 iii Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 year)  Total 7 1 3 1 2 It is therefore recommended that, to facilitate the increase of access to formal and informal dispute resolution institutions, the following steps may be considered:  A thorough empirical research should be carried out to address;  The prevalence or absence of formal and informal institutions on a local government to local government basis and obtaining data on the number of land disputes per local government area which should form a critical part of the work.  Whether or not these institutions can co-exist to create a comprehensive framework for effective access to justice at the local levels.  The result of this research should be the basis of recommendations to the respective state governments for the enlargement of formal institutions; the mainstreaming of ADR mechanisms into justice administration; and the recognition and possible institutionalization of informal institutions. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 136 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  The need for adequate legislation or practice rules to create a proper legal and operational framework for the implementation of the relevant land reforms. It is also recommended that, to reduce the percentage of pending land disputes and the cost of access, attention should be focused on the fundamental systemic challenges that have bedeviled land administration in Nigeria. Resolving the following will directly impact on the causes of land disputes and the way they are managed.  The absence of well articulated National and State regulations and the attendant inconsistencies in the enforcement of these regulations have created much room for manipulations by interest groups to the detriment of a cohesive policy on land administration.  Furthermore, the political will to drive land reforms is lacking and reform efforts are haphazard and belated. Therefore, to achieve an effective land reform regime, political champions are needed at all levels, with the strong support and commitment of the central government and state authority.  The Land Cadastre program of the Federal Government should be carried out on a nationwide scale and concluded expeditiously. Data from the project should be made available to the public and private sector and along with other empirical studies on land management should form the basis of land reform initiative.  The operations of Land Registries nationwide should be rationalized and international best practice methodology for the registration and maintenance of records implemented.  There should be a common benchmark for the evaluation of land, to check the current practice of land speculation and its attendant problems.  Massive public enlightenment campaigns should explain the reform process and benefits to all Nigerians. A buy-in of all local communities, organizations (civil, religious, etc) should be sought after and obtained. To reduce the time limit for the disposal of land disputes in the country the following interventions will be required:  Specific reform of the procedural rules for the adjudication of land disputes, particularly setting out prescribed timeliness for the different stages of the court process.  Judges should be empowered by the rules to enforce timeliness and impose severe sanctions on litigants for non compliance. It is expected that a firm procedural regime will discourage frivolous litigation and delay practices by lawyers.  Empowerment of the structures of informal institutions should provide an effective filter to ensure that only matters that are both complicated and require judicial intervention reach the courts, thus freeing court time and resources and enhancing its overall effectiveness.  To ensure compliance with practice rules – legal professional associations like the NBA should play a very important role in sanctioning defaulters and providing the necessary information to its members.  There is the urgent need to review the criteria or condition for the designation of an area as urban to include the consideration of access to justice. The decision of Lagos State to designate virtually all its territory as urban effectively ousted the jurisdiction of Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 137 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE customary court to determine disputes over land. The catastrophic congestion in the Lagos judicial high court cannot be resolved with the less than 60 high court judges in the State with less than 10 in its land divisions at any one time. 4.6 Large Scale Land Acquisition 4.6.1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered [LSLA-1] It is pertinent to assert that land use maps and plans for most states of the federation are non- existent. In places where the maps/plans even exist, they have become dated. It should also be indicated that less than 3% of land in the country have been registered and most of these lands are in the urban areas. With regards to the demarcation, surveying and registration of forest lands, it can be stated that only forest lands owned by governments could be so described. Examples of such forest reserve areas are in Ekiti, Ogun, Taraba, Cross River States, etc where records have been gazetted by the government. However, forest lands owned by communities across the country are rarely surveyed or registered even though their location and boundaries are known to the owners. This scenario is applicable to communal forest land located in different parts of the country. It can thus be concluded that ‗less than 10% of the area under forest land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered. The fact that most forest lands are found within the lands owned by families and communities further justifies this option. 4.6.2 Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed expeditiously and transparently. [LSLA-2] Most reports of conflicts in the rural area are land related. These are often between towns and communities as well as between individuals bordering on ownership of landed properties. Land related conflicts arise among the rural people due to lack of standards, inadequate legislation, and non enforcement of legal (and customary) provisions where they exist, as well as ignorance and/or disregard for other land users. For instance and as stated earlier, most rural land boundaries are demarcated by/through natural features like trees, streams and valleys. The risk there is that when trees fall or are removed, and streams change their courses within the years the boundaries also changes resulting in conflict. The conflict between the people of Ile-Ife and Modakeke in South Western Nigeria that resulted in the loss of many lives between 1999 and 2001 is as a result of boundary/farmland dispute. There are also records of conflicts in the Mambilla Plateau of Taraba State between sedentary crop farmers and minority pastoralists. Boundary disputes between Mbagwaza and Utange Districts in Ushongo and those of Ikyurav –Tyiev and Shitile communities in Katsina Ala LGA of Benue state are also on record. In fact, land dispute in Benue State are very rampant particularly within the Tiv speaking areas probably because they are predominantly farmers who depend extensively on Land. The customary court of appeal since its inception has disposed of over 3000 cases and half of these cases are from zone ‗A‘ comprised of Kwande, Ushongo, Katsina Ala, Ukum, Logo and Vandeikya Local government. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 138 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Other reasons for conflict include the type of access gained to productive opportunities on the land and the control of such resources. Idowu and Alawode (2007) noted that refusal to pay rent as at when due, and improper behaviour of the tenant such as marrying the wives of land owners are some of the reasons for land transaction related conflicts. Other reasons include environmental degradation brought about by desertification. For example, it has been estimated that that about 351,000 ha of land is lost to desertification each year which affects each of the ten northern Nigerian states (Lester, 2005). The rather slow way the court resolves these cases also precipitates the crisis. There are usually volumes of cases to be attended to by the various courts in the communities which call for the attention of the lawyers and judges. Indeed, conflicts involving small holder land acquisition are usually taken care of locally at the family or communal level, but in cases of large scale land acquisition, communities are involved and it usually becomes difficult to resolve at the local level and these are the cases that degenerate into communal clashes and loss of lives. A good instance of a conflict related to large scale land acquisition is that of the Shonga District in Kwara State where residents of communities like Shonga town, Chita, Goro, Tsapata and Kpatako among others attempted to resist the acquisition of their lands. This conflict was however resolved by beefing up the security of the area and promptly paying compensation to those affected86. Instances where lands acquired by the government for forest and agricultural development have been allocated to individuals who use them for other purposes also exist. For instance, the late or non-payment of compensation by government to the communities whose land have been acquired often cause conflicts between the ‗new owners‘ and the former owners (i.e. the communities). In some cases the new owners need to make another payment to the communities to resolve the conflict. It can thus be summed up that land Conflicts related to use or ownership rights and directly or indirectly related to land acquisition are relatively frequent (more than 5% of rural land area affected) and the inability to address these conflicts expeditiously and in a transparent manner results in long pending disputes. 4.6.3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified [LSLA-3] Apart from restrictions relating to the use of land with high tension wires, electricity transformers, electricity poles, and oil pipelines among others which can be unambiguously identified on site located within rural areas, there exist customary restrictions which are effected in the rural areas by the customary owners in the sense that they do not allow some activities to be performed by the holders. For instance in the Cocoa belt of south western Nigeria, the land owners do not allow holders (tenants) to plant permanent crops on the rented land. It can thus be opined that the land use restrictions applying to any given plot of rural land can be unambiguously determined on site for land occupied by less than 10% of the population since it is the closest to the situation of the country. 86 Ariyo J. A. & Martimore, M. (2011) Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 139 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.6.4 Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner [LSLA-4] A procedure exists for large scale land acquisition in the country and this procedure is embedded in the Land Use Act promulgated in 1978. For instance, Sec 28 (3) of the LUA stipulates the conditions under which acquisitions can be done while Sec 29 describes the procedure for the payment of compensation. Sec 30 provides the guidelines for the resolution of conflicts relating to the amount of compensation paid. With this analysis, it can be deduced that a procedure exist even though rarely implemented. With regards to the federal government, acquisition of land is carried out by many parallel institutions. The Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (FMLUD) is responsible for the acquisition of lands required by all federal government agencies. However, in practice, ministries like Agriculture, Power, Aviation, etc acquire land without passing through the FMLUD. Thus, the ethical performances of these institutions are in doubt. Similar situation occur in states where the governor play the major role in land acquisition. Over riding public interest which is meant to be the basis for large scale acquisition is seldom considered. Payments of compensation also take long period of time if to be paid at all, and the Land Use and Allocation Committee meant to be established to resolve conflicts relating to acquisitions are rarely established. By implication lots of arbitrary steps are taken by public officers in the process of large scale land acquisition in the country. Translating to the fact that Standards of ethical performance for institutions that promote, channel or acquire land for purposes of interest to this study are not clearly defined and accounts are not regularly audited. 4.6.5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent [LSLA-5] The need to encourage investors into the country necessitated the establishment of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission in 1995 to serve as the spring board to usher in new entrepreneurs into the country by removing all the registration bottlenecks. In the same vein, the Corporate Affairs Commission has also undergone tremendous reform making it easy to register businesses within a record time. In fact the Doing Business in Nigeria noted that starting a business in Nigeria is relatively easy in comparison to other Sub Saharan countries. Every state of the federation has its own provisions on the type and amount of incentives to be given to promote investments. In Ekiti state for instance, the government buys the products of Agro-Allied companies to encourage them. In other states Lands have been given free of charge to build Free trade zones while in others tax holidays have been given to investors. Generally incentives to encourage investment in the country are discussed below87: The Nigerian Government has put in place a number of investment incentives for the stimulation of private sector investment from within and outside the country. While some of these incentives cover all sectors, others are limited to some specific sectors. The nature and application of these incentives have been considerably simplified. 87 Doing Business in Nigeria (2008) World Bank and IFC, and Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission 2006. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 140 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The incentives include: (i) Companies Income Tax The Companies Income Tax Act has been amended in order to encourage potential and existing investors and entrepreneurs. The current rate in all sectors, except for petroleum, is 30 percent. (ii) Pioneer Status The grant of Pioneer Status to an industry is aimed at enabling the industry concerned to make a reasonable level of profit within its formative years. The profit so made is expected to be ploughed back into the business. Pioneer status takes the form of five-year tax holiday to qualified or (eligible) industries anywhere in the Federation and seven-year tax holiday in respect of industries located in economically disadvantaged local government area of the Federation. At the moment, there is a list of 69 approved industries declared pioneer industries, which can benefit from tax holiday. To qualify, a joint venture company or a wholly foreign-owned company must have incurred a capital expenditure of not less than five million Naira whilst that of qualified indigenous company should not be less than N150, 000.00. In addition, an application in respect of Pioneer Status must be submitted within one year the applicant company starts commercial production otherwise the application will be time-barred. (iii) Tax relief for Research and Development Industrial establishments are expected to engage in Research and Development (R&D) for the improvement of their processes and products. Up to 120 percent of expenses on (R&D) are tax deductible, provided that such R&D activities are carried out in Nigeria and are connected with the business from which income or profits is derived. Also, for the purpose of R&D on Local raw materials, 140 percents of expenses are allowed. Where the research is long-term, it will be regarded as a capital expenditure and will be written off against profit. The result of such research could be patented and protected in accordance with internationally accepted Industrial Property Rights. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 141 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE (iv) Capital Allowances The current rates applicable in respect of capital allowances are Qualifying Expenditure in Respect Initial Annual S/N of:- Allowance (%) Allowance (%) i) Building Expenditure 5 10 per Annum ii) Industrial Building Expenditure 15 10 iii) Mining 20 0 iv) Plant excluding furniture and fittings 20 10 v) Furniture and Fittings 15 10 vi) Motor Vehicle Expenditure 25 20 vii) Plantation equipment expenditure 20 33 viii) Housing Estate Expenditure 20 10 ix) Ranching and Plantation Expenditure 25 15 Research and Development x) 25 12 Expenditure xi) Public Transportation Motor Vehicle 30 - The amount of capital allowance to be enjoyed in any year of assessment is restricted in Nigeria to 75% of assessable profit in case of manufacturing companies and 66% in case of others, except such companies in agro-allied industries that are not affected by this restriction. If leased assets are used in agro-allied ventures, the full (100%) capital allowance claimed will be granted. Moreover, where the leased assets are agricultural plants and equipment, there will be an additional investment allowance of 10% on such expenditure. (v) In-Plant Training This is applicable to industrial establishments that have set up inplant training facilities. Such industries enjoy a two percent tax concession for a period of five years. (vi) Investment in Infrastructure This is a form of incentive granted to industries that provide facilities that ordinarily, should have been provided by government. Such facilities include access roads, pipe borne water and electricity. Twenty percent (20%) of the cost of providing these infrastructural facilities, where they do not exist, is tax deductible. (vii) Investment in Economically Disadvantaged Areas Without prejudice to the provision of the pioneer status enabling law, a pioneer industry sited in economically disadvantaged Local Government Area is entitled to 100% tax holiday for seven years and an additional 5% capital depreciation allowance over and above the initial capital depreciation allowance. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 142 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE (viii) Labour Intensive Mode of Production Industries with high labour/capital ratio are entitled to tax concessions. These are industries with plants, equipment and machinery, which essentially are operated with minimal automation. Where there is automation, such automation should not be more than one process in the course of production. The rate is graduated in such a way that an industry employing 1,000 persons or more will enjoy 15 percent tax concession, while an industry employing 200 will enjoy 7 percent and those employing 100 will enjoy 6 percent and so on. (ix) Local Value Added 10% tax concession for five (5) years. This applies essentially to engineering industries, where some finished imported products serves as inputs. The concession is aimed at encouraging local fabrication rather than the mere assembly of completely knocked down parts. (x) Re-Investment Allowance This incentive is granted to companies engaged in manufacturing which incur qualifying capital expenditure for the purposes of approved expansion, etc. The incentive is in the form of a generalized allowance of capital expenditure incurred by companies for the following:-  Expansion of production capacity  Modernization of production facilities  Diversification into related products (xi) Minimum Local Raw Materials Utilization A tax credit of 20% is granted for five years to industries that attain the minimum level of local raw material sourcing and utilization. The minimum levels of local raw materials sourcing and utilization by sectors are: -  Agro-allied - 70%  Engineering - 60%  Chemicals - 60%  Petrochemicals - 70% It can thus be concluded that there are written but unclear provisions in law or regulations regarding incentives for investors and their applicability has to be negotiated on a case by case basis in a way that is often discretionary. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 143 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.6.6 Benefit sharing mechanisms regarding investments in agriculture (food crops, biofuels, forestry, livestock, game farm/conservation) are regularly used and transparently applied [LSLA-6] There are no specific rules/laws in place to ensure that communities benefit from investments located in their community, although the governments in the various communities try to put in place some measures to ensure that the communities are not worse off. For instance in the oil rich communities, the joint venture agreement specifies provision of social infrastructure for communities as part of the negotiation before the final acquisition. The bio-fuel effort in Nigeria is making explicit the number of jobs to be created, the facilities to be made available to the communities as part of the memorandum of agreement with the host communities and the governments. The MOU signed by the Kwara State Government with the companies include specific provisions for the communities. Specifically, the MOU with Casplex made provision for use of five percent of annual profit to be used for provision of spelt facilities for the host communities, while that of the Zimbabwe farmers were mandated to empower the youths of the host communities. These MOUs are however rarely monitored or enforced which in most cases result in conflict between the investors and the communities. It can thus be concluded that mechanisms to allow the public to obtain benefits from the investment (or investing party) other than compensation (e.g., schools, roads, etc.) are rarely used or applied in a discretionary manner. 4.6.7 There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and investors [LSLA-7] There exist definite procedures to be followed in the acquisition of land in Nigeria. However, in the case of recent large scale land acquisitions in the country specified procedures were not followed. For instance in the case of the Zimbabwean farmers it was the intervention of former president Obasanjo that facilitated the acquisition. In that particular case, the communities were resettled on promise by the State government and payment of compensation. In other cases even in the same state, the normal procedure was followed. So it may be said that the process is transparent and clear regulations exist but the role of government could be predominant especially in cases where the issue has to do with a major programme of the government. Site Selection Survey Advertisement/ Site Selection Gazetting Figure 4: Process of Land Acquisition Title Clearance Identification of Indemnity Compensation Payment Holders Certification Authorisation Figure 5: Filing of compensation claims. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 144 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE It can thus be noted that transfer of land use or ownership rights for large scale investment requires previous acquisition of these rights by the state which follows a clear, transparent, and time-bound process with decision-making authority clearly assigned. 4.6.8 Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the desirability of projects on public/communal land [LSLA-8] Even though adequate information is required from inventors to assess the impact of their investment projects on land/environment, this information may not be sufficient enough to assess the viability and benefits from the project. Instances where information related to the forward integration of investments and change of land use was not reported to the authorities were noted. Normally, this information would warrant a need to carry out another Impact Assessment. Thus in a bid to reduce cost this information is often not provided and due to poor monitoring illegal development of this nature go unnoticed. It can thus be concluded that investors are consistently required to provide information on company background or financial/technical analyses but this information is not sufficient to assess viability and benefits from the project. Exemption to the General Rule Where exemption from local incorporation is desired, a foreign company may apply in accordance with Section 56 of the Companies Act, to the National Council of Ministers for exemption from incorporating a local subsidiary if such foreign company belongs to one of the following categories: (a) ―foreign companies invited to Nigeria by or with the approval of the Federal Government of Nigeria to execute any specified individual project; (b) foreign companies which are in Nigeria for the execution of a specific individual loan project on behalf of a donor country or international organisation; (c) foreign government-owned companies engaged solely in export promotion activities; and (d) engineering consultants and technical experts engaged on any individual specialist project under contract with any of the governments in the Federation or any of their agencies or with any other body or person, where such contract has been approved by the Federal Government‖. The application for exemption from disclosing certain details about the applicant is to be made to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF). If successful, the request of the applicant is granted upon such terms and conditions, as the National Council of Ministers may think fit. Representative Offices Foreign companies may set up representative offices in Nigeria. A representative office however, cannot engage in business or conclude contracts or open or negotiate any letters of credit. It can only serve as a promotional and liaison office, and its local operational expenses have to be floated by the foreign company. A representative office has to be registered with the CAC Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 145 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.6.9 For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors provide the required information and this information is publicly available [LSLA-9] In most cases, information provided by investors to the government indicating the impact of their investment on the environment is not made public. Government usually requires information on the nature of investment, the item to be produced, plans for the community and environmental impact assessment. Even if the investors meet the requirement of the government compliance mechanisms, it is necessary to make the information available to the public. Opportunity to support the growth of these investors or curtail their excesses is often constrained by not publicly disclosing the required information. Some of the information required from investors are listed in the extracts below: Investigation of title is carried out at the Lands Registry or New Towns Development Authority (whichever is applicable) by the Purchaser‘s Solicitor shortly after inspection and expression of interest in the land using copies of the key title documents, evidence of payment of levies, approved building plans, survey plans, excision plans, etc. Sometimes investigations may include visiting the neighbours to the property and making direct enquiries in respect of the land in question. If the property falls within the Excision Area (i.e. areas exempted from Government acquisition like Ajah and its environs in Lagos), the investigation will include the verification of the red copy of the ‗Excision Plan of the Layout‘ where property is situated. The Excision Plan itself is a vital document and a prerequisite for Registration of Title to property at the Lands Registry. Very often, an area covered by an excision plan will also be published in the Government Gazette for the avoidance of doubt. It is always prudent to verify the Excision Plan by re-confirming the survey beacons around the land. Where there is no Excision Plan, an application for the approval and registration of one will have to be made to the State Government in the prescribed form by the original title holder/ beneficiary of the Government Excision. The process is usually an expensive procedure depending on the size of the property and the valuation of the property. It can thus be concluded that ‗investors provide some or all the information required from them but this information is not publicly available‘. 4.6.10 Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from communities or the public are required by law to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and risks will be shared. [LSLA-10] Apart from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) exercise required to be carried out before any large scale development is done in the country to forestall potential damage to the environment, there is no existing law compelling investors to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and risks will be shared with the public or communities. The absence of legislation on this matter probably explains the scenario in the Niger Delta where land owners are in continuous clash with investors. The benefits derivable from the investments and the harm Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 146 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE the public may be liable to are therefore often hidden to the public. It can thus be concluded that contracts do not have to specify either risk sharing or benefit sharing arrangement. 4.6.11 The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is reasonably short [LSLA-11] The procedure for reviewing and responding to request for approval of a project in Nigeria takes a long time. According to the ‗doing business in Nigeria report of 2010‘, it takes about 457 days to enforce a contract while it takes about 82 days and several procedures to register a property. The report also noted that it takes 31 days to start a business in the country. The Business Provision Council having noted this delay created a one stop desk where all information and processing of request can be accessed. This account is applicable to the different types of investment in the country. However, with regards large scale land acquisition, there is yet to be a specific timeline estimated. It can thus be concluded that in most cases, investment application related documents are reviewed and receive a response within 6 months of date of submission. 4.6.12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented [LSLA-12] Although, Environmental Social Impact Assessments are expected to be carried out before any large-scale investment in agriculture is carried out in the country. Only in few cases are the requirements implemented. The Nigerian Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act No 86 of 1992 requires full detailed Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). The applicable national regulations include:  FEPA sectoral guidelines for drainage and irrigation, power generation, industry (manufacturing) Agriculture/Agro allied, and Infrastructure projects.  National Effluent Limitations regulations (S.1.8) 1991  National Pollution Abatement in Industries and facilities generating Wastes (s.1.9) 2004  National Management of Solid and hazardous wastes regulations (s.1.15) 1991  Guidelines and Standards for environmental pollution control in Nigeria 1991  Sectoral guidelines for EIA 1995  National Policy on the Environment 1989  Environmental Impact Assessment procedural guidelines 1995  Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act No 86 1992  National guidelines and Standards for water quality 1999 The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment report is mandatorily expected to include details of plans to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts during the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the project. It is tagged the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP). Thus it can be concluded that ‗social safeguard requirements for investors are not clearly documented and defined‘ Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 147 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 4.6.13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented [LSLA-13] In other countries like Sweden where sanctions are imposed on investor who do not carry out afforestation in forest lands as stipulated in their regulations, the situation in Nigeria is different with the environmental requirements for investor even though clearly defined and documented are implemented with discretion. The environmental legislation clearly establishes the requirements that a project must comply with in relation to environmental safeguards. The Guidelines for the elaboration of impact evaluation assessments are in this sense important and contain specific requirements by area: e.g. Electricity, oil, hydraulic infrastructure, tourism, communication, mining, forestry, aquaculture among others) and by the breath of the project (national, regional, local) Although the legislation is clear, it can be observed that it is rarely enforced. It can thus be concluded that environmental safeguard requirements for investors are not clearly documented and defined. 4.6.14 For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and select economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement these effectively. [LSLA-14] Public institutions involved in the transfer of public/community lands have procedures to identify and select economic, social and environmental benefit but these procedures are often implemented with discretion. This may be attributed to the lack of adequate personnel or interference from the political/business clique. This was based on the fact that, the provisions partially exist in the policy document to identify and select these benefits but they are not implemented. The environmental law‘s provision states the procedures for the identification and selection of investments. However, the implementation is subject to various shades based on the lack of uniformity in understanding the legal implications of the provisions. The experience may be due to lack of adequate personnel or interference from the political/business clique. ‗Procedures to fully cover economic, social, and environmental issues are in place but not implemented effectively‘ was chosen as the consensus option 4.6.15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is checked [LSLA-15] Even though the Federal State Environmental Protection Agencies are in-charge of ensuring that investors comply with safeguards, there however exist several overlaps in the responsibilities of these agencies with those of others who are in charge of land management. Consequently, none totally accepts the responsibility of checking if investors are compliant with safeguards. For instance The Federal Criminal Law considers and defines crimes against the environment. Agencies like the Police and FEPA have been established to arrest and prosecute offenders of the federal environmental procedures; to biodiversity, to bio-security, and dangerous technological activities. These agencies however rarely follow up on the organizations to ensure compliance. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 148 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for the overall monitoring of the environment in Nigeria. It can thus be summed up that ‗responsible government agencies do not follow up on the agreements to check for compliance‘. 4.6.16 There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do not comply with requirements [LSLA-16] Contract dispute resolution has been at the core of Nigeria‘s reform efforts. The process was initiated shortly after the end of the military rule, and in 2004 Lagos state adopted new high court rules for civil procedures, followed soon by Abuja. The new rules incorporate various elements aimed at expediting dispute resolution: front loading of evidence, pre trial hearings, and deadlines for actions. Encouraged by the success of the new High Court rules in Abuja and Lagos, several other states implemented them in 2006- 2007. The issue of large scale land acquisition for agriculture especially for private concerns is quite recent in Nigeria, and as such there is yet to be specific cases that warrant specific mention. The large scale land acquisition for agriculture practiced before was for government‘s use, for instance the Okitipupa Oil palm Plc was government acquisition. But large scale land acquisition for private purposes is recent in the country. 4.6.17 Conclusion The present situation in the country can be improved on if:  The public are educated on the need to register their land.  The land registration process is made less cumbersome to enable easy registration of rural lands.  Prompt and adequate compensation is paid by investors to land owners to reduce conflict caused by delayed and inadequate compensations.  Stakeholders are involved/participate in the land use planning process.  Any unused publicly acquired land should be reverted back to the owners.  Mapping and cadastration of all land in the country is given priority.  Monitoring, evaluation and implementation processes are standardized.  For effective follow up, there are several cocktail of checklist to ensure that the investors follow the rules.  There is transparency in land acquisition process.  There is capacity development in terms of human and materials resources.  Security of tenure is guaranteed to encourage long term investment in agriculture  Sanctions or payment of damages are imposed on the defaulters of the rules.  Social and environmental issues are built into the initial agreement so as to seek for sanctions if not complied with.  Tax relief or tax holidays of up to 3 years to cover the gestation period of crops should be given to agricultural investors. The overall rating of LSLA in the country is shown in table 53. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 149 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 53: Consensus Ranking of the Indicators for the Large Scale Acquisition of Land rights Score LSLA Topic A B C D 1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered  Conflicts generated by land acquisition and how these are 2  addressed Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be 3  identified. Public institutions in land acquisition operate in a clear and 4  consistent manner. 5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent.  6 Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture  There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders 7  and investors. Information required from investors to assess projects on 8  public/community land. Information provided for cases of land acquisition on 9  public/community land. Contractual provisions on benefits and risks sharing regarding 10  acquisition of land 11 Duration of procedure to obtain approval for a project  12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture  Environmental requirements for large scale investments in 13  agriculture Procedures for economically, environmentally, and socially 14  beneficial investments. 15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture  Procedures to complain if agricultural investors do not comply 16  with requirements. Total 16 0 1 6 9 4.7 Summary of the LGAF Substantive Findings The validated consensus ranking of the LGAF 96 dimensions reveals considerable weakness in land governance in Nigeria as only 5 (5.21%) and 14 (14.58) of the dimensions were ranked A and B respectively while 41 (42.71%) and 36 (37.5%) were ranked C and D respectively. As shown in figure 6 below, land governance in terms of nearly all the thematic areas is very weak. The order of weakness based on the percentage of dimensions scoring C and D are: (i) land use planning, management and taxation with 94.12%; (ii) large scale land acquisition, 93.76%; (iii) Management of Public Land , 87.5%, (iv) the legal and institutional framework, 74.07%; (v) public provision of land information, 69.24%; and (vi) dispute resolution and conflict management, 42.86%. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 150 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Summary of the Validated Consensus Ranking of the LGAF Dimensions Legal and Institutional Framew ork 7.41 18.52 44.44 29.63 (27 Dimensions) Land Use Planning, Management 5.88 52.94 41.18 and Taxation (17 Dimensions) Public Land Management (16 12.5 62.5 25 Dimensions) Thematic Areas Public Provision of Land 15.38 15.38 23.08 46.16 Information (13 Dimensions) Dispute Resolution and Conflict 14.29 42.85 14.29 28.57 Management (7 Dimensions) Large Scale Land Acquisition (16 A 6.25 37.5 56.25 Dimensions) B C All the Dimensions - 96 5.21 14.58 42.71 37.5 D 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 % Score Figure 6: Summary of the Validated Consensus Ranking of the LGAF Dimensions Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 151 Policy Analysis and Policy Recommendation Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 5.0 Policy Analysis and Policy Recommendation The LGAF findings, as presented in Section 4 above, show that land governance in Nigeria is very weak in almost all the LGAF thematic areas. Theoretically, the main areas of strength of land governance in Nigeria, based on the LGAF consensual assessment are:  The main land policy in Nigeria – the LUA, recognizes rights held by majority of both rural and urban population [LGI 1 (i & ii)]  That the relevant private encumbrances are recorded [LGI 16(ii)] and that the records in the registry can be searched by both right holder name and parcel [LGI 16(iv)].  That there is an informal or community-based system that resolves disputes in an equitable manner and decisions made by this system have some recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute resolution system [LGI 20(ii)]. Other areas of fair strength, based on the consensus score of B by the expert panels include:  Restrictions regarding both urban and rural land use ownership and transferability that in most parts are justified on the basis of overall public interest but that are not enforced [LGI 4(i) and (ii)].  Some separation in the roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy and the administration of any dispute which because of overlapping and conflicting responsibilities, often lead to occasional problems [LGI 5(i)]  Division of land-related responsibilities between different levels of administration and government is clear with minor overlaps [LGI 5(iii)]  Information related to rights in land is available to other institutions but the information is not readily accessible as the information is not maintained in a uniform way [LGI 5(iv)].  There exists limited exceptions to the payment of land/property taxes which are clearly based on equity or efficiency grounds but are not applied in a transparent and consistent manner [LGI 11(i)].  The key information for land allocations (the locality and area of the land allocations, the parties involved and the financial terms of the allocation ) is only partially recorded but is publicly accessible; or the key information is recorded but only partially publicly accessible. [LGI 12(vi)]  Only some types of public land are generally divested at market prices in a transparent process irrespective of the investor‘s status (e.g. domestic or foreign). [ LGI 15(iii)]  Copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can only be obtained by intermediaries and those who can demonstrate an interest in the property upon payment of the necessary formal fee, if any. [LGI 16(v)]  Institutions for providing a first instance of conflict resolution are accessible at the local level in less than half of communities but where these are not available informal institutions perform this function in a way that is locally recognized. [LGI 20(i)]  There are parallel avenues for dispute resolution but cases cannot be pursued in parallel through different channels and evidence and rulings may be shared between institutions so as to minimize the scope for forum shopping. [LGI 20(iii)]  Land disputes in the formal court system are between 10% and 30% of the total court cases. [LGI 21(i)] Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 154 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  In most cases, investment application related documents are reviewed and receive a response within 6 months of date of submission. [LSLA 11] Notwithstanding the above result, land governance in Nigeria is very weak with regards to:  Enforcement of rights;  Independent and accessible avenues for  Mechanisms for recognition of rights; appeal against expropriation;  Institutional overlap;  Openness of public land transactions  Equity and non-discrimination issues;  Mapping of registry records;  Transparency of land use planning;  Reliability of records;  Efficiency of land use planning;  Cost of registering a property transfer;  Speed and predictability of the process;  Financial sustainability of the registry;  Transparency of valuation;  Capital investment;  Tax collection;  Speed of conflict resolution in the  Difficulty of identifying public land; formal system;  Speed of use of expropriated land;  Long-standing conflicts (unresolved  Transparency in land expropriation cases older than 5 year); and procedures;  Large Scale Acquisition of Land Rights  Promptness of Compensation; Table 54 below summarizes the strength and weakness of land governance in Nigeria based on the consensus and validated ranking of the 96 LGAF dimensions. Table 54: Strength and Weakness of Land Governance based on consensus ranking by Expert Panels Strength Weakness Scores of Scores of Thematic Area Total % A and B C and D No % No % Legal and Institutional Arrangement 7 25.9 20 74.1 27 100 Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation 1 5.9 16 94.1 17 100 Management of Public Land 2 12.5 14 87.5 16 100 Public Provision of Land Information 4 30.77 9 69.23 13 100 Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management 4 57.1 3 42.5 7 100 Large Scale Land Acquisition 1 6.3 15 93.7 16 100 Total 19 19.79 77 80.21 96 100 This result calls for corrective measures in terms of reform actions. The suggested reform actions for short, medium and long term are presented in table 55. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 155 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 55: Policy Issues and Reform Actions Thematic Reform Actions Issues Findings Areas Short Term Medium Long Term Standardization and simplification of the Mass mobilization and public procedure for securing sensitization of rural dwellers Institutionalizing the The tenure of most groups legal recognition for rural Policy for group rights about the existing developed procedures. in rural areas is not group rights. laws/procedures for group formally recognized but 1(iii) right Sustained openness and groups can gain legal Strengthen the mechanisms Rural group rights recognition/representation continuity of the process to representation under other for land rights recognition recognition and the available benefits of engender confidence of the laws (e.g. corporate law) which can be done with the group land registration in the rural groups. proper funding of the formal market in the country. agencies and the legislation Legal and Institutional Framework of their roles. Research about the origin and growth of informality in cities Group tenure in informal Mass mobilization and public Develop short, precise, 1(iv) urban areas is not formally sensitization of urban affordable and legislated Institutionalizing the Urban group rights recognized but groups can dwellers about the existing procedures for formalizing developed legislated recognition in informal gain legal representation laws/procedures for group informal urban procedures. areas under other laws right development. recognition/representation and the available benefits of group land registration in the formal market in the country. The law provides A study to investigate the opportunities for those diverse procedure/steps for holding land under land individualization in the 1(v) customary, group, or different states of the Establish accessible Institutionalizing the Opportunities for tenure collective tenures to fully federation localized land registration developed procedures. individualization or partially individualize centres. land ownership/use. Develop a model land Procedures are however individualization procedure not affordable or clear, which is simple, transparent, Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 156 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE leading to widespread affordable and adaptable to discretion or failure to the peculiarity of each state apply even for cases where of the federation. those affected desire to do so. Public sensitization on the Registration/ Development of competent need to register communal or Recognition of Rights Less than 10% of the area manpower and Complete surveying and indigenous lands under communal or infrastructure support to mapping of communal and 2(i) indigenous land has developed technique indigenous lands in the A study on the most Surveying/mapping and boundaries demarcated and country appropriate and cost effective registration of claims on surveyed and associated Develop a system which technique for the cadastral communal or indigenous claims registered. instantly registers surveyed survey of communal or land lands. indigenous lands 2(ii) Develop affordable land Less than 50% of Registration of registration and records individual properties in individually held management procedures. rural areas are formally. properties in rural areas Establishment in all local government areas of the country, standard land Public awareness campaign registries with competent on the need and benefits to personnel. register land in the country Removal of the LUA from Institutionalizing the Conduct pilot registration the constitution to developed procedures. schemes in rural and urban guarantee easy amendment 2(iii) Less than 50% of areas of the country as events unfolds. Sustenance and maintenance Registration of individual properties in of the process. individually held urban areas are formally A review of the land Amend the LUA with properties in urban areas. registered. registration process towards emphasis on the procedure making it people friendly. for implementation in order to avoid arbitrariness, abuse of discretion and corruption while also ensuring that the amendment is participatory where public input is given high priority. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 157 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2(iv) Less than 15% of land Carry out a comprehensive Public sensitization to Women‘s rights are registered to physical study on the prevalence of reduce any observed land National, state and local land recognized in practice by persons is registered in the land related gender related gender agencies to monitor. the formal system name of women either discrimination in the country. discrimination. (urban/rural). individually or jointly. Legislation to formally recognize long-term, Consultations to examine the Development of a standard 3(ii) unchallenged possession of need for a legislation to legislation to recognize all Implementation and Formal recognition of public lands does not exist recognize all types of long- or types of long-term institutionalization of the new long-term, unchallenged but that of private lands term unchallenged unchallenged occupation of legislation possession exist in form of the occupation of land. land. limitation laws Passing of people friendly public participatory regulation to promote transparent first time registration by:  The removal of non- 3 (iii) The cost for first time Consolidation and essential demands of First-time registration on sporadic registration for a Institutionalization of the harmonization of all land payments for other rates demand is not restricted typical urban property new legislation/ management agencies under and taxes as condition by inability to pay exceeds 5% of the property procedures. one body to ensure seamless for first-term registration formal fees value. integration.  Simplification of all first-time land registration procedures.  Rationalizing and streamlining the procedures required for land registration. The mandated responsibilities of the Identification of all Establishment of a various authorities dealing Policy development institutions both vertical and National Land Reform The National Land Reform with land administration horizontal dealing with land Commission to reorganize Commission to monitor and issues are defined but 5 (ii) matters and examine their and streamline the enforce all legislated institutional overlap with Institutional overlap mandate with a view to mandates of land policies/regulations. those of other land sector rationalizing them. institutions in the country. agencies and inconsistency is a problem. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 158 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Policy exists or can be Nation-wide consultation, inferred by the existing sensitization and legislation but it is mobilization of all the incomplete (some key stakeholders and the civil Strengthen the Land Periodic review of land policy aspects are missing or only society for the review and 6 (i) Reform Committee to by National Land Commission covers part of the country reformulation of the existing Clear land policy sustain development of with public participation and such as only urban or only land policies. developed in a regulations in line with formulation of regulations to rural areas) or land policy participatory manner developed policy to secure be passed by the National decisions that affect some The Presidential Land its implementation. Assembly. sections of the community Reform Committee to are made without compile, assess, harmonize consultation with those and coordinate land policy affected. development for the country. 6 (ii) Land policies incorporate Establishment of the Review of the existing Periodic review of equity Meaningful some equity objectives but National Land Reform policies with a view to goals in line with societal incorporation of equity these are not regularly and Commission to monitor the improving them. expectation. goals. meaningfully monitored. implementation of policies. 6 (iii) The implementation of Policy for land policy is not costed Undertake a study to Establishment of a implementation is and there is inadequate determine the cost elements National Land Reform costed, matched with the budget, resources and for the implementation of Commission to monitor the benefits and is capacity to implement the land policies at all levels. implementation of policies. Sustain the progress of the adequately resourced. land policy. National Land Commission. 6 (iv) Development of a legislation Land institutions report on Regular and public making it compulsory for The National Land Reform policy implementation only reports indicating land related institutions to Commission to be charged in exceptional progress in policy report publicly policy with this mandate. circumstances or not at all. implementation. implementation. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 159 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Land Develop a comprehensive Management/Land Use Public input is sought in national land use plan Planning preparing and amending where genuine public input Develop a legislation making land use plans but the is sought and applied. it compulsory for the 7 (i) public comments are planning authority to develop In urban areas, land use largely ignored in the Mass publicity for the plans with the people right plans and changes to finalization of the land use developed plans. from the beginning to the Regular updating of the land these plans are based on plans. end. use plans to be initiated by the public input. Establishment of national, National Land Reform state and local regulatory Sensitizing the public of the Commission in conjunction bodies. importance of land use plans, with state and local land Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation their availability and the need authorities. 7(ii) In rural areas, land Develop a land use Public input is not sought to adhere to them. use plans and changes to management procedure in preparing and amending these are based on public which is adaptable to the land use plans. Use land professionals to input. peculiarity of each rural prepare the plans. and urban areas of the federation using land professionals. Mechanisms to allow the public to capture 7 (iii) significant share of the Sustained education of the Sensitization of the public of Public capture of gains from changing land public with procedure their obligations and rights benefits arising from use (e.g. betterment taxes, established for enforcing arising from changing land changes in permitted levies for infrastructure, benefit of changing land use. land use. property tax) are rarely use. used or applied in a discretionary manner. Sensitizing the public about the existence of land use Less than 30% of the land plans and what the destined that has had a change in land uses are. Ensure public participation Continuous monitoring of the 7 (iv) land use assignment in the in all land use plan implementation of developed Speed of land use change past 3 years has changed to A study on the most formulation. plans. the destined use. appropriate method for land use change monitoring in the country. 8 (i) In Lagos, the largest city in Immediate review of the Continuous monitoring of Strengthen the implementing Process for planned the country a hierarchy of existing plans with full implementation of urban agency to maintain its urban development in regional/detailed land use participation of the major land use plans. coordination and monitoring Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 160 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE the largest city. plans may or may not be stakeholders and the public. role. specified by law and in practice urban Establish for each major city, development occurs in an an agency to implement and ad hoc manner with little if coordinate all urban any infrastructure provided development plans. in most newly developing areas. In the four major cities (Kano, Ibadan, Kaduna, and Port Harcourt) in the country a hierarchy of 8 (ii) regional/detailed land use Process for planned plans may or may not be urban development in specified by law and in the 4 largest cities practice urban (except the largest). development occurs in an ad hoc manner with little if any infrastructure provided in most newly developing areas. A study to determine the In the largest city in the level of informality in cities country, the urban planning with a view to designing a process/authority is standard formalization Decentralize the operations 8 (iii) Strengthen the links of the struggling to cope with the process. of the planning office by Ability of urban local/satellite offices with the increasing demand for creating more sub offices planning to cope with head office for adequate serviced units/land as Increase the capacity of the in new location for urban growth. control. evidenced by the fact that urban planning authority. effectiveness. most new dwellings are informal. Employ more professional hands to meet demand. Planning authority to ensure that undeveloped Existing requirements for There is a need to put in lands are properly layed- 8 (iv) residential plot sizes are place a monitoring strategy to out before occupation to Continuous monitoring Plot size adherence. met between 50% and 70% ensure compliance with the ensure systematic of plots. prescribed plot sizes. development of the plot to discourage the current haphazard development Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 161 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Establish rewards and awards The share of land set aside 8 (v) Increase and strengthen the Promote the development schemes among the various for specific use that is used Use plans for specific monitoring and control of truly professional land planning authorities in all for a non-specified purpose land classes (forest, capacity of the planning use planning department to locations to promote in contravention of existing pastures etc) are in line department with professional minimize political and sustainable competition in regulations is greater than with use. competent persons. personal influence. land management and 50%. planning. Sustain and strengthen the professionalization of the Professionalize the building sector. 9 (i) building sector at all levels. Requirements to obtain a Applications for building Review of the requirements building permit are Establish and maintain permits for residential of obtaining permits with the Make public the standards technically justified but not consistent rates of obtaining dwellings are affordable view of making it transparent and methods of assessment affordable for the majority permits. and processed in a non- and affordable. of fees payable for permits of those affected. discretionary manner. for every category of Review building permit rates development. transparently based on public inputs. Review of the requirement for obtaining building permits with a view to 9 (ii) Establish more approval All applications for reducing the time to acquire Time required to obtain a offices with more Link all satellite offices to the building permits receive a permits. building permit for a professionals. central office. decision within 12 months. residential dwelling. Make legislation which makes the thugs and quack punishable under the law. Undertake a study to determine the most appropriate property Strengthen the professional valuation technique for the role of the estate surveyor in Valuation and tax Categorize properties to The assessment of country. the valuation process with ensure equitable land/property for tax regulations that are 10 (i) assessment purposes is not clearly Removal of the arbitrariness enforceable. Clear process of property based on market prices of government control of the valuation land assessment process. Periodic review of valuation and assessment of properties. Appointment of professionals in all valuation offices. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 162 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Valuation rolls should be made mandatory for all states and should be accessible at the valuation Appropriate authorities offices point of entry for should publish valuation rolls property owners. for all properties. There is a policy that Valuation rolls should valuation rolls be publicly The policy should be made 10 (ii) show the location, house accessible and this policy available to landlord Periodic review/update of Public availability of listing (census), the name is effective for a minority associations so that residents valuation rolls. valuation rolls. of the property owner, of properties that are can familiarize themselves to category of property, the considered for taxation. the provisions as regards the property value and the policy and implementation assessed value. process. The roll should show the percentage of property owners liable to pay the tax. 11 (ii) Less than 50% of property Put in place a monitoring A study to determine the Property holders liable to holders liable for body which ensures that reason for not listing all pay property tax are land/property tax are listed property holders are listed property on the tax roll. listed on the tax roll. on the tax roll. on the rolls. Streamline the number of property taxes and the collecting agencies. Sensitize and justify the Eliminate the use of touts collection of taxes by and crude tax collection transparent use of funds 11 (iii) Between 50% and 70% of methods. collected. Develop a national cadastre Assessed property taxes assessed property taxes are with regular updates. are collected. collected. Justify the collection of Increase the capacity and taxes by transparent use of competence of collecting money collected. agencies. Make public and transparent valuation assessment methods. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 163 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Further study is required to 11 (iv) The amount of property evaluate the amount of Property taxes taxes collected is less than Educate and justify the use Enforce sanctions on tax property taxes collected and correspondence to costs the cost of staff in charge of tax proceeds. evaders. the cost of staff in charge of of collection. of collection. collection. Public land Development of clear-cut Public land ownership is 12 (i) A study to streamline the mandates for the Computerize or digitize all justified in most cases by Public land ownership is roles to be performed at management of land in the public land (local, state and provision of public goods justified and various levels (vertically) and country at all levels. federal) records. but responsibility is often implemented at the within organizations at the wrong level of appropriate level of (horizontally). Enforcement of rules and government. government. regulations. Public institutions owning lands should ensure that their land/properties are properly Registration of all public demarcated on the ground 12 (ii) Less than 30% of public land within the national and also on maps. Maintain regular update of the Complete recording of land is clearly identified on cadastre and records linked records. Management of Public Land publicly held land the ground or on maps. to the National land Public enlightenment and depository. physical demarcation of all public lands to guide against encroachment. There is enough ambiguity 12 (iii) in the assignment of Undertake a study to Apply the study result to Assignment of management responsibility determine the type, level of streamline the management management of different types of public Monitor progress. ambiguity and the causes of responsibilities of land responsibility for public land to impact to some ambiguity. institutions. land. extent on the management of assets. Institutionalize the process. Capacity building in all aspects of land There are either Carry out a study to Continuous monitoring. administration through the significantly inadequate determine the capability of 12 (iv) improvement on budgetary resources or marked land management institutions Ensure proper study and Resources available to allocations, training of inefficient organizational and creation of a bench mark compliance with defined comply with personnel and provision of capacity leading to little or requirement for the land expropriation regulations responsibilities. infrastructure. no management of public institutions to perform including viability study lands. efficiently. reports for sustained Transparently implement management before lands are findings. acquired for public good. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 164 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE A study to inventorize all All the information in the public lands located in public land inventory is 12 (v) different parts of the country. only available for a limited Harmonize all records of Inventory of public land Continuous monitoring of the set of public property and public lands stored in is accessible to the Public enlightenment and situation. there is little or no various media. public. physical demarcation of all justification why records public lands to guide against are not accessible. encroachment. A study to examine the land Where property is expropriation and Creation of a standard Expropriation expropriated, compensation exercise in the compensation procedure compensation, in kind or in country. where owners of Establishment of a body 14 (i) cash, is paid but the expropriated lands are charged with the enforcement Compensation for displaced households do Develop a comprehensive promptly paid of approvals for expropriation of not have comparable assets law for expropriation compensation while compensation. ownership. and cannot maintain prior including avenues for unused land are returned to social and economic status. affected parties to lodge the owners. complaints. Compensation, in kind or in cash, is paid for some unregistered rights (such as possession, occupation Ensure that funds for 14 (ii) A study to identify all rights Establish a national watch dog etc.), however those with compensation are made Compensation for capable of being to ensure compliance (the other unregistered rights available before any expropriation of all compensated upon National Land Reform (which may include acquisition is embarked rights. acquisition. Commission). grazing, access, gathering upon. forest products etc.) are usually not paid compensation. Effect policy/regulation barring acquisition of private Less than 50% of land without prior payment 14 (iii) Establish an agency to monitor expropriated land owners of compensation or Implement and sustain the Promptness of compliance and attend to receive compensation deprivation of individual policy. compensation. complaints. within one year. rights to their possession before payment of compensation. 14 (iv) Avenues to lodge a Develop a comprehensive Review the land use act Continuous monitoring to Independent and complaint against law for land expropriation especially Sec 30 and 47 (2). ensure compliance. accessible avenues for expropriation are not in the country with Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 165 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE appeal against independent. independent avenues for expropriation. lodgment of complaints. A first instance decision has been reached for Publicize the reformed 14 (v) between 30% and 50% of procedural rules. Appealing expropriation the complaints about is time-bounded. expropriation lodged during the last three years. Prescribe by legislation transparent public approved The share of public land Adherence to the regulations for the disposal of disposed of in the past 3 regulations passed on the 15 (i) public lands by all means. years through sale or lease disposal of public land and Continuous monitoring of all Openness of public land through public auction or monitoring of the process public land transactions. transactions. Suspend all disposal of open tender process is less by regulators with public land by any other than 50%. legislated mandates. means apart from public auction or open tender. Making the land registration process affordable. A study to inventorize the Develop a standard Less than 50% of records records of all land registries Public Provision of Land Information legislation requiring the for privately held land in the country. Development of seamless 16 (i) survey of land before registered in the registry operation of the survey office Mapping of registry registration in the country. are readily identifiable in Harmonize/integrate the and the deeds registry under records maps in the registry or survey office with the deeds Develop appropriate one mandate. cadastre registry for effective mapping regulations justifying the of all registered land. office of the surveyor general and its operation within the land registration process. Prescription of mandatory requirements for registration Integration of all registries Relevant public restrictions of all restrictions or charges 16 (iii) with other land related Regulating transactions at the or charges are recorded but against registered land. Economically relevant institutions to enable the land registry (dealing and this is not done in a public restrictions or Establishment of simple and regular update of registration) to accredited consistent and reliable charges. affordable procedure for information on registered professionals. manner. registering encumbrances on titles. land. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 166 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Digitalize all registry Integrate all registry records 16 (vi) records to enable easy It generally takes more Land registries should be which can be accessed from a Timely response to a access. than 1 week after request established at all local central depository in any part request for access to to produce a copy or government areas to fast of the country records in the registry (or Training of the personnel extract of documents track easy access to organization with in land registries. recording rights in information. Continuous in-house and information on land property. external training for registry rights) Infrastructural capacity staff to boost efficiency. building for all registries. Development of meaningful service Educating the officers of the standards for the registries. 17 (i) There are no meaningful land registries about the Focus on customer service standards set and importance and value of land Autonomy for land Establishment of satisfaction in the no attempt to monitor management services for management department professional and well registry customer service. general national defined career path development. development for land registry staff. Sensitizing the public on the Integration of the registries Less than 50% of the benefit of regular updates of 17 (ii) Human and capital with all other land related ownership information in land information. Registry/ cadastre infrastructure capacity institutions to enable the the registry/cadastre is up- information is up-to-date building for all registries. regular update of information to-date. Reduction of the cost and on registered titles. process of updates. A study to investigate the operational structure of land Removal of illegitimate The cost for registering a 18 (i) registries in the country. steps like the requirement property transfer is equal to Institutionalization of the Cost of registering a for the payment of 5-10% or greater than 5% of the developed procedure. property transfer View to improving the consent fee and arbitrary property value. registering of property stamp duty. transfer. Make the registries independent and self sustaining. The total fees collected by Develop the land management 18 (ii) the registry are less than Make the land registries self system to the status of Financial sustainability 50% of the total registry accounting. commodity or stock exchange/ of the registry. Professionalize the land operating costs. commission. management department with established career paths. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 167 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Revitalize the registries in line with the findings of Carry out an audit of the the study. There is little or no human and infrastructural 18 (iii) investment in capital in the capacity of selected registries Re-orientate the authorities Capital investment system to record rights in in the six geo-political zones on the massive potentials land. of the country. of the land management authorities in the economic development of each state. Clear schedule of fees for Establish visible public 19 (i) different services is Improvement of the payment channels to make Schedule of fees is publicly accessible, but and accounting process by grievances or complaints available publicly receipts are not issued for reducing cash transactions. with a time frame for all transactions. resolution. Develop and legislate a transparent procedure. Establishment of clear and Institutionalize the process Mechanisms to detect and independent avenues where 19 (ii) deal with illegal staff Stream line process of land erring officials can be Informal payments behavior are largely administration to reduce reported and punished. discouraged. nonexistent. personal contact with the public and increase automation. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 168 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Specific reform of the procedural rules for the adjudication of land disputes, particularly setting out Specify as a condition for prescribed timeliness for the the designation of an area Dispute Resolution A process exists to appeal Institutionalization of the different stages of the high as urban under the LUA, rulings on land cases but reforms. court process. an appropriate number of 20 (iv) costs are high and the high courts with powers to Possibility of appeals. process takes a long time. Restriction of the claims of resolve claims of statutory customary claims to rights to land. customary or area courts Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management while those of statutory claims to high courts. Creation of a central Increased emphasis on the depository for land related A decision in a land-related roles of customary and area 21 (ii) disputes. conflict is reached in the courts in the resolution of Speed of conflict first instance court within 1 land disputes in the rural Monitor progress. resolution in the formal Promote the recording and year for less than 50% of areas especially on those system. registration of customary cases. bordering on customary court decisions in the land rights. registration system. Institutionalization of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism into Establish more area and mainstream judicial customary courts with system. jurisprudence to handle Train or educate high court The share of long-standing conflicts related to customary judges on the provisions of the 21 (iii) Increase the number of land conflicts is greater right to land claims. Land Use Act. Long-standing conflicts justices in state high than 20% of the total (unresolved cases older courts. pending land dispute court Development of a legislated Continuous training of legal than 5 year). cases. avenue to quickly resolve practitioners on the provision Discourage high court conflicts generated by land of the Land Use Act. judges from dabbling into acquisition land issues related to . customary land conflicts since this conflicts are not very compatible with modern legal practice. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 169 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Information and Public Sensitization on the Development of competent arrangements for need to register their land. Less than 10% of the area manpower and LSLA under forest land has infrastructure support to Systematic registration of Review of the land boundaries demarcated and advance the cadastre forest land in all parts of the LSLA(i) registration process making it surveyed and associated survey of all forest lands in country. Most forest land is less cumbersome to enable claims registered. the country. mapped and rights are easy registration of forest registered. lands. Conflicts related to use or ownership rights and directly or indirectly related to land acquisition Establish more area and Increase the number of LSLA(ii) are relatively frequent customary courts with Continuous training or justices in state high Conflicts generated by (more than 5% of rural jurisprudence to handle education for legal courts. Large Scale Land Acquisition land acquisition and how land area affected) and the conflicts related to forest practitioners on the provisions these are addressed. inability to address these lands. of the land use act. conflicts expeditiously and in a transparent manner results in long pending disputes. The land use restrictions applying to any given plot Sensitization of the public on LSLA (iii) of rural land can be the land use restrictions and Designate appropriate Land use restrictions on Continuous monitoring to unambiguously determined creation of physical public institutions to rural land parcels can ensure compliance. on site for land occupied demarcations to enable easy monitor compliance. generally be identified. by less than 10% of the identification by the public. population. Standards of ethical performance for Develop a comprehensive LSLA (iv) institutions that promote, law for expropriation Public institutions in Establishment of a clear, channel or acquire land for including avenues for Institutionalizing the land acquisition operate consistent procedure for land purposes of interest to this affected parties to lodge developed law. in a clear and consistent acquisition in the country. study are not clearly complaints. manner. defined and accounts are not regularly audited. LSLA (viii) Investors are consistently Develop checklist of all the Appropriate public Information required required to provide information to be provided institution should be Continuous monitoring. from investors to assess information on company by prospective investors. mandated to monitor projects on background or compliance. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 170 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE public/community land. financial/technical analyses Publicize the checklist to but this information is not ensure public monitoring. sufficient to assess viability and benefits from the project. LSLA (ix) Investors provide some or Information provided for all the information required Publicize all required cases of land acquisition from them but this information from investors on public/community information is not publicly to enable public monitoring. land. available. There are written but Policy/Requirements/ unclear provisions in law Procedures for LSLA Develop standard legislations or regulations regarding Publicizing and Monitoring to ensure and regulations for investors incentives for investors and institutionalizing the compliance with the LSLA (v) which are adaptable to the their applicability has to be developed legislations and developed legislations and Incentives for investors different states of the negotiated on a case by regulations. regulations. are clear, transparent and federation. case basis in a way that is consistent. often discretionary. Mechanisms to allow the public to obtain benefits LSLA(vi) from the investment (or Develop a standard Ensure the implementation Benefit sharing Continuous monitoring to investing party) other than mechanism to allow public or use of this mechanism mechanisms for ensure compliance with the compensation (e.g., obtain benefit from through the use of the Land investments in developed mechanism. schools, roads, etc.) are investment. Use Commission. agriculture rarely used or applied in a discretionary manner. LSLA(x) Contracts do not have to Specifying in the land Contractual provisions specify either risk sharing acquisition contract, the Publicize the risk/benefit Continuous monitoring to on benefits and risks or benefit sharing benefit/risk sharing sharing arrangement. ensure compliance. sharing regarding arrangement. arrangement. acquisition of land. LSLA(xii) Social safeguard Social requirements for requirements for investors large scale investments are not clearly documented Clear definition and Monitoring to ensure in agriculture. and defined. enforcement of compliance with the LSLA(xiii) Environmental safeguard environmental, social and environmental, social and Environmental requirements for investors economic safeguards. economic safeguards. requirements for large are not clearly documented scale investments in and defined. agriculture. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 171 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE LSLA(xiv) Procedures to fully cover Procedures for economic, social, and economically, environmental issues are in environmentally, and place but not implemented socially beneficial effectively. investments. LSLA(xv) Establishment of the National Responsible government Compliance with Land commission which Strengthen the agencies do not follow up safeguards related to would oversee and monitor Commission to ensure on the agreements to check investment in the level of compliance of sustenance of its functions. for compliance. agriculture. investors to the agreements. Develop a comprehensive LSLA (xvi) There is no clear process law and procedure for Procedures to complain by which affected parties Institutionalization of the investment in land in the Continuous monitoring to if agricultural investors or the public at large can developed laws and country with independent ensure compliance. do not comply with lodge complaints regarding procedures. avenues for lodgment of requirements. investor compliance with complaints. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 172 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE During the Technical Validation Workshop and the Policy Dialogue Meeting, the suggested reform actions in Table 55 were reworked and streamlined into a matrix format that reflects the key issues in each of the six thematic areas. For each issue identified, actions to be taken are proposed and the monitoring indicators ae specified. This matrix of policy recommendations is shown in Table 56. Table 56: Matrix of Policy Recommendations POLICY ISSUE ACTION PLANS MONITORING INDICATORS 1. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK  More than 30 years after its passage, none  To enable the National Council of States to pass  Establishment of the Commission of the key pieces of regulation envisaged in needed regulations and to monitor land system  Evaluation of results of the pilots available the Land Use Act (LUA) (Sections 3 and performance on a regular basis, a National Land  Regulations drafted 46) has been passed. This has seriously Commission as a technical body with representation  Provision of information and institutional undermined good land governance and from key actors needs to be established. Pending the arrangements to monitor outcomes. effective land use planning in the country. establishment of the National Land Commission,  Study conducted and recommendations the Presidential Technical Committee on Land disseminated & discussed. Reform (PTCLR) should carry out the tasks below.  A high degree of vertical and horizontal  Conduct and carefully evaluate pilot studies in overlap among land institutions creates - % increase of land registration, leases and land relevant areas to provide evidence to inform the confusion, high levels of transaction costs, transfers, C of Os drafting of key regulations for land registration and and undermines good governance in the - reduced boundary conflicts survey/mapping in two states within one year. sector. - reduction in transaction costs and time  Carry out a study to identify horizontal and vertical - reduction of vertical and horizontal overlaps overlaps in the land system and recommend solutions. 2. LAND USE PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND TAXATION  While land use plans are necessary to  Prepare strategic land use development plans with  Initial establishment of land use development guide development in urban and rural adequate implementation and enforcement plans. areas, they are mostly unavailable leading regulations; sensitize the public on their existence,  Mechanism to monitor compliance with plans in to haphazard growth. importance and use of the same. place and results monitored/publicised.  Absence of property tax administration,  Review planning standards, plot size, land use class,  Property tax guidelines available, explained to and assessment and collection hinders and adoption of model plans for public use. understood by citizens, professionals (e.g. estate decentralization and effective provision of  Develop, disseminate, and help implement surveyors and valuers), and local governments. local services. transparent systems for property tax administration,  Increase in property tax assessments and actual assessment, and collection for use by local collection. governments at different sizes.  Number of states that have land use plans, land administration machinery and property tax rolls. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 173 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3. PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT  Lack of information on the location and  Undertake a comprehensive inventory of land  Inventory has been established and mechanisms to extent of public land makes it impossible owned by all tiers of government. maintain it currently exist. to properly manage and protect this critical asset.  Harmonize various legislations into a clear single  Legislation to regulate expropriation has been simple process for acquisition of land by all enacted and is effectively applied.  A large number of acquisitions occurs government agencies to ensure due process for land without prompt and adequate acquisition by requiring publicity, adequate and  Share of allocations of government (public) land compensation, thus leaving those losing prompt compensation in line with global best and transactions that are advertised. land worse off, with no mechanism for practice and ensure availability of independent independent appeal even though the land is avenues for appeal. Put in place sanctions for often not utilized for a public purpose. misbehaviour.  Divestiture of public land is less  Ensure publicity of the detailed agreement, transparent and therefore does not generate including schedules of applicable charges. revenues for the public sector. 4. PUBLIC PROVISION OF LAND INFORMATION  The low level of registered parcels (less  Establish software tools to manage textual and  Share of registry records with textual and spatial than 3% of the country covered) and the spatial data jointly and to link existing ones. information integrated. incomplete spatial reference of registry information fosters conflict, corruption,  Building on the pilot study results, develop  Share of the land under private use that is undermines investment, land market procedures for systematic expansion of registered registered and mapped. functioning, and housing finance. areas.  Implementation of service charter leads to higher  Lack of processes for automatic updating  Study and recommend processes and requirements levels of customer satisfaction. undermines the value of the land registry to streamline and control different registration as a tool for private sector development. services and based on this, establish a registry service charter (including sanctions and avenue for appeal) that is publicly available and binding on both user and officials.  Design and implement awareness campaign as well as training programs for officials.  Make transparency issues more comprehensive by publishing list of all allottees upon or at allocation.  Ensure implementation of global best practice on access to public land information. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 174 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 5. DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT  Lack of awareness of the rights and  Disseminate existing laws and sensitize different  Knowledge of relevant legal provisions and avenues to enforce them reduces the ability groups about their rights under the law and ways to avenues for enforcement in the population and to access and properly utilize land enforce them. specific groups (e.g. women). especially for vulnerable groups.  Link spatial and textual data (see above) to reduce boundary disputes.  Reduction of backlog of conflicts.  High level of pending conflicts undermines investment and efficiency of land use.  Mainstream traditional institutions and the  Number of new conflicts reaching the formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) into the system decreases. justice system to reduce backlogs and improve access to justice, especially for vulnerable groups.  Increase the ability of formal institutions to speedily resolve dispute by building capacity and rationalizing assignment of responsibilities. 6. LARGE SCALE LAND ACQUISITION  Lack of clear and efficient procedures for  Review and streamline regulations for land-related  Establishment of the one stop intervention for large large scale investment in land reduce foreign investment. Create a one-stop scale land acquisition. Nigeria‘s ability to attract technically shop/intervention and conduct publicity campaigns qualified investors. among potential investors.  Number of viable investment proposals increases.  Realized investments often are technically,  Adaptation of existing EIA and SIA mechanisms to  Number of failed projects due to technical, environmentally, and socially the needs of land-related investment, mandatory environmental, or social problems and conflict unsustainable. publication of these documents, and increased decreases. efforts at enforcement. Review of other relevant  The need for government to expropriate procedures in light of international standards and  Living standards in areas affected by FDI improve. land before it can be transferred to best practice. investors opens space for discretionary behaviour and, due to procedural  Ensure those affected by large scale land acquisition weaknesses (see up), often undermines the have the choice of receiving compensation in kind livelihood of local people. and provide options for direct negotiation between investors and local communities.  Lack of local involvement, non-transparent contracts, and lack of monitoring  Ensure arrangements for large scale land transfer undermine the scope for Foreign Direct are negotiated and agreed upon by local land users, Investment (FDI) potential to provide that mechanisms for benefit sharing and arbitration benefits to locals and contribute to are specified, and that contract terms are publicly development. available to facilitate monitoring. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 175 Conclusion Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 6.0 Conclusion The designed implementation method for the LGAF is novel. The developed indicators are contextually appropriate for use overtime. Although the benchmark set by the LGAF is high, at least, for countries like Nigeria where land governance has not institutionally been focusing and addressing the specific issues addressed by the LGAF indicators and dimensions, the standard set by the LGAF would appear to be an excellent ideal platform for the land governance assessment of a country. The use of Expert Investigators (EIs) to gather data and information to aid the Expert Panels for their consensus assessment of assigned dimensions is not a bad idea. However, in countries like Nigeria, where information in virtually all sectors are a rarity, the effectiveness of the EIs would require more time and resources than what was available to this study. In the same vein, and given the novelty of the LGAF, Expert Panel members should also have the opportunity to meet with the Country Coordinator for proper briefing before the convocation of the actual Expert Panel Workshop. Pre-commencement workshop to be organized for the country coordinators by the Global Coordinator will enhance the understanding of the CC and time to prepare fully for the LGAF implementation. As earlier indicated, the EIs and Expert Panels should be streamlined along the five LGAF thematic areas. Apart from enhancing the work of the EIs and the Expert panels, the compilation of the LGAF report will also be made less cumbersome. Apart from providing an excellent platform for an in-depth evaluation of significant areas of land governance, the LGAF, by its indicators, also provides background idea that a good land policy must embrace and use. The LGAF result has shown that land governance in Nigeria is not guided by information. Yet, what is not known cannot be managed. It is therefore unfortunate for the nation to administer and manage its land and land resources without information on:  land parcels (registered or not registered);  records of parcel owners;  means of identifying the parcels and their owners;  current land use and land use plans in both urban and rural areas;  housing stocks in cities;  number of informal structures in cities;  number of records in the existing land registries,  number of taxable properties, etc In the absence of these and other cadastre information, planning and management in furtherance of good land governance would be impossible. Indeed, the current land policy, as earlier indicated is least understood by majority of Nigerians, confusing and contradictory in its provisions, highly undemocratic in its formation and has disappointingly failed to create a right and just environment to facilitate its implementation and review. Thus, the operation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 178 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE existing land policy is opaque and largely based on the discretion of ill-equipped, unprepared, public officials and institutions. It is therefore not surprising to note that the operating land policy in Nigeria has not eliminated speculation in land, it has only driven it underground or fueled it; it has concentrated both economic and political powers on the political leaders to the underachievement of the people; it has not succeeded in removing the uncertainties and insecurity in title to land; and lastly, it is not respected and accepted by the cross-section of Nigerians. The findings of this study largely support the above concerns and it calls for major policy shift, a restructuring and revitalization of the existing institutions and infrastructures, a people oriented design policy implementation strategy and the development of appropriate legislations for policy enforcement, institutional performance as well as provisions for long term human and institutional capacity building and financial resources. No nation can achieve any reasonable development without good land governance. Indeed, a good land governance has been found to be the most reliable and sustainable means of poverty reduction. The implementation of the suggested reform actions in section 5 of this report, if properly given priority attention by governments will lead to the improvement of land governance in Nigeria. In this regard, the civil society, consisting of (among others) the rural and urban populations, cooperative societies, various professional bodies such as the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers, Nigerian Institution of Surveyors, the Architect Registration Council of Nigeria, the Nigerian Building Society, Corps of Registered Engineers of Nigeria, and the Nigerian Bar Association, as well as the organized private sector, have important role to play in mobilizing the citizenry and lobbying the political leaders towards the development of a functional land policy and appropriately restructured and strengthened land institutions with legislated mandates. The LGAF result will enhance the activities of these bodies. In addition, copies of the report should be made available to the Presidency, the State Governors and Local Government Chairmen, the legislative houses as well as those other organisations that have earlier indicated their interest in the LGAF report including the universities. The following additional strategic actions may be taken: (i) present the key findings, policy recommendations to the National Council on Land (comprising Federal Ministers and State Commissioners responsible for land matters as well as the affected regulated professional bodies, especially those in the built environment, law, accounting, taxation, etc); (ii) conduct series of national, regional and local enlightenment campaigns for key land sector actors and the general public to highlight the fact and the effects of week land governance in the country; and (iii) establish a land governance council in the nature of IoD centre for corporate governance or the financial reporting council. LGAF is an ongoing process which requires follow-up actions. In this regard, the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform should be able to use the findings of this study and the recommended policy reform actions in furtherance of beneficial implementation of its mandate, as well as in its relations with other government agencies and other stakeholders. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 179 Annexes Annex 7.1 Brief Report on the Review of Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.1 Brief Report on the Review of Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) 1. Preamble The Country Coordinator (CC) is expected ‗to review the LGAF in the context of the country situation‘. This also involves the review of the ―definitions that support LGAF‖ in terms of their being in line with local situation. The LGAF, as ―a diagnostic tool for the evaluation of land governance at the national level‖, is well researched, documented and standardized. Its 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGIs) including their split into various dimensions provide a sound basis for the assessment. The grouping of the resultant 80 dimensions into five thematic areas creates a realistic platform for the organisation of the LGAF results. The framework largely represents an ideal state against which the reality on ground is to be assessed. Viewed in this context, the LGAF is most suitable to the Nigerian situation. The definitions of technical and legal words in the LGAF manual are, by and large, suitable to the Nigerian situation. Set against this understanding, this brief review is not centrally a revision of the LGAF as it deals essentially with the LGAF implementation arrangement with regard to:  The use of 4 Expert Investigators and not 5 in line with the established thematic areas;  The adoption of 8 Expert Panels; and  The time and resources for the LGAF study. However, before commenting on the above, I wish to first comment on the issue of cadastral mapping; and the consistency of use of some terms. 2. The LGAF and Cadastral Mapping/Information I observed that the LGAF is relatively silent on the issue of cadastral mapping. Given the location specific nature of land tenure arrangements, the availability and coverage of cadastral maps are absolutely necessary and essential for land governance. As noted by Kissam (1936)88, ―the transfer of property incurs difficulties out of all proportion to its value in comparison with the transfer of any other form of wealth. Although apparent in a variety of forms, the underlying cause for this state of affairs can usually be traced to the lack of proper method of marking the ground‖. In spite of the importance of cadastral mapping and cadastral information in land governance especially with proper physical recognition of rights, enforcement of rights, dispute resolution, etc, one would have liked that it is given more prominent recognition in the LGAF. As shown in Tables (A, B and C), the issue of surveying or mapping is alluded to in LGI 2 dimension (i); LGI 12 dimension (ii) and LGI 16 dimension (i). There is no direct indicator/dimension on the process of cadastral mapping production (either analogue or digital), whether the process is 88 Kissam, P (1936); ‗Scientific Boundary Descriptions‘, American Bar Association Journal, 325 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 184 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE sporadic or systematic and who pays for the production and maintenance. Relative to Nigeria and similar developing countries, such indicators/dimensions may throw more light on the status of land administration. Table 1A LGI 2, Dimension i Assessment Most communal or Only rank this dimension if communal or customary tenure exist. indigenous land is mapped and rights are A – More than 70% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries registered demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered. B – 40-70% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered. C – 10-40% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered. D – Less than 10% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered. LGAF Manual, Page 40 Table 1B LGI 12, Dimension ii Assessment There is a complete A – More than 50% of public land is clearly identified on the ground or on maps. recording of publicly held land. B – Between 30% and 50% of public land is clearly identified on the ground or on maps. C – Less than 30% of public land is clearly identified on the ground or on maps. D – Public land is not clearly identified on the ground or on maps. LGAF Manual, page 63 Table 1C LGI 16, Dimension i Assessment The mapping or A – More than 90% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily charting of registry identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre. records is complete. B – Between 70% and 90% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre. C – Between 50% and 70% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre. D – Less than 50% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre. LGAF Manual, page 71 Apart from the issue of cadastral information production, the coded answers to the above three indicators/dimensions can be duplicated for other tenure types (e.g. the coded answers for LGI 2 dimension (i) can be duplicated for public land, private land etc; those of LGI 12, dimension (ii) can be repeated for private and communal lands while those of LGI 16 dimension (i) can be extended to cover publicly and communally held land). In this way, a more comprehensive result will emerge. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 185 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3. Comments on Consistent Use of Terms Some terms are not consistently used in the LGAF. These terms include:  Communal Land  Land Administration/Public Provision of Land Information  Management of Public Land/Public Land Management 3.1 Communal Land The definition provided for this term on page vii of the LGAF Manual is more embracing and should be used throughout the LGAF document as against those defined on pages 40 and 161 which restricts communal land to rural group/area only. It exists in urban areas too. 3.2 Land Administration versus Public Provision of Land Information Land Administration was defined on page ix and the definition is holistic. Thus, the term was used in the designation of Expert Investigators on pages 118 and 145. However, on page 70, under Annex 1, which explains LGAF, ‗Public Provision of Land Information‘ is used instead of Land Administration. It is also used to designate Panel 7 (pp 155 and 206). From the explanation and description of indicators/dimensions, ‗Public Provision of land Information‘ would appear to be appropriate and should be consistently used, even though, I prefer Land Administration. 3.3 Management of Public Land versus Public Land Management On page 61 of Annex 1, the third thematic area of LGAF is described as ―Management of Public Land‖. There is no pretention here that the interest is on ‗‘Public Land‘. However, in constituting the Expert Investigator (pp 118 & 140), and Expert panel (pp 155 & 194), ‗Public Land Management‘ is used. This latter term is broader in meaning and in intent than ‗Management of Public Land‘. Again, I prefer Public Land Management which deals with more than public land. Whatever is the context, the point being made here is mainly about the consistent use of terms. 4. LGAF Implementation Arrangement In addition to the Global and Country Coordinators, the LGAF implementation arrangement provides for the engagement of four (4) Expert Investigators (EIs) and eight (8) Expert Panels (EPs). The four EIs are: on (i) Land Tenure (EILT) (ii) Land Use Planning (EILUP) (iii) Management of Public Land (EIMPL) (iv) Land Administration (EILA) Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 186 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE These EIs are to provide data and information on number of LGAF dimensions to assist the following eight (8) EPs in their one day workshop: (i) Panel 1: Land Tenure (EPLT) (ii) Panel 2: Institutional Arrangement (EPIA) (iii) Panel 3: Urban Land Use Planning and Development (EPULU) (iv) Panel 4: Rural Land Use Planning and Development (EPRLU) (v) Panel 5: Land Valuation and Taxation (EPLET) (vi) Panel 6: Management of Public Land (EPPLM) (vii) Panel 7: Public Provision of Land Information (EPPPLI) (viii) Panel 8: Dispute Resolution (EPDR) However, the LGAF groups land topics into the following thematic areas, each with specific number of Land Governance Indicators and Dimensions: 1) Legal and Institutional Framework (LIF) – 27 dimensions 2) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation – 17 dimensions 3) Management of Public Land (MPL) – 16 dimensions 4) Public Provision of Land Information (PLI) – 13 dimensions 5) Dispute Resolutions and Conflict Management (DRCM) – 07 dimensions The substantive findings of the LGAF is expected to be presented in line with the above thematic areas. Given the above facts, some design implementation issues arise. First is the rationale for the use of four (4) EIs for a five thematic designed areas. The second issue relates to the rationale behind the issue of selecting 43 dimensions out of the 80 dimensions (i.e. 54%) to be investigated by the 4 EIs (see table 2A). The third issue is the rationale behind the distribution of the 80 dimension to the 8 panels in relation to the five thematic areas (See table 2B). Table 2A: Relationship between LGAF Thematic Areas and Expert Investigation Expert Investigators with their Total no of % over TA No of Thematic Areas allocated Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions EILT EILUP EIPLM EILA Legal and Institutional 27 8 1 - 6 15 56 Framework Land Use Planning 17 - 8 - - 8 47 Management of Public Land 16 - 1 5 - 6 38 Public Provision of Land 13 - - - 11 11 85 Information Dispute Resolution and 7 3 - - - 3 43 Conflict Management Total 80 11 10 5 17 43 54 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 187 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 2B: Relationship between the Thematic Areas and the 8 Expert panels with respect to the Distribution of the LGAF Dimensions Expert Panels Thematic Areas Total P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Legal and Institutional Framework 13 3 3 5 - - 3 - 27 Land Use Planning - - 9 2 6 - - - 17 Management of Public land - - - - - 16 - - 16 Public Provision of Land - - - - - - 13 - 13 Information Dispute Resolution and Conflict - - - - - - - 7 7 Management Total 13 3 12 7 6 16 16 7 80 Table 2C: Relationship between the Expert Investigators and the Expert panels with respect to the Distribution of the LGAF Dimensions Expert Panels Expert Investigators Total P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Expert Investigator on Land 5 3 - - - - - 3 11 Tenure Expert Investigator on Land Use - - 9 - - 1 - - 10 Planning Expert Investigator on Public - - - - - 5 - - 5 Land Management Expert Investigator on Land 3 - - - - - 14 - 17 Administration Total 8 3 9 0 0 6 14 3 43 By comparing table 2B with table 2C, the following issues emerge:  All the 7 and 6 dimensions for panels 4 and 5 respectively are not assigned to any Expert Investigator. This would appear to be against the spirit and purpose of using the Expert Investigators to enhance the activities of the Expert panels through the provision of data and information.  Unlike in the above case, all the 3 dimensions for panel 2 are assigned to Expert Investigator. This arrangement can be simplified to enhance the implementation of the LGAF and to specially assist the CC in his/her coordination activities, especially the organisation of the Expert Panel Workshops as well as the compilation of the reports. In this regard, I wish to suggest as follows for the future: (i). That the engagement of Expert Investigators and the constitution of the Expert panel/Workshop should be based on the five thematic areas. (ii). That five Expert Investigators should be used and that not less than 75% of the 80 dimensions should be distributed among the suggested five Expert Investigators. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 188 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Indeed, the 80 dimensions can be distributed to the five Expert Investigators. They should be given a reasonable time to gather the required data/information. (iii). That five Expert Panels should be established in line with established thematic areas. With enriched data/information coming from nearly parallel Expert Investigators, the Expert Panels would not find it difficult to complete their assessment on time and within a day. This arrangement cannot necessarily increase the cost of the study. Any marginal increase will be compensated for by the potential richness of the resulting information and the relative ease with which the CC and the Global Coordinator will be able to accomplish their assigned responsibilities. The current arrangement is completely presented in Annex 1. This annex can be used to address the above suggestions. 5. Time and Resources for the Implementation of LGAF Given the very weak and highly fragmented institutions, located in 36 States and 774 Local Government Areas, inadequate infrastructures and lack of national data infrastructure, more time and resources are required than what is available for the LGAF Study in Nigeria89. In my view, the time and resources devoted to the implementation of the LGAF must have been based on situations in more organized society with reasonably strong and functional institutions and infrastructures and where information is freely given without any inducement or administrative blockages and/or can be obtained online. The situation is different in Nigeria. Indeed, and notwithstanding the relevance of the LGAF, its implementation under the operating environment in Nigeria is very challenging. While we will highlight some of these challenges in our future report, it is perhaps pertinent to indicate here that a pre-implementation workshop with the prospective Country Coordinators together with one month post-workshop period for the CC to organize themselves before the actual commencement of the real study would have helped greatly. This may also be considered for the future. 89 In my rough estimate for the conduct of the study, I indicated that a committee room for the Expert Panel Workshop would be free for the Lagos Workshops and those of Abuja would cost N10, 000/day. In making the estimate, I did not take into consideration the need for regular electricity supply during the workshops. To ensure that we have constant electricity supply, I have got to make reservations for committee room at the University of Lagos at N12,000/day and at Rockview Hotel in Abuja at N20,000/day. This is one of the implications of poor infrastructures. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 189 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 1: Land Governance Assessment Framework: Thematic Area, Expert Investigation Dimension and Panel Dimensions Reflecting the Current Implementation Arrangement LGI/Dim Allocated to LGI/Dim allocated to Panels Expert Investigators Thematic Areas LGI-Dim Topic A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PL PPL UL V& PL PPL LT LU LT IA RLU DR M I U T M I Recognition of Rights 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)   1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)   1 iii Rural group rights recognition   1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas   1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization   Legal and Institutional Framework Enforcement of Rights 2 i Surveying/mapping and registration of claims on communal or indigenous land   2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas   (27 Dimensions) 2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas   2 iv Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban/rural)   2 v Condominium regime that provides for appropriate management of common property  2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  Mechanisms for Recognition 3 i Use of non-documentary forms of evidence to recognize rights  3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  3 iii First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay formal fees   3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees   3 v Formalization of residential housing is feasible and affordable   3 vi Efficient and transparent process to formally recognize long-term unchallenged possession  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 190 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Restrictions on Rights 4 i Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability  4 ii Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and transferability  Clarity of Mandates Legal and Institutional Framework 5 i Separation of institutional roles   5 ii Institutional overlap   5 iii Administrative overlap   5 iv Information sharing  (Cont‟d) Equity and Non-Discrimination 6 i Clear land policy developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation of equity goals  6 iii Policy for implementation is costed, matched with the benefits and is adequately resourced  6 iv Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation  Transparency of Land Use 7 i In urban areas, land use plans and changes to these are based on public input  7 ii In rural areas, land use plans and changes to these are based on public input  7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use   Land-Use Planning and Taxation 7 iv Speed of land use change   Efficiency of Land Use Planning (17 Dimensions) 8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city   8 ii Process for planned urban development in the 4 largest cities (exc. largest)   8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth   8 iv Plot size adherence   8 v Use plans for specific land classes (forest, pastures etc) are in line with use  Speed and Predictability 9 i Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and processed in a   non-discretionary manner. 9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling   Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 191 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Transparency of Valuation 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  Tax Collection Efficiency and Taxation (Cont‟d) Land-Use Planning 11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified  11 ii Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll  11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Identification of Public Land 12 i Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate level of government  12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land   12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  Management of Public Land 12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public.  Incidence of Expropriation (16 Dimensions) 13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests   13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land   Transparency of Procedures 14 i Compensation for expropriation of ownership  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Appealing expropriation is time-bounded  Transparent Processes 15 i Openness of public land transactions   15 ii Collection of payments for public leases   15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land   Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 192 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE LGI/Dim Allocated to LGI/Dim allocated to Panels Expert Investigators Thematic LGI-Dim Areas Topic A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PL PP UR V& PL PP LT LU LT IA RL DR M LI L T M LI Completeness of Registry 16 i Mapping of registry records   16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances   16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges   Public Provision of Land Information 16 iv Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land rights)   16 v Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on land   rights) 16 vi Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or organization  (13 Dimensions) with information on land rights) Reliability of Records 17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry   17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date   Cost Effective and Sustainable 18 i Cost of registering a property transfer   18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry   18 iii Capital investment   Transparency 19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly   19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Assignment of Responsibility  Dispute Resolution and 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms Conflict Resolution 20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution  (7 Dimension) 20 iii Forum shopping  20 iv Possibility of appeals  Low Level of Pending Conflicts 21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system   21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system   21 iii Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 year)   Total 80 11 10 5 17 13 3 12 7 6 16 16 7 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 193 Annex 7.2 Expert Investigation Reports Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.2.1 Expert Investigator Report on Land Tenure Methodology Following my appointment by the Country Coordinator and the further detailed mandate to me as Land Tenure Expert in March 2011, I engaged my team of legal associates to undertake a general review of the land governance issue in Nigeria within the context of the mandate. The basic legal framework, the Land Use Act, passed in 1978 was the major focus. All other related enactments were considered and reviewed. Similarly, works of certain authors were examined. Materials relevant to the study were additionally sourced from the internet. Besides the following, the court registries in Lagos state were visited from where some data was obtained on the number of land matters filed in a year and the average period such matters are disposed of. Appointment was sought from three high court judges without favourable response even for an interview from any but modest apologies from two. However, a number of legal practitioners of over 20 years post-call experience were consulted at their base in Ibadan, Oyo state, Lagos state, Rivers State, Kogi State, Benue state and Kaduna state. Personal knowledge and experience of the practice in Delta, Edo, Ogun states and Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory and Nasarawa state came into play while the legal practitioners consulted though resident in the respective states were equally familiar with the position in Osun, Akwa-Ibom States and the eastern states of Anambra and Imo. Most of the consultations and interviews were limited to verbal telephone conversations within the limit of time and finance. Sometimes there were email data but in the absence of internet facility at Idah in Kogi State, the data obtained from there were received by transcriptions from phone discussions. The compilation of the data was done within my office with the assistance of associate legal practitioners with over 7 years‘ professional experience within the firm. With the assistance of the Country Coordinator, experts within the university of Lagos Law faculty in charge of land law were required to make their input which afforded experts to re- evaluate the positions expressed herein and thereafter consolidate the views thus-far stated. From the interviews, volumes of the Laws of Federation of Nigeria, Laws of Lagos State which contain the various statutes in force in Nigeria, works of authors, publications and materials on the internet and the report of the Land Tenure Expert contained in A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 were prepared. Tables, diagrams and charts provided in A2 were ably provided courtesy of the Country Coordinator, a geographer of immense repute. The consultations revealed the general position and understanding of the practice of land governance in Nigeria but revealed to our amazement the following findings Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 196 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Findings There is a general misconception of the land issue and administration in Nigeria: i). Since the Land Use Act was passed in 1978 by the military, it is more apparent that even the government operators are ignorant of the legal framework and policy for land administration especially the contents of the Act. ii). The public have no concept of the general concept of the legal framework for land administration and are virtually ignorant of the basic rights to land to the extent that virtually all Nigerians assume that there is almost a total nationalisation of all lands and all Nigerians are no more than leaseholders with a maximum interest of not more than 99 years lease to land. iii). As a result of misconceptions, ignorance, both of the concept of the legal framework, various interpretations of the Land Use Act exist in several parts of the country notwithstanding the uniformity intended by the Act. iv). There has been no proper implementation of the legal framework by the appropriate authority thereby leading to the chaotic land management system in Nigeria which has resulted in poor development of the economy and a complete collapse of urban planning system of virtually all cities in Nigeria. v). The legal framework in Nigeria has remained stagnant since 1978 and requires urgent additional regulations to make it relevant to modern day practice and development in the real estate world. vi). The role of surveyors in land management has been very much relegated that there is an urgent role for legislation to intervene to emphasise the role of surveyors and other professionals in land governance and management. vii). There is so much of overlap of functions in the land administration process resulting in confusion of rules even where they are sometimes defined. viii). The powers of the local government are too often encroached upon by the state and at other times even the boundary limits of designated urban or undesignated areas are not known, just as the appropriate land registries for designated urban areas, when defined by law are not certain in reality. ix). The land management system is in serious abuse of the individual rights by the state and its agencies and urgently calls for a re-orientation and education of the operators. x). The dispute resolution process for land-related matters is product of a general misconception of the intents of the law. Judicial authorities in most states are not familiar with the contents of the law and fail to see land as a potential economic tool of development and so even where commercial divisions are created to attempt to expedite commercial disputes, land dispute is not considered along. xi). Traditionally identified rights remain very much the predominantly held land rights in Nigeria today notwithstanding the intervention of the Land Use Act since 1978 and these rights remain valid and recognised even by the Land Use Act which has in fact endorsed these rights with only minimal modifications. xii). Land title requisitions and administration process urgently requires a review as it remains a major disincentive to the public in most parts of Nigeria for registering and securing individual interests in land. xiii). Traditionally identified rights remain very much the predominantly held land rights in Nigeria today notwithstanding the intervention of the Land Use Act, since 1978 and these rights remain valid and recognised even by the Land Use Act, which has infact endorsed these rights with only minimal modifications. xiv). Land title registration and administration process urgently requires a review as it remains a major disincentive to the public in most part of Nigeria for registering and securing individual interest in land. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 197 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Challenges We had among others, the following constraints in the course of this study: i). Nigeria being a country with as yet no database on virtually all aspects of living, there were no easy source of data and as such, data used had to be generated in the most tedious manner within the prevailing environment. ii). The limitation of available materials on extant statutes iii). The limits of time was another source of challenge to this work and it made access to more detailed data collection outside Lagos, Abuja, Kogi virtually impossible. iv). The constraint of finance was a principal challenge to the execution of the study as this report became possible only for the interest and faith in the study itself and the Country Coordinator. v). There is no gainsaying that within the environment of study some better source of finance and more sufficient time would have secured better and more detailed data collection. The constraints notwithstanding, the content of the study remain a fair and correct assessment of the Land governance situation as undertaken by me. Valentine Ofogba Expert Investigator on Land Tenure (Member, Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform) Legal Practitioner Managing Counsel Lawsprings & Co. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 198 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.2.2 Expert Investigator Report on Land Use Planning Main Findings Main findings presented here are on the following: transparency of land use restriction, equity and non-discriminatory policy, efficiency in the land use planning process, speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land use and identification of public land and management. i). Transparency of Land use Restrictions The study established that in Nigeria, many of the tools of land use restrictions are in form of legislations such as land laws, town planning regulations, land use layouts and master plans which are already obsolete. Unfortunately majority of the public are not readily aware of the existence of these regulations and land use documents, thus raising the issue of transparency in land use planning and restriction. For the few members of the public who are aware, they are not knowledgeable about the provisions of these land use legislations. Generally, urban areas in Nigeria do not have current operative master plans, thus land use information to guide rational urban development are not available. Urban areas therefore continue to grow at the discretion of individuals and where building permits are obtained, decisions by planning officials are based on their personal discretions. There is hardly transparent transaction on land use whereby the public have access to legally binding document on land use such as urban master plan before they submit planning applications. Also, many urban areas in Nigeria do not have a clearly defined urban policy and the implementation of the land use act of 1978 has been very selective, especially benefiting those in public office and their supporters. Land tenure is another problem in Nigeria as urban areas are under the custody of the state government. However, the practice of tenure regularization is allowed on uncommitted lands by the government. The process involved is cumbersome and the period of processing is rather lengthy. In Lagos, such process is usually about 30-45 days. About 1,100 applications for land regularization are submitted by the public annually to the Lagos State Directorate of Land Regularization. Out of the 1,100 applications received annually about 880 i.e 80% of the applications are usually successful annually. The rejected applications in many cases are applications in which the land fell short of minimum planning standards and regulations such as lands within government committed areas, road alignments, lands under high tension power lines, petroleum products pipelines, canal, setbacks amongst others. The study suggests the need for immediate preparations of land use master plans for urban areas in Nigeria and the need on the part of the government to make land use laws, regulations and land use documents readily available to the public through various media such as prints, electronics, public meetings, social groups, trade groups and in bookshops among others. ii). Equity and Non-Discriminatory Policy Generally in Nigeria, reasonable opportunities are provided for individuals to have access to land in various land use related policies but they have achieved very low level of success. This is due to the cumbersome process involved in securing land from Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 199 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE government in addition with the very high financial resources incurred in the process. There is also a high level of corruption by public officials through which the processing will pass who are in charge of land allocation. Also, the Nigeria land use act has failed to recognize socio economic segments among Nigerians therefore, falling short of the equity test. Conflict between indigenous land owners and the government over land ownership and control is another major problem whereby many prospective applicants for land in urban areas end up purchasing the same piece of land twice, either first from indigenous land owners and later from government or vice-versa. There is need to protect the interest of every segment of the society in the area of access to land through the review of the land use act in order to resolve the inherent socio- economic and cultural inadequacies of the law. iii). Efficiency in the Land Use Planning Process There exists land policies aimed at achieving efficiency in land use in Nigeria. These policies have not achieved remarkable success, due to their inability to respond to major urban land market demands. For example, the land use act of 1978 section 28 made provision for government to acquire land for various purposes, with the aim of achieving efficiency in land use. In many cases where lands are acquired by government they are not promptly made available for the purposes for which they were acquired. With this scenario, members of the public most often encroach into such lands with the construction of unapproved conflicting land uses thus creating inefficient land utilization in terms of sizes, locations and values. To achieve land use efficiency, there is urgent need for the preparation of land use plans at various levels. This process will involve rigorous evaluation of the strength and weakness of land at various locations before the final decision is taken on the best use of the different parts of urban areas, thus optimizing the inherent potentials of land. iv). Speed and Predictability of Enforcement of Restricted Land Use The enforcement of land use restriction is mainly done in Nigeria through the use of land use policies and building regulations by various land use allocation and planning agencies/officials. The speed of this process is however very. This is due to the fact that most decisions are based on the discretion of land use planning officials who may have to engage other units within their agencies on discussions before final decision is taken on planning applications. Coupled with this, is the cumbersome and expensive nature of obtaining building permits. All these are done in the absence of official master plan to guide land use decisions. The effect of this is that urban land use growth and directions are most unpredictable, coupled with inadequacy of staff, low quality and quantity of equipment. In the mist of this, urban areas continue to grow in response to market forces shaping the urban structure while legislative and planning officials continue sorting and locating land uses without standard guidelines and process manual. To improve the speed and predictability of urban land use in Nigeria, there is need for master plan preparations as well as increase and improvement of quality and quantity of staff Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 200 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE v). Identification of Public Land and Clear Management Many public lands, in Nigeria are documented appropriate in government gazettes; however physical identification are not comprehensive. There is urgent need for government to prepare appropriate planning schemes, especially for areas earmarked for residential purposes. Information on such lands should be made available to the public through professional groups, religious groups, and community and ethnic associations and through various information media so that members of the public and corporate bodies will be able to indicate their intentions to acquire such lands directly from government at reasonable prices. Methodology adopted for the Study The study was carried out with the Nigeria urban land use planning system as the study frame. Emphasis was on urban areas during which various parts of Nigeria were spatially covered in order to present views that reflects the whole country on the issue under investigation. The Country Coordinator on the commencement of the study provided comprehensive insight through direct oral discussion and correspondences particularly through e-mails and phone calls on the focus of the study. At every stage of the study he also convened series of meetings during which progress of work was discussed and grey areas clarified. He guided the study to remain on focus. He also on many occasions provided relevant literature which served as valuable input. The study predominantly used secondary data. Verifiable evidences were collected from government offices, existing legislations concerning various aspects of land use planning such as land use laws, town planning regulations, published academic research works in reputable journals, textbooks and technical reports among others. Also views of land use experts which included town planners, geographers, architects, estate surveyors, legal practitioners were sampled on issues investigated by the study. The personal experience of the expert investigator was also deployed to support the data collected and processed to produce the view expressed in this report. Therefore the methodology of the study was a combination of desk study of literature and field investigation to ascertain the veracity of views expressed in the report. Challenges faced during Data Collection During data collection major challenges faced included the slow response rate to data request from both private sector consultants and government officials. In addition to this was that data and information required are not readily available in accessible format. In many cases they have to be assembled in piece- meal to serve the purpose of this report. Also many government officials were reluctant to make information requested available after several visits. The large size of Nigeria was also a challenge in an effort to collect data that will be good representative of the situation in different parts of the country Prof. Leke Oduwaye Expert Investigator on Land Use Planning, Head, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Lagos, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 201 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.2.3 Expert Investigator Report on Management of Public Land This report provides information on:  Incidence of Expropriation  Transparency of Expropriation Procedures and Public Lease Arrangements Expropriation is also understood as acquisition and has been used interchangeable. It is the process by which government at the three levels in Nigeria (Local, State and Federal) obtains land from original holders to be able to undertake its projects. There are few cases of land expropriation at the Local Government level because they rarely embark on large scale projects. But the Federal and State Governments acquire land in both urban and rural areas for different kinds of project. It was difficult to obtain detailed acquisition statistics for a large number of projects because the acquisitions were either made long ago or the records have not been comprehensively archived. That is to say that due care was not always taken to keep the records together starting with the Notice of Acquisition, to the Site Board meeting, to perimeter survey of site, to assessment and administration of compensation and the actual development and use. There are series of sites acquired for different projects but the records would need to be pieced together with a deliberate search and collation. Part of the problem of collecting statistics is that many projects are rarely taken to full completion within the time originally scheduled. It may be that the claims for compensation were not settled promptly or that there was a sudden change in policy because of political changes. Either way the original program could be truncated. In principle the procedure for expropriation of land is well stated out in law but in practice the implementation may be delayed. This then questions the transparency issue in the expropriation programme. So we generally have transparency in principle but rarely backed up in practice. In addition the laid down procedures are not always followed like publishing the usual Acquisition Notice before the site is entered into. There may be letters and correspondences between the acquiring authority and the land occupiers but the gazette may never be formally published. Even when it is done, it may not be given wide circulation. In many of the cases the boundaries of the acquisition area are not always clearly demarcated, like in most of the road projects. It then becomes difficult to produce a precise compensation survey or route plan of the project before it is completed. Compensation may be assessed but either paid late or not paid at all. Delay in compensation payment thus questions the transparency of such acquisition. The end result is that the land either never gets properly and fully transferred or it is soon encroached upon by the original land holders. This does not help the realization of government projects. When compensation is paid late the time value of money is lost. The usual interest for delayed compensation may never be paid and even if it is paid it is no longer valuable enough to make up for time lost. The provisions of the law need to be enforced to strengthen the transparency provisions. The criteria for assessing compensation claims under the law also need to be reviewed to ensure a reasonable compensation to the land holders under every acquisition programme. The allocation of government land is generally open to all interested applicants. There are three main ways of obtaining land from and or under the Government: i). An applicant may approach the lands office, obtain application form and apply for land and then wait for any available site for allocation. Such application could be considered Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 202 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE as ―blind application‖ (term is mine) because there is no specific site in view. The application may or may never be attended to depending on whether any pieces of land are available in any layout of the allocating authority. There is no timeline for processing such application. ii). Government may prepare a specific layout for development which it may throw open to the general public. Advertisement for such layout may give information as to the total number of plots available and the timeline within which applications would be made. This is often the case with new layouts or new town projects. It is also found with the growing Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) programmes; iii). The third approach is where land holders deliberately bring their customary holding into statutory purview. This is generally referred to as ―DEEMED RIGHT‖. It is assumed that the applicant has right to occupy the land either through inheritance or by conveyancing that was executed before the Land Use Act. The procedure for obtaining land had not always been well known to the general public but efforts have now been made to provide a procedural guide which the land Authorities at the State and the Federal levels are expected to publicize. Leases issued by Government either Federal or State is evidenced with the Certificate of Occupancy and that is registrable. A few government acquired sites are occupied by squatters. In this case squatters are distinguished from occupiers of unexpropriated land. They are squatters because they are illegally occupying what rightly belongs to government and which was acquired for a specific purpose. Where land that was requisitioned by Government has been properly acquired with compensation paid, the land fully transferred, layout plans prepared and possibly development commenced but it is later encroached upon and occupied by unauthorized holders it would be considered as ―squatter settlement‖. Government often tries to integrate such settlers by regularizing their occupation instead of evacuating and demolishing the sites, e.g., Satellite Town Lagos. They are made to pay the usual charges for normal lease and some penal fee for illegal occupation. There may be other sites not brought into government land portfolio by formal acquisition but which are occupied by different people with the authority of local chiefs, outside the authority of government. Such sites could be ―squatter zones‖ also but they fall outside Public Land coverage. It seems to me that for the purposes of this report they are not squatters with respect to public land holding because government has no direct control over the land until it is brought into its direct purview by full and proper acquisition. Data supplied in the report were obtained from records provided by Federal and State Ministries of Lands, the reports of the National Technical Development Forum on Land Administration (NTDF) which is a forum for exchange of ideas and capacity development among land administration practitioners at both Federal and State levels. The statistics supplied were also obtained from the records of the specific activities of the various Ministries. Seminar and technical papers presented by experts as well as data available in the internet were also used to compile the report. The content of the report is therefore considered reliable. Ven. Andrus Nnaemeka Ukaejiofo, FNIVS Expert Investigator on Management of Public Land Project Coordinator, Federal Land Information System, Department of Lands and Housing Development, Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Mabushi, Abuja +2348037875787 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 203 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.2.4 Expert Investigator Report on Land Administration This report provided information on:  Property Rights Mechanism and Enforcement;  Completeness and Reliability of Land Registry Records;  Effectiveness and Sustainability of Land Registries; and  Availability of Scheduled Fees to the General Public Land administration aims at providing secure legal title to land while providing verifiable inventory of land allocations to facilitate effective land governance. In Nigeria land administration practice is as old as the nation though the need became more obvious over the years with growing economic activities. It has developed from the traditional communal control to statutory control. Although the prevailing Land Law, the Land Use Act, Cap L.5, 2004, allows an imprecise co-existence of private and communal interests along with the statutory rights system, the controlling authority is still government since any other title to land is inferior to the statutory Certificate of Occupancy. Statutory right is generally the right that is evidenced with a Certificate of Occupancy (C. of O.) either issued by the Federal Government through its accredited Agencies, like the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development or the Federal Capital Development Authority and the various State Governments. Such are rights that are registrable in the appropriate Land Registries. Private Conveyancing is no longer tenable with the coming into effect of the Land Use Act. All customary rights or ―Deemed rights‖ are expected to be evidenced by the C. of O. and brought into Government records. Financial institutions scarcely recognize any other title because they are not registrable and may never be registered until they are converted or the root of title, which may have been registered, is ascertained as domiciled in the Government‘s record system.. In practice it is the State Government or the Federal Government that exercises management right over land within its jurisdiction. Under the prevailing law, Local Government‘s Customary Right of Occupancy is more an ―expression of interest‖ and ―intent to deal‖ rather than a ―confirmation of title‖. While the Land Use Act is the prevailing law on land administration and registration, the intendment of its provisions is yet to be properly understood and applied among the various practitioners in the three tiers of government. Consequently a uniform procedure for land administration is yet to exist even though a serious effort is currently being made to harmonize the implementation standards and procedures through the activities of the National Technical Development Forum on land administration (NTDF). Although many of the Land Registries are substantially analogue in operation and the archival infrastructure may not be modern but the content of available registered interests are generally complete with the coordinate details of the land space involved and the biodata of the allottees. Greater part of the lands either in use (or otherwise) across the country are yet to be brought into government land registries because the title and registry infrastructure, including cadastral base maps and technical facilities for producing the title documents are not available or are in poor shape. Although the Land Registry could scarcely be separated from the Lands Department in nearly all the States, most of the offices are badly dilapidated and in dire need of restructuring. As a result of poor maintenance, the archival systems may not guarantee the security of the land records. Currently many States are yet to initiate the process of modernization and computerization of their land records. Nigeria therefore needs to invest substantially in the land administration process to provide the infrastructure in addition to human capacity. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a professional land officer or a Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 204 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE technically competent officer on land administration and registration in the Local Government Offices yet the build up into the National Land Depository must start from the Local Governments. In many of the States, professional and technical capacity is also still very low. The Land Registry has remained an integral part of the Lands Department in both Federal and State Ministries because the activities of the Registry are essentially archival. It may therefore be difficult to sustain an independent Land Registry except the whole of the Lands Department is to operate as the Lands Registry with all the land administration and registration functions. The funds generated from the Registry may not pay all its costs especially with the poor land titling infrastructure across the country. Total land registered in all the States and at the Federal on level on an annual basis may not be up to 40,000 in total and the financial charges may be less than N400m (Nationwide). Where however the whole of the Lands Department transmutes to the Land Registry, it would be capable of self-sustenance and independent existence. It could generate substantial revenue from both premium, annual ground rent, title registration, etc. The fees chargeable for land transactions are generally stated clearly in the letters of offer. Many of the offices are able to publish their FEE ORDER as public information for stakeholders but most stakeholders scarcely bother with prior knowledge of the fees making them rely entirely on information conveyed by officers of the Ministries. They also rely on such officers for counseling and guidance. In general the problems associated with land administration in Nigeria include: Jurisdiction and control – there is scarcely a clear boundary between state and federal land holdings. In many situations there is always tussle over the appropriate authority to administer certain pieces of land. In most cases the fees charged by the different governments over land within contiguous geographic locations for similar transactions may vary significantly depending on the controlling authority – Federal or State. Generally charges levied by the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development are usually more competitive. Function overlap between related government Agencies. Within government institution at the different tier (Federal/State/Local) there are often conflicts over the Ministry and professionals that have responsibility for the management and administration of land in a given territory. Federal Ministry of Works, for road projects, Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Ministry of Defence, etc acquire and administer land. While the land is generally acquired by a central agency (Lands Ministry) the administration is not completely centralized. This is often the source of conflict about who has authority for the management. There is need therefore to have a clear delineation of responsibilities in land administration. The Governing Law should clearly prescribe jurisdiction and territorial control. Land administration responsibility falls on all tiers of government –Local, State and Federal. While the laws of the land emanate from the Federal, the states also make their Edicts. The Land Use Act seems to have given over the management of all lands to the State to the exclusion of the Federal which has territorial control over the land comprised in the Nigerian nation and still makes the governing laws. Sometimes this unclear position creates problems between State and Federal Governments. Ven. Andrus Nnaemeka Ukaejiofo, FNIVS Expert Investigator on Land Administration Project Coordinator, Federal Land Information System, Department of Lands and Housing Development, Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Mabushi, Abuja +2348037875787 Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 205 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.2.5 Expert Investigator Report on Large Scale Land Acquisition Main Findings  Land is a central issue in the development process  Securing land rights underpins sustainable development by making it possible and attractive to undertake long term investment  Land is a fundamental factor of production especially in the agricultural sector  The extent to which land performs the fundamental role in development is determined in part by the method of land acquisition and ownership  Large tracts of land have always been acquired by the government and her agent as the need arises from time to time in Nigeria, for instance, for forest wildlife and plantation purposes  However resistance from customary owners does prevent and sometimes delay effective possession of such acquired lands and in the event delay or stall development projects  The rampant occurrence of such incidences led the Federal Government to promulgate the Land Use Act in 1978 which vests all land in each State in the hand of the governor of such state  The recent surge in propensity for large scale land acquisition was propelled by the global dimension of the food crisis, economic meltdown, global energy crisis that led to exploration of alternate energy source, as well as population pressure among other reasons  Ministry of Lands and Housing at each State level handles all matter pertaining to land acquisition in the State for final approval by the Governor  The rampant problems associated with effective implementation of the Land Use Act led the Federal Government of Nigeria to set up a land reform commission in 2007  Land is acquired on a large scale for the following purposes in Nigeria: agriculture; grazing; forestry; games and wildlife sanctuaries  Transaction costs associated with acquisition of land rights by investors are currently high in Nigeria  Notwithstanding the official status, investors need to negotiate with customary land owners before securing use rights from the government  Some means of large scale land acquisition are: formal government approval with negotiation with customary owners; contractual agreement with the farmer/owners; and contract farming.  Large scale land acquisition offers tremendous financial and economic benefits for the rural people who are most poor in terms of better earnings on their enterprises; more job creations and provision of infrastructures  Government requires full detailed environmental and social impact study from the investors as a mitigating measure to reduce the negative impact of large scale land acquisition  Judicial restructuring aimed at expediting dispute resolution are being put in place to redress the negative effect of prolonged contract dispute resolution in most states of the federation. Towards this end some judges have been disciplined while a process of evaluating judges have been put in place Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 206 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Methodology  Main methods used for this study are:  Extensive review of related literature,  Key informant interviews,  Content analysis of relevant items in major national newspapers  Drawing from experience of the World Bank study on large scale land acquisition for Agriculture and Natural Resources in Nigeria. Data Provided  E2.0 Review of existing laws on land acquisition in Nigeria  E2.1 Background  E2.2 Existing Laws governing Land Acquisition in Nigeria  E3.0 Mechanisms to address and deal with Social and Environmental Impacts  E4.0 Some recent studies related to land acquisition in Nigeria Challenges faced during the course of the study The study was not without its challenges.  The non availability of comparable data at the state level is a major challenge. Different state ministries are at different stages of development in their data collection experience. Only Lagos State and the FCT Abuja have upgraded their data collection to credible level. Both states have uploaded their data into the GIS format such that it becomes relatively easy to access and compare electronically.  Also the problem of official bureaucracy is also very strong as many officials hide under the cover of official secret to delay release of information.  Furthermore, the level of delegation of responsibility by the Governor in assignment and allocation of land is at different levels in the states. It is easier to obtain certificate of occupancy in states where there is delegation than in other states.  In addition, the form of record keeping also varies from state to state as regards the land acquisition mode. The variation in the form of customary ownership also determines the extent of cooperation obtained from the field. Role of the Country Coordinator In overcoming these challenges, I obtained very good cooperation from the country coordinator  This is in the form of provision of relevant literatures and  timely provision of support especially logistics in terms of networking with potential sources of information Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 207 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Policy Recommendations  There is the need for streamlining the record keeping at the State level and eventual coordination at the national level.  It is also necessary to update the record keeping at the state level to soft form in the sense of geo-referencing to GIS which is being pioneered by the FCT and Lagos states.  Also, the need to involve the customary owners in the negotiation for large scale land acquisition to resolve the resistance to implementation of the official allocation needs recognition. Prof. Adeolu Ayanwale Expert Investigator on Large Scale Land Acquisition Department of Agricultural Economics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 208 Annex 7.3 Aide Memoires of the Expert Panel Workshops Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.1 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Land Tenure (Panel 1) held at the Committee Room, University of Lagos Guest Houses and Conference Centre, Lagos Tuesday, May 3, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF divides land issue into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting up of Expert Panels of 3-5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. One of the eight Expert Panel Workshops is on Land Tenure. The panel has thirteen LGAF dimensions to assess. Four out of the five Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop90. They are: (i) Dr. Dayo Amokaye, Lecturer and Researcher, Department of Private and Property Law, University of Lagos; (ii) Mr. Olusola Adun, Legal Consultant for Nigeria Exchange; (iii) Mr. Babatunde Ladipo, Estate Surveyor & Valuer; (iv) Mr. Adetokunbo Mumuni, Executive Director, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP). 1.3 To aid the panel members in their assessment process, the Country Coordinator sent the following materials online to the panel members prior to the workshop:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Land Tenure Typology in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Information provided by the Expert investigators especially those relating to:  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration  Clarity of Institutional Mandate and Practice 90 Surv. Afolabi Solesi, the fifth Panel Member informed the CC less than 24 hours before the Workshop that he would not be able to attend because of a business interview. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 210 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF Study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the 13 dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimensions, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by a Research Assistant – Gbolahan Badru. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Land tenure rights recognition (rural) [LGI 1 (i)] The panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose between option B and D with two panel members choosing B while the remaining two chose D. The initially chosen options were discarded when clarification on the provisions of the Land Use Act (LUA) were made. The Act, being the legal framework guiding the administration of land in the country, vests all land within a state territory (except land vested in the federal government or its agencies) in the Governor who holds such land in trust for the people. While the Governor has the powers to grant statutory right of ownership on any land either in the rural or urban, the local government has powers to grant customary right of ownership on land not in an urban area. Option A which states that ‗Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by more than 90% of the rural population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. This is based on the fact that the LUA recognizes the ownership of rural lands even before its enactment in 1978 as spelt out in Sections 6 and 36 of the Act. The key obstacles to the recognition of rural rights include:  Restrictions on the amount of rural land that can be owned by an individual which cannot be in excess of 500 hectares if granted for agricultural purposes, or 5,000 hectares if granted for grazing purposes, except with the consent of the Governor  The restriction on the alienation by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise of rural lands or customary right of occupancy or any part thereof to be:  without the consent of the Governor in cases where the property is to be sold by or under the order of any court under the provisions of the applicable Sheriffs and Civil Process Law; or  in other cases without the approval of the appropriate Local Government. 2.2 Land tenure rights recognition (urban) [LGI 1 (ii)] In their individual assessment of this dimension, the panel members all chose different options ranging from A to D. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 211 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE In their deliberations, the panel members noted that the provisions of the LUA vests all land within a state territory in the governor who holds them in trust and administers them for the common good of the public. The ownership of land in urban areas which are under the statutory legal framework is thus recognized with the exception of informal settlements. The choice of option B which states that ‗existing legal framework recognizes rights held by 70% - 90% of the urban population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes‘ and option D which states that ‗existing legal framework recognizes rights held by less than 50% of the urban population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes respectively‘ were therefore discarded based on the fact that the existing legal framework recognizes the formal rights held by virtually all urban population. Option A which states that existing ‗legal framework recognizes rights held by more than 90% of the urban population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. The key obstacles for the recognition of urban rights are:  Restriction on the ownership of more than one plot or portion exceeding 1/2 hectare in urban areas and granting of license in respect of an area exceeding 400 hectare in urban areas.  Restriction on the statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his right of occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without the consent of the Governor. 2.3 Rural group rights recognition [LGI 1 (iii)] The individual assessment of this dimension by the panel members revealed options ranging from B to D with one panel member choosing B, another one choosing C while the remaining two chose D. The choice of option B which states that ‗the tenure of most groups in rural areas is formally recognized but ways for them to gain legal representation or organize themselves are not regulated‘ and option D which states that ‗the tenure of most groups in rural areas is not formally recognized‘ were rejected since they represent regional views. Option C which states that ‗the tenure of most groups in rural areas is not formally recognized but groups can gain legal representation under other laws (e.g. corporate law)‘ was however chosen as the consensus option. This is because even though most land held by rural groups (communal land, age group land, artisans, market women and so on) do not have legal recognition, registration under Part C of the Corporate and Allied Company (CAC) Act of 1990 can give legal recognition to the groups. This is by being incorporated as trustees, groups, association, non-profit making or limited by guarantee under part A. Procedure necessary to gain recognition  Registration under part C of the CAC act of 1990 as an incorporated trustee, group, association, non-profit organization  Registration under part A of the CAC act of 1990 as a body limited by guarantee Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 212 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Description of specific rural groups that do not have formal recognition  In the south western part of country, the Fulani nomadic group can be recognized as a group that does not have formal recognition of rights to land. Even though their rights are formally recognized in the North where the lands they work on are known as grazing lands, there rights in the south west are not formally recognized. 2.4 Urban group rights recognition in informal areas [LGI 1 (iv)] The range of chosen options by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between B and D with one panel member each choosing B and D and two choosing C. Options B which states ‗that Group tenure in informal urban areas is formally recognized but ways for them to gain legal representation or organize themselves are not regulated‘ and option D which states that ‗Group tenure in informal urban areas is not formally recognized‘ were rejected. This was based on the fact that although all group tenure or any type of tenure whatsoever in informal urban areas are not recognized by government, legal recognition of rights can be acquired by registering the group under the Corporate and Allied Company (CAC) Act of 1990 and then seeking for formalization of the rights by the government. Option C which states that ‗group tenure in informal urban areas is not formally recognized but groups can gain legal representation under other laws was thus chosen as the consensus option. 2.5 Opportunities for tenure individualization [LGI 1 (v)] The summation of the individual assessments of this dimension by the panel members revealed that one panel member chose B, two chose C while the remaining one chose D. The choice of option B which states that ‗the law provides opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenures to fully or partially individualize land ownership/use. Procedures to do so are affordable and include basic safeguards against abuse but are not always followed in practice and are often applied in a discretionary manner‘ was supported with the provision of the land use act Sect (21) which stipulates that the transfer of customary right of occupancy or any part thereof must be with the consent of the Governor or the approval of the appropriate Local Government, indicating that opportunities for the individualization of tenure is provided by the law. The choice of this option was however faulted based on the affordability of the procedure and the efficiency of the safeguards against abuse. The choice of Option D which states that ‗the law provides no opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenures to fully or partially individualize land ownership/use‘ was also rejected because as stated above the land use act provides opportunity for the individualization of tenure which must follow a laid down procedure. Thus, Option C which states that ‗the law provides opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenures to fully or partially individualize land ownership/use. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 213 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Procedures are not affordable or clear, leading to widespread discretion or failure to apply even for cases where those affected desire to so‘ was chosen as the consensus option. This choice was supported with the situation in the country where most land are not registered mostly due to the incredible conditions to be satisfied and the enormous cost incurred in the land title registration process. However, individuals interested in formalizing rights to property must present the following among others:  Survey plans of the property  Photograph of the land  Tax clearance  Receipt or proof of purchase  Sketch of the land 2.6 Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to communal land [LGI 2 (i)] The range of chosen option during the individual assessment of this dimension was between A and D with two panel members choosing D, while the remaining two chose A and B respectively. The choice of options A and B which state that ‗more than 70% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered‘ and ‗40-70% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered‘ respectively were rejected based on the fact that less than 3% of the land in Nigeria have been surveyed and mapped and most of this land are in the urban areas. The fact that indigenous land in the country are rarely mapped, surveyed or registered may be due to the difficulty and expensive procedure for land registration in the country. Option D which states that ‗Less than 10% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option because it is the closest to the situation in the country. While Communal lands can be demarcated with natural boundaries like trees, rivers, roads, etc surveys or registration are rarely done. 2.7 Registration of individually held properties in rural areas [LGI 2 (ii)] In their individual assessment of this dimension, two panel members chose C while the remaining two chose D. The choice of option C which states that ‗between 50% and 70% of individual properties in rural areas are formally registered‘ was rejected while Option D which states that ‗Less than 50% of individual properties in rural areas are formally registered‘ was chosen as the consensus option. This choice was substantiated with the fact that registration of rights to individually held properties are mostly done in the urban areas where individuals are prompted to secure their property rights and in other cases use the registered property as collateral. This is however not the case in most rural areas where the cost and procedure for registration discourages them. The notion of submitting their freehold of perpetual ownership in exchange for leasehold also annoys them. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 214 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.8 Registration of individually held properties in urban areas [LGI 2 (iii)] The range of chosen option under this dimension was between A and D with a panel member choosing A, B, C, and D respectively. The divergence in the range of chosen option under this dimension was attributed to the different situation experienced in different urban areas of the country. Some urban areas like Abuja have high proportions of registered properties which may suggest the choice of option A, while others like Lagos may have very low proportion of registered individually held property. Option D which states that ‗less than 50% of individual properties in urban areas are formally registered‘ was however chosen as the consensus option taking the situation of the country as a whole. This was based on the fact that the procedure for land registration often discourages registration. The use of the land registration process as a means of generating revenue for the government also makes this process difficult and expensive. 2.9 A condominium regime provides for appropriate management of common property [LGI 2 (v)] The range of chosen options was between C and D with two panel members choosing C while the remaining two chose D. Option D which states that ‗Common property under condominiums is not recognized‘ was rejected while Option C which states that ‗Common property under condominiums has some recognition but there are no provisions in the law to establish arrangements for the management and maintenance of this common property‘ was chosen as the consensus option. This choice was supported with the provisions for subletting as stipulated in Sect (23) of the Land Use Act. Using this provision, deed of assignment can be given to an individual for the ownership of a flat within a block of flats indicating that some recognition exists but the arrangement for management and maintenance of this common property is not established in the law. 2.10 Compensation due to land use changes [LGI 2 (vi)] The chosen range of option was between C and D with two panel members choosing C while the remaining two chose D. The choice of option D which states that ‗where people lose rights as a result of land use change outside the expropriation process, compensation is not paid‘ was discarded while Option C which states that ‗where people lose rights as a result of land use change outside the expropriation process, compensation in cash or in kind is paid such that these people do not have comparable assets and cannot continue to maintain prior social and economic status‘ was chosen as the consensus option. Comparing the consensus option to the completed matrix confirms the situation of the country where land use change can be privately induced or publicly-induced. For publicly-induced land use change like rural-urban conversion or the rejuvenation of urban, compensations are paid to property owners upon presentation of land titles or approved building plans. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 215 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Compensated Process Level of compensation Implementation rights Compensation paid in cash or in Implemented in Rural-urban No secondary kind but at significantly lower Highly discretionary conversion rights recognized. level than compulsory acquisition; manner. Implemented in Establish No secondary Little or no compensation paid. Highly discretionary reserved land rights recognized. manner. The compensation regime used by the country is however unclear which gives room for corruption and the use of discretion by the officers in charge. 2.11 Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for recognition of property claims [LGI 3 (i)] The range of chosen option in the individual assessment of this dimension was between B and D with two panel members choosing B while the remaining two chose D. Land Use Act under Sec 36(3) indicates that, at his discretion, a sketch or diagram or other sufficient description of the land in question can be presented by an individual to claim the possession of a property in the rural area. The most prevalent method often used to ascertain claims of property in the country is through non documented evidences. A good example is the case of the Crown grant of Lagos Island where non-documented evidences through oral history were used to claim ownership. Thus Option C which states that ‗Non-documentary forms of evidence are used to obtain recognition of a claim to property along with other documents (e.g. tax receipts or informal purchase notes) when other forms of evidence are not available. They have less strength than the provided land in the country document‘ was chosen as the consensus option. 2.12 Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession [LGI 3 (ii)] In the individual assessment of this dimension, three panel members chose option B while the remaining one chose option D. The choice of option C which states that ‗legislation exists to formally recognize long-term, unchallenged possession but due to the way this legislation is implemented, formal recognition is granted to very few or no applicants for recognition on either public or private land‘ was opposed. This is based on the fact that even though the limitation law allows the continuous occupation of a public land by an individual who have been on the land for more than twenty (20) years, there exist however no procedure for the registration of rights. Option D which states that ‗Legislation to formally recognize long-term, unchallenged possession does not exist‘ was thus chosen as the consensus option. It is the case of an adverse possessor. 2.13 Efficient and transparent process to formalize possession [LGI 3 (vi)] The range of chosen options in the individual assessment of this dimension was between B and D with two panel members choosing B, one choosing C, while the remaining one chose D. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 216 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The choice of option B which states that ―there is a clear, practical process for the formal recognition of possession but this process is not implemented effectively, consistently or transparently‖ was discarded while Option C which states that ―the process for the formal recognition of possession is not clear and is not implemented effectively, consistently or transparently‖ was chosen as the consensus option. As shown in the table below the implementation of formalization processes on all informal urban settlement is done with discretion since legislative procedures and rules clearly defining process are absent. Formalization Formalization process Implementation Growth in informality Rules not clearly defined, 1. Informal urban settlement Significant Many new informal and/or most cases not on private land discretion settlers in the past year. covered. Rules not clearly defined, 2. Informal urban occupation Significant Many new informal and/or most cases not on public land discretion settlers in the past year. covered. 3. Informal occupation of Rules not clearly defined, forest land or protected areas Significant Many new informal and/or most cases not (national parks, wildlife discretion settlers in the past year. covered. reserves, etc.) General Comments and Policy Reforms  The ambiguities in the LUA make land administration difficult  The procedure for land acquisition should be based on properly legislated guidelines  The law breakers should be punished to serve as deterrents to others  Capacity building in all aspects of land administration should be given priority consideration Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 217 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Land Tenure Ranking by Expert Panel Members EPM LGI Dimension Description (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural) B D D B A 1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban) A D B B A 1 iii Rural group rights recognition C D D B C 1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas D C B C C 1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization B C D C C Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to 2 i A D D B D communal land Registration of individually held properties in rural 2 ii C D D C D areas Registration of individually held properties in urban 2 iii A D C B D areas A condominium regime provides for appropriate 2 v D C D C C management of common property 2 vi Compensation due to land use changes C C D D C Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for 3 i B D D B C recognition of property claims Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged 3 ii C D C C D possession Efficient and transparent process to formalize 3 vi C B B D C possession Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 218 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.2 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Institutional Arrangements (Panel 2) held at the Committee Room, Virtual Library, National Universities Commission, Abuja Saturday, April 30, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF divides land issue into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting up of Expert Panels of 3-5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. One of the eight Expert Panel Workshops is on Institutional Arrangements. The panel has four LGAF dimensions to assess. The three out of the four Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop91. They are: (i) Mr. Charles Nwoji, Executive Secretary, Center for Land Rights and Environmental Development (CLARED); (ii) Mr. Sule Musafau Omotayo, Asst Director, Land Management, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Abuja; and (iii) Mr. Olurotimi Olubuyi Onabanjo, Deputy Land Administrator, Dept of Lands and Housing Development, Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Abuja. 1.3 To aid the panel members in their assessment process, the Country Coordinator (CC) sent the following materials online to the panel members prior to the workshop:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Land Tenure Typology in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Information provided by the Expert Investigators especially those relating to: 91 This workshop was originally arranged to take place on Wednesday, April 27, 2011. The date was changed to Saturday, April 30 2011 as a result of the rescheduled National Election. Unfortunately, one of the panel members – Mr. Festus Esekhite could not make it because of a previous commitment to attend a conference in Ghana. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 219 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration  Clarity of Institutional Mandate and Practice 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF Study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the 4 dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimensions, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by a Research Assistant – Gbolahan Badru. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Separation of policy formulation, implementation, and arbitration [LGI 5 (i)] Different options were chosen by the individual assessment of this dimension. The range of chosen options was between B and D with one of the panel members choosing B, one choosing C, while the remaining one chose D. The choice of C which states that, ‗there is some separation in the roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy through land management and administration and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of policy but there are overlapping and conflicting responsibilities that lead to frequent problems‘ was rejected by the panel members noting that the major problem is not that of overlap but the ‗ignorance‘ of some institutions on the limit of their responsibilities. Such institutions often take up responsibilities of other institutions. The choice of Option D which states that, ‗there is some separation in the roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy through land management and administration and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of policy but there are overlapping and conflicting responsibilities that lead to frequent problems‘ was also opposed because the panel members noted that some separation of roles exist. Option B which states that ‗there is some separation in the roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy through land management and administration and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of policy, but there are overlapping and conflicting responsibilities that lead to occasional problems‘ was however chosen as the consensus option. The choice of this option was supported with the table below where land management institutions, their responsibilities and overlaps between them were presented. Therein it was observed that the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development has overlaps with almost all other institutions saddled with the responsibility of land management. The fact Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 220 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE that different land management institutions use different procedural manuals with the absence of a uniform guiding principle for land management in the country causes conflict. Instances of conflicts between institutions saddled with the responsibility of managing public lands especially the case of the federal government and the Lagos state government was given where the certificate of occupancy given by the federal government was not acknowledged by the state. Another instance is the management of federal government-owned roads by the state government as is obvious in states like Lagos and Ondo. The overlap of responsibility in this case was attributed to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the institutions in charge of federal government lands. Political differences were also attributed to be one of the reasons for the conflict. The main institutions involved in land management and administration and their responsibilities Institutions Overlap occurs Separation of (Central and Type of Responsibility/Man with which other S/N policies and decentralized Land/Resources date institution? functions authorities) Federal Ministry of  Mapping Federal Ministry Agriculture and  Assessment Separation of of Lands, Housing 1 Agricultural land  Upgrading and Urban Rural Development policies exists  Maintenance Development (FMARD) (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry  Acquisition of Agriculture and Federal Ministry of  Management Rural 2 Lands, Housing and All types of Land  Administration Separation of Development Urban Development for all purposes  Valuation policies exists (FMARD) and (FMLH&UD)  Registration other Federal Ministries Land for Federal Ministry Federal Ministry of Acquisition of land infrastructural of Lands, Housing Power for the construction Separation of 3 purposes and Urban of transmission lines policies exists (PHCH) (transmission lines Development and power stations and power stations) (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry Federal Ministry of Power stations, Acquisition of land of Lands, Housing Petroleum Distribution for the construction Separation of 4 and Urban stations, offices and and laying of policies exists (NNPC) Development residential estates pipeline, (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry of  Construction and Federal Ministry Transportation Land for Railways laying of rail-line of Lands, Housing  Nigeria Railways station, Rail lines  Management and Separation of and Urban 5 Development Corporation and Port maintenance of policies exists  Nigeria Ports development waterways (FMLH&UD) Authority  Construction and Federal Ministry of Federal Ministry Land for Dams and management of Separation of 6 Water Resources of Lands, Housing Irrigation Dams and policies exists  Dams and Urban reservoirs Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 221 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  River Basin Development Development (FMLH&UD) Authorities Federal Ministry Federal Ministry of  Highways of Lands, Housing works Federal Government construction and Separation of 7 and Urban  Roads and Roads maintenance policies exists Development Highways (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry of  Acquisition of Federal Ministry Aviation land for the of Lands, Housing Airports and Separation of 8  Federal Airport construction of and Urban residential estates Airports and policies exists Authority of Development Nigeria (FAAN) residential estates. (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry Of  Acquisition of Federal Ministry Defence Military Barracks, land for the of Lands, Housing Separation of 9  Army Bases and training construction of and Urban policies exists  Navy ground Barracks and Development  Air-Force training grounds. (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry  Federal Capital Acquisition of land of Lands, Housing Territory Land within the for the development Separation of 10 and Urban Authority FCTA FCT of the federal capital policies exists Development territory (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry of Interior Acquisition of land Federal Ministry Barrack, Stations, for the construction of Lands, Housing  Prison Separation of 11 Prisons, and training of Barrack, Stations, and Urban  Police policies exists grounds Prisons, and training Development  Immigration grounds (FMLH&UD)  Custom Federal Ministry Acquisition of land of Lands, Housing Federal Ministry of Separation of 12 Land for schools. for educational and Urban Education policies exists purposes Development (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry Acquisition of land of Lands, Housing Central Bank of Offices and for the construction Separation of 13 and Urban Nigeria residential estates of offices and policies exists Development residential estates (FMLH&UD) Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing All lands (urban & Acquisition of land and Urban Separation of 14 State Governments rural) within the for the development Development policies exists state. of the state (FMLH&UD), Local Governments Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing Acquisition of land and Urban for the development Separation of Development 15 Local Governments All rural lands of the local policies exists (FMLH&UD), government. State Governments Agencies Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 222 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.2 Avoidance of institutional (horizontal) overlap [LGI 5 (ii)] The summary of the individual assessment of this dimension by the panel members revealed that the range of rankings was between B and C with two of the panel members choosing C while the one remaining member chose B. The choice of option B which states that the mandated responsibilities of the various authorities dealing with land administration issues are defined with a limited amount of overlap with those of other land sector agencies but there are few problems, was opposed because the panel members affirmed that the number of overlaps between horizontal institutions engaged in the management and administration of land are substantial. Thus, option C which states that the mandated responsibilities of the various authorities dealing with land administration issues are defined but institutional overlap with those of other land sector agencies and inconsistency is a problem, was chosen as the consensus option. This position was supported with various illustration where laid down procedures or principles for land management in the country were not implemented or followed. It was noted that all federal ministries hardly go through the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (FMLHUD) for the acquisition and management of land required by them. The ministries adopt different methods to acquire land and the records of such federal lands are opaque to FMLHUD. 2.3 Avoidance of administrative (vertical) overlap [LGI 5 (iii)] In the individual assessment of this dimension, the range of ranking chosen by the panel members was between A and D with one of the panel members choosing A, one choosing B, while the remaining one chose D. The instance of the overlap of responsibilities between Lagos state and the federal government was given where management of roads, housing estates, and waterfront is causing conflicts between these two levels of government. This problem may be attributed to inadequate understanding of the independent roles of each government level. The government of Lagos state has also been accused of taking over the responsibilities of the local government under the excuse of inadequate funds and manpower on the part of the local government. Option B which states that division of land-related responsibilities between the different levels of government is clear with minor overlaps was thus chosen as the consensus option. 2.4 Land information is shared with interested institutions [LGI 5 (iv)] All the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose Option B which states that information related to rights in land is available to interested institutions and although this information is available at reasonable cost, it is not readily accessible as the information is not maintained in a uniform way. The choice of this option was supported with arguments that land information can only be accessed at the headquarters of the registries located in the state capitals or the federal capital territory. It was also noted that there are lots of discrepancies in the procedure for land registration in the country which makes the process very difficult. The recording formats are also different with different state and the federal government using different designs. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 223 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Accessing information on Agricultural land should start from the local government area where the land is located. The local government authorities will identify the land and invite the owners. They will also serve as observers during the negotiation process between the land owners and buyers. For industrial lands, sensitization and awareness process are made to inform the public of their availability after which applications are made. The acquisition of these lands is however often marred with corruption where public officials buy majority of them from the government because of the lack of public awareness and later sublease at exorbitant prices to the members of the public who truly need the land. 3.0 Concluding Remarks The CC thanked the panel members once again for accepting the invitation and attending the workshop. He appealed to the panel members to make available any data they have concerning the study. He also informed them that the draft aide memoire will be sent to them and they are required to comment on its appropriateness. He then wished them journey mercies back to their respective destinations. One of the panel members on behalf of the others thanked the coordinator and the supporters (organizers) of the workshop. They claimed that the workshop has been an eye-opener and they are ready to participate in any future exercise in the service of their fatherland. Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Institutional Arrangements Ranking by Expert Panel EPM LGI Dimension Description Members (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 Separation of policy formulation, implementation, 5 i D C B B and arbitration 5 ii Avoidance of institutional (horizontal) overlap C C B C 5 iii Avoidance of administrative (vertical) overlap D B A B Land information is shared with interested 5 iv B B B B institutions. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 224 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.3 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Urban Land Use Planning and Development (Panel 3) held at the Committee Room, University of Lagos Guest Houses and Conference Centre, Lagos Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF divides land issue into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting up of Expert Panels of 3-5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. One of the eight Expert Panels organized is on Urban Land Use Planning and Development. The Panel has eleven LGAF dimensions to assess. The five Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop. They are: (i) Mr. Moses Ogunleye, MOA Planners Ltd, Consulting Urban and Regional Planners, Lagos; (ii) Mr. Ayo Adediran, Lagos State Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development, Alausa-Ikeja, Lagos; (iii) Prof. J. Fasakin, Lecturer and Researcher, Department of Urban & Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology, Akure; (iv) Dr. Demola Omojola, Lecturer and Head of Department, Department of Geography, University of Lagos, Akoka- Yaba, Lagos; and (v) Mr. Waheed Kadiri, Former National President, Nigerian Institute of Town Planners, Principal Partner, Kadiri Associates, 1.3 To aid the panel members in their assessment process, the Country Coordinator (CC) provided them online with the following materials:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Land Tenure Typologies in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Information provided by the Expert investigators especially those relating to:  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 225 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Transparency of Land Use Restrictions  Equity and Non-Discriminatory Policy  Efficiency in the land use planning process.  Speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land use  Identification of public land and clear management 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF Study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the eleven dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimensions, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by Dr. Vide Anosike-Adedayo, and Gbolahan Badru. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible and affordable [LGI 3 (v)] The range of options chosen under this dimension was between B and D with two of the panel members choosing B, two choosing C while the remaining one chose D. The choice of Option B which states that ‗the requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are clear, straightforward and affordable but are not implemented consistently in a transparent manner‘ was supported with the fact that in most urban centers of the federation the requirement for formalization are available even though they are not implemented in transparent manner. This is more prominent in the major urban centers where informal developments are widespread. This choice was however opposed by the other panel members indicating that the choice of option D which states that ‗the requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are such that formalization is deemed very difficult‘ will be more appropriate for the country. They indicated that the key obstacles to the feasibility and affordability of formalizing urban housing include the following:  Most land/property owners who may want to formalize their residential housing occupy customary lands and to them formalization is deemed very difficult since it requires the presentation of documents which are difficult to acquire.  Most informal land settlers are low income earners often unable to pay the cost of formalization  Absence of documents for sensitizing the public on the process of formalization  Inadequate monitoring and non enforcement of the provisions of the LUA  Absence of a universal procedure for formalization in the country  The formalization requirements are also not statutory but only administrative which often necessitate the use discretion by the officer in charge Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 226 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE With all these obstacles in place, the panel members noted that some inhabitants of informal urban areas still struggle to satisfy the formalization requirements. Option C which states that ‗the requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are not clear, straightforward, or affordable but many applicants from informal areas are managing to satisfy the requirements‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. This choice was based on the fact that even though difficult and not very transparent requirements for the formalization of informal residential housing exist in different urban centres of the federation, applicants through various means and by paying various formal and informal fees still try to satisfy these requirements in a bid to formalize their land/property. The prerequisites for formalizing housing that has been built without appropriate approvals are:  Evidence of ownership  Building plan  Architectural plan  Tax receipt  Processing fees  Survey plan  Layout plan  Deed of assignment In most cases, lots of informal fees are paid along with the formal fees and other requirements to formalize properties. Thus, the impact of these requirements on formalization is such that most of the housing units in urban areas remain informal. In order to improve the situation the panelists make the following recommendations:  There is a need for a legislated rules to guide the formalization process  Consistency of policies must be encouraged. Policies should be made to work in spite of the change in government  There should be a standard framework for formalizing land in the country  There is need for the development of a detailed cadastre map for the country  Different levels of government should be given responsibilities peculiar to them  Uniform policies should not be used for a heterogeneous system like Nigeria  Human resource development and capacity building must be given priority  The public must be sensitized to raise their awareness 2.2 Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability are justified [LGI 4 (i)] In their individual assessment of this dimension, four out of the five panel members chose option B while the remaining one chose D. After filling out the matrix provided as presented in the table below, Option B which states that ‗there are a series of regulations that are for the most part justified on the basis of overall public interest but that are not enforced‘ was chosen as the consensus option. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 227 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Restrictions on Non- Exists, but Exist & Brief description of restriction land ownership existent not enforced enforced and comments Restrictions on: * Urban: Non sale of land without Land transactions * the consent of the governor Land ownership * Restriction on the size Formerly in existence during the indigenization era but have been Owner type * removed with the introduction of the LUA. The few land use plans where they Use * exist Size of holding * Urban: 0.5 ha of undeveloped land Influence of market forces Price * Government assessment Rent * The rent edict This choice was based on the current state of the country where the land use act makes provision for the overall public interest but these provisions are rarely implemented. For instance, as noted in the table above, the LUA restricts an individual from owning more than half hectare of land in the urban areas. The provision of the act also restricts land transaction in urban areas without the consent of the governor. These restrictions are not monitored or enforced as is evident in the ownership of more than half hectares of land by individuals and the unchecked sale of land without the consent of the Governor. Policy Commentary  The capacities for the enforcement of the rules are absent. This include the human and material resources  Enforcement should be decentralized  Monitoring can be outsourced  Operating within legislative mandates is necessary 2.3 In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public input [LGI 7 (i)] The range of options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between B and D with two of the panel members choosing C, two choosing D while the remaining one chose B. The divergence in the chosen options can be related to different procedure adopted by the developers of land use plans in the different states of the federation. While in some areas public inputs are sought, in others they are not. For instance, the developers of the Alimosho model city master plan and Ogun state regional master plan sought public input even though this was done when the plans were nearing completion. In most cases, the plans are not taken to the people at the grass root. Stage-managed public hearings are organized where few local government officials and politicians are asked to make input to the plans. It is thus a case of the government planning for the people and not with the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 228 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE people. In the few places where the developers of the plans sought public input, these comments are rarely included in the finalization of the plans since the public input process is merely a formality. Option C which states that ‗public input is sought in preparing and amending land use plans but the public comments are largely ignored in the finalization of the land use plans‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option Policy Recommendation  The real stakeholders must be consulted in the preparation of land use plans. This can be done through consultation with village/community heads, town hall meetings, landlord association meetings and the likes.  Clear mandates for land management institutions should be established  Outsourcing of the responsibility of monitoring and enforcement would make the process efficient and effective.  Capacity building should be encouraged to improve the number of manpower and equipment. 2.4 Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use [LGI 7 (iii)] In the individual assessment of this dimension, the range of options chosen by the panel members was between B and D with three of the panel members choosing C, one choosing B while the remaining one chose D. The panel members indicated that there exist different mechanisms which allow the public to capture gains from changing land use among which are:  Tenement rate  Infrastructure development charge The present situation however is such that where developers pay these levies they are deposited into a central purse and redistributed in form of development without taking cognizance of the area with the highest amount. The benefit accruing from the payment of the levies are thus applied in a discretional manner. The benefits in some cases do not get to the payers of these taxes. Option C which states that ‗mechanisms to allow the public to capture significant share of the gains from changing land use (e.g. betterment taxes, levies for infrastructure, property tax) are rarely used or applied in a discretionary manner‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option Policy Recommendation  Multiplicity of taxes should be avoided so as to discourage tax evasion  There is need to include the views of the stakeholder in planning. They are in better positions to indicate what their needs are. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 229 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.5 Speed of land use change [LGI 7 (iv)] The range of options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between C and D with two of the panel members choosing C, another two chose D while the remaining one did not chose any option. Option D which states that ‗less than 30% of the land that has had a change in land use assignment in the past 3 years has changed to the destined use‘ was chosen as the consensus option. This choice was attributed to the obsolete or non existence of land use plans for most major cities of Nigeria. It is thus difficult to measure against what does exist. Policy Recommendation There is need to develop plans that are detailed enough to be implemented and monitored There should be lower level maps that the locals can relate with Detailed land use and base maps of the country are also needed 2.6 Process for planned urban development in the largest city in the country [LGI 8 (i)] The panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose option ranging between C and D with two of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining three chose D. Lagos being the largest city in the country has the following hierarchy of plans:  Regional plan  Sub-regional plan  District plans  Model plans  Urban/town plans  Urban regeneration/development plans  Local/Layout plans  Subject plans This hierarchy of plans is not often followed by urban developers. There exist an outdated master plan for Lagos, and various model city plans for Lekki, Ikorodu, Alimosho, Ikeja among others. Developments in most cases start from the lowest levels of planning (subject plans and local or layout plans) with the view of harmonizing them into higher level plans (regional and sub regional). This therefore explains the obvious uncoordinated development experienced in the city where informality has taken over. The ‗planlessness‘ of the informal areas makes service delivery almost impossible. Option D which states that ‗in the largest city in the country a hierarchy of regional/detailed land use plans may or may not be specified by law and in practice urban development occurs in an ad hoc manner with little if any infrastructure provided in most newly developing areas‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 230 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.7 Process for planned urban development in the four largest cities in the country, excluding the largest city [LGI 8 (ii)] The range of options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of dimension was between C and D with four of the panel members choosing D, while the remaining one chose C. They noted that the four largest cities in the country excluding the largest city include:  Kano  Ibadan  Kaduna  Port Harcourt These cities just like all other urban centers in the country are developing in ad hoc manners. Most of them lack master plans and where they exist they are not implemented. Informal settlements have therefore taken over. Lower level plans like subject and layout plans are the most common plans in existence. They are also in most cases disjointed and not coordinated. Option D which states that ‗in the four major cities in the country a hierarchy of regional/detailed land use plans may or may not be specified by law and in practice urban development occurs in an ad hoc manner with little if any infrastructure provided in most newly developing areas‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option 2.8 Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth [LGI 8 (iii)] In their individual assessments, three of the panel members chose C, while the remaining two chose D. The panel members illustrated the situation in Lagos where layouts for most development are prepared by the customary landholders who use it to sell land to individuals. The government in most cases therefore lacks information on the rate or level of urban growth since the allocations are done without their knowledge. The absence of land use plans and in places where they are available, their opaqueness to the public makes them flout the restrictions. There are also no effective machineries to monitor or enforce land use restrictions. Informal settlements are therefore seriously growing and can be found in all cities of the country. Option C which states that ‗in the largest city in the country, the urban planning process/authority is struggling to cope with the increasing demand for serviced units/land as evidenced by the fact that most new dwellings are informal‘ was thus chosen as the consensus option. Policy Commentary  There should be harmonized layout  A base map for the charting of layouts should be provided  The land management institutions should be made to work as an entity  Planning should be seen as social service  The responsibility of land management institutions should be streamlined Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 231 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.9 Residential plot size adherence in urban areas [LGI 8 (iv)] The summation of options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between C and D with four of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining one chose D. Option C which states that ‗existing requirements for residential plot sizes are met between 50% and 70% of plots‘ was chosen as the consensus option This choice was supported with the fact that there exist standard sizes for residential plots for the country which include 60x120 ft for the southern part of the country and 50 x100 ft for the north. These plot sizes are often adhered to by most urban dwellers since land allocations by the government and customary owners are done using these measures. 2.10 Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and processed in a non-discretionary manner [LGI 9 (i)] The range of chosen options under this dimension was between B and D with two of the panel members choosing B, two choosing C while the remaining one chose D. The panel members listed the following as steps for applying for building permits: Efficiency Technical Justification Estimated Steps Agency Justification &Transparency of for the key steps time (days) the process. Local Planning To prevent arbitrariness in Not Charting Authority development stipulated Submission of Necessary for checking drawings i.e. Local Planning Not minimum building Clearly justified residential and Authority stipulated standards prescribed survey plans Plan assessment To prevent arbitrariness in Not Ditto Clearly justified for payable fees payment of fees stipulated Payment of fees through delegated To prevent embezzlement Not banks and Ditto of fees paid by individuals Clearly justified stipulated collection of in the approving agency receipts To enforce compliance to Inspection of Not Not very Ditto approved site Clearly justified development site stipulated Efficient and characteristics transparent Report of existing To prevent situation before Not Ditto mismanagement of site Clearly justified starting stipulated development development Recommendation of proposals for To ensure that approvals Not Ditto Clearly justified approval and follow due process stipulated Approval Assessment and Payment of To raise revenue for the Not Ditto Clearly justified development government stipulated charges To ensure that approvals Not Plan Dispatch Ditto Clearly justified follow due process stipulated The cost of fulfilling the requirements needed for the granting of approval for building plans is so high that it gets out of the reach of the poor. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 232 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE With the steps and cost noted above Option C which states that ‗requirements to obtain a building permit are technically justified but not affordable for the majority of those affected‘ was chosen as the consensus option. Policy Commentary  Substantial decentralization of land management responsibilities should be made. 2.11 Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling [LGI 9 (ii)] The panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose rankings ranging between A and D with one of the panel members choosing A, two choosing C and another one choosing D. The remaining one did not choose any option. The divergence in opinion was attributed to difference in practice in the different states of the federation. While in some states approval can be granted within one week, others grant approvals in about six months and above. The reasons for the delay in obtaining a building permit for residential dwelling include the following:  Use of quacks by some applicants  Ignorance on the side of applicants  Incomplete payment of fees  Incomplete or wrong information  Non provision of model plans by the government to the developers  Difficulty in carrying out sight inspection Option C which states that ‗all applications for building permits receive a decision within 12 months‘ was chosen as the consensus option. General Comments and Policy Reforms  Key roles of each agency should be made statutory. Such legislation should include provisions that will enable community members to participate in the planning process.  Land use map for the entire country should be produced and should be detailed enough to enable changes in land use to be effectively monitored.  Cadastral map defining urban and rural territory should be produced  Implementation manual for each land management office should be developed  Research to survey the different situation of urban land use problem in each state of the federation at both local and urban levels should be established. This could lead to the development of framework that would be adaptable to the peculiarity of each city  Some of the processing powers should be given to the local government authorities  Capacity in terms of human and materials should be developed  People need to be educated and informed about regularization and possible implications of negating the procedure on the environment  There should be political will for enforcement and monitoring at all stages of the property development so that deviation can immediately be noticed.  Enforcement should be de-centralized involving all the local unit for effectiveness  Institutions need to operate seamlessly  All relevant stakeholders can be involved in the monitoring Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 233 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Government could outsource to enhance effectiveness in areas where it has little strength  Public opinion should be consulted before public fund is expended  A model building plan from which people can choose can be produced and made available to intended house owners Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Urban Land Use Planning and Development Ranking by Expert Panel Members EPM LGI Dimension Description (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible 3 v B D B C C C and affordable Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and 4 i B D B B B B transferability are justified In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these 7 i C C D D B C plans are based on public input Public capture of benefits arising from changes in 7 iii C B C C D C permitted land use 7 iv Speed of land use change C C D D D Process for planned urban development in the largest 8 i D D C D C D city in the country Process for planned urban development in the four 8 ii D D D D C D largest cities in the country, excluding the largest city 8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth D C D C C C 8 iv Residential plot size adherence in urban areas C C D C C C Applications for building permits for residential 9 i dwellings are affordable and processed in a non- C C B B D C discretionary manner Time required to obtain a building permit for a 9 ii D C A C C residential dwelling Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 234 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.4 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Rural Land Use and Land Policy (Panel 4) held at the Committee Room, University of Lagos Guest Houses and Conference Centre, Lagos Friday, May 6, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF divides land issue into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting up of Expert Panels of 3-5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. One of the eight expert panels organized is on Rural Land Use and Land Policy. The panel has seven LGAF dimensions to assess. The four Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop. They are: (i) Mr. Taofiki I. Salau, Lecturer and Researcher, Department of Urban &Regional Planning, University of Lagos, Lagos; (ii) Mr. Funmi Osifuye, Lagos State Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development, Alausa - Ikeja, Lagos; (iii) Prof. Y. L. Fabiyi, Retired Professor of Agricultural Economist, and member of the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform (PTCLR); and (iv) Mr. Tokunbo Fayemi, Legal Practitioner and Principal Partner, Fayemi Fatokun Associates, Lagos. 1.3 To aid the panel members in their assessment process, the Country Coordinator (CC) provided them online with the following materials:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Land Tenure typologies  Land Use Act  Information provided by the Expert Investigators especially those relating to:  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration  Transparency of Land Use Restrictions Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 235 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Equity and Non-Discriminatory Policy  Efficiency in the land use planning process.  Speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land use  Identification of public land and clear management 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF Study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the seven dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimensions, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by Dr. Vide Anosike-Adedayo and Gbolahan Badru. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and transferability are justified [LGI 4 (ii)] The options chosen by the panel member in their individual assessment of this dimension ranged between B and C with three of the panel members choosing B, while the remaining one chose C. The panel members noted that lots of restrictions on rural land have been spelt out under Section 6 (2)of the Land Use Act. Except for the prices of land which is often controlled by the market forces, restrictions exist on land transaction, land ownership, ownership types, size of holdings. Specifically, the law restricts the subdivision; laying out in plots; and transfer of all land in the rural areas. These restrictions are however rarely enforced. This is due to the inadequate coordination and streamlining of responsibility pertaining to those who regulate the allocation, use and control of rural land. There is also problem of providing and ensuring the security of customary tenure system that is conducive for agricultural development since the procedure for resolving conflict arising from compulsory acquisition on land are never spelt out. There is need to also convert the usurping powers of compulsory acquisition by the Governors into responsible powers. It was thus summarized that even though these restrictions are in existence, they are neither monitored nor enforced in most cases as represented in the table below. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 236 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Restrictions on land ownership (for Brief description of each one of the restrictions listed Non- Exists, but Exist & restriction and below, tick appropriate column and existent not enforced Enforced provide comment where relevant) comments Restrictions on: According to the land use act Land transactions *  Rural: Non sale of agricultural lands Land ownership * Formerly in existence during the indigenization era but have been Owner type * removed with the introduction of the land use act. Use * When plans are available Land use act Size of holding  Rural: 500 ha for agriculture and 5000ha for grazing.  Influence of market forces Price *  Government assessment Rent * The rent edict The choice of option C which states ‗there are a series of regulations that are generally not justified but are not enforced‘ was dropped for option B which states that ‗there are a series of regulations that are for the most part justified on the basis of overall public interest but that are not enforced‘. They indicated that in a bid to improve the situation of the country, it is pertinent to; review the Land Use Act to encompass the views of the local people; stipulate areas of possible acquisition in the LUA; spell out penalty for acquisitions without compensation and improve on the manpower and infrastructure to enable effective monitoring and enforcement. 2.2 Clear land policy is developed in a participatory manner [LGI 6 (i)] The range of chosen options under this dimension was between B and D with two of the panel members choosing B, one choosing C while the remaining one chose D. The absence of a comprehensive policy for national rural land management was noted by the panel members. They also indicated that after the Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI) there has been no concrete plan for rural development in the country. Where they exist most of these policies are not the manifestations of the views of the public. They are often not even understood by the public. Option C which states that ‗Policy exists or can be inferred by the existing legislation but it is incomplete (some key aspects are missing or only covers part of the country such as only urban or only rural areas) or land policy decisions that affect some sections of the community are made without consultation with those affected‘ was chosen as the consensus option. This choice was supported with the situation in the country where most public consultations are cosmetic. Local government officials or nominations from political parties often represent the communities in these consultations where inputs made are not the viewpoint of the people. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 237 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.3 Meaningful incorporation and monitoring of equity goals [LGI 6 (ii)] The options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension ranged between C and D with three of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining one chose D. Considered in Meaningfully Impact compared to Rights of Policy Monitored other policy instruments Considered but could be Indigenous Not monitored; Impact not compared; improved; Migrants Not considered; Not applicable Impact not compared; Landless Not considered; Not applicable Impact not compared; Considered but could be Women Not monitored; Impact not compared; improved; The completed matrix as filled by the panel members show that the rights of indigenes and women are considered in the policy even though they are not meaningfully monitored. They indicated that the LUA does not discriminate between groups of people irrespective of their gender, status or ethnic composition. In fact the law was established to enable easy access to land by all and sundry. There however exist informal disparities in the land right held by different groups of people residing in different parts of the country. For instance, women are not allowed to own land in the eastern part of the country but in the north, the Sharia law which is in operation there gives 1/3 of the right of males to the females. Option C which states ‗that Land policies incorporate some equity objectives but these are not regularly and meaningfully monitored‘ was thus chosen as the consensus 2.4 Policy for implementation is costed, matched with benefits and adequately resourced [LGI 6 (iii)] In their individual assessment of this dimension the panel members chose options ranging between C and D with two of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining two chose D. The choice of option C which states ‗the implementation of land policy is not fully costed and/or to implement the policy there are serious inadequacies in at least one area of budget, resources or institutional capacity‘ was however dropped for option D which states that ‗the implementation of land policy is not costed and there is inadequate budget, resources and capacity to implement the land policy‘. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 238 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE This choice was supported with the fact that no land use plans exist for all rural lands in the country. This therefore implies that no resource or budget have been allocated to the implementation of non-existent plans. 2.5 Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation [LGI 6 (iv)] The range of options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between C and D with three of the panel members choosing D, while the remaining one chose C. It was stated that there is hardly any report or reporting process for rural land policy implementation. This is because rural land plans are absent; there is therefore nothing to report on. Option D which states ‗that land institutions report on policy implementation only in exceptional circumstances or not at all‘ was chosen as the consensus option was based on the professional experience of the panel members. To improve the situation of the country in this respect, the panel members recommended that; there is need for institutional reforms for land management in the country; development of mapping policy for the country; seamless integration of responsibilities between all bodies concerned with land management; creation of a national depository for land information and; creation of a national depository for land disputes. 2.6 In rural areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public input [LGI 7 (ii)] The range of options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between C and D with two of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining two chose D. Option D which states ‗public input is not sought in preparing and amending land use plans‘ was chosen as the consensus option was based on the professional experience of the panel members. In most cases public inputs are not sought in the preparation of plans and in few cases where they are sought they are not reflected in the finalization of the land use plans. It was opined by the panel members that there is need for the development of rural land use plans which should be based on public opinion. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 239 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.7 Use plans for specific rural land classes (forests, pastures, etc) are in line with use [LGI 8 (v)] Option D which states that ‗the share of land set aside for specific use that is used for a non- specified purpose in contravention of existing regulations is greater than 50%‘was chosen by all the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension. The panel members indicated that there are no proper land use plans for the country. Forest lands are expected to be 25% of the total lands in a standard land use plans for any country. United States of America for instance has 33% of its land as forest but Nigeria has a meager 10.6%. Most of the present reserved forest lands have even been cleared for agricultural cultivation. Land use restrictions are often not monitored or enforced leading to the conversion of most rural land uses (forests, pastures) to commercial, residential or agricultural use This choice was based on the professional experience and judgment of the panel members General Comments and Policy Reforms  The Land Use Act should be amended to make it more participatory and have more local input  Cadastral mapping is essentially for the country.  Statutory Land institutions saddled with the responsibility of land management should be established  There is need to have a multi-stakeholder group which would be involved in decision making on land use planning  Laws holding people accountable for their misbehaviours on land matters should be developed  Administrative procedures should be put in place and should be broad based for implementation of the new directives  National Land Reform Commission should be established so that all sectors dealing with land will report and be accountable to the Commission  Public report on land matters should be regularly done maybe weekly, bi-monthly, monthly, quarterly, annually or as necessary. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 240 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Rural Land Use and Land Policy Ranking by Expert Panel EPM LGI Dimension Description Members (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership 4 ii B C B B B and transferability are justified Clear land policy is developed in a participatory 6 i B D B C C manner Meaningful incorporation and monitoring of equity 6 ii C D C C C goals Policy for implementation is costed, matched with 6 iii C D C D D benefits and adequately resourced Regular and public reports indicating progress in 6 iv D D C D D policy implementation In rural areas, land use plans and changes in these 7 i D D C C D plans are based on public input Use plans for specific rural land classes (forests, 8 v D D D D D pastures, etc) are in line with use Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 241 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.5 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Land Valuation and Taxation (Panel 5) held at the Committee Room, University of Lagos Guest Houses and Conference Centre, Lagos Wednesday, May 9, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF divides land issues into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting up of Expert Panels of 3-5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. The expert panel on Land Valuation and Taxation is one of the 8 Panels organized and they have 6 LGAF dimensions to assess. The four Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop. They are: (i) Mr. Adeyemi Alli, Deputy Director, Lagos state Lands Bureau; (ii) Mr. Gbenga Enisan, Consulting Urban and Regional Planners; (iii) Prof. S.A. Asaju, Lecturer and Researcher, Department of Estate Management, Federal University of Technology, Akure and; (iv) Mr. C. Nwaobiala, Assistant General Manager, Zonal Business Coordinator, Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc. 1.3 To aid the panel members in their assessment process, the Country Coordinator (CC) provided them online the following materials:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Tenure typologies in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Information provided by the Expert investigators especially those relating to:  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration  Transparency of Land Use Restrictions  Equity and Non-Discriminatory Policy  Efficiency in the land use planning process. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 242 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the 6 dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimensions, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by Dr Vide Anosike-Adedayo and Gbolahan Badru. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Clear process of property valuation [LGI 10 (i)] The individual assessments of this dimension by the panel members revealed that the range of chosen option was between C and D with three of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining one chose D. The panel members noted that there is a dearth of professionals in the field of property valuation in the country. Except in states like Lagos, Kano, Rivers and the Federal capital city, Abuja where relatively high number of professional valuers can be found in the services of the government, most other states often use non professionals to carry out the property valuation process. The assessment of land/property for the tax purpose is therefore mostly done by non professionals who create confusion in service delivery, especially in the area of property categorization. It was also noted that, there are lots of inconsistencies in the valuation process in the country. The difficulty of accessing land information and lack of standard rules for property valuation makes the officers in the tax office to carry out their activities with discretion. Apart from this, land use charges differ from state to state, and often times, the rates published are often at variance with the open market charges. Property categorization and valuation for tax purposes was therefore agreed to be unclear in most states of the federation and market price is often times not the factor for the evaluation process. Option D which states that ‗the assessment of land/property for tax purposes is not clearly based on market prices‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. The different types of land taxes in existence in Nigeria include the following:  Capital gain tax: a tax on capital gain made on sale/dispose of chargeable assets  Value Added Tax (VAT): a levy on the amount that a business firm adds to the price of a commodity during production and distribution.  Capital transfer/Inheritance tax/Gift tax: these are groups of taxes that are normally considered together since they all involve the transfer of property from one person to the other. They are imposed on the capital value of properties transferred. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 243 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Withholding tax: a compulsory deduction from rent receivable from a property and payable to the tax authority in the locality where is situated. It is a form of a tax on the landlord‘s personal income (rent) which he is compelled by law to pay to government.  Site value rating: a tax levied on land cleared of buildings. It is a tax on unimproved capital value of the site and it is normally based on the determined market value of the land.  Land Use charge or tenement rate:  Special assessment tax: a tax imposed on owners of landed properties as the need arises. They are meant to raise funds to meet specific public improvement such as road, water supply, street lighting and other specific public improvement which enhance the value of the property taxed  Documentary tax/Stamp duty: a form of tax payable on all instrument or documents executed within a country where the tax is applicable. According to the law, documents must be stamped before they can be tendered as evidence in court or presented for registration.  Betterment tax: a tax levied on all beneficiaries of public works, development and planning control activities.  Severance tax: a tax levied to ensure that all benefits from the natural resources of the country are shared by all.  Property rating: a form of land valuation where annual levies are imposed on occupiers of land and buildings in respect of profitable or beneficial occupation.  Planning tax: a fee charged by the planning office in respect of the location or conformity in use of the property.  Estate fee/Probate tax: a tax paid before granting letters of probate following the death of the owners of property. The tax assessment or chargeable amount is based on the open market value of the deceased‘s estate as at the date of death. Land valuations in the country are mostly done using the following methods:  Income approach which is based on the rental value of the property  Cost method which is based on the expenses incurred in the construction and maintenance of the property  Comparison method which is based on comparison of that property with similar ones in that area whose values are known. Issues of improper valuation were attributed to; the non enforcement and inadequate monitoring of the valuation laws which makes the laws useless; difficult public accessibility to information; and unlegislated land tax rates. The panel members therefore made the following recommendations:  Improved capacity building in the areas of infrastructure and personnel  Establishment of arbitration panels to resolve valuation conflicts  Carrying out a survey to determine why people evade taxes  Preparation of implementation manuals  Outsourcing the property valuation responsibility to private consortium  Cadastre mapping of the whole country. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 244 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.2 Public availability of valuation rolls [LGI 10 (ii)] Two of the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose option D, one chose option B while the remaining one chose option C. It was opined by the panel members that there is a policy that states that valuation rolls be publicly accessible. This policy is embedded in the tenement edict. For instance in Lagos State, a list exists where properties assessed and responsibilities of the owners are recorded. The land use charge office also has an estimate of valuated property with the tax responsibilities of the owners. The Lagos experience is however not universal as some few states do not have valuation rolls. Where they are available the general public does not have easy access to these rolls and so the property owners do not know their responsibilities. The policy indicating that the valuation rolls be made publicly accessible is neither therefore implemented nor monitored. Thus, option C which states that ‗there is a policy that valuation rolls be publicly accessible and this policy is effective for a minority of properties that are considered for taxation‘ was chosen as the consensus option. 2.3 Exemptions from property taxes are justified and transparent [LGI 11 (i)] The range of chosen option in the individual assessment of this dimension was between C and D with two of the panel members choosing option C, while the remaining two chose option D. The panel members noted that exemptions from the payment of land property taxes exist in the country. Religious properties like churches, mosques and public buildings like hospitals, schools and nonprofit making organizations are exempted from paying taxes. Exemptions are based on the rationale that these institutions are meant for the general good of the public and that they are nonprofit making. These bases are however not often consistent. These institutions are sometimes changed from the use for which they have been given exemptions to other uses. For instance, a religious property given exemption can later be changed to other commercial uses and the absence of an efficient monitoring agency makes this go unnoticed. There are also discretional exemptions such as gratis but most times the bases for the exemptions may not be justifiable. The panel members therefore chose option B which states that ‗there are limited exemptions to the payment of land/property taxes, and the exemptions that exist are clearly based on equity or efficiency grounds but are not applied in a transparent and consistent manner‘. 2.4 Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll [LGI 11 (ii)] The panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose different options ranging from A and D. Two of the panel members chose option A, one chose option C while the remaining one chose option D. They indicated that most states of the federation have tax roll even though they are not accessible to the public. Lagos state has a tax roll covering a substantial number of those properties that are liable to pay taxes. The difficulty in updating the tax rolls has been attributed to uncontrolled development of informal settlements in the country. Thus some property owners Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 245 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE liable to pay property taxes are not listed on the rolls since the government is not aware of their presence. The inadequate and poor quality of professionals in the valuation and tax offices may be responsible for this. Although, there is no real data to make a firm decision, the panel members, based on their professional experience chose option D which states that ―less than 50% of property holders liable for land/property tax are listed on the tax roll‖ as the consensus option. 2.5 Assessed property taxes are collected [LGI 11 (iii)] The range of rankings under this dimension was between B and C with two of the panel members choosing option B, while the remaining two chose option C. The panel members indicated that for some neighborhoods, flat rates of property taxes are charged without considering the type or value of the property. Most assessments are done by non professionals who do not have the adequate knowledge of valuation. The inefficient process of assessing properties was also noted as a problem. They indicated that the first step involves the evaluation of the property by the valuation officer, second is the development of the valuation list by the valuation officer. The next step is the preparation of property tax rolls and then dispatching the notice to Landlords. The landlords are then expected to go to the valuation offices to pay. This process is meant to be an annual event which in most cases, is not done. Based on their professional experience, option C which states that ‗between 50% and 70% of assessed property taxes are collected‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. 2.6 Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection [LGI 11 (iv)] The range of chosen options under this dimension was between B and C with three of the panel members choosing option C, while the remaining one chose option B. The panel members opined that the amount of property taxes collected is less than the operational cost of staff in charge of collection. This is often due to the imperfection in the tax collection process caused by the use of non-professionals. Land/property owners do not have the culture of paying property tax on their own except in Lagos State where most payments are made by corporate entities due to their statutory status. Most personnel involved in tax collection are also non professionals making the process ineffective. Option D which states that ―the amount of property taxes collected is less than the cost of staff in charge of collection‖ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. 3.0 General Comments/Recommendations After due consideration, the panel members made the following comments/recommendations on how policies and governance of land valuation and taxation can be improved:  Appointment of professionals in the valuation offices  Assessment should be published and made accessible to prospective property owners  Property should be categorized to ensure equitable assessment. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 246 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Arbitration panel should be constituted to attend promptly to complaint that is related to real estate valuation conflicts and disputes.  There should be regular training of the valuation office personnel.  There is the need to conduct a survey on the perception of property owners as regards the payment of property taxes.  There should be periodic review of valuation and assessment of properties.  There should be corresponding developmental impart to encourage property owners to continue to pay their taxes.  In order to have valuation rolls available to the public, valuation rolls should be published and made promptly available to prospective property owners.  There should be massive sensitization programmes for prospective property owners in both rural and urban areas.  The tenement edicts should be made available to landlord associations so that residents can familiarize themselves to the provisions as regards the policy and implementation process.  Development levies based on capital appreciation should be included in the valuation rolls in neighbourhood where capital development have been effective.  For exemption of property tax to be justified and transparent, there is the need to review the bases for the exemption of some properties especially religious properties. This is necessary because there is a present trend of land utilization changes where a mass of properties hitherto registered for commercial purposes have been transformed into religious purposes.  To achieve a viable enrollment of property holders liable to pay property tax on the tax roll, property rolls should be legally made mandatory for all states and should be accessible at the valuation offices point of entry for property owners. These rolls should show the location, house listing (census), the name of the property owner, category of property, the property value and the assessed value. The roll should show the percentage of property owners liable to pay the tax.  Government should engage the services of experts to determine the property values and assessed values if assessed property taxes are to be collected effectively. Flat rate should be abolished as this is not equitable.  For government to break-even in property taxes collection, government should ensure that the process is judiciously done so that the revenue exceeds substantially the cost of collecting the tax. Hitherto, the cost of collection has, in some states, grossly exceeded the revenue because the valuation and assessment process has been vitiated.  Research is also necessary to get empirical evidence on the cost of collection vis-a vis the proceeds of the exercise.  There is the need to rationalize taxes to avoid public apathy against tax payment. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 247 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Land Valuation and Taxation Ranking by Expert Panel EPM LGI Dimension Description Members (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 10 i Clear process of property valuation C C D C D 10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls B D D C C Exemptions from property taxes are justified and 11 i D D C C B transparent Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed 11 ii A C C D D on the tax roll 11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected B B C C C 11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection C B C C D Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 248 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.6 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Draft Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Management of Public Land (Panel 6) held at the Committee Room, Virtual Library, National Universities Commission, Abuja Thursday, April 28, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF divides land topics into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting of Expert Panels of 3- 5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. One of the 8 Expert Panels is on Management of Public Land . The Panel has 16 LGAF dimensions to assess. All the 5 Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop. They are: (i) Surveyor Femi Ekundayo - Head, Cadastral Department, Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation, Abuja; (ii) Chief Jude Egwuekwe – Rtd. General Manager, Nitel Properties and now a Practising Estate Surveyor and Valuer; (iii) Mr. Jaja Wachukwu – Private Legal Practitioner; (iv) Mr. Ayodele Ibuoye - Practicing Estate Surveyor & Valuer; and (v) Mr. Ayo Elvis Oniemola - Deputy Director, Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Abuja. 1.3 In order to enhance the assessment process, the Country Coordinator (CC) sent the following materials online to the panel members prior to the workshop:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Land Tenure Typology in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Information provided by Expert Investigators especially those relating to:  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration  Identification of Public Land and Clear Management  Incidence of Expropriation  Transparency of Expropriation Procedures and Public Lease Arrangements  Guidelines and Requirements for Processing of Application for Land in North West Geo-Political Zone Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 249 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Procedures for Processing of Land Title Documents in the North-East Geo- Political Zone  Documentation Procedures for Land Administration at Federal Level  Procedures for obtaining Land Title Documents in South-West Geo-Political Zone 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF Study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the 16 dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimension, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by a Research Assistant – Gbolahan Badru. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Public Land Ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate level of government: [LGI 12 (i)] The chosen range of rankings by the EPMs is between options B and C. The two panel members who chose option B which states that ―Public land ownership is generally justified by the provision of public goods at the appropriate level of government but management may be discretional‖ supported their choice with the fact that public land ownership is legally justified as contained in the 1978 Land Use Act but the responsibilities of the different levels of government and their agencies are not clearly and comprehensively spelt out. The consequence is that various government institutions often take discretionary decisions in the management of public lands. The other three panel members however opposed this notion signifying that option C which states that, ―Public land ownership is justified in most cases by provision of public goods but responsibility is often at the wrong level of government‖ portrays the situation in Nigeria better. They defended their choice affirming that the ownership of public land in Nigeria is regarded justified since these lands are held by government at the various levels in trust for the public good as stipulated by the Land Use Act (LUA) of 1978, but the problem according to them is in the area of implementation. The partial or non implementation of the provisions of LUA was regarded as a major clog disrupting the smooth management of land in the country. This was presented as one of the reasons why the Federal Government has problems in the acquisition and management of land in the country. An example was cited during the Shagari regime (1979-1983) where the State Governments gave land to the Federal Government in inappropriate or remote areas for the housing projects. The absence of clear cut directives and lack of supervisory bodies therefore makes different levels of government to take up responsibilities that do not belong to them. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 250 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The problem of overlapping or misplaced responsibilities in the management of land especially between state and local government areas was also noted as a contributing factor to the inefficient management of lands in Nigeria. This was attributed to the lack of resources at the local government areas. The panel members also indicated that there exist horizontal land management conflicts, giving examples of the management of land owned by the federal government. Even though the management of federal lands is in the hand of the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development FMLHUD), other federal ministries and parastatals in most cases, acquire land from the states independently without passing through the FMLHUD and later return to the FMLHUD for registration. Indeed, some of the Federal Ministries eventually acquire lands from the State and obtain Certificate of Occupancy without reference to FMLHUD. After due considerations by the EPMs, option C, as indicated above was therefore adopted by all the five members of the Panel as their consensus option on the ground that responsibilities assigned to specific institutions at all government levels are often undertaken by other institutions. The panel further noted that state governments often take over the responsibilities of the local governments, and in other cases, the responsibilities of the federal government. The management of federal roads by the governments of Lagos and Ondo states is an obvious example. Accordingly, the Panel makes the following policy/reform suggestions:  Development of clear-cut directives (mandates) for the management of land in the country.  Enforcement of the provisions of the LUA especially Sections 46 (1) and (3)92.  LUA should be reviewed and that all stakeholders should be involved in the process. 2.2 Complete recording of publicly held land: [LGI 12 (ii)] The chosen range of rankings under this dimension was between A and C with two of the panel members choosing A, one choosing B, while the remaining two chose C. The reason behind the choice of option A, which states that, ―more than 50% of public land is clearly identified on the ground or on maps‖ was based on the perspective of the federal government owned lands, where close to 100,000 housing units built since 2002 have been sold and recorded in the registry. The panel member that chose this ranking also indicated that the locations of most publicly-held lands in different parts of the country are known to the owners signifying that these lands are thus identifiable. For instance, public institutions like Nigeria Telecommunications, Power Holding Corporation of Nigeria, Central Bank of Nigeria know the 92 LUA, Section 46 (1) states that ―The National Council of States may make regulations for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect and particularly with regard to the following matters (a) the transfer by assignment or otherwise howsoever of any rights of occupancy, whether statutory or customary, including the conditions applicable to the transfer of such rights to persons who are not Nigerians: (b) the terms and conditions upon which special contracts may be made under section 8: (c) the grant of certificates of occupancy under section 9: (d) the grant of temporary rights of occupancy; (e) the method of assessment of compensation for the purposes of section 29 of this Act. While Section 3 states ―Subject to such general conditions as may be specified in that behalf by the National Council of States, the Governor may for the purposes of this Act by order published in the State Gazette designate the parts of the area of the territory of the State constituting land in an urban area‖. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 251 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE locations of their lands. It was also noted that for all public land acquisition, even during the colonial era, records of transactions are made but may not be in existence today due to poor management and corruption. The member, that chose option B, which states that, ―between 30% and 50% of public land is clearly identified on the ground or on maps‖, however opposed this view indicating that public lands are also in the hands of the state and local governments. Thus, records of land held by the federal government cannot be used as a flat rate for judging all public lands. An instance of Enugu state was given where housing units built in Mba Nwanike have been fully allocated but has not been surveyed. Option C which states that, ―less than 30% of public land is clearly identified on the ground or on maps‖ was however chosen as the consensus answer because it was agreed that identification of public lands by the public was a problem. Most of the identified or mapped lands are lands covered by government residential buildings where the government has given C of Os to the occupiers. Other public lands which have not been so developed are being encroached upon by the public under excuse of ignorance. It was also noted that less than 3% of the country‘s land is mapped and registered. The Panel therefore made the following policy/reform recommendations:  Total mapping of the country  Land use planning  Spatial education  Digitisation of spatial based records 2.3 Assignment of management responsibility for public land: [LGI 12 (iii)] The range of rankings chosen was between A and D with one of the panel members choosing A, three choosing C, while the remaining one chose D. The panel member that chose option A which states that, ―the management responsibility for different types of public land is unambiguously assigned‖, based his argument on the provisions of the LUA which vests all land within the territories of a state except land owned by the federal government in the governor to be held for the good of the public. Thus the assignment of land management responsibilities according to this panel member has been done by the land use act which makes their responsibility unambiguous. The panel members that chose ranking D however opposed this view indicating there is serious ambiguity in the assignment of management responsibility of different types of public land with major impact on the management of assets. Option C which states that, ―there is enough ambiguity in the assignment of management responsibility of different types of public land to impact to some extent on the management of assets‖, was however chosen as the consensus option. This was attributed mainly to the unclear mandates of the different institutions saddled with the responsibilities of land management in the country as illustrated in the table below. The partial implementation of the land use act was also raised as another reason for the ambiguity. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 252 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Institutions Type of Land Managed Overlaps Federal Ministry of Lands All federal government land Yes Federal Capital Development Authority Land in the federal capital Yes Federal Ministry of Transport Land used for Transportation Yes NITEL Land for mast erection, offices and estates Yes NNPC Public lands for its operations Yes Federal Ministry of Agriculture Agricultural land Yes Central Bank of Nigeria Land for offices and estates Yes The Panelists therefore made the following policy/reform recommendations:  There is need to review the laws empowering individual institutions on land acquisition.  Establishment of a central institution to develop comprehensive land management policies and implementation guidelines at all government levels.  Complete review of the LUA to pave way for a better land governance in the country. 2.4 Resources available to comply with responsibilities: [LGI 12 (iv)] The range of chosen rankings was between C and D with two of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining three chose D. The reason behind the choice of option C which states that ―there are significant constraints in the budget and/or human resource capacity but the system makes effective use of limited available resources in managing public lands‖ was related to the performance of land management institutions in states like Lagos, Niger and Imo where good structures have been put in place to enhance the proper functioning of these institutions. The other three members that chose option D which states that, ―there are either significantly inadequate resources or marked inefficient organizational capacity leading to little or no management of public lands‖, opposed the position of the two panel members indicating that, considering the country as a whole, option D is most appropriate. They noted that the resources allocated for land management at the various levels of government is dependent on the amount of funds allocated to the institutions concerned with land in the annual budget. The allocation is often inadequate. Other problems include; lack of personnel, lack of capacity, inappropriate use of personnel and the absence of arrangement for training and re-training of personnel. Due to poor allocation of funds, most federal surveys and land management offices located in different states are thus made redundant because they lack trained personnel and infrastructure like electricity supply and equipment. While recognizing the emerging relative improvement in funds allocation to land institutions in Lagos and Imo States as well as in the Federal Capital Territory, option D was thus chosen as the consensus ranking by the Panelists. Policy/Reform Recommendation  The budgetary allocation to institutions saddled with the responsibilities of managing public lands at the various levels should be increased and made regular.  There is need for capacity building and in-service training of personnel to improve the land management process in the country.  Core land professionals should be made to be in charge of land management in the country. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 253 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.5 Inventory of public land is accessible to the public: [LGI 12 (v)] The range of chosen rankings under this dimension was between B and C with one of the panel members choosing B, while the remaining four chose C. The panel member who chose option B which states that all ―the information in the public land inventory is accessible to the public, but information for some types of public land (land used by the military, security services, etc) is not available for justifiable reasons‖ was opposed by the other four panel members who chose option C which states that ―all the information in the public land inventory is only available for a limited set of public property and there is little or no justification why records are not accessible‖. The choice of option C was supported by the notion that not all information on public property is available to the public. This, in many cases, has led to encroachment on these properties by the public. It was also noted that the lack of computerized or digitized data (records) makes the availability and accessibility of land information extremely difficult. The public in most cases are therefore not well informed or lack information about public land because most land information is collected and recorded in analogue format at different locations which cannot be easily accessed. Option C was thus chosen as the consensus ranking Policy/Reform Recommendations  Establishment of a central database from which information on land can be accessed.  The use of information technology in the harmonization of land information recorded in different media should be encouraged.  Conversion of all analogue records on land information to digital should also be pursued to enable easy access.  The public should be enlightened about the locations of records of publicly held lands. 2.6 The key information on land concessions is accessible to the public: [LGI 12 (vi)] The range of chosen rankings under this dimension was between B and C with one of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining four members chose B. The panel member who chose option C which states that ―the key information for concessions (the locality and area of the concession, the parties involved and the financial terms of the concession) is recorded or partially recorded but is not publicly accessible‖, supported this choice with the problem of inadequate publicity of information on lands available for concession. In most cases, information on land concession is published in the print media alone, leaving out the other means of disseminating information like the use of the electronic media, posters, handbills and radio. Option B which states that ―the key information for concessions (the locality and area of the concession, the parties involved and the financial terms of the concession) is only partially recorded but is publicly accessible; or the key information is recorded but only partially publicly accessible‖, was however chosen as the consensus answer. This was based on the fact that public lands are under the control of different institutions saddled with the responsibility of managing land, the key information for land allocation is not harmonized and are thus partially accessible to the public. This is also true in that where it is made available; it is only accessible to some stake holders such as consultants in the course of Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 254 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE carrying out their assignments. A Case in point is the compensation valuation assessments for agricultural land by FCTA to Primesoil Limited at Kwali Area Council, FCT- (Lot 7), Abuja in September, 2009, under a public private partnership. The key information recorded for land concession includes:  Memorandum of understanding  Application for land  Land given to foreigners  Land given to the government by rural areas  Total expanse of land 2.7 Transfer of expropriated land to private interests: [LGI 13 (i)] The range of chosen rankings under this dimension was between A and D with a panel member choosing A, B, and D respectively while the remaining two members chose C. The wide divergence in the range of rankings was linked to the different uses to which expropriated lands are put to. It was noted that, in the case of land expropriated for residential purposes, option D which states that ―more than 50% of land expropriated in the past 3 years is used for private purposes‖ will be appropriate‖, while for other purposes like industrial, educational, etc, option A which states that less than ―10% of the land expropriated in the past 3 years is used for private purposes‖ will be appropriate. For agricultural purposes option B which states that, ―between 10% and 30% of land expropriated in the past 3 years is used for private purposes‖ will be appropriate. In lieu of real data but based on the professional experience of the panel members, option C which states that, ―between 30% and 50% of land expropriated in the past 3 years is used for private purposes‖ was however chosen as the consensus option. 2.8 Speed of use of expropriated land: [LGI 13 (ii)] The range of chosen rankings under this dimension was between B and C with one of the panel members choosing B, while the remaining four members chose C. The choice of option B which states that, ―between 50% and 70% of the land that has been expropriated in the past 3 years has been transferred to its destined use‖ was strongly opposed by those panel members who chose option C which states that, ―between 30% and 50% of the land that has been expropriated in the past 3 years has been transferred to its destined use‖. The choice of option C as the consensus option was based on the fact that most of the land expropriated in the last 3 years has been for residential purposes and these have been transferred to their destined users especially through the intervention of the public-private partnership (PPP). The frequency and extent of expropriated land is more for residential purposes while that for agriculture is rising. A good example is that of Kwara and Abuja where expropriated lands have given rise to commercial farmers and estate developers respectively in a timely manner. Policy/Reform Recommendation Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 255 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Processing of acquired land should be properly streamlined in order to avoid unnecessary delays  Compensation should be paid in time  To avoid disputes which delay compensation payments at the implementation stages, all stakeholders and their consultants should be involved at the inception of the expropriation process (Authorities Consultants, Concessionaires Consultants and Community Representatives) 2.9 Compensation for expropriation of registered property [LGI 14 (i)] The range of chosen rankings under this dimension was between B and C with three of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining two members chose B. The panel members noted that there are relatively more registered properties in the urban areas when compared to the rural areas. It was also agreed by the panel members that, compensation in the first instance is not fair. It was seen as a case of dispossessing the poor to elevate the rich. The situation of the country in terms of compensation paid for expropriated registered property as shown in the table below indicates that:  With regards to fairness, compensation paid for expropriated registered urban property may enable owners to have comparable assets but they cannot maintain prior social and economic status. This situation is however worse for registered rural property where little or no compensation is paid  In terms of compensated rights, some secondary rights of registered urban properties are recognized while no secondary rights are recognized for the registered rural properties  Compensation for expropriated registered rural and urban properties is mostly not paid within 1 year.  The compensation process is also often implemented with discretion in both rural and urban areas since there are no process manuals. The situation is worse for rural properties where they are implemented in highly discretional manner. Status Fairness of Compensated Timeliness of Implementation compensation rights compensation 2 Compensation 3 Most do not Registered enabling comparable 2 Some 2 Implemented receive urban assets but not secondary rights with some compensation property maintenance of social recognized discretion within 1 year and economic status 3 Most do not 3 Implemented in Registered 3 Little or no 3 No secondary receive highly rural compensation paid rights recognized compensation discretionary property within 1 year manner Thus ranking C which states that, ―where property is expropriated, compensation, in kind or in cash, is paid but the displaced households do not have comparable assets and cannot maintain prior social and economic status‖ was chosen as the consensus ranking. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 256 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.10 Compensation for expropriation of all rights [LGI 14 (ii)] The range of chosen rankings was between A and C with two of the panel members choosing option A, while the remaining three members chose option C. In Nigeria, there is no discrimination in the payment of compensation between registered and unregistered lands. The amount paid is however dependent on the negotiating powers of the property owners or their agents. It was also noted by the panel members that compensation is only paid for the improvement on land in line with the provisions of the LUA. Set against this observation and the information contained in the table below, option C which states that, ―compensation, in kind or in cash, is paid for some unregistered rights (such as possession, occupation etc.), however those with other unregistered rights (which may include grazing, access, gathering forest products etc.) are usually not paid compensation‖ was chosen as the consensus ranking. Fairness of Compensated Timeliness of Status Implementation compensation rights compensation 2 Compensation enabling 2 Some 3 Most do not comparable 2 Implemented Unregistered secondary receive assets but not with some urban property rights compensation maintenance of discretion recognized within 1 year social and economic status 3 No 3 Most do not 3 Implemented in 3 Little or no Unregistered secondary receive highly compensation rural property rights compensation discretionary paid recognized within 1 year manner 2.11 Promptness of compensation [LGI 14 (iii)] All the panel members chose ranking D which states that ―less than 50% of expropriated land owners receive compensation within one year‖. The reason behind the choice was attributed to the lack of planning and inadequate understanding of the need to pay compensation which results in the poor budgetary allocation to the institutions saddled with the responsibility of land management in the country. Delay in the payment of compensation is therefore a common issue which has resulted in various crises in the country. For instance in the preparation of the 2010 budget, about 400 million naira was earmarked for the payment of the backlog of compensation by the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development. This amount was however reduced by the legislature under the excuse of inadequate funds. This situation is evident in all states of the federation. 2.12 Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation [LGI 14 (iv)] The range of chosen rankings was between A and D with a panel member each choosing option A, B, and C while the remaining two members chose D. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 257 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Option D which states that, ―avenues to lodge a complaint against expropriation are not independent‖ was later chosen as the consensus answer. This option was chosen after the following two available avenues for appeal against land expropriation in the country were listed and their independence assessed.  Land Use and Allocation Committee for lands in the states  The Land Allocation Advisory Committee for lands under the jurisdiction of local government Since all these avenues are under the control of the government, any appeal against land expropriation is therefore, the case of a judge in his own case and cannot be regarded as independent, easily accessible or fair. Policy/Reform Recommendation  There is a need for the establishment of a land tribunal which should have the powers of a high court.  It should be independent and should be able to carry the appeal against expropriation from the beginning to the end. 2.13 Timely decisions regarding complaints about expropriation [LGI 14 (v)] The range of chosen rankings was between A and D with one of the panel members choosing A, two choosing C while the remaining two members chose D. The difference in opinion was attributed to the different implementation procedure adopted by the different institutions saddled with the responsibility of managing land in the country. Option C which states that, ―a first instance decision has been reached for between 30% and 50% of the complaints about expropriation lodged during the last three years‖ was however chosen as the consensus option. This option was based on the professional judgment of the panel members, who agreed that, in very few instances are complaints not listened to but decisions on them are rarely reached on time. 2.14 Openness of public land transactions [LGI 15 (i)] The range of chosen rankings under this dimension was between C and D with two of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining three members chose D. The panel members noted the non availability of information on public land transactions especially as it relates to the sale or lease of public land through public auction or tender process for the different destined uses. However, the options chosen by panelist are based on their experience and professional judgment. In this regard those who chose option C which states that, ―the share of public land disposed of in the past 3 years through sale or lease through public auction or open tender process is between 50% and 70%‖ only considered the sale of housing units by both the federal and state government in the last few years. By taking all the destined uses together option D which states that, ―the share of public land disposed of in the past 3 years through sale or lease through public auction or open tender Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 258 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE process is less than 50%‖ was considered to be more appropriate and was chosen as the consensus answer. As indicated in the table below, the process for allocating land to its destined use for residential and commerce/building purposes are mostly done by open tender or auction while manufacturing and tourism use are mostly done by ways other than open tender or auction. The considered market values are less than 50% of the market prices for all the destined uses of allocated lands. Area leased Consideration Percentage of Destined use of Transparent out/sold in last compared to allocated lands allocated land process 3 years (ha) market values that were sold Dependent on 2 Most by 3 Less than 50% Residential the institution in open tender 90% market prices charge or auction Dependent on 3 Less than 50% Agriculture & NR the institution in No data N/A market prices charge 3 Most other Dependent on than open 3 Less than 50% Manufacturing the institution in N/A tender or market prices charge auction Dependent on 2 Most by 3 Less than 50% Commerce/Building the institution in open tender N/A market prices charge or auction 3 Most other Dependent on than open 3 Less than 50% Tourism the institution in N/A tender or market prices charge auction Policy/Reform Recommendation 2.15 Collection of payments for public leases [LGI 15 (ii)] The range of chosen rankings under this dimension was between A and C with two of the panel members choosing A, while the remaining three members chose C. As indicated above, the assessment of this dimension is based largely on the experience and the professional judgment of the panel members. The choice of A which states that, ―more than 90% of the total agreed payments are collected from private parties on the lease of public lands‖ was supported with the position of administrative policy for the sale or lease of public lands which states that all payments must be collected before land are given out. The panel members however noted that instances where most private parties start development on public lands without completing the required processing and documentation are rampant. This they attributed to the poor monitoring and supervision of public lands. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 259 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The other reasons adduced for this include:  Poor enforcement  Lack of proper information  Poor funding and infrastructure Option C which states that, ―between 50% and 70% of the total agreed payments are collected from private parties on the lease of public lands‖ was however chosen as the consensus answer. 2.16 Modalities of lease or sale of public land [LGI 15 (iii)] Under this dimension, one of the panel members chose option D, while the remaining four members chose B. Lots of instances abound where public lands (like residential units) are divested at market prices publicly while in some others public lands (like industrial lands, free trade zones) are given freely to encourage investment and development of specific sectors. Option B which states that, ―only some types of public land are generally divested at market prices in a transparent process irrespective of the investor‘s status (e.g . domestic or foreign)‖ was thus chosen as the consensus answer. Policy/Reform Recommendation With respect to LGI 15, the panel members made the following Policy Recommendations  Institutions responsible for land acquisition should come out with transparent policies  The land allocated should be paid for with reference to the market value  Those that would operate the system should ensure that the laws are respected. Planners and surveyors should help in making the laws effective.  The cross subsidy system should be encouraged. This is a system whereby the proceeds from an existing project are used to develop new ones. A good example is the commercialization of Gwarinpa housing estate, whose proceeds were used to develop Lugbe housing estate.  There is need for equitable allocation of land especially within target groups. This can be done by dividing land use into different levels of densities (low, medium and high)  Implementation and enforcement of the law should be encouraged. 3.0 Concluding Remarks The CC thanked the panel members for their contribution to the workshop and wished them safe trip back to their destinations. In response, one of the panel members thanked the promoters of the study on behalf of others, indicating that it is a very good study. He noted that the study is an eye opener and should not end up like most other studies in Nigeria. The result should be presented to the general public and the major stakeholders. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 260 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Management of Public Land Ranking by Expert Panel Members EPM LGI Dimension Description (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Public land ownership is justified and implemented at 12 i B B C C C C the appropriate level of government 12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land C A B C A C Assignment of management responsibility for public 12 iii C A C C D C land 12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities D C D C D D 12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public B C C C C C Key information on land concessions is accessible to 12 vi C B B B B B the public 13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests A C D B C C 13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land C B C C C C Compensation for expropriation of registered 14 i C B C B C C property 14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights A A C C C C 14 iii Promptness of compensation D D D D D D Independent and accessible avenues for appeal 14 iv B A C D D D against expropriation Timely decisions regarding complaints about 14 v C A D C D C expropriation 15 i Openness of public land transactions D D D C C D 15 ii Collection of payments for public leases A C A C C C 15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land B B D B B B Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 261 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.7 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Public Provision of Land Information (Panel 7) held at the Committee Room, Virtual Library, National Universities Commission, Abuja Friday, April 29, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF divides land issue into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting up of Expert Panels of 3-5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. One of the eight expert panel workshops is on Public Provision of Land Information. The panel has 16 LGAF dimensions to assess. All the five Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop. They are: (i) Alh. Abubakar Lawal – Deputy Director, Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Abuja; (ii) Sir G.T.N. Tabansi - Deputy Director, Land Administration (Registry), Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Abuja; (iii) Ms Priscilla Achakpa – Executive Director, Women Environment Programme, Abuja and member of the Expert Group on Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa representing Gender Interest (AU, ECA & AFDB); (iv) Dr. Muhammad Bashar Nuhu – Head, Estate Management Department, Federal University of Technology, Minna, and Chairman, Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV) Niger State Chapter; and (v) Dr. Akin Fapohunda – Former Director of Planning, Research and Statistics, National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) and now, Director, Aflon Digital Institute, Abuja. 1.3 To aid the panel members in their assessment process, the Country Coordinator (CC sent the following materials online to the panel members prior to the workshop:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Land Tenure Typology in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Information provided by the Expert investigators especially those relating to: Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 262 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration  Transparency of Land Use Restrictions  Equity and Non-Discriminatory Policy  Efficiency in the land use planning process.  Speed and predictability of enforcement of restricted land use 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC - Peter O. Adeniyi, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF Study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the 16 dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimensions, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by a Research Assistant – Gbolahan Badru. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Women‟s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban and rural areas) [LGI 2 (iv)] The panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose different options with two of the panel members choosing D, while the remaining three chose A, B and C respectively. The divergence in opinion was attributed to the variation in the circumstances surrounding land registration by women across the country. The panel member however noted that, although formal gender restrictions on land ownership in the country are nonexistent because the legal framework (Land Use Act, 1978) guiding the management of land has not in any way restricted the acquisition of land by any gender, informal restrictions however exist93. This can be noticed as we move from one geo-political zone of the country to another. For instance, in the northern part of the country, women have land ownership rights especially through inheritance, but this is not the case in the South-South, South–East and the Middle belt geo-political zones of the country. Option D which states that, ―less than 15% of land registered to physical persons is registered in the name of women either individually or jointly‖ was thus chosen as the consensus option. 93 For instance, women are not allowed to own land in the eastern part of the country but in the north, the Sharia law which is in operation there gives 1/3 of the right of males to the females. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 263 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE This choice was supported with the variation in the right of women to land holding across the country which was attributed to the following:  Custom and belief system of people as it relates to the position of women.  Ignorance  Economic ability of women  Cost of survey There are also variations in the level of recognition of women right to landholding between the rural and urban areas. In the urban centers for instance, women are free to buy any parcel of land they desire and register same in their names. But this is not the case in rural areas where indigenous custom and belief system are still in operation. Even in the urban areas, lands bought by women in some cases are not registered in their names because of the respect for the family. Thus, such lands are registered in the name of their husbands or sons. 2.2 First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay the formal fees [LGI 3(iii)] The range of rankings chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between C and D with one of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining four chose D. The choice of option C which states ‗that the costs for first time sporadic registration for a typical urban property does not exceed 5% of the property value‘ was however dropped for option D which states that ‗the costs for first time sporadic registration for a typical urban property exceed 5% of the property value‘. The choice of option D as the consensus option was based on the professional experience of the panel members. Actions or documentation Judicial Costs / Taxes Administrative Activity/Cost required Incurred N5,000 for Abuja but varies across the Ground rent Nil Country N10,000 for Abuja but varies across the Application form Nil Country Stamp duty Varies across the country Nil Utility charges ‖ Nil Tax clearance Varies across the country Nil N10,000 for Abuja but varies across the Premium charges Nil Country Age declaration/ affidavit Relatively small but varies Passport photograph or identity Nil card N50,000 for Abuja but varies across the Development fees Nil Country N20,000 for Abuja but varies across the Title deed plan (TDP) Nil Country Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 264 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Description of a typical urban property  A typical urban property is in form of plots allocated to individuals  The size of the plots varies depending on the layout and density of the area.  For instance, a typical plot size for a high density area is approximately 450 square meters. Details of how cost and property value were calculated The cost and value of the property are based on:  The size of the property  What the property is being used for  Existing development level of the property  Extent of real development  Required infrastructure  General rent obtainable at that location  Services provided by the government institutions A unit rent is determined and multiplied with the total size of the land. 2.3 First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees. [LGI 3 (iv)] The panel members individual assessment of this dimension, ranged between B and D with three of the panel members choosing B, one choosing C, while the remaining one chose D. The panel members in their deliberation indicated that informality is often introduced into the land registration process through the use of intermediaries. Apart from inducement given to officials of the registry, the sum paid to private land surveyors, estate surveyors, lawyers and other property management officials which are often employed to fast-track the land registration process can be described as informal fees and they are about the same as the formal fees. Represented in the table below are the estimates of formal and informal fees paid for the registration of land/property. The choice of option B which states that ‗there are informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration, but the level of informal fees is significantly less than the formal fees‘ and option D which states that ‗there are informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration and the level of informal fees is significantly higher than the formal fees‘ were therefore dropped while Option C which states that ‗there are informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration and the level of informal fees is about the same as the formal fees‘ was chosen as the consensus option. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 265 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Listed below are the estimates of formal fees paid for the registration of land in the country. Formal Amount in (N) Title deed plan 20,000 Application form 10,000 Development levy 50,000 Premium levy 10,000 Ground rent 5,000 Stamp duty 15,000 N110,000 The informal fees paid may include lawyer‘s fee which is about N50, 000, Estate Surveyor‘s fee which is about N30, 000, agency fee which is about N10, 000, publication fee which is about N5,000 and other inducements which varies across the country. The formal and informal fees when compared would amount to almost the same. In some cases, where an individual is in haste, the informal fees paid may be more than those noted. 2.4 Mapping of registry records [LGI 16 (i)] The range of options chosen by the panel members in the individual assessment of this dimension were between A and D with two of the panel members choosing A, while the remaining three chose D. The panel members noted that information of land in most part of the country is not documented in the registries. This was premised on the following reasons:  the absence of cadastre maps  non-availability of current land use maps for the major cities of the country  absence of vectorized version of title deed plans (TDP) in most registries  inadequate funds for the institutions saddled with responsibility of registering land information  absence of a mapping policy for the country  absence of an implementation policy for the land use act  absence of a national or central database or depository for land information Option D which states that ‗less than 50% of records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the registry or cadastre‘ was thus chosen as the consensus option. This option was chosen since it is the closest to the present situation of the country where less 3% of the entire land is registered. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 266 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.5 Economically relevant private encumbrances are recorded [LGI 16 (ii)] The panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose options ranging from A to C with three of the panel members choosing A, while the remaining two chose C. The panel members opined that all land registries have intelligence sheets where all economically relevant information about any land registered is recorded. Thus, as long as a parcel of land is registered any encumbrance on it is recorded. Option A which states that ‗relevant private encumbrances are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion and can be verified at low cost by any interested party‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. Encumbrances that can be recorded include:  mortgages  consent and assignment  partition and sub-division  extension and annexation 2.6 Economically relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded [LGI 16 (iii)] In their individual assessment of this dimension all the panel members also chose different options ranging from A to C with one of the panel members choosing A, while the remaining four chose C. Option C which states that ‗relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded but this is not done in a consistent and reliable manner‘ was chosen as the consensus option. It was agreed that public restrictions do not flow automatically to land registries. Examples of public restrictions include:  easement rights  building codes  compulsory acquisition for public interest  change of use (planning control) 2.7 Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land rights) [LGI 16 (iv)] The individual assessment of this dimension by the panel members, revealed chosen options ranging from A to B with one of the panel members choosing B, while the remaining four chose A. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 267 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE They noted that as long as a parcel of land has been registered it can be searched by plot number and parcel name. This is because layouts often have plot numbers and it is on the plot numbers that allocations are made. Thus in most cases, information on land can be searched by name of right owner and parcel number. Option A which states that ‗the records in the registry can be searched by both right holder name and parcel‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. 2.8 Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on land rights [LGI 16 (v)] The range of chosen rankings by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between A and C with three of the panel members choosing B, one choosing A, while the remaining one chose C. The panel members disagreed on the relative accessibility of the public to information recorded in the registry. They indicated that not all members of the public can approach the registry asking for land information. Specifically, professionals like surveyor, lawyers and the like can easily access records of land information in the registry. Option B which states that ‗copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can only be obtained by intermediaries and those who can demonstrate an interest in the property upon payment of the necessary formal fee‘, if any was thus chosen as the consensus option. 2.9 Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or organization with information on land rights) [LGI 16(vi)] The summation of the individual assessment of this dimension revealed a range between A to C with two of the panel members choosing B, one choosing A, while the remaining two chose C. The panel members indicated that the request for access to records in the registry often takes a long time. The request is often made to the Minister or Commissioner in charge of lands with the attention of the Director of lands. This official procedure often delays the response to requests. The archaic system of taking the proof of payment physically to the registry after paying the processing fees was also noted to be one of the reasons for the delay in response to requests. There is also the problem of poor infrastructure and manpower. Option C which states that ‗it generally takes more than 1 week after request to produce a copy or extract of documents recording rights in property‘ was chosen as the consensus option. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 268 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.10 Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry [LGI 17 (i)] The range of rankings in the individual assessment of this dimension was between B and D with one of the panel members choosing B, two choosing C, while the remaining two chose D. Most state land registries do not have standard service procedure for land transaction. Thus, the number of days for processing applications by the different departments/units in the registry is not spelt out. In few states where the standards procedures are available, they are not codified or made public. Thus the standards are still used at the discretion of the officials. Option D which states that ‗there are no meaningful service standards set and no attempt to monitor customer service‘ was chosen as the consensus option. This choice was supported with the fact that even though fresh application in the federal registries are not expected to last for more than one month, applications are seen lasting for longer time. The establishment of SERVICOM to help improve the services provided by federal establishments has not helped in reducing this delay. 2.11 Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date [LGI 17 (ii)] The range of rankings under this dimension was between B and D with two of the panel members choosing B, one choosing C, while the remaining two chose D. The fact that the registries do not have the capacity to regularly update land information was stated by the panel members. Thus, information on change of use, extensions, modifications, and transfer of ownership are not regularly updated due to the lack of infrastructure, man power and fund. Option D which states that ‗less than 50% of the ownership information in the registry/cadastre is up-to-date‘ was chosen as the consensus option. 2.12 Cost of registering a property transfer [LGI 18 (i)] The individual assessment of this dimension ranged between C and D with one of the panel members choosing C, while the remaining four chose D. Registration of properties by the federal and state governments according to the panel member is seen as a means of generating revenue for the government, thus the procedure for registering a transferred property included the following:  deed of assignment – from N20, 000  legal fees – from N50, 000  valuation fees varies according to location  consent fee 8% but if C of O is less than 10 years, then 16%  registration fee 3% of capital value  capital gain tax Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 269 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Option D which states ‗that the cost for registering a property transfer is equal to or greater than 5% of the property value‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. 2.13 Financial sustainability of the registry [LGI 18 (ii)] Individual assessment of this dimension ranged from A to D with one of the panel members choosing A, two choosing B, while the remaining two chose D. It was noted that apart from states like Ogun, Lagos, Niger and Federal Capital Territory, Kwara, Enugu, Plateau and Kaduna states have not been generating enough revenue from the registry. In some cases the generated revenue does not get to the government due to corruption. The absence of functional manpower and infrastructure in the registries is also a problem. Even in cases where the registries generate revenues, they are deposited into a central treasury while their operating cost is dependent on budgetary allocation. Thus, there are cases where the generated revenue in some registries can sustain their operations but they are compelled to deposit this revenue into the treasury and wait for their running cost from government allocation which is always inadequate. Option D which states that, ‗the total fees collected by the registry are less than 50% of the total registry operating costs‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. 2.14 Capital investment [LGI 18 (iii)] The range of rankings was between B and D with one of the panel members choosing B, one choosing C, while the remaining three chose D. The capital investments that the system may need to be sustainable include the following:  Software  Servers  Large format printer  Ground controls  Auto photos  High resolution satellite images  Capacity building (High skilled manpower) Capital items procured in the years can be found in states like Kwara, Plateau, Enugu, Benue and Kaduna. Other states and federal land registries have not made any substantial capital investment in recent years. The absence of base maps and well trained personnel is a major problem making the registration of land difficult. Option D which states ‗that there is little or no investment in capital in the system to record rights in land‘ was thus chosen as the consensus option. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 270 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.15 Schedule of fees is available publicly [LGI 19 (i)] The range of chosen rankings under this dimension was between A and D with one of the panel members choosing D, while the remaining four chose A. Option C which states that ‗clear schedule of fees for different services is publicly accessible, but receipts are not issued for all transactions‘ was however chosen by the panel members as the consensus option. The choice of the consensus option which is different from the initial positions of all the panel members can be explained by the disparity in the procedure adopted by the different registries located in different parts of the country. Taking the country as a whole however, the panel members agreed that even though the schedule of fees to be paid are publicly accessible, informal fees for which receipts are not issued are in existence. These are fees paid to help fast- track the registration process. 2.16 Informal payments discouraged [LGI 19 (ii)] In the individual assessment of this dimension the panel members chose option ranging between B and D with two of the panel members choosing B, one choosing C, while the remaining two chose D. Option D which states that ‗Mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behavior are largely nonexistent‘ was the consensus option. This choice was supported with the fact that most land registries in the country lack standard service procedure and complaint forms. Poor service delivery and illegal staff behavior are therefore not checked since the standard service procedure to follow is absent. In few places where they are present, complaint forms to report personnel misbehavior is also absent. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 271 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE General Summary & Policy Recommendations In summary, it was being recommended that there should be:  Development of a land management framework  Commencement of institutional reform  Creation of 5 year land development plans that has deliverables  Development of a national land policy which must specify the following:  Ways through which all land registries would be integrated  National capacity training for all officers of land registries  Standardization of the process  Central depository for land information  Development of a holistic approach to mapping  Integrating the responsibilities of other bodies like town planners, surveyors with the land registries Closing Remarks The CC thanked the panel members once again for accepting the invitation and for their contribution to the workshop. He requested for data and informed the panel members that the draft aide memoire will be sent to them and they are requested to comment on its appropriateness. He then wished them journey mercies back to their respective destinations. One of the panel members on behalf of the others thanked the coordinator and the promoters of the workshop. She claimed that it has been an eye-opener. Similar impression was expressed by the other panel members. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 272 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Public Provision of Land Information Ranking by Expert Panel Members EPM LGI Dimension Description (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the 2 (iv) B A C D D D formal system (urban and rural areas) First-time registration on demand is not restricted 3 (iii) D D C D D D by inability to pay the formal fees First-time registration does not entail significant 3 (iv) B B D C C C informal fees 16 (i) Mapping of registry records A A D C B D 16 (ii) Economically relevant private encumbrances A A C A C A 16 (iii) Economically relevant public restrictions or charges A C C C C C Searchability of the registry (or organization with 16 (iv) A A A B A A information on land rights) Accessibility of records in the registry (or 16 (v) B A B C B B organization with information on land rights Timely response to a request for access to records in 16 (vi) the registry (or organization with information on B A B C C C land rights) 17 (i) Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry C C B D D D 17 (ii) Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date B B C D D D 18 (i) Cost of registering a property transfer D D C D D D 18 (ii) Financial sustainability of the registry C C D D A D 18 (iii) Capital investment D D C B D D 19 (i) Schedule of fees is available publicly A A A D A C 19 (ii) Informal payments discouraged B D C B D D Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 273 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.8 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Dispute Resolution (Panel 8) held at the Committee Room, University of Lagos Guest Houses and Conference Centre, Lagos Wednesday, May 4, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF groups land issues into five thematic areas: (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting up of Expert Panels of 3-5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. The expert panel on dispute resolution is one of the eight LGAF Expert Panels to assess seven LGAF dimensions. The three Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop. They are: (i) Mrs. Caroline Etuk – Director, Lagos Multi-door Courthouse, a graduate of Law and an internationally accredited mediator of the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution; (ii) Mr. S. B. Joseph (Jnr.) – a Legal Practitioner; and (iii) Mr. Tunde Otubu – Lecturer and Researcher, Department of Private and Property Law, University of Lagos. 1.3 To aid the panel members in their assessment process, the Country Coordinator (CC) sent the following materials online to the panel members prior to the workshop:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Land Tenure Typology in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Information provided by the Expert investigators especially those relating to:  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration  Share of Land affected by Pending Conflict Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 274 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF Study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the 7 dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimensions, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by Gbolahan Badru and Dr. Vide Anosike- Adedayo. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms [LGI 20 (i)] The panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose different options ranging from A to D, with one of the panel members choosing A, one choosing B, while the remaining one chose D. In their deliberation, they noted that customary and magistrate courts are widespread in most local communities of the country. This situation opposes the choice of option D which states that ―less than a quarter of communities have institutions formally empowered to resolve conflicts and a variety of informal institutions may be available in the rest‖. It was however indicated that some cases cannot be treated by the customary and magistrate courts and so have to be taken to high courts which in most cases are few in number and are not well distributed. For example, cases bordering on ownership, even if at first instance, have to be taken to high courts where just one court serves lots of communities. A good illustration given is that of Epe and Ikorodu Local government areas in Lagos state with only one high court serving the multitude of communities located within the Local Government Areas. This position also makes Option A which states that ‗institutions for providing a first instance of conflict resolution are accessible at the local level in the majority of communities‘ inappropriate. Thus, Option B which states that ―institutions for providing a first instance of conflict resolution are accessible at the local level in less than half of communities but where these are not available informal institutions perform this function in a way that is locally recognized‖ was chosen as the consensus ranking. Institutions available for first instance conflict resolution in the country include: Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 275 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Formal  Police  Customary court  Magistrate court  High court  Alternative Dispute Resolution Centers  Citizen mediation center  Lagos Multi-door court house Informal  Community/Village head  Family Head  Family gathering  Age group Effectiveness of the institutions Customary courts are at the lowest level of the formal dispute resolution institutions. There are two grades of such courts known as Grade A and B. The courts are manned by a panel of one president and not less than three other judges referred to as members. The effectiveness of the customary courts is low. They cannot hear matters bordering on ownership at all. They are more concerned with conflicts bordering on possession. For instance, a conflict on rent not exceeding N500 (US$ 3.3) can be resolved by customary courts in Lagos. The cost to be incurred by the litigant is minimal since lawyers are not expected to appear. Its proximity to the local people is very high but its powers are low. The magistrate courts are like the customary courts, they can however handle cases exceeding N500 (US$ 3.3) up to around N10 million (US$ 65, 359.5). The Lagos Judiciary for instance has seven (7) magisterial districts with one hundred and twenty (120) magistrate courts located in different parts of the state. Each district is headed by a chief magistrate grade 1. Magistrate courts are also mostly concerned with conflicts relating to possession of landed properties. Lawyers in this case are expected to appear, thus it is more expensive than the customary courts. Its proximity is also relatively high and it is more effective than the customary courts. The High court takes the bulk of land matters especially those involving titles/ownership. They are however not easily accessible to the general public due to their cost and spread. The duration for resolution of cases is relatively long. The Alternative Dispute resolution Centers include the Citizen Mediation Centre (CMC) and the Multi-door Courthouses. They were introduced to enhance access to justice in the country. The ADR system is new in Nigeria, although the initiative is growing fast all over the country. The CMC for instance has about nine centers in Lagos while the multi-door court houses are available in Abuja, Lagos, Kano, and Akwa Ibom among others. In terms of grass root effectiveness, the CMC is better because the services provided are free and easily accessible to Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 276 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE the local people. For instance 94% of all the cases handled at the CMC in 2010 94 were land/tenancy related conflicts. The Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse handles referrals of land disputes from the high court of Lagos State and a fee is payable to access its services. First instance informal institutions include Family, Compound, Peer Groups, Head of Village Units and Village or Community Heads. Access to these institutions in terms of coverage is bearable, while the cost is also affordable. The use of dialogue in settling disputes and the absence of a legal means of enforcing judgments only put these institutions at a disadvantage. Informal dispute resolution institutions although have their place, their failure often make the aggrieved take the conflict to the formal institutions. By implication, the resolutions by the formal institutions are presumed to be more binding and thus more effective than the informal institutions. Formal institutions may however be more expensive than the informal institutions and thus less accessible. 2.2 Informal or community based dispute resolution [LGI 20 (ii)] In their individual assessment of this dimension, all the panel members also chose different options ranging from A to C with one of the panel members choosing A, one choosing B, while the remaining one chose C. Having noted in the assessment of the previous dimension the types of informal institutions available for dispute resolution in the country, the panel members indicated that, informal or community based dispute resolution institutions are recognized by the formal judicial or administrative system especially the case of customary arbitration whose decisions the court of law have declared bidding on disputants. The acceptance of oral evidence by witnesses in the formal judicial system also attests to this. With this assertion, the choice of option B which states that ‗there is an informal or community-based system that resolves disputes in an equitable manner but decisions made by this system have little or no recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute resolution system‘ was rejected. Option C which states that ‗there is an informal or community-based system that resolves disputes in a manner that is not always equitable and decisions made by this system have limited or no recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute resolution system‘ was also abandoned because it is too negative. They noted that informal dispute resolution institutions are not always partial. They are also recognized in the formal judicial system. Option A which states that ―there is an informal or community-based system that resolves disputes in an equitable manner and decisions made by this system have some recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute resolution system‖ was thus chosen as the consensus ranking. This is based on the fact that informal or community based system that resolves dispute in an equitable manner exist in the country. Decisions made by this system also have some 94 Citizen Mediation Centre (CMC); 2010: Annual Report Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 277 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute resolution system. Informal system involves family, age grade or peer groups, compound, units head and community heads. Whatever decisions taken over any dispute is binding on parties involved and an uncooperative disputant is compelled by social pressure and sanction. An unsatisfied party can however go to the formal court with sufficient evidence and witness that the informal system‘s decisions was unsatisfactory. The ineffectiveness of the informal dispute resolution institutions are mostly in disputes involving large parties like land ownership conflicts between families or communities. 2.3 Forum shopping [LGI 20 (iii)] All the panel members in their individual assessments of this dimension chose Option B which states that ‗there are parallel avenues for dispute resolution but cases cannot be pursued in parallel through different channels and evidence and rulings may be shared between institutions so as to minimize the scope for forum shopping‘. This choice was based on the fact that there exists two (2) groups of institutions for resolving land conflict in the country, which include:  Judicial (formal)  Community (informal) These two systems cannot be used concurrently. It therefore applies that you cannot pursue the same case in two courts. The failure or unsatisfactory resolution of a conflict in the informal institutions often leads to the transfer of such cases to the formal institutions. Even within the formal institutions, land conflict cannot be treated simultaneously in the different courts. Conflicts in the customary courts cannot be treated simultaneously in any other court even in the alternative dispute resolution centers. 2.4 Possibility of Appeals [LGI 20 (iv)] Option C which states that ‗a process exists to appeal rulings on land cases but costs are high and the process takes a long time‘ was chosen by all the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension. The choice of this option was supported with the fact that from the process of filing a matter till the delivery of judgment, World Bank report on doing business in Nigeria 2010 shows that it takes an average of 511 days and about 36.3% of the value of a claim to resolve a dispute through the courts. The panel members however noted that this World Bank average is somehow generous as an appeal may take an average of two to three or longer years before it is disposed. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 278 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The cost and duration of executing a case (whether simple or complex), it was noted, depends on the skill, expertise and seniority of the lawyer involved; the subject matter of the conflict; and the importance of the conflict to the client. An instance was given of a case filed at Ikeja High Court (Lagos State) in 1990 which is still in court in 2011 because the ruling given by the court of first instance in 2006 was appealed against. The land was worth N2 million (about US$ 13, 072) in 1990 when the case was filed but is now worth N3.5 million (US$ 228, 758). The lawyers charged N500, 000 (i.e. US$ 3, 268) in 1990 but the case is now worth N35 million (US% 22, 876). 2.5 Conflict resolution in the formal legal system [LGI 21 (i)] The chosen range of rankings in the individual assessment of this dimension by expert members was between A and C with one of the panel members choosing A, one choosing B, while the remaining one chose C. While data for the whole of Nigeria on land disputes is not readily available, reference was made to the court records for the year 2010 in Lagos State where a total of 368 cases were assigned to the five judges of the lands division of the Lagos judiciary. Thirty cases, according to the records of 3 judges analyzed, were concluded in the first quarter of 2010. All the cases had claims pertaining to challenge to ownership to land, declaration of title and injunctive remedies and damages for trespass. Percentages were estimated by comparing the case load of other divisions viz, commercial, family and probate, general civil and criminal divisions to that of the land division. In January 2008 matters pending before the high court of Lagos were as follows: Type of Cases No of Cases % Commercial division 1, 934 28.3 Family and probate 648 9.5 General Civil 3001 44.0 Lands Division 901 13.2 Criminal Division 343 5.0 Total 6, 827 100% Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 279 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE This data analysis focused mainly on the lands division of the Lagos High Court (13.2%) while Mortgage and Loans matters are assigned to the commercial divisions of the high court whilst inheritance and family dispute are assigned to the family and probate division. A lot of cases are however handled at the magistrate courts. It was against this scenario as well as the experience of the panelists that option B which states that ―land disputes in the formal court system are between 10% and 30% of the total court cases‖ was therefore chosen as the consensus ranking. 2.6 Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system [LGI 21 (ii)] All the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose Option D which states that ―a decision in a land-related conflict is reached in the first instance court within 1 year for less than 50% of cases‖. This choice was supported with information obtained by the analysis of court records and interview with Judges, Court registrar and Judicial Assistant in Lagos. For instance, a judge inherited 238 extant matters by reason of the periodic reshuffle of Judges in the first quarter of 2010, but had only 46 new matters assigned to that court in the first quarter of 2011. An average of 4 to 5 cases is usually concluded by each court in each quarter. In 2010 in the court of the honorable Judge, only one case was concluded within a period of three (3) months. Some of the reasons for the long delays in settling land disputes include:  Ineffective court time  Lack of electricity supply  Absence of Judges  Inadequacy of Judges  Extension of cases by Lawyers  Inadequate operational facilities 2.7 Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 years) [LGI 21 (iii)] All the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension also chose the same option D. In the report on land dispute cases at the Lagos State High Court for the first quarter of this year, 25 of the 41 cases resolved (i.e. 61%) were over five years as illustrated in the table below. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 280 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Duration of Dispute No of cases % Cases between 1 – 5 years 16 39 Cases between 6 – 10 years 12 29 Cases above 10 years 13 32% Total 41 100 Thus, option D which states that ‗the share of long-standing land conflicts is greater than 20% of the total pending land dispute court cases‘ was chosen as the consensus ranking. General Commentary and Policy Recommendations LG1 20, Dimension i & ii 1. To facilitate the increase of access to formal and informal dispute resolution institutions, the following steps may be considered: A thorough empirical research should be carried out to address; i). The prevalence or absence of formal and informal institutions on a local government to local government basis and obtaining data on the number of land disputes per local government area which should form a critical part of the work. ii). Whether or not these institutions can co-exist to create a comprehensive framework for effective access to justice at the local levels. 2. The result of this research should be the basis of recommendations to the respective state governments for the enlargement of formal institutions; the mainstreaming of ADR mechanisms into justice administration; and the recognition and possible institutionalization of informal institutions. 3. The need for adequate legislation or practice rules to create a proper legal and operational framework for the implementation of the relevant land reforms. LG1 20, Dimension iv & LG1 21, Dimension i The percentage of land disputes and the cost of access to justice can be reduced by addressing the fundamental systemic challenges that have bedeviled land administration in Nigeria. The following recommendations for land reform will directly impact the causes of land disputes and the way they are managed. 1. The absence of well articulated National and State regulations and the attendant inconsistencies in the enforcement of these regulations have created much room for manipulations by interest groups to the detriment of a cohesive policy on land administration. 2. Furthermore, the political will to drive land reforms is lacking and reform efforts are haphazard and belated. Therefore, to achieve an effective land reform regime, political champions are needed at all levels, with the strong support and commitment of the central government and state authority. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 281 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3. The Land Cadastre program of the Federal Government should be carried out on a nationwide scale and concluded expeditiously. Data from the project should be made available to the public and private sector and along with other empirical studies on land management should form the basis of land reform initiative. 4. The operations of Land Registries nationwide should be rationalized and international best practice methodology for the registration and maintenance of records implemented. 5. There should be a common benchmark for the evaluation of land, to check the current practice of land speculation and its attendant problems. 6. Massive public enlightenment campaigns should explain the reform process and benefits to all Nigerians. A buy-in of all local communities, organizations (civil, religious, etc) should be sought after and obtained. LG1 21, Dimension ii & iii To reduce the time limit for the disposal of land disputes in the country the following interventions will be required;  Specific reform of the procedural rules for the adjudication of land disputes, particularly setting out prescribed timeliness for the different stages of the court process.  Judges should be empowered by the rules to enforce timeliness and impose severe sanctions on litigants for non compliance. It is expected that a firm procedural regime will discourage frivolous litigation and delay practices by lawyers.  Empowerment of the structures of informal institutions should provide an effective filter to ensure that only matters that are both complicated and require judicial intervention reach the courts, thus freeing court time and resources and enhancing its overall effectiveness.  To ensure compliance with practice rules – legal professional associations like the NBA should play a very important role in sanctioning defaulters and providing the necessary information to its members. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 282 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Dispute Resolution Ranking by Expert Panel EPM LGI Dimension Description Members (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms B A D B 20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution B A C A 20 iii Forum shopping B B B B 20 iv Possibility of appeals C C C C 21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system B A C B 21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system D D D D Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 21 iii D D D D years) Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 283 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.3.9 Land Governance Assessment Framework Study in Nigeria Draft Aide Memoire of the Expert Panel Workshop on Large Scale Land Acquisition (LSLA) held at the Committee Room, University of Lagos Guest Houses and Conference Centre, Lagos Friday, May 13, 2011 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The LGAF divides land issues into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management. In line with these thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed. Each of the LGIs was further broken down into a number of dimensions ranging from 2 to 6. Thus, the LGAF study is based on the assessment of 80 dimensions. However, an additional module on Large Scale Land Acquisition (LSLA) with 16 dimensions has been designed to complement the LGAF. 1.2 A core strategy for the implementation of the LGAF is the setting up of Expert Panels of 3-5 members to carry out both individual and consensus assessments of a number of given dimensions in a day‘s workshop. The same approach was adopted for the LSLA. This panel for LSLA has 16 dimensions to assess. All the four Expert Panel Members (EPMs) previously invited were present for the workshop. They are: (i) Sir Remi Omotoso, Former Director- General Lagos State Chambers of Commerce and Industry; (ii) Eng. M.O. Odumeru, Lagos State Ministry of Environment, Alausa-Ikeja, Lagos; (iii) Dr. Sola Atilola, Former President, Nigeria Institute of Surveyors; and (iv) Mr. Adewunmi Fatunde, Legal Practitioner. 1.3 To aid the panel members in their assessment process, the Country Coordinator (CC) provided them online with the following materials:  LGAF Annex 1  Assessment forms and scoring sheets  Tenure Typologies in Nigeria  Land Use Act  Information provided by the Expert investigators especially those relating to:  Social Legitimacy and Recognition of Land Rights and Restrictions  Coherence of Rights with Practice  Formal and Informal Cost of Registration  Identification of public land and clear management  Transparency of Expropriation Procedures and Public Lease Arrangements Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 284 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Guidelines and Requirements for Processing of Application for Land in North- West Geo-Political Zone  Procedures for Processing of Land Title Documents in the North-East Geo - Political Zone  Documentation Procedures for Land Administration at Federal Level  Procedures for Obtaining Land Title Documents in South–West Geo–Political Zone  Review of existing laws on land acquisition in Nigeria  Completeness and Reliability of Registry Records  Existing Laws governing Land Acquisition in Nigeria 1.4 The workshop was carried out in two sessions. During the first session, the CC, who served as the Workshop Moderator, introduced the LGAF Study to the EPMs and explained the objective of the Panel Workshop. This was followed by a brief description of each of the sixteen (16) LSLA dimensions and the procedure to be followed in their assessment. The scoring sheets earlier sent to the EPMs were collected (if they have been completed) otherwise, those EPMs who were yet to complete theirs were given time to do so. The rankings by the individual EPMs were recorded on a master scoring sheet prepared by the CC (see Annex A). The second session was devoted to the collective discussion and consensus assessment of each dimension as well as possible policy/research/reform suggestions. At the start of assessing each dimension, the range of ranking earlier submitted by the EPMs was revealed to them. In order to achieve greater interactive discussion, each of the dimensions, with its four coded assessment options was projected onto the screen. The CC was assisted by Dr. Vide Anosike-Adedayo and Gbolahan Badru. 2.0 Assessment and Discussions of the Dimensions 2.1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered [LSLA-1] The options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension ranged between C and D with three of the panel members choosing option C, while the remaining one chose option D. Various instances were given to justify the options chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment. The absence of up to date land use maps and plans for most states of the federation was noted. In places where such maps/plans exist, they have become dated. An example of Lagos State was given where the land between Ojota and Mile 12 meant for forest reservation is now covered with buildings meaning that the original plan was not enforced. With regards to the demarcation, surveying and registration of forest lands, the panel members agreed that only forest lands owned by governments could be so described. Instances of such forest reserve areas in Ekiti, Ogun, Taraba, Cross River States, etc were mentioned. However, forest lands owned by communities across the country are not often surveyed or registered even though their location and boundaries are known to the owners. This instance can be applied to the whole of the country where the government gazettes all information of land acquired for forest reserves while community ownership rights of forest are hardly ever surveyed or registered. In the opinion of the panel members, option D which states that ‗less than 10% of the area under forest land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered‘ was chosen as the consensus option. The fact that most forest lands are found within the lands owned by families and communities further justifies this option. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 285 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.2 Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed expeditiously and transparently. [LSLA-2] All the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose option D. This choice was supported with the fact that land disputes abound in the country even though most are not directly related to acquisitions. These conflicts often result in the death of people and destruction of properties. Few of these conflicts have been amicably resolved while others are still pending. Examples include the conflicts between Ife/Modakeke, Ondo/Osun, Ekiti/Kwara, Umuleri/Aguleri and lots of others in the Niger Delta where compulsory acquisitions of mineral based lands have been done. The most frequent types of conflicts include:  Ownership dispute  Transfer dispute  Dispute between prospective buyer and new buyer Instances where lands acquired by the government for forest and agricultural development have been allocated to individuals who use them for other purposes were given. It was also noted that the late or nonpayment of compensation by government to the communities whose land have been acquired often cause conflicts between the ‗new owners‘ and the former owners (i.e. the communities). In some cases the new owners need to make another payment to the communities to resolve the conflict. Option D which states that ‗conflicts related to use or ownership rights and directly or indirectly related to land acquisition are relatively frequent (more than 5% of rural land area affected) and the inability to address these conflicts expeditiously and in a transparent manner results in long pending disputes‘ was chosen as the consensus option 2.3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified [LSLA-3] Different options were chosen in the individual assessment of this dimension. The range of chosen options was between options C and D with two of the panel members choosing option C, while the remaining two chose option D. Option D which states that ‗the land use restrictions applying to any given plot of rural land can be unambiguously determined on site for land occupied by less than 10% of the population‘ was chosen as the consensus option since it is the closest to the situation of the country. To support this position the panel members noted the absence of land use maps for most rural areas of the country. However, restrictions relating to the use of land with high tension wires, electricity transformers, electricity poles, etc located within rural areas can be unambiguously identified on site. But the area of such restrictions is occupied by less than 10% of the rural population. 2.4 Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner [LSLA-4] In their individual assessment of this dimension the panel members chose different options ranging between options C and D. Specifically, three of the panel members chose option C, while the remaining one chose option D. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 286 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The panel members noted that a procedure exist for large scale land acquisition of rural lands. This they indicated is embedded in the Land Use Act promulgated in 1978. For instance, Sec 28 (3) of the LUA stipulates the conditions under which acquisitions can be done while Sec 29 describes the procedure for the payment of compensation. Sec 30 provides the guidelines for the resolution of conflicts relating to the amount of compensation to be paid. This in the opinion of the panel members is clear enough but these provisions are rarely implemented. With regards to the federal government, acquisition of land is carried out by many parallel institutions. The Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (FMLUD) is responsible for the acquisition of lands required by all federal government agencies. However, in practice, each of these ministries like Agriculture, Power, Aviation, etc acquire land without passing through the FMLUD. Thus, the ethical performances of these institutions are in doubt. Similar situation occur in states where the governor play the major role in land acquisition. Over riding public interest which is meant to be the basis for large scale acquisition is seldom considered. Payments of compensations also take long period of time if to be paid at all, and the Land Use and Allocation Committee meant to be established to resolve conflicts relating to acquisitions are rarely established. They therefore concluded that there is a lot of arbitrariness in the process of large scale land acquisition in the country. Thus, Option D which states that ‗standards of ethical performance for institutions that promote, channel or acquire land for purposes of interest to this study are not clearly defined and accounts are not regularly audited‘ was chosen as the consensus option 2.5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent [LSLA-5] The chosen range of rankings in the individual assessment of this dimension by expert member was between options B and D with one of the panel members choosing B, one choosing C, while the remaining one chose option D. The panel members indicated that every state of the federation has its own provisions on the type and amount of incentives to be given to promote investments. In Ekiti state for instance, the government buys the products of Agro-Allied companies to encourage them. In other states Lands have been given free of charge to build Free trade zones while in others tax holidays have been given to investors. These incentives were however noted by the panel members to be applied in a discretionary manner. Incentives include:  Tax holiday;  Tax relief for research and development;  Infrastructural support;  Accessibility support;  Land preparation at the take off stage;  Pioneer status;  Local valued added;  Re-investment allowance;  Minimum local raw materials utilization;  In-plant training; and  Companies Income Tax. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 287 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Option C which states that ‗there are written but unclear provisions in law or regulations regarding incentives for investors and their applicability has to be negotiated on a case by case basis in a way that is often discretionary‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option. 2.6 Benefit sharing mechanisms regarding investments in agriculture (food crops, biofuels, forestry, livestock, game farm/conservation) are regularly used and transparently applied [LSLA-6] The range of rankings chosen by the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension was between options C and D with three of the panel members choosing option C, while the remaining one chose option D. Since most large scale land acquisition exercises in the country are done off major settlements, benefits accruing from these investments are rarely felt by neighbouring communities. In some cases, the need for the communities to derive benefit from the investments s recognized and included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) but what turns out at the end is that most of the promises are hardly fulfilled leading to agitations by such communities. In recent times, mechamism to allow host communities to benefit from projects such as the biofuel projects in Nigeria and the Zimbabwean farmers experiment in Kwara State are being emphasized. However, inadequate monitoring and non-legislative nature of such MOUs and/or MOAs have made such mechanism less effective. It is against these observations that option C which states that ‗mechanisms to allow the public to obtain benefits from the investment (or investing party) other than compensation (e.g., schools, roads, etc.) are rarely used or applied in a discretionary manner‘ was chosen as the consensus option 2.7 There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and investors [LSLA-7] The panel member‘s individual assessment of this dimension, ranged between options C and D with three of the panel members choosing option C while the remaining one chose option D. After noting the fact that the government should be an arbiter protecting the rights of the people, the panel members indicated that the insertion of provision of the prior consent of the Governor in the event of any land transaction in the Land Use Act was meant to protect the people. They therefore stated that no direct transaction between owners and investors is allowed in the country. Investors in need of land are required to follow these steps:  Identification of land and consultations (site selection)  Application and presentation of purpose to the government  Survey and charting  Advertisement/Gazetting  Title Clearance  Identification of Holders  Indemnity Certification  Compensation Option C which states that ‗transfer of land use or ownership rights for large scale investment requires previous acquisition of these rights by the state which follows a clear, transparent, and time-bound process with decision-making authority clearly assigned‘ was thus chosen as the consensus option Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 288 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2.8 Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the desirability of projects on public/communal land [LSLA-8] All the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose option C. The panel members indicated that even though adequate information is required from inventors to assess the impact of their investment projects on land/environment, this information may not be sufficient enough to assess the viability and benefits from the project. Instances where information related to the forward integration of investments and change of land use was not reported to the authorities were noted. Normally, this information would warrant a need to carry out another Impact Assessment. Thus in a bid to reduce cost this information is often not provided. Monitoring is also rarely done which makes illegal development go unnoticed. Option C which states that ‗investors are consistently required to provide information on company background or financial/technical analyses but this information is not sufficient to assess viability and benefits from the project‘ was therefore chosen as the consensus option 2.9 For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors provide the required information and this information is publicly available [LSLA-9] Option C which states that ‗investors provide some or all the information required from them but this information is not publicly available‘ was chosen by all the panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension. They indicated that in most cases, information provided by investors to the government indicating the impact of their investment on the environment is not made public. Government usually requires information on the nature of investment, the item to be produced, plans for the community and environmental impact assessment. The benefits derivable from the investments and the harm the public may be liable to are therefore hidden to them. Even if the investors meet the requirement of the government compliance mechanisms, the panel members noted that it is necessary to make the information available to the public. Opportunity to support the growth of these investors or curtail their excesses is often constrained by not publicly disclosing the required information. Option C which states that ‗investors provide some or all the information required from them but this information is not publicly available‘ was chosen as the consensus option 2.10 Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from communities or the public are required by law to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and risks will be shared. [LSLA-10] The panel members in their individual assessment of this dimension chose options ranging between option C and option D, with one of the panel members choosing option C, while the remaining three chose option D. They noted that apart from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) required to be carried out before any large scale development is done in the country to forestall potential damage to the environment, there is no existing law compelling investors to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and risks will be shared with the public or communities. The absence of legislation on this matter probably explains the scenario in the Niger Delta where land owners are in continuous clash with investors. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 289 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Option D which states that ‗contracts do not have to specify either risk sharing or benefit sharing arrangement‘ was thus chosen as the consensus option 2.11 The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is reasonably short [LSLA-11] The panel members noted that the procedure for reviewing and responding to request for approval of a project takes a short time. They indicated that according to the ‗doing business in Nigeria report of 2008‘, it takes about 315 days to enforce a contract while it takes about 38 days and several procedures to register a property. The report also noted that it takes 22 days to open a business in the country. The establishment of a one stop desk by the business promotion council where all processing steps can be done is a pointer to this fact. Option B which states that ‗in most cases, investment application related documents are reviewed and receive a response within 6 months of date of submission‘ was thus chosen as the consensus option The Business Provision Council having noted this delay created a one stop desk where all information and processing of request can be accessed. 2.12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented [LSLA-12] The panel members noted that although Environmental Social Impact Assessment are expected to be carried out before any large-scale investment in agriculture is carried out in the country. Only in few cases are the requirements implemented. Thus option D which states that ‗social safeguard requirements for investors are not clearly documented and defined‘ was chosen as the consensus option 2.13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented [LSLA-13] In other countries like Sweden where sanctions are imposed on investor who do not carry out afforestation in forest lands as stipulated in their regulations, the situation in Nigeria is different with the environmental requirements for investor even though clearly defined and documented but implemented with discretion. Option C which states that ‗environmental safeguard requirements for investors are not clearly documented and defined‘ was chosen as the consensus option 2.14 For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and select economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement these effectively. [LSLA-14] Public institutions involved in the transfer of public/community lands have procedures to identify and select economically, socially and environmentally benefit but these procedures are often implemented with discretion. This may be attributed to the lack of adequate personnel or interference from the political/business clique. This was based on the fact that provisions partially exist in the policy document to identify and select these benefits but they are not implemented. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 290 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Option C which states that ‗procedures to fully cover economic, social, and environmental issues are in place but not implemented effectively‘ was chosen as the consensus option 2.15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is checked [LSLA-15] Even though the Federal State Environmental Protection Agencies are in-charge of ensuring that investors comply with safeguards, there however exist several overlaps in the responsibilities of these agencies with those of others who in charge of land management. Consequently, none totally accepts the responsibility of checking if investors are compliant with safeguards. Option D which states that ‗responsible government agencies do not follow up on the agreements to check for compliance‘ was thus chosen as the consensus option 2.16 There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do not comply with requirements [LSLA-16] Option D which states that ‗there is no clear process by which affected parties or the public at large can lodge complaints regarding investor compliance with safeguards‘ was chosen by all panel members in their individual assessment of this assessment as the consensus option This choice was supported with the fact that since the public is often unaware of the information provided by the investors to the government, the benefits and risks expected are also unknown to them. Opportunities to lodge complaints are also restricted. 3.0 General Comments and Policy Reforms The panel members made the following policy commentaries/recommendation to help improve issues of large scale land acquisition in the country.  The public should be educated on the need to register their land.  The land registration process should also be made less cumbersome to enable easy registration of rural lands.  Prompt and adequate compensation must be paid by investors to land owners to reduce conflict caused by delayed and inadequate compensations.  Stakeholders must be involved/participate in the land use planning process.  Any unused publicly acquired land should be reverted back to the owners.  Mapping and cadastration of all land in the country should be given priority.  There is need to develop a policy on security of ownership.  Monitoring, evaluation and implementation processes should be standardized.  The Land use Act must be amended.  For effective follow up, there must be several cocktail of checklist to ensure that the investors are doing the right thing.  There must be transparency in land acquisition process.  There should be capacity development in terms of human and materials resources.  There must be checkmating and imposition of sanctions or payment of damages by the defaulters of the rules. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 291 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Social and environmental issues must be built into the initial agreement so as to seek for sanctions if not complied with.  Tax relief or tax holidays of up to 3 years to cover the gestation period of crops should be given to agricultural investors. Annex A: Individual and Consensus Ranking by the Expert Panel Members on Large- Scale Land Acquisition Ranking by Expert Panel Members EPM LSLA Dimension Description (EPM) Consensus Ranking 1 2 3 4 LSLA-1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered C D C C D Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed LSLA-2 D D D D D expeditiously and transparently Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be LSLA-3 C C D D D identified Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear LSLA-4 D B C C D and consistent manner LSLA-5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent C B D C C Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture (food LSLA-6 crops, biofuels, forestry, game farm/conservation) are regularly C C C D C used and transparently applied There are direct and transparent negotiations between right LSLA-7 D C C C C holders and investors Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the LSLA-8 C C C C C desirability of projects on public/communal land. For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, LSLA-9 investors provide the required information and this information C C C C C is publicly available Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from LSLA-10 communities or the public are required by law to explicitly D C D D D mention the way in which benefits and risks will be shared. The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is LSLA-11 D D B C B required is reasonably short Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture LSLA-12 D C D D D are clearly defined and implemented Environmental requirements for large scale investments in LSLA-13 D C D D D agriculture are clearly defined and implemented For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and select economically, LSLA-14 C C C D C environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement these effectively. Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture LSLA-15 C C D D D is checked There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors LSLA-16 D D D D D do not comply with requirements Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 292 Annex 7.4 Individual Scorecards for each member of Expert Panels Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.4 Scoring Box for Panel 1 – Land Tenure Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Dr. Dayo Amokaye Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)  1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)  1 iii Rural group rights recognition  1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas  1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization  2 i Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to communal land  2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  A condominium regime provides for appropriate management of common 2 v property  2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for recognition of property 3 i claims  3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  3 vi Efficient and transparent process to formalize possession  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 294 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 1 – Land Tenure Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Olusola Adun Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)  1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)  1 iii Rural group rights recognition  1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas  1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization  2 i Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to communal land  2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  2 v A condominium regime provides for appropriate management of common  property 2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  3 i Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for recognition of property  claims 3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  3 vi Efficient and transparent process to formalize possession  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 295 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 1 – Land Tenure Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Ladipo Babatunde Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)  1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)  1 iii Rural group rights recognition  1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas  1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization  2 i Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to communal land  2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  2 v A condominium regime provides for appropriate management of common  property 2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  3 i Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for recognition of property  claims 3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  3 vi Efficient and transparent process to formalize possession  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 296 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 1 – Land Tenure Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Adetokunbo Mumuni Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)  1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)  1 iii Rural group rights recognition  1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas  1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization  2 i Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to communal land  2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  A condominium regime provides for appropriate management of common 2 v property  2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for recognition of property 3 i claims  3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  3 vi Efficient and transparent process to formalize possession  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 297 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 2 – Institutional Arrangements Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Charles Nwoji Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 5 i Separation of policy formulation, implementation, and arbitration  5 ii Avoidance of institutional (horizontal) overlap  5 iii Avoidance of administrative (vertical) overlap  5 iv Land information is shared with interested institutions  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 298 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 2 – Institutional Arrangements Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Sule Mustapha Omotayo Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 5 i Separation of policy formulation, implementation, and arbitration  5 ii Avoidance of institutional (horizontal) overlap  5 iii Avoidance of administrative (vertical) overlap  5 iv Land information is shared with interested institutions  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 299 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 2 – Institutional Arrangements Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Olurotimi Olubuyi Onabanjo Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 5 i Separation of policy formulation, implementation, and arbitration  5 ii Avoidance of institutional (horizontal) overlap  5 iii Avoidance of administrative (vertical) overlap  5 iv Land information is shared with interested institutions  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 300 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 3 – Urban Land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Moses Ogunleye Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 3 v Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible and affordable  Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability are 4 i justified  In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 i input  7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use  7 iv Speed of land use change  8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city in the country  Process for planned urban development in the four largest cities in the 8 ii country, excluding the largest city  8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Residential plot size adherence in urban areas  Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and 9 i processed in a non-discretionary manner  9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 301 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 3 – Urban Land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Ayo Adediran LLB (HOns.) LLM Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 3 v Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible and affordable  Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability are 4 i justified  In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 i input  7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use  7 iv Speed of land use change  8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city in the country  Process for planned urban development in the four largest cities in the 8 ii country, excluding the largest city  8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Residential plot size adherence in urban areas  Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and 9 i processed in a non-discretionary manner  9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 302 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 3 – Urban Land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Prof. J. Fasakin Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 3 v Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible and affordable  Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability are 4 i justified  In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 i input  7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use  7 iv Speed of land use change 8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city in the country  Process for planned urban development in the four largest cities in the 8 ii country, excluding the largest city  8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Residential plot size adherence in urban areas  Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and 9 i processed in a non-discretionary manner  9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 303 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 3 – Urban Land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Dr. Demola Omojola Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 3 v Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible and affordable  Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability are 4 i justified  In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 i input  7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use  7 iv Speed of land use change  8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city in the country  Process for planned urban development in the four largest cities in the 8 ii country, excluding the largest city  8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Residential plot size adherence in urban areas  Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and 9 i processed in a non-discretionary manner  9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 304 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 3 – Urban Land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Waheed Kadiri Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 3 v Formalization of urban residential housing is feasible and affordable  Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability are 4 i justified  In urban areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 i input  7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use  7 iv Speed of land use change  8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city in the country  Process for planned urban development in the four largest cities in the 8 ii country, excluding the largest city  8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Residential plot size adherence in urban areas  Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and 9 i processed in a non-discretionary manner  9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 305 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 4 – Rural land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Taofik I. Salau Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and transferability are 4 ii justified  6 i Clear land policy is developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation and monitoring of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with benefits and adequately 6 iii resourced  6 iv Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation  In rural areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 ii input  Use plans for specific rural land classes (forests, pastures, etc) are in line with 8 v use  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 306 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 4 – Rural land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Prof. Y. L. Fabiyi Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and transferability are 4 ii justified  6 i Clear land policy is developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation and monitoring of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with benefits and adequately 6 iii resourced  6 iv Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation  In rural areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 ii input  Use plans for specific rural land classes (forests, pastures, etc) are in line with 8 v use  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 307 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 4 – Rural land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Funmi Osifuye Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and transferability are 4 ii justified  6 i Clear land policy is developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation and monitoring of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with benefits and adequately 6 iii resourced  6 iv Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation  In rural areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 ii input  Use plans for specific rural land classes (forests, pastures, etc) are in line with 8 v use  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 308 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 4 – Rural land Use Planning and Development Each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Tokunbo Fayemi Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and transferability are 4 ii justified  6 i Clear land policy is developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation and monitoring of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with benefits and adequately 6 iii resourced  6 iv Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation  In rural areas, land use plans and changes in these plans are based on public 7 ii input  Use plans for specific rural land classes (forests, pastures, etc) are in line with 8 v use  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 309 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 5 – Land Valuation and Taxation During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Adeyemi Alli Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified and transparent  11 ii Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll  11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 310 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 5 – Land Valuation and Taxation During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Gbenga Enisan Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified and transparent  11 ii Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll  11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 311 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 5 – Land Valuation and Taxation During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Prof. Simon A. Asaju Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified and transparent  11 ii Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll  11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 312 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 5 – Land Valuation and Taxation During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. C. Nwaobiala Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified and transparent  11 ii Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll  11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 313 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 6 – Management of Public Land Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Surv. Femi Ekundayo Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate 12 i level of government  12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public  13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  14 i Compensation for expropriation of registered property  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Timely decisions regarding complaints about expropriation  15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 314 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 6 – Management of Public Land Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Chief Jude Egwuekwe Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate 12 i level of government  12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public  13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  14 i Compensation for expropriation of registered property  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Timely decisions regarding complaints about expropriation  15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 315 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 6 – Management of Public Land Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Emenuwa Jaja-Wachukwu Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate 12 i level of government  12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public  13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  14 i Compensation for expropriation of registered property  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Timely decisions regarding complaints about expropriation  15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 316 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 6 – Management of Public Land Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Ayodele Ibuoye Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate 12 i level of government  12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public  13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  14 i Compensation for expropriation of registered property  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Timely decisions regarding complaints about expropriation  15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 317 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 6 – Management of Public Land Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Ayo Elvis Oniemola Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate 12 i level of government  12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public  13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  14 i Compensation for expropriation of registered property  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Timely decisions regarding complaints about expropriation  15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 318 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 7 – Public Provision of Land Information During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Alhaji Abubakar Lawal Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban and 2 iv rural areas)  First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay the 3 iii formal fees  3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land 16 iv rights)  Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on 16 v land rights  Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or 16 vi organization with information on land rights)  17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 319 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 7 – Public Provision of Land Information During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Sir. G. T. N. Tabansi Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban and 2 iv rural areas)  First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay the 3 iii formal fees  3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land 16 iv rights)  Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on 16 v land rights  Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or 16 vi organization with information on land rights)  17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 320 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 7 – Public Provision of Land Information During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Ms. Priscilla Achakpa Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban and 2 iv rural areas)  First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay the 3 iii formal fees  3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land 16 iv rights)  Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on 16 v land rights  Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or 16 vi organization with information on land rights)  17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 321 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 7 – Public Provision of Land Information During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Muhammad Bashar Nuhu Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban and 2 iv rural areas)  First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay the 3 iii formal fees  3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land 16 iv rights)  Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on 16 v land rights  Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or 16 vi organization with information on land rights)  17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 322 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 7 – Public Provision of Land Information During the first briefing session, each Panel participant should try to score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Dr. Akin Fapohunda Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban and 2 iv rural areas)  First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay the 3 iii formal fees  3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land 16 iv rights)  Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on 16 v land rights  Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or 16 vi organization with information on land rights)  17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 323 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 8 – Dispute Resolution Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mrs. Caroline Etuk Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms  20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution  20 iii Forum shopping  20 iv Possibility of appeals  21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system  21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system  21 iii Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 years)  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 324 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 8 – Dispute Resolution Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. S. B. Joseph (Jnr.) Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms  20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution  20 iii Forum shopping  20 iv Possibility of appeals  21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system  21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system  21 iii Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 years)  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 325 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 8 – Dispute Resolution Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Tunde Otubu Score LGI Dimension Description A B C D 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms  20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution  20 iii Forum shopping  20 iv Possibility of appeals  21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system  21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system  21 iii Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 years)  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 326 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 9 – Large Scale Land Acquisition Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Sir. Remi Omotoso Score LSLA Dimension Description A B C D LSLA-1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered  LSLA-2 Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed expeditiously and transparently.  LSLA-3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified  LSLA-4 Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner  LSLA-5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent  LSLA-6 Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture (food crops, biofuels, forestry, game farm/conservation) are regularly used and transparently applied  LSLA-7 There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and investors  LSLA-8 Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the desirability of projects on public/communal land.  LSLA-9 For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors provide the required information and this information is publicly available  LSLA-10 Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from communities or the public are required by law to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and  risks will be shared. LSLA-11 The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is reasonably short  LSLA-12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented  LSLA-13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented  LSLA-14 For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and select economically, environmentally, and socially  beneficial investments and implement these effectively. LSLA-15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is checked  LSLA-16 There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do not comply with requirements  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 327 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 9 – Large Scale Land Acquisition Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Engr. M. O. Odumeru Score LSLA Dimension Description A B C D LSLA-1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered  LSLA-2 Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed expeditiously and transparently.  LSLA-3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified  LSLA-4 Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner  LSLA-5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent  LSLA-6 Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture (food crops, biofuels, forestry, game farm/conservation) are regularly used and transparently applied  LSLA-7 There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and investors  LSLA-8 Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the desirability of projects on public/communal land.  LSLA-9 For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors provide the required information and this information is publicly available  LSLA-10 Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from communities or the public are required by law to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and  risks will be shared. LSLA-11 The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is reasonably short  LSLA-12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented  LSLA-13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented  LSLA-14 For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and select economically, environmentally, and socially  beneficial investments and implement these effectively. LSLA-15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is checked  LSLA-16 There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do not comply with requirements  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 328 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 9 – Large Scale Land Acquisition Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Dr. Sola Atilola Score LSLA Dimension Description A B C D LSLA-1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered  LSLA-2 Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed expeditiously  and transparently. LSLA-3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified  LSLA-4 Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner  LSLA-5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent  LSLA-6 Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture (food crops, biofuels, forestry, game farm/conservation) are regularly used and transparently applied  LSLA-7 There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and investors  LSLA-8 Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the desirability of projects on public/communal land.  LSLA-9 For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors provide the required information and this information is publicly available  LSLA-10 Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from communities or the public are required by law to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and  risks will be shared. LSLA-11 The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is reasonably short  LSLA-12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented  LSLA-13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented  LSLA-14 For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and select economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement these effectively.  LSLA-15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is checked  LSLA-16 There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do not comply with requirements  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 329 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Scoring Box for Panel 9 – Large Scale Land Acquisition Prior to or during the first briefing session, each Panel participant should score each one of the dimensions and fill out the following dimension scoring sheet: Name: Mr. Adewumi Fatunde Score LSLA Dimension Description A B C D LSLA-1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered  LSLA-2 Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed expeditiously  and transparently. LSLA-3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified  LSLA-4 Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner  LSLA-5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent  LSLA-6 Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture (food crops, biofuels, forestry, game farm/conservation) are regularly used and transparently applied  LSLA-7 There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and investors  LSLA-8 Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the desirability of projects on public/communal land.  LSLA-9 For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors provide the required information and this information is publicly available  LSLA-10 Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from communities or the public are required by law to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and  risks will be shared. LSLA-11 The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is reasonably short  LSLA-12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented  LSLA-13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented  LSLA-14 For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and select economically, environmentally, and socially  beneficial investments and implement these effectively. LSLA-15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is checked  LSLA-16 There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do not comply with requirements  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 330 Annex 7.5 Additional Information Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.5A The Myths and Realities of the Land Use Act by Valentine Ofogba Since the Land Use Act was passed in 1978, there have been several commentaries by notable and even less notable persons on the contents of the law, the effect on the people resulting in the clamour by the people for its repeal, and or amendment. It is possible to state, that in Nigeria, today no particular piece of legislature has been more vilified by commentators for several reasons, some which this paper will address. The general perception of the people today is that  All lands in Nigeria are now public land;  All occupiers of land have no more than leasehold interest on their land;  The Land Use Act makes the governor the owner of all lands in a state;  The governor of a state can acquire all lands in a state;  The Statutory Right of Occupancy is superior to the Customary Right of Occupancy;  The Governor can make all regulations on land in a state;  Governors can make regulations for the condition of grant consent for all transaction; and  All interest in land are extinguished and reduced to mere rights of occupancy It is most curious that since the passing of the law in 1978, there are very few judicial pronouncements on the about 50 Sections of the law, in spite of the strategic nature of the law to development of the nation. This paper like most other commentaries remains the views and interpretation of the writer and is subject to the evaluation of the reader. From the listed general perceptions, the writer proposes to examine in detail the truth or otherwise of the notions in line with provisions of the Land Use Act. 1. Nationalization of all Nigerian Land It is the perception of many today that there are no more private lands in Nigeria since the making of the land Use Act. Some even believe that the Land Use Act has nationalised all land in Nigeria. It is assumed in some quarters that the Land Use Act is a product of socialists, non capitalist agenda to take over all private interest in land to vest same in the state. These notions seem to be supported by the reading of only of the subtitles to Section 1 of the Land Use Act. Infact this impression is reinforced when one reads the real body of the Section 1, without regard for the opening phrase ―Subject to the Provisions of this Act‖. The omission of this opening phrase in Section (1) will leave no one in doubt and all will conclude that all land in a state is vested in the governor. It will even be then appropriate to conclude that all land have been nationalised. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 332 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Unfortunately however not all lands in a state are vested in the governor by the express provision of the main body of Section 1 of the Land use Act. The category of land not vested in a governor of a state are expressly and by implication, stated in the Land Use Act. The first indication that not all land in a state is vested in the governor of the state, is the simple phrase, ―subject to the provisions of the act‖ in the same Section 1 which vests land in the governor. If Section 1 is confusing, Section 34, 36, 49 are not confusing. Section 49 clearly states that all land already vested in the Federal Government or its agencies is excluded from that vested in the state governor Section 34 and 36 asserts the existing rights of the holders of land prior to the Land Use Act. Section 2 confirms the right of owners to have their rights devolve according to laws, customary or personal or by will etc. It is amazing that Section 34 (5) is the only section that prescribes the circumstances where the existing right of a person over land can be extinguished and that is in a case of owner of existing rights to undeveloped land in an urban area where the land is in excess of ½ hectare. In this case ½ the right to the remainder of the land in excess of hectare is declared specifically to be extinguished. In all other situations the owners of interests to land do not have their rights extinguished. No where in the Land Use Act, besides Section 34 (5) is any person‘s interest over land declared to be extinguished. Infact since the provisions of the Act clearly stipulate in Sections 28, the mode for acquiring/revoking by a governor land, it is most ridiculous to suggest that the governor, if who already owns land will again be required to revoked ACQUIRE the same for any purpose. The Land Use Act and constitution recognises the right of government to acquire property see Sections 28, 29 & 35 clearly states that the revocation (acquisition) mark be for public purpose, with express definition of the meaning of public purpose provided in the Land Use Act. The general notions that: (i) all lands are vested in the governor; (ii) there is no private land in Nigeria; and (iii) Land Use Act has effectively nationalised all land in Nigeria, are therefore not supported by the provisions of the land Use Act. They may be classified as myths borne out by some people who have as is often the case not read or fully comprehended the provisions of the land Use Act. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 333 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 2. Are all Nigerians reduced to leaseholders of land by the grant of Certificates of Occupancy Today it is the usual trend to find specified in every certificate of occupancy issued either by the governor or local government, limiting ones tenure to no more than 99 years at best. Many commentators have in accepting these practice concluded that a grant of a certificate of occupancy therefore limits a person‘s interest to no more than the term contained in the certificate and this term limitation equates a person‘s interest to no more than a leasehold. This view remains true only to the extent that this term limitation is backed by the law. It is however most interesting to note that the only provision that limits a right of occupancy to a definite term is Section 8. The section however without prescribing a particular time limit, refers only to Statutory Rights of Occupancy issued by the governor. In effect the section does not apply to customary rights of occupancy issued by the local government. It is even debatable if this applies to statutory rights of occupancy issued by the federal government or its agencies. If Section 8 does not limit terms of customary right of occupancy owners who constitute the bulk of land owners in Nigeria today, where is the authority for defining or limiting the tenure to any period? The obvious position is that states by some curious interpretation of the Land Use Act, possibly of Section 8 passed some regulation like was done in 1 98 1 by Lagos state Government, to limit the term of both statutory and customary rights of occupancy to no more than 99 years. However this regulation and that of any other state, where they exists, are illegal and beyond (ultra vires) the legislative ability of the state and especially contrary to Section 46 (1) of the same Land Use Act. By the provisions of Section 46 (1) it is only the National Council of States that can make the regulations on the term limits of Statutory Rights of Occupancy, throughout Nigeria and not the state. It is therefore correct that notwithstanding the current practice of limiting all certificates of occupancy to a term limit of not more than 99 years, the practice though real is in fact based on some myths and not based on the exact position of the law, since (1) the National Council of States has since 1978 made no regulation to limit a term of statutory right of occupancy and (2) No provision of the Land Use Act limits the tenure of a customary of right of occupancy and not even the National Council of States can legitimately make a regulation to limit the tenure of a Customary Right of Occupancy. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 334 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The position of term limit of a Customary Right of Occupancy is therefore a practice based on a complete myth. 3. Powers of the Governor of the State The general notion today is that the governor of a state is empowered to (a) own all land in the state (b) acquire all land in a state (c) make regulations over all land in a state (d) prescribed regulations for the conditions of grant of consent or other conditions of a certificate of occupancy and (e) Not subordinate to anyone over matters of land in a state. This notion is believed by the generally of the people as it has be assumed that the governor has all land in a state vested in him. It is conceded that a state governor has been vested with all land in a state subject to the provisions of the Land Use Act. The land vested in the governor as explained earlier does not included those vested or owned by persons before the Land Use Act, see Section 34 & 35 and those belonging to federal government or its agencies see Section 49. It however includes (1) undeveloped lands in excess of Y2 hectare, previously vested in the existing owner but whose interest is extinguished (2) lands to which no existing owner claims i.e. owner less lands in an urban area. (3) lands compulsorily acquired by revoked the state governor and (4) land whose certificate of occupancy is revoked, land not falling within (l) - (4) above is not vested in the governor. Land included in (3) above however can only be duly vested in the governor of the state where it has been acquired for public purpose. Public purpose is defined in the law and so unless the governor can ascertain a public purpose he cannot lawfully lay claim to land as having been acquired compulsorily to become vested in himself. The governor of state is therefore accountable to the people when acquiring any interest over land already belonging to a citizen. Also a certificate of occupancy issued by a governor may also be revoked in accordance with the provisions of the land Use Act. Non compliance with the provisions of the Land Use Act in revoking or acquiring any land can be challenged by the effected party. In the same manner as above, the governor, has not been empowered to make regulations at large over management of land in the state. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 335 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Even the governor powers to control and manage land is restricted to land on an area designated as urban area and does not extend to land in non-urban areas which are under the management of the local government area. The state governors powers to make regulations is even further restricted by the provisions of Section 46 (2) to a few items with the bulk of the power to regulate being retained by the National Council of States. The conditions for the grant of consent to a transaction over land as provided in Section 21 and 22 of the Land Use Act are not in any place stated beyond those prescribed in the Land Use Act. Additional regulations for the grant it is submitted are not for the governor to make but for the National Council of States as the governor of a state is not the maker of the Land Use Act. The governor of the state may however make regulation for fees to be paid, procedure to be observed in receiving real, forms to be used and method of application for any license or permit. Existing Rights over Land It is yet another the popular notion today that since the Land Use Act was passed every owner of land is deemed to be an owner of a Right of Occupancy and as such, all previously held rights to land are no more in existence, infact it is generally assumed that such previously held rights are extinguished. The popular belief is that no one can now own a freehold interest in land in Nigeria since the advent of the Land Use Act. These notions are premised on (1) the erroneous beliefs that all rights of occupancy are for a limited period and (2) that every existing owner of land is deemed by the law under Section 34 & 36 to be a holder of a right of occupancy. It is the view of the writer that these views are no more than assumptions of the persons and are indeed not the express provision of the law. The Land Use Act has only specifically provided for the extinguishing of any existing right of person with respect to undeveloped land in excess of ‗/ hectare of land in an urban area under Section 34 (5) (b). Besides this section of the law, no provision of the law expressly extinguishes any right of a person who previously held land. Even though Section 34 (5) (b) is specific as to its application, the same provision is not repeated in Section 36 and so there is no provision for the extinguishing of rights to any portion land in a non-urban area. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 336 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Infact Section 24 recognises the rights of holders to have their property devolve upon death in accordance with the customary laws of the person, the place or even by will and by implication recognizing the existing rights over the land and confirming the fact that it was never intended by the Act to extinguish all existing rights over land but rather to add the right of occupancy to the existing interest of the holder. As stated above, it is true that term limits are by Section 8 only to apply to statutory rights of occupancy issued by the governor over land in an urban area pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Land Use Act. The fact that no term limit was intended for the bulk of the land which are actually in non-urban areas has clearly weighed itself against the views that freehold, customary ownership, customary tenancies, stool land family land mortgages, leases in non urban areas were never intended to be limited by terms under the Act and it remains the fact that the rights of persons who own these lands were never intended to be extinguished and are infact not extinguished beyond the provisions of Section 34 (5) (b) for only undeveloped land in excess of ½ hectare within urban areas. It is the writer‘s view that whereas the Land Use Act has conferred additional rights i.e. the rights of occupancy deemed by Section 34 & 36 of the Land Use Act, it recognises the existing rights of holders and save for Section 34 (5) (b) in no provision of the Land Use Act extinguished any interest of the citizens. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 337 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.5B The Land Issue in Nigeria‟s Development by Valentine Ofogba Land recognized as the territory claimed by a people forms one of the basis of their claims recognition as a modern state. The management of same equally intrinsically determines the level of development of the state. The land question in Nigeria today is in a generally confused state. This is not because of the absence of a legal frame work but more because of the ignorance or misconception of the contents of the foundational legal framework, the Land Use Act. The importance of land to development of Nigeria was recognised by the entrenchment a of the Land Use Act as part of the Nigerian Constitution with provisions that the Act can only be amended in the manner of a constitutional amendment. There however exists so much misconception of the provisions of the Act resulting in its vilification by several commentators. This has created a lot of suspicion in the minds of the people whose benefit this fundamental land development legislation was intended to promote. A few of the actual intendments of the government as enshrined in the Act which are often ignored or misconceived are noted below: (1) The Limit of Lands vested in Governor of a State There is a general belief by most commentators and the people at large that ALL land in a state is vested in the Governor of the state. This view is taken largely from reading only of the title or heading of Section 1 of the Land Use Act. The heading or title to section 1 reads ―vesting of all land in the State‖. This leaves the impression that the section wholly vests all land in the state in the Governor. The simple reading of the title to this section of the law has caused so much confusion in the minds of (a) The Governor or Government of the State who now assumes that ALL land in a state is vested in him; and (b) The people who believe that the Governor of the State now owns their land and that they are at the mercy of the Governor. This unfortunate interpretation of the law is however not the intention of its makers. The Law states in the body of the section what is intended and clearly excluded lands not vested in the Governor in the same legislation. Section 1 of the Act provides “subject to the provisions of this Act, all lands comprised in the territory of each state in the federation are hereby vested in the Governor of that state and such Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 338 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE land shall be held in trust and administered for the common use and benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of the Act‖. The omission or disregard of the phrase “Subject to the Provisions of this Act” at the beginning of the reading of the section has caused the confusion leading many to assume there is a nationalization of ALL land in the country. The correct position of the law is that the land vested in the governor of the state are those which the same Land Use Act says directly or indirectly are vested in the governor. Consequently, the land vested in the governor excludes others which the Land Use Act has not by reasons of its provisions directly or indirectly vested in the governor. Examples of land not vested in a governor of a state include:  Lands already vested in the Federal Government and its agencies (Sections 49)  Developed land already vested in persons before the Land Use Act in urban areas (Section 34)  Land already vested in persons before the Land Use Act in non-urban areas (Section 36)  Undeveloped lands already vested in persons before the Land Use Act of a size of ½ hectare or below, within an urban area. The true position of the law is thus that the Governor of a state is vested with power over only such land that does not include the above. According to the Act, the land vested in the Governor is actually; (a) land not already vested in any person in an urban area, (b) land which is undeveloped, and in excess of ½ of one hectare previously vested in a person within an urban area. The law specifically stipulates that the original owners‘ rights in excess of the half of one hectare ar e extinguished in favour of the state governor; (c) land that is acquired by acts of revocation of the Rights of Occupancy issued by the governor for public purposes. (2) The term Limits of Certificates of Occupancy There has been a general reluctance of the people to embrace the modality Certificates of Occupancy being issued either by the governor or the local government authorities in most parts of the federation, leaving most interests in land unregistered. This has had the effect that interests in land in Nigeria today remain without adequate records or information required for adequate planning and development of land resources. The reluctance to embrace the land titling processes by the people has greatly hindered the envisaged impetus necessary to transform the dead capital in land into the land market to enhance rapid economic development. This general reluctance stems from the practice of limiting the term in the Certificates of Occupancy to not more than 99 years by the states without any legitimate mandate. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 339 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE It is a common perception now that the certificate of occupancy makes the holder equal to no better than a lessee for a definite term of not more than 99 years. Most people would therefore not touch the Certificate of Occupancy for fear of restricting their otherwise existing unlimited rights to their lands, a situation which has promoted the growth of the informal market in land. Previously held freehold lands and indefinite customary tenure rights are now wrongly assumed to be limited upon the application and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the appropriate authority regardless of the location or type of certificate of occupancy. This notion is however not supported by the Act which has only prescribed the issue of definite terms to certificates of occupancy issued by a state governor. By Section 8 of the Lands Use Act, it is only Statutory Rights of Occupancy issued by the governor that are to be for a definite term. Certainly the law does not envisage the term limitation of other genres of Certificates of Occupancy, especially not to Customary Rights of Occupancy issued by the Local Government. It is safe to conclude that the makers of the law never intended the bulk of the land in the countries which are in rural areas to have their tenure abridged or limited by a number of years as being generally practised today. Curiously however is that even though the Land Use Act in the said Section 8 prescribes that a Statutory Right of Occupancy be for a definite term, it has till date never prescribed any time, 99 years or any other as is being done all over the country. Lagos State Government (and probably some other states in Nigeria) without any legal authority to do so, by a Regulation passed in 1981 usurped the powers of the National Council of States to prescribe a term limit of not more than 99 years duration for all Certificates of Occupancy, Customary or Statutory contrary to Section 8 and 46(1) of the Land Use Act. The result of this error is leading to the abuse of the Act to the extent that the public is generally resisting acquisition of certificates of occupancy, while the Lagos State Government is now coercing the people into forced acquisition of its documents at great cost to the people. Were the people are aware that there is no term limits to their possessory rights to their lands, applications for customary rights of occupancy in the vast rural community of Nigeria will greatly increase and be embraced. (3) The Role of the National Council of States Control of land remains at the center of sovereignty rights of a nation and is fundamental to the most of the processes of its socio-economic transformation. The Land Use Act recognises this and in further recognition of the federal status of the Nigerian state grants the control of the land Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 340 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE not previously owned by persons or the Federal government and its agencies, to the Governor of a state. Since the Federal Government in its sovereign authority passed the Land Use Act in 1978, there has been no other legislation to advance the Land Reform process in the nation leaving the people not only disenchanted, but has caused many to give their own colouration and application to provisions in the Act. Some states have used the law to the point of abuse because the Federal Government neglected its role in moving processes meant to be initiated by the Land Use forward. Interestingly, the makers of the Land Use Act realizing the massive potentials for development of the nation in land, reserved for itself the role of the movement and advancement of issues through the Land Use Act. In Section 46(1), the Land Use Act grants the National Council of States, the powers to advance the course of the law by granting the body the power to make regulations necessary for that purpose. It is regrettable however that as vital as land is to national development, the failure of the National Council of States to make any regulations over land as it is empowered to do under the Land Use Act, has caused a few states to usurp its powers without any lawful challenge from any quarters till date. (4) Power of the National Council of States  It is within the powers of the National Council of States to prescribe the general parameters for qualifying an area as an urban area. See Section 3;  It is the national Council of States that has the powers to make regulations on conditions of special contract terms which are granted in accordance with Section 8 which prescribes for limited tenure for Statutory Right of a Occupancy only; The absence of the exercise of the power of the National Council of States to make regulations on tenure caused the Lagos State Government to creep in its own regulations and to extend its illegality to Customary Rights of Occupancy.  It is the National Council of State that has the mandate to make regulations for the whole country for the conditions for the grant of Certificates of Occupancy under Section 9 of the Act. The conditions of grant of certificate of occupancy though to be done by the governor, it is not within the state powers to regulate the conditions of the grant.  The general power of making regulations for the purpose of carrying the Act into effect which includes the regulations for the grant of Customary Rights of Occupancy is reserved in the National Council of States according to Section 46(1) of the Land Use Act.  Conditions for the grant of temporary rights of occupancy are also to be made by the National Council of States just like many other powers given to the National Council of States. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 341 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Since the National Council of State failed to make any regulations, the Land Use Act cannot be said to have been fully carried into effect. Consequently, to the extent that the National Council of State makes its regulations, to that extent will the land Use Act become effective in the Land Reform Process of the Nation. (5) Designation of Urban Areas For the effective management and use of all land in the nation, it was envisaged by the makers of the Land Use Act that Land be defined as urban or non-urban with control and management effectively assigned to the state governor for urban lands and the local government for land not in urban areas. It was clearly intended that this would make the administration of land issues less cumbersome for the benefit of the people. While optimum use and development of urban land was projected and left in the hand of the governor, the majority of the people who retained their possessory rights and lived on land in the rural areas were left to the control of the several local governments in the country in whom the Land Use Act never vested any land and to whom it did not expect any rent to be paid. Since the passage of the Act, several state governments have passed regulations and Laws designating areas of their land as urban areas. While some states have designated major cities in their states as urban areas, others have designated all headquarters of local government areas as urban, while one state has simply designated virtually all the land of the state as urban. The criteria for qualifying any area of land as urban area is not specifically stated in the Land Use Act and as such there remains no definite parameters for qualifying an area as urban or non- urban area in Nigeria today. While some states have exercised the mandate granted by Section 3 of the Act to simply designate areas, rarely are the areas so designated properly delineated or known to the people. Even where the intention of the governor is selfishly aimed at simply increasing his sphere of control in land matters, no one can fault the decision in the absence of any specified parameters. The absence of these parameters and of the basic national demarcation infrastructures has caused many not to know the qualities and interests of their land holdings and whether these are indeed within or outside an area designated as urban area. The chaos in the emerging cities of the country requires urgent national attention to arrest the planlessness of our cities and the destruction of our forest and agricultural lands. It is however interesting to note that the powers to address this imminent catastrophe lies in the National Council of States. Section 3 of the Land Use Act grants the power to the National Council of States to specify the general conditions for the governors to designate any area as Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 342 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE urban. The classification of areas as urban ought not to be left to the whims and caprices of a governor and the National Council of States should ideally prescribe the general guidelines and specifications. The specifications should be based on the reports of experts in various fields relating to urban development and planning, environment, survey, agriculture etc. Since the National Council of States has till date not specified the parameters, every state government has gone on to do as it wills, leaving behind the chaos witnessed today. The urban jungle that most Nigerian cities have become thus calls for an immediate intervention in the form of the specifications of the National Council of States. The monopoly of state governors and governments to land is the philosophy being promoted as having been established by the Act. The position of the Law never however intended this scenario. It was to make land available to all and to secure the rights of existing owners to their land that was the intendment of the law. The states today are exploiting for their own benefit the land of the citizens and not necessarily for the benefit of the citizens. The abuse of the provisions of consent by a few state governments has been stretched to other areas embracing usurpation of the possessory rights of existing land owners and the charging of exorbitant fees for the grant of certificates of occupancy to owners of the land. There is an urgent need to ensure that the people for whom the Law was made are not deprived of their rights by making the states the new land speculators to the detriment of the citizens as is now the case in Lagos State and perhaps Ogun State. More than the above, the reform process for land is most urgently required today. If Nigeria is to advance beyond its present near-bottom position in the World Bank Economic index, it must take the matter of its land reform very seriously. Every developed and developing state today has or is undergoing a land reform program. Nigeria cannot be an exception. (6) The Land Reform Commission Since 2009 when the late President Yar‘Adua inaugurated the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform, there has been the need for the realisation of a land reform agenda for Nigeria to achieve the development of the full potentials of the nation‘s land in attaining one of the goals of making Nigeria one of the 20 leading economies by the year 2020. The Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform under the chairmanship of Professor Akin L. Mabogunje has identified the various issues for the attainment of these objectives which require urgent legal frame work even under the Land Use Act for its effective operations within the Act. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 343 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The activities of the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform can be considered as necessary for moving forward and completing the missing role of the National Council of States, the absence of which has occasioned the deplorable land situation in Nigeria today. To be able to effectively manage the nation‘s land economy, the Federal government needs to put in place mechanisms for dealing with the huge backlog of work required national land mapping. This entails the provision of core reference stations nationwide under a national framework. It also involves acquisition of satellite and and aerial orthophotos for cadastration, the establishment of a back-up National Land Depositories besides the land registries at local and state governments as well as the regularisation of processes and procedures necessary for the grant of certificates of occupancy to every holder of land in Nigeria in the most sincere intent of the Land Use Act. It is fro this reason that the establishment of the National Land Reform Commission is imperative. This national institution will be charged with the duty of preparing and executing the appropriate regulations for the National Council of States under the Land Use Act Section 46(1) in an effective, proactive, uniform and timely manner for the effective transformation of the country as a truly free market economy in a globalizing world, able to empower all of its citizens through ensuring economic value to their individual land holdings and enhancing their capacity to emerge out of the prevailing poverty in the country. The urgency of the need to set up the National Land Reform Commission cannot be over emphasized. This is not only because of the damage already done to the national land management process by various persons and authorities in their misconceptions of the land Use Act, but also because the situation is fast degenerating in its abuse as can be seen in the cases of massive and excessive land charges amounting to multiple taxation of land in some states in the federation. This development if not urgently addressed will destroy the issue of land development for the benefit of majority of citizens. As it stands today, the terrorism by the states under an assumed monopoly of land rights is impoverishing the citizens to the benefit of the state and a small minority of citizens contrary to the intentions of the state in promulgating the Land Use Act. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 344 Annex 7.6 Report of the Technical Validation Workshop and the Policy Dialogue Meeting Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.6 Report of the Technical Validation Workshop and the Policy Dialogue Meeting held at the Ondo Hall, Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos Thursday - Friday, November 3 - 4, 2011. 1.0 Introduction The Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is a diagnostic tool designed to identify areas where policy interventions may be needed to improve governance in the land sector. The Framework divides land issue into five thematic areas; (i) Legal and Institutional Framework; (ii) Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation; (iii) Management of Public Lands; (iv) Public Provision of Land Information; and (v) Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management and an additional module on Large Scale Land Acquisition (LSLA). In line with the thematic areas, 21 Land Governance Indicators (LGI) have been developed and these have been broken down into 80 dimensions while the additional module on LSLA has 16 dimensions. The LGAF study in Nigeria is thus based on the assessment of 96 dimensions by expert panels in workshops organized in two locations in the country between April-May, 2011. An essential step in the implementation of the LGAF is the technical validation of the findings of the country report and the conduct of a policy dialogue meeting. The Nigerian LGAF country report, after its completion, was therefore put forward for technical validation on Nov. 3, 2011. The objectives of the validation workshop are to present and discuss the LGAF findings with the view of assuring consistency of the results; discussing and prioritizing areas for policy reform and proposing next steps to provide sustainability to the LGAF process. In line with these objectives, knowledgeable and experienced professionals in the land sector were selected from all over the country. In all, 30 local participants comprising relevant public officials, representatives of civil society, professional bodies, the academia including the country coordinator (CC) and 13 participants from international organizations including the World Bank, IFPRI, UNECA and DFID (GEMS) among others were in attendance (Annex 1). The policy dialogue meeting, which is to discuss and prioritize areas for policy reform, make actionable recommendations and propose next steps to provide sustainability to the LGAF process, was conducted on Nov 4, 2011. In attendance are policy makers at appropriate levels. Specifically, 28 participants from Nigeria and 9 representatives from international organizations attended the meeting. Among the Nigerian participants are the representative of the Senate President of the Federal republic of Nigeria (Senator ‗Gbenga B. Ashafa), the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the President of the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyor and Valuers (NIESV), Director of Economic Growth in the National Planning Commission, and the representatives of the Federal Ministries of Agriculture and Rural Development, and that of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (Annex 2). Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 346 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The minutes of the validation workshop and policy dialogue meeting are presented below: 2.0 Minutes of the Technical Validation Workshop 2.1 The Morning Session The validation workshop was called to order by the Country Coordinator (CC) - Prof. Peter Adeniyi, when he introduced himself and requested other participants at the workshop to do the same. He thereafter gave a brief description of the LGAF implementation process which includes: i). The appointment of the country coordinator ii). Recruitment of Expert investigators iii). Selection and composition of Expert panel members iv). Conduct of panel workshops and the development of panel workshop reports v). Preparation and submission of country report vi). Technical Validation workshop and policy dialogue vii). Preparation and submission of finalized/revised country report. The CC then remarked that having successfully passed through the five initial important phases, the LGAF implementation process in Nigeria, is now on the technical validation and policy dialogue phase. This phase is meant to discuss and validate the findings of the LGAF country report in order to ensure its consistency, identify the most critical policy issues and proffer actionable recommendations. The CC, still on the description of the LGAF process laid emphasis on the important roles of the expert investigators and expert panels. The four expert investigators used in the study had the responsibility of assessing and gathering data on selected 59 out of the total 96 LGAF dimensions. The data gathered were given to the nine expert panels to help them reach consensus during the panel workshops. The neutral position of the CC was also made known to the participants. Specifically, it was noted that, the CC was involved only in the coordination of the study. The assessment of the dimensions was solely done by the expert panels based on their knowledge and experience and were only assisted by the data gathered by the expert investigators. To accentuate the neutrality of the CC, the CC indicated that the substantive findings of the study in line with the LGAF thematic areas would be presented either by an expert investigator or a member of the expert panel that dealt with each of the six thematic areas. The representative of the World Bank (Klaus Deninger) after the welcome address by the CC gave the opening remarks. He emphasized the social, economic and legal functions of land which makes land governance an issue of global concern. The general overview of his speech includes: the historical background to LGAF, the rationale for the selection of Nigeria and the structure and expected outcomes of the LGAF. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 347 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE The speech of the World Bank representative was followed by the presentation of the substantive findings on each thematic area after which the validation exercise itself was done during which comments, clarification and consensus were reached. To aid the participants in the validation process, the substantive findings were displayed on one screen, while on another screen the descriptions of the dimensions and the four coded assessment options for each of the 96 dimensions were displayed. This was to enable the participants appreciate the contributions of the expert panels in the assessment of the dimensions as well as to enhance the understanding of the participants in the validation of the findings. The comments coming after the presentation for each of the six thematic areas are presented below: Legal and Institutional Framework The substantive findings under this thematic area were presented by Mr. Valentine Ofogba, a legal practitioner, a member of the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform (PTCLR) and the LGAF expert investigator on Land Tenure. The findings reveal that out of the 27 dimensions, only 2 were ranked A, 5 ranked B, 12 ranked C and 8 ranked D. The presented findings were accepted by the participants indicating that it reflects the true position of the country with respect to the Legal and Institutional Framework. The findings were therefore validated. Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation The substantive findings on this thematic area made up of 5 LGIs broken down into 17 dimensions were presented by Mr. Waheed Kadiri, a professional town planner and member of the expert panel on Urban Land Use Planning and Development. The presented findings show that out of the 17 dimensions assessed by the expert panels, none was ranked A, only 1 was ranked B, while 8 were ranked C and D respectively. The findings under this thematic area were all accepted except that of the LGI 10(i) which states that, the assessment of land/property for tax purposes is not clearly based on market prices (Ranking D). The opinions of the participants on this dimension were widespread and seriously debated. While some were of the opinion that the chosen ranking was appropriate, others felt that ranking option C which states that the assessment of land/property for tax purposes has some relationship to market prices, but there are significant differences between recorded values and market prices across different uses or types of users and valuation rolls are not updated regularly would be more appropriate for the country. A consensus was however reached when the CC subjected the assessment of the dimension to voting by the participants with those in support of option C numbering 15 while 7 participants supported option D. With the modifications on LGI 10(i), the substantive findings on Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation thematic area were validated. The validated results show that none of the 17 dimensions was ranked A, only 1 was ranked B, 9 ranked C and 7 ranked D. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 348 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Management of Public Land The findings on this thematic area were presented by Venerable Andrus Ukaejiofor, the Coordinator of the Federal Land Information System (FELIS), a member of the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform (PTCLR) and the expert investigator on Management of Public Land and Public Provision of Land Information. The presented findings show that out of the 16 dimensions under this thematic area none was ranked A, 2 ranked B, 10 ranked C, while the remaining 4 were ranked D. The presented findings were accepted and validated after comments and clarification of the terms ―expropriation‖ and ―acquisition‖ was made. Public Provision of Land Information The substantive findings under this thematic area were presented by Dr. Muhammad Bashar Nuhu, a member of the expert panel on Public Provision of Land Information. The presented findings reveal that, out of the 13 dimensions assessed by the expert panel, 2 were ranked A, 1 ranked B, 3 ranked C, while the remaining 7 were ranked D. The findings on LGI 19 (ii) which states that, mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behavior are largely nonexistent (ranking D) was opposed by some participants. They noted that, mechanisms to detect illegal staff in the registries are in existence but are rarely enforced. They opined that ranking B which states that, mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behavior exist in all registry offices but cases are not systematically or promptly dealt with will be more appropriate. It was argued that Land Registries being government institutions are governed by the public service rules (PSR), financial regulations (FR) and other set of laws. Also, based on government policy, SERVICOM offices have been established in Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to facilitate efficient service delivery and timely redress for service failures. All these combine to provide sufficient mechanisms to detect and deal with any form of unwholesome practice and misconduct in the Land Registries. The position of most of the participants at the workshop is therefore that, the required mechanisms to detect and deal with misconduct in the registries do exist and that what is lacking is the appropriate enforcement and execution of the regulations and mechanisms. On the strength of this observation, the participants adopted ranking option B after a vote where 19 participants voted for option B and 5 for option D. Another LGAF dimension finding which attracted serious debate is that of LGI 17(ii) which states that, less than 50% of the ownership information in the registry/cadastre is up-to-date. It was noted that the maintenance (updating) of the land register may be an individual rather than a system problem. The public in most cases, it was noted, do not report changes in land information to the registries to update their information. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 349 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE With the change in the ranking of dimension LGI 19(ii) from D to B and clarification on LGI 17(ii) the presented findings were validated. Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management The substantive findings on this thematic area with 2 LGIs broken into 7 dimensions were presented by Mrs. Caroline Etuk, the Director of the Lagos Multi-door court house and a member of the expert panel on dispute resolution and conflict management. The findings show that 1 of the dimensions was ranked A, 3 ranked B, 1 ranked C while the remaining 2 were ranked D. The findings on Dispute resolution and conflict resolution were accepted by the participants and validated. Large Scale Land Acquisition The findings on large scale land acquisition module made up of 16 dimensions were presented by Dr. Sola Atilola, the former president of the Nigerian Institute of Surveyors and a member of the expert panel on Large Scale Land Acquisition. Out of the 16 presented dimensions, none was ranked A, 1 was ranked B, 6 was ranked C while the remaining 9 were ranked D. The presented findings were accepted by the participants and thus validated. 2.2 The Afternoon Session This session which started immediately after lunch was designed, in the light of the validated findings, to identify key policy issues and propose policy reform actions to improve land governance in the country. In line with this objective, all participants present at the validation workshop were divided into six groups based on the thematic areas (Annex 3) with the presenters of the substantive findings serving as chairpersons of the groups. The outcome of the syndicate group‘s work was presented at the plenary session by their chairpersons. The result of this process is presented below. Legal and Institutional Framework  The Land Use Act is misunderstood, incomplete and represents reasonable constitutional basis for effective Land Governance as it presently recognizes all existing land rights of persons and groups.  The Land Use Act is a piece of legislation in dire need of advancement. Since over 30 years of passage, there is need for urgent regulation to be passed to advance the land administrative process as expected by Sections 3 and 46 of the LUA by the National Council of States. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 350 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  In the light of the constraints of the National Council of States, there is need to have established a National (Land) Commission to help identify its weak areas and to develop the urgent regulation after conducting pilots schemes within the states and using evidenced based legislative process and to present same for passage by the National Council of States.  It is the National Land Commission that will coordinate, develop and propose the enactment of the appropriate regulation for land registration, survey/mapping administration coordination and regular review of regulation based on evidence of pilot schemes from the states. Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation  Review of existing land use plans, regulations and preparation of land use plans where none existed.  Strengthening of the institutional framework for the enforcement of land use plans and regulations.  Sustained sensitization of the public with procedures established for enforcing benefit of changing land use.  Making standards and methods of land/property assessment open to the public.  Continuous monitoring of the implementation of developed plans.  Review of planning standards, plot size, land use class, complementary uses, etc  Ensuring the use of professionals in the administrations/ implementation of development plans and limiting number of necessary documents required for planning permit applications  Preparation of planning permit guidelines that would serve as guide to developers.  Preparation of variety of model plans for adoption by individuals.  Use of private consultants for planning approval process.  Sensitization of stakeholders on the need and modalities for collection of taxes through improved services.  Review and establishment of valuation roll to be used beyond tax purposes.  Eliminate the use of touts and crude tax collection methods.  Strengthen the role of the estate-surveyor in the valuation process.  Periodic review of valuation and assessment of properties.  Clearly delineate and legislate institutional responsibility for administration and control of land performed at various levels (vertically) and within organizations (horizontally).  Implement a clear-cut mandates and enforce rules and regulations for the management of land in the country at all levels. Management of Public Lands  Computerize or digitize all public land (local, state and federal) records.  Undertake a comprehensive inventory of public lands across the country. Undertake public enlightenment on the inventory programme.  Enjoin all public institutions holding land to make provide funds for precise cadastral demarcation of their land/properties on the ground and on maps. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 351 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE  Registration of all public land within the national cadastre and records linked to the National land depository.  All tiers of Government should digitalize their land management system within five years  Ensure regular update of the records and recording system.  Undertake a study to determine the type, level of ambiguity and the causes of ambiguity.  Institutionalize the activities the National Technical Development Forum on Land administration. Apply the study result to streamline the management responsibilities of land institutions.  Establish the National Land Depository to monitor progress in the implementation of effective land governance.  Undertake a comprehensive inventory of the state of land management institutions and the Land Registries and land management infrastructure.  Capacity building and training in all aspects of land administration and provision of infrastructure.  Institutionalize the process of land governance.  Ensure the establishment of the National Land Commission to implement Continuous system monitoring  Organizations acquiring land should show evidence of proven capacity to pay prompt compensation and justify the purpose of acquisition. No land should therefore be subjected to the control of any government unless and until compensation is fully paid to affected claimants so as to ensure conclusive acquisition, transfer and use.  Use the procedures prescribed by prevailing law and ensure prompt payment of compensation  Review appropriate clauses in the Land Use Act  Ensure that standards are sustained  Ensure the existence of a functional Land Use and Allocation Committee  Create awareness concerning the role of LUAC in dispute resolution  Ensure that all transactions in land are advertised in the spirit of due process  Ensure sustained transparency in all aspects of land transactions  Monitor the operations of all public land transactions. Public Provision of Land Information  Establishment of service charter with clear responsibilities and rights. This should contain workflow, enforcement mechanism, training (capacity development) and publicity, (16(iii), (iv); 17(i); 19(i) & 19(ii) – (Short Term)  Computerization//digitization of land registry and mapping backed back-up with political will to drive it, with eventual networking of all the land registries. (16(i), (iii); 17(ii) – (long term)  Land registry cost should be affordable balanced with system sustainability. The group advocate for introduction of business plan in land registries. The charges must be made public – (medium term). Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 352 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management  Land reform initiative involving nationwide land cadastration programs for land demarcation and registration of title to land.  Upgrading and computerization of federal and state land registries to streamline and standardize the registration of titles and maintain proper records.  Massive awareness should be articulated and implemented on a sustained basis to popularize and make available to the citizenry the legal requirements for the registration of titles and other formalities for dealings in land.  Initiation of legal reform on a national and state level for the expeditious and effective resolution of land disputes through the Nigerian legal system.  The establishment of new ADR institutions and the strengthening of existing ones and streamlining ADR mechanism into the justice system to deal with land disputes.  Identify and empower traditional institutions, informal systems and sensitive target groups (women, youth and traditional rulers), and establish standards for dispute resolution intervention within a legal framework. Large Scale Land Acquisition: Policy Recommendations  Creation of a one stop shop as an investment registration desk at the State level for investment in land in Nigeria – stating the acquisition procedure, incentives, responsibilities, benefit/risk sharing arrangement, social and environmental safeguards in conjunction with the stakeholders.  Public Sensitization on the need to register their title to land in both rural and urban areas.  Strengthen and standardize the existing procedure for land acquisition and pay compensation at the open market value of the appropriated land  Adjustment of the LUA to make it more investor friendly.  The monitoring of the social and environmental implications of the investment should be the responsibilities of the agencies created for such by the law  Systematic and compulsory registration of all interests in land. To this end, government should follow through the Land Reform effort of the previous Federal Government Administration  Adequate planning and Land Use Zoning in the country into agriculture, industrial parks, forest, wetland, etc. based on a comprehensive mapping and cadastre survey. After the presentation by the representatives of the syndicate groups, and a brief discussion, the CC while thanking the participants for their active contribution throughout the day, informed them that the outcome of the debated issues and proposed actions would be streamlined and reformatted for presentation at the policy dialogue meeting coming up the following day. The reworked policy recommendation is presented in a matrix form as shown in Table 1. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 353 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Table 1: Policy Issue, Proposed Action and Monitoring Indicator 1. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Policy issue Proposed action Monitoring indicator The fact that more than 30 years after its To enable the National Council of States to pass needed regulations and Establishment of the Commission passage, none of the key pieces of to monitor land system performance on a regular basis, a National Land Evaluation of results of the pilots. regulation envisaged in the LUA (S. 3 and Commission as a technical body with representation from key actors 46) has been passed. This has seriously needs to be established. Drafting of regulations undermined good land governance and Conduct and carefully evaluate pilot studies in relevant areas to provide Provision of information and arrangements effective land use planning in the country. evidence to inform the drafting of key regulations for land registration for monitoring. and survey/mapping in two states within one year. Study conducted and recommendations A high degree of vertical and horizontal Study to identify horizontal and vertical overlaps in the land system and disseminated & discussed. overlap among land institutions creates recommend solutions. - % increase of land registration, leases and confusion, high levels of transaction costs, and undermines good governance in land transfers the sector. - reduced boundary conflicts -reduction in transaction costs and time -reduction of vertical and horizontal 2 LAND USE PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND TAXATION While land use plans are necessary to Prepare strategic development plans with adequate implementation and Continuous monitoring of the guide development in urban and rural enforcement regulations; sensitize the public on their existence and implementation of development plans areas, they are mostly unavailable leading importance. to haphazard growth. Review planning standards, plot size, land use class, and adoption of Property tax guidelines available and Absence of property tax administration, model plans for public use. understood by citizens, professionals (e.g. assessment and collection hinders Develop, disseminate, and help implement transparent systems for valuers), and local governments. decentralization and effective provision of property tax administration, assessment, and collection for use by local local services. Increase in property tax assessments and governments at different sizes. actual collection. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 354 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3 PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT Lack of information on the location and Undertake a comprehensive inventory of land owned by all tiers of Inventory has been established and extent of public land makes it imposible government mechanisms to maintain it currently exist. to properly manage and protect this Legislate clear single process for acquisition of land by all government Legislation to regulate expropriation has critical asset. agencies to ensure due process for land acquisition by requiring publicity, been enacted and is effectively applied. A large number of expropriations occurs compensation in line with global best practice and ensure availability of Share of transactions that are advertised without prompt compensation, thus independent avenues for appeal. Put in place sanctions for mis-behavior. leaving those losing land worse off, with Ensure publicity of rental agreements. no mechanism for independent appeal even though the land is often not utilized for a public purpose. Divestiture of public land is less transparent and therefore does not generate revenues for the public sector. 4 PUBLIC PROVISION OF LAND INFORMATION Incomplete coverage (3%) and spatial Link textual and spatial data. Share of registry records with textual and reference of registry information fosters spatial information integrated. Building on pilots (see 1.) to develop procedures for systematic conflict, corruption, undermines expansion Share of the land under private use that is investment, land market functioning, and registered and mapped. housing finance. Establishment of a registry service charter publicly available and binding for both user and officials. Implementation of service charter leads to higher levels of customer satisfaction. -Study for registry processes streamlining, and control Lack of processes for automatic updating undermines the value of the land registry - Revision of requirements for different registration services as a tool for private sector development. - Establishment of sanctions and avenues for appeal. - Drafting of charter of services - Training program designed and implemented -Awareness campaign designed and implemented. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 355 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 5 DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Lack of parcel demarcation leads to Disseminate existing laws and sensitize different groups about their Increased number of parcel demarcation individual and communal crisis. rights under the law and ways to enforce them. Lack of awareness of the rights and Link between spatial and textual data (see above) to reduce boundary Knowledge of relevant legal provisions and avenues to enforce them reduces the disputes. avenues for enforcement in the population ability to access and properly utilize land Mainstream traditional institutions and ADR into the justice system to and specific groups (e.g. women). especially for vulnerable groups. reduce backlogs and improve access to justice, especially for vulnerable Reduction of backlog of conflicts. High level of pending conflicts groups. undermines investment and efficiency of Number of new conflicts reaching the Increase the formal system‘s ability to speedily resolve dispute by land use. formal system decreases. building capacity and rationalizing assignment of responsibilities. 6 LARGE SCALE LAND ACQUISITION Lack of clear and efficient procedures for Review and streamline regulations for land-related foreign investment. Number of viable investment proposals large scale investment reduce Nigeria‘s Create a one-stop and conduct publicity campaigns among potential increases. ability to attract technically qualified investors. Number of failed projects due to technical, investors. Adaptation of existing EIA and SIA mechanisms to the needs of land- environmental, or social problems and Realized investments often are related investment, mandatory publication of these documents, and conflict decreases. technically, environmentally, and socially increased efforts at enforcement. Review of other relevant procedures in Living standards in areas affected by FDI unsustainable. light of international standards and best practice. improve. The need for government to expropriate Ensure those affected by large scale land acquisition have the choice of land before it can be transferred to receiving compensation in kind and explore options for direct negotiation investors opens space for discretionary between investors and local communities. behavior and, due to procedural Ensure arrangements for large scale land transfer are negotiated and weaknesses (see up), often undermines agreed upon by local land users, that mechanisms for benefit sharing and the livelihood of local people. arbitration are specified, and that contract terms are publicly available to Lack of local involvement, non- facilitate monitoring. transparent contracts, and lack of monitoring undermine the scope for FDI (foreign direct investment to provide benefits to locals and contribute to development. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 356 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 3.0 Minutes of the Policy Dialogue Meeting The Policy dialogue meeting, which was also held at the Ondo Hall of the Lagos Airport Hotel on Nov 4, 2011, was declared open by the CC. After introducing himself, he requested the participants to do the same. After the introduction, the CC made a brief presentation in which he explained the LGAF implementation process. He indicated that the implementation process in Nigeria, made up of 7 phases, is presently on the sixth phase having successfully passed through the first 5 phases as earlier indicated. He also informed the participants that the objective of the Dialogue Meeting is to, on the basis of the LGAF country report, identify and discuss areas for policy reform based on the report of the Technical Validation Workshop the previous day. In order for the participants to appreciate the policy issues as well as the required actions to address them, the CC made a summary presentation of the substantive findings in all the six thematic areas of the LGAF study. He informed the participants that the consensus ranking of the 96 dimensions reveals that land governance in Nigeria is very weak. This he attributed to the fact that out of the 96 dimensions assessed, 5 was ranked A, 14 B, 41 C and 36 D. Thus, over 80% of the 96 dimensions were ranked C & D. At the end of this presentation, the representative of the Senate President, Senator ‗Gbenga B. Ashafa delivered the message of the Senate President where he noted that: ―Among the factors of production, Land is perhaps the scarcest and it remains fixed since creation. This silent but salient fact calls for conscious and quality attention in the ways Land — a factor of production — is managed to achieve agricultural revitalization, job creation, crop diversification, housing, construction and infrastructural optimization and other myriads of uses that guarantee posterity and preservation of life. Land Governance is central to sustainable development of the real sector of the economy and must be elevated to the level of strategy through initiatives of this sort… I have no doubt in my mind that the take-out from today‘s session would form a critical input in the Constitution review exercise‖ (Annex 4). The tone of this message enlivened the dialogue meeting. The message of the Senate president was followed by a brief address by the Director of the Economic Growth Department of the National Planning Commission (Dr. Nasifi Abdullahi). In his address, he stated that the commission is happy with the contributions of the World Bank and other sponsors to the study of land governance in the country. He noted that land is strategically important for the actualisation of Nigeria becoming one of the twenty world largest economies by the year 2020. He specifically emphasized that a good Land Governance is a critical success factor for the realisation of poverty alleviation through the improvement of the daily earnings of most Nigerians especially the farmers. The presidents of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV) also made brief presentations where they both expressed the importance of good land governance. While, the president of the NIESV noted with joy, the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 357 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE timely intervention of the World/IFPRI and other sponsors for this study, the president of the NBA noted that the call for the annulment of the LUA may be unnecessary. In his view, he suggested that what is necessary is to carry out a thorough review of the law. In this regard, he encouraged everybody to participate in the review of the law when the time comes. He further promised to discuss the result of the LGAF findings with the members of the NBA. Elder Fortune Ebie, the pioneer General Manager of Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and the pioneer President and Managing Director of Shelter Afrique commented on the details of the LGAF as well as the revelation of the state of Land governance in the country. In response to the call by the representative of the Senate president that the public should participate at the public hearings on constitutional review, Elder Ebie indicated that there is a need for the Federal Legislative houses to give enough time to enable the public make inputs into the constitutional review. In this regard, the time for the public hearing for any aspect of the constitution as well as the Land Use Act should be publicised early enough to allow more Nigerians to participate. After this initial presentation and comments, the CC proceeded to present the policy recommendations (comprising policy issues, proposed action and monitoring indicators) based on the six LGAF thematic areas drawn up the previous day by the participants at the Technical Validation workshop (see Table 1). On the presentation of the policy recommendation, a number of issues were raised and agreements were reached. The issues include the following: First, the issue of the institution that will implement the proposed actions was raised. In this regard and in recognition of the long term nature of land reform, the establishment of a commission which would provide a firm and sustainable institutional foundation was suggested. However, a participant informed the meeting that the federal government is currently looking at reducing the number of commissions in the country. It was further argued that the creation of such a commission may lead to increased bureaucratic bottleneck especially those associated with corrupt practices. In response, it was noted that the national council of states have not been able to produce necessary regulations to guide the implantation of the LUA in the last 30 years as a result of the absence of a technically competent National Institution on land to assist the activity of the National Council of States. Given the very weak status of land governance in the country, and the long term nature of providing sustainable solutions for improved land governance in the country, it was generally agreed that a land commission would be required to provide a stable foundation for land reform in the country. Second was a question on whether the execution of the policy action is contingent upon the establishment of the commission. This issue was raised because of the time frame it will take to establish a commission. The CC responded that the Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform (PTCLR), in the interim, should be able to act on the proposed actions as well as take responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the proposed actions in collaboration with appropriate federal, state and local governments, ministries / agencies. It was further reported that the PTCLR has made plans to carryout out pilot studies in two states with other stakeholders. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 358 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE On the issue of carrying out the pilots in the two states, a participant suggested that it might be politically wise to carry out the pilot studies in the 6 geo-political zones of the country. In response to this question, the CC explained that the original plan of the PTCLR was to carry out the pilot schemes in all the 6 geo-political zones by selecting two local government areas (LGAs) (one urban, one rural). Inadequacies of resources, the time required to complete the studies as well as the lessons learnt from other countries where such exercises have been carried out made the PTCLR to take the option of 2 pilot sites. This decision was further taken in order to use the pilot studies to provide sufficient field information that could be used for the review of the LUA. Based on this explanation, the meeting endorsed the idea of the two pilot sites. Other issues discussed include: The mapping of public land, inventory of public lands at all levels and publications of details on land allocations as well as transparency of the process on land allocation. The meeting agreed that there is the need to design a format to do so, as well as the strategy to use to monitor compliance especially in respect of Large Scale transfer of land to investors. In order to avoid the endemic problem of having good policies without creating opportunities for their implementation, the meeting urged the government to take necessary steps to implement the proposed actions. At the end, the members requested that the matrix of policy recommendation should be forwarded to them online for any further comment within a given period. Subject to any comment, the meeting endorsed the recommendations. The vote of thanks for the conclusion of the meeting was given by Venerable Andrus Ukaejiofo where he acknowledged the contributions of all stakeholders. He specifically thanked the representative of the Senate President – Senator ‗Gbenga Ashafa not only for his presence but also for his passionate contribution. Same gratitude was expressed to the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, the President of NIESV and the representatives of international organizations present. The promoter of the study and the meeting were equally acknowledged and appreciated. Finally, he noted that the study and its findings and recommendations belong to Nigerians and should be warmly accepted and implemented to the letter. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 359 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 1 Improving Land Sector Governance in Nigeria Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework LGAF Technical Validation Workshop Venue: Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos Date: Thursday, November 3, 2011 Attendance List Participants from Nigerian Institutions S/No Name Organisation Telephone No Email Address Ayodele Ibuoye & Co. Suites 1 & 2, Garachi 01 IBUOYE Ayo (Mr.) 0803 315 6767 ayodele.ibuoye@gmail.com Plaza, Conakry Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja. S. B. Joseph & Co. 140 Borno Way, Ebute 02 JOSEPH S. B. (Jnr.) (Mr.) 0802 345 0760 sbjj@sbjosephlaw.com Metta, Lagos. Representative, Engr. S. O. Jayesimi 03 AGORO M. (Engr.) Chairman, Nigerian Society of Engineers, 0803 352 2071 agoromusliu@yahoo.com (Lagos Chapter) Executive Director, Socio-Economic Rights 04 MUMUNI Adetokunbo (Mr.) and Accountability Project (SERAP), Ikeja, 0802 313 9190 adetokunbomumuni@yahoo.co.uk Lagos. Executive Director, Women Empowerment 05 ACHAKPA Priscilla (Ms.) 09 291 0878 info@wepnigeria.net Programme, Gaduwa Housing Estate, Abuja Alliance Cornestone Youth Organisation 0709 316 9670 06 OLUWATOSIN Y. Idowu (Mrs) acopoconcepts2007@gmail.com (ACOPO Concepts) 0807 263 7260 Federation of Urban Poor, Gaduwa Housing 07 UGBAH James (Mr.) 0703 196 2920 james.ugah@yahoo.com Estate, Garki, Abuja. Chair, Benue Non-Governmental Network 08 SHAAHU Gladys H. (Lady) 0803 694 1766 bengonetwash@gmail.com (BENGONET), Makurdi, Benue State. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 360 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 09 ETUK Caroline (Mrs) Director, Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse 0803 307 6534 nene_etuk@yahoo.com Lawsprings & Co., Akintola Williams Deloitte 10 OFOGBA Valentine (Mr.) 0802 311 6730 valofogba@yahoo.com House, Ikorodu Road, Lagos. Former National President, Nigerian Institute 11 KADIRI Waheed (Mr.) 0803 337 9393 waheed.kadiri@yahoo.com of Town Planners Former President, Nigerian Institution of 12 ATILOLA Sola (Dr) 0802 330 7887 solaatilola@yahoo.com Surveyors National Orientation Agency and 13 DOGO David (Mr.) Representative, Presidential Technical 0802 309 6245 davidmanyadogo@yahoo.com Committee on Land Reform, Abuja. Private Legal Practitioner and Representative 14 BALAMI John (Barrister) Presidential Technical Committee on Land 0803 311 5677 jkbalami@yahoo.com Reform, Abuja. Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban 15 TABANSI G.T.N. (Sir) 0803 787 4976 tabansigtn@yahoo.com Development, Abuja Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban 16 UKAJIEFO Andrus N. (Venerable) 0803 787 5787 u_andrus@yahoo.com Development, Abuja Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 17 OMOTAYO Sule Musafau (Mr.) 0803 419 3201 musafauomotayo@yahoo.com Development, Abuja Directorate of Survey and Town Planning, 18 YASHI Y. U. (Surv.) Ministry of Lands & Housing, Abubakar Umar 0806 938 9664 yohannahyashi@yahoo.com Secretariat, Bauchi, Bauchi State. Director of Lands, Ministry of Lands and 19 AMIOFORI Dirokweni J. (JP) (Chief) 0803 310 7078 djamiofori@yahoo.com Survey, Port-Harcourt, Rivers State. Director of Lands, Ministry of Lands and 20 AARON Muttang (Mr.) 0802 314 6373 tongsky6@yahoo.com Housing, Jos, Plateau State Director of Lands, Ministry of Lands, Survey 21 OGWUNGA Basil Emeka (Mr.) 0803 328 2538 ogwunga@yahoo.com and Urban Planning, Owerri, Imo State Special Adviser on Land Matters, Lands 22 OLORUNLEKE J. O. (Mr.) 0803 326 2006 iyaegbefafunke@yahoo.com Bureau, Ekiti State Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 361 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE 23 FALODUN O. A. (Mrs) Lands Bureau, Ekiti State 0803 439 7969 funfalforever@yahoo.co.uk Department of Agricultural Economics, 24 ACHIKE Anthonia Ifeyinwa (Dr) 0803 423 4147 ifyachike@gmail.com University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Department of Estate Management, Federal 25 ASAJU Simon (Prof.) 0806 013 6529 profasaju@gmail.com University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State. Department of Agricultural Economics, 26 AYANWALE Adeolu (Prof.) Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun 0803 426 2584 aayanwa@yahoo.co.uk State. Department of Geography, University of 27 ELIAS Peter (Dr) 0803 401 0411 pelias@unilag.edu.ng Lagos, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos. Dean, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, 28 ODUWAYE Leke (Prof.) 0805 998 6906 leodwa@yahoo.com University of Lagos, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos. Department of Estate Management, Federal mbnuhu@yahoo.com, 29 NUHU Muhammad Bashar (Dr) 0803 725 0279 University of Technology, Minna, Niger State. mbnuhu@futminna.edu.ng 30 ADENIYI Peter Olufemi (Prof.) LGAF Country Coordinator 0803 720 9356 poluade1@yahoo.com Participants from International Organizations S/No Name Organisation Telephone No Email Address 01 DEININGER Klaus World Bank +1202 473 0430 kdeininger@worldbank.org 02 GHEBRU Hosaena IFPRI +1202 644 2740 hosaenag@yahoo.com 03 ENDO Victor LGAF Global Coordinator +511 221 2826 victorendo@adterritorio.com 04 ALI Daniel World Bank dali1@worldbank.org 05 SHEU Salau IFPRI 0803 324 1506 s.salau@cgiar.org Private Sector Development Specialist, GEMS 06 SANDALL Richard 0700 418 3286 rsandall@worldbank.org Programme, World Bank, Nigeria Senior Agricultural Specialist, World Bank, 0805 925 9207 07 ABIMBOLA Adubi aadubi@worldbank.org Nigeria 0803 333 1979 08 ENGLISH Clive Project Director, HTSPE, UK +44 781 379 9035 clive.english@htspe.com Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 362 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE National Lead Consultant, Land Growth and 09 ADEGOKE Adewale 0806 667 8679 adewale.adegoke4@googlemail.com Employment in States, GEMS 3 DFID 10 ADEGOKE Adewale GEMS 3 DFID 0816 838 1025 martyn.ambury@gemsnigeria.com 11 HALE Rob DFID 0810 370 2568 r.hale@dfid.gov.uk 12 EZIGBALIKE Chukwudozie UNECA +251 115 444 569 ezigbalike.uneca@un.org 13 OKUMO O. Austen IFPRI 0803 588 4820 kaso5ng@yahoo.com Secretariat S/No Name Organisation Telephone No Email Address 01 BADRU Gbolahan Research Assistant to the Country Coordinator 0802 837 6612 gbolabadru@yahoo.com 02 OGUNSAKIN Victor Oluwafemi Secretary to Prof. Adeniyi 0803 512 4216 vikthorogunsakin@yahoo.com 03 ADENIYI Olumuyiwa Support Staff (Technical) 0802 359 2283 adeniyi_muyiwa@yahoo.com 04 ALUKO Opeyemi Michael Support Staff (Operation) 0803 916 8901 mikealuko@yahoo.co.uk Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 363 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 2 Improving Land Sector Governance in Nigeria Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework LGAF Policy Dialogue Meeting Venue: Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos Date: Thursday, November 3, 2011 Attendance List Participants from Nigerian Institutions S/No Name Organisation/Address Telephone No Email Address Representative, Senate President, National 01 ASHAFA B. 'Gbenga (Senator) 0802 224 3054 gbenga.ashafa@gmail.com Assembly, Three Arms Zone, Abuja. 02 DAUDU Joseph Bodunrin (SAN) National President, Nigerian Bar Association 0803 311 3922 daudujb@hotmail.com Director, Economic Growth, National Planning 03 ABDULLAHI Nazifi (Dr) 0806 211 7735 nazeefdarma@yahoo.com Commission, Abuja National President, Nigerian Institution of 04 ADEDIJI Bode (Mr.) 0803 332 6125 bodeadediji@yahoo.com Estate Surveyors and Valuers Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban 05 TABANSI G. T. N. (Sir) 0803 787 4976 tabansigtn@yahoo.com Development, Abuja Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban 06 ONABANJO O. O. (Mr.) 0803 308 1642 olurotimionabanjo@yahoo.com Development, Abuja Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban 07 UKAJIEFO Andrus N. (Venerable) 0803 787 5787 u_andrus@yahoo.com Development, Abuja Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 08 OMOTAYO Sule Musafau (Mr.) 0803 419 3201 musafauomotayo@yahoo.com Development, Abuja Director, Department of Agricultural Land 09 OJUOLA Olutunji O. (Dr) Resources, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and 0816 844 2233 ojuolabode@yahoo.com Rural Development, Abuja. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 364 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Representative, Commissioner for Physical 10 ADEDIRAN Ayo Planning and Urban Development, Alausa, 0802 312 1334 ayoadediran@yahoo.com Ikeja, Lagos Fortune and Co., 14 Elegbata Street, P.O. Box 11 EBIE S. P. O. Fortune (Mr.) 0802 340 0098 spofebie@yahoo.com 1 Festac Town, Lagos Fortune and Co., 14 Elegbata Street, P.O. Box 12 IGBOKO Ndubuisi Patrick 0803 341 9648 patigboko@yahoo.com 1 Festac Town, Lagos Former President, Nigerian Institution of 13 ATILOLA Sola (Dr) 0802 330 7887 solaatilola@yahoo.com Surveyors Former National President, Nigerian Institute 14 KADIRI Waheed (Mr.) 0803 337 9393 waheed.kadiri@yahoo.com of Town Planners 15 ETUK Caroline (Mrs) Director, Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse 0803 307 6534 nene_etuk@yahoo.com Department of Estate Management, Federal 16 NUHU Muhammad Bashar (Dr) 0803 725 0279 mbnuhu@yahoo.com University of Technology, Minna, Niger State. Lawsprings & Co., Akintola Williams Deloitte 17 OFOGBA Valentine (Mr.) 0802 311 6733 valofogba@yahoo.com House, Ikorodu Road, Lagos. Department of Estate Management, Federal 18 ASAJU Simon (Prof) 0806 013 6529 profasaju@gmail.com University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State. Ayodele Ibuoye & Co. Suites 1 & 2, Garachi 19 IBUOYE Ayodele 0803 315 6767 ayodele.ibuoye@gmail.com Plaza, Conakry Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja. Department of Geography, University of 20 ELIAS Peter O. (Dr.) 0803 401 0411 po-elias@yahoo.com Lagos, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos. Department of Agricultural Economics, 21 AYANWALE Adeolu (Prof.) Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun 0803 426 2584 aayanwa@yahoo.co.uk State. 22 OLUSHOLA Gbolahan O (Captain) Network Aviation Service 0803 652 9107 saygolushola2000@yahoo.co.uk 23 LAWAL Ayodele National Assembly, Three Arms Zone, Abuja. 0806 049 2866 lawallagos@gmail.com Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and 24 ENITAN Olusola 0802 305 0130 solaenitan@yahoo.com Valuers Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 365 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and 25 FATOKI Sola 0802 320 5394 sofatk@yahoo.com Valuers 26 OYEGBOLA B. A. Ministry of Lands, Lagos State 0803 304 3114 toyegbola@yahoo.co.uk 27 AGBALAYA T. T. Ministry of Lands, Lagos State 0802 302 3232 toyinagbalaya@yahoo.com 28 ADENIYI Peter Olufemi (Prof.) LGAF Country Coordinator 0803 720 9356 poluade1@yahoo.com Participants from International Organizations S/No Name Organisation/Address Telephone No Email Address 01 DEININGER Klaus World Bank +1202 473 0430 kdeininger@worldbank.org 02 GHEBRU Hosaena IFPRI +1202 644 2740 hosaenag@yahoo.com 03 ENDO Victor LGAF Global Coordinator +511 221 2826 victorendo@adterritorio.com 04 ALI Daniel World Bank dali1@worldbank.org 05 SHEU Salau IFPRI 0803 324 1506 s.salau@cgiar.org 06 ADEGOKE Adewale GEMS 3 DFID 0806 667 8679 adewale.adegoke4@googlemail.com 07 AMBURY Martyn GEMS 3 DFID 0816 838 1025 martyn.ambury@gemsnigeria.com 08 EZIGBALIKE Dozie UNECA +251 115 444 569 ezigbalike.uneca@un.org 09 OKUMO Austen IFPRI 0803 588 4820 kaso5ng@yahoo.com Secretariat S/No Name Organisation/Address Telephone No Email Address 01 BADRU Gbolahan Research Assistant to the Country Coordinator 0802 837 6612 gbolabadru@yahoo.com 02 OGUNSAKIN Victor Oluwafemi Secretary to Prof. Adeniyi 0803 512 4216 vikthorogunsakin@yahoo.com 03 ADENIYI Olumuyiwa Support Staff (Technical) 0802 359 2283 adeniyi_muyiwa@yahoo.com 04 ALUKO Opeyemi Michael Support Staff (Operation) 0803 916 8901 mikealuko@yahoo.co.uk Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 366 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 3 Improving Land Sector Governance in Nigeria Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework Syndicate Groups Legal and Institutional Framework 1) James Ugbah 2) Chief D. J. Amiofori (JP) 3) Valentine Ofogba 4) Richard Sandall 5) Klaus Deininger 6) Dozie Ezigbalike Land Use Planning, Management and Taxation 1) Gladys H. Shaahu 2) Waheed A. Kadiri 3) Engr. Agoro M. Olalekan 4) Remi Olorunleke 5) P. O. Elias 6) Prof. A. S. Asaju Public Land Management 1) Ayodele A. Ibuoye 2) Ogwunga D. E. 3) Yashi Y. U 4) Ven. A. N. Ukaejiofo 5) Falodun Olufunke (Mrs.) 6) Sule Musafau Omotayo Public Provision of Land Information 1) Dr. M. B. Nuhu 2) Sir. G. T. N. Tabansi 3) Salua Sheu 4) David Dogo 5) Victor Endo 6) Martyn Marbury 7) Adewale Adegoke Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 367 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management 1) Caroline Etuk 2) Adetokunbo Mumuni 3) Hosaena G 4) Achakpa Priscilla Large Scale Land Acquisition 1) Dr. (Mrs.) A. I. Achike 2) Adeolu Ayanwale (Prof.) 3) Atilola O. 4) J. K. Balami 5) A. A. Adubi 6) Rob Hale 7) Clive English Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 368 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 4 Improving Land Sector Governance in Nigeria Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework Speech delivered by Senator „Gbenga B. Ashafa on behalf of the President of the Senate, Senator A. B. David Mark on Land Governance Assessment Framework at Ondo Hall, Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja on 4th November, 2011 Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, I say a warm good morning to you all and I carry with me, the greetings, and goodwill of the President of the Senate and other Senators of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I will like to start by expressing gratitude to the organizers of today‘s event and for their choice of the theme - Land Governance Assessment Framework. I received the invitation to participate in today‘s Policy dialogue meeting with some measure of profound interest and excitement having recently retired as a Permanent Secretary on Land matters in Lagos State. Demands for resources are unlimited but the means through which these demands can be met are limited. This necessitates strategic management of available scarce resources. Governance is the way resources are controlled and managed; it is at the heart of responsible and effective management. Among the factors of production, Land is perhaps the scarcest and it remains fixed since creation. This silent but salient fact calls for conscious and quality attention in the ways Land — a factor of production — is managed to achieve agricultural revitalization, job creation, crop diversification, housing, construction and infrastructural optimization and other myriads of uses that guarantee posterity and preservation of life. Land Governance is central to sustainable development of the real sector of the economy and must be elevated to the level of strategy through initiatives of this sort. 1 am happy to be part of the dialogue session and I am determined to make meaningful impact leveraging on the many years of experience that I have in the Land sector. Besides, it would be my delight to present the imperatives of today‘s dialogue to the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly for any legislative inputs that may be required in moving the country to the next level. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 369 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE This initiative is coming at the nick of time. As you are probably aware, the Senate is currently working on the review of the 1999 Constitution, which includes but not limited to the Land Use Act. A Senate Committee has already been constituted with membership cutting across the six geo-political zones of the Country. I have no doubt in my mind that the take-out from today‘s session would form a critical input in the Constitution review exercise. On behalf of the President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, I once again welcome you all to the session that promises to be highly enriching and impactful. Thank you and God bless. Senator „Gbenga B. Ashafa Federal Republic of Nigeria Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 370 Annex 7.7 Land Governance Scorecard Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.7 Validated Land Governance Scorecard for Nigeria Validated Country Scorecard for Nigeria – Core Set of Indicators Score LGI-Dim Topic A B C D Recognition of Rights 1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural)  1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban)  1 iii Rural group rights recognition  1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas  1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization  Enforcement of Rights 2 i Surveying/mapping and registration of claims on communal or indigenous land  2 ii Registration of individually held properties in rural areas  2 iii Registration of individually held properties in urban areas  2 iv Women‘s rights are recognized in practice by the formal system (urban/rural)  Condominium regime that provides for appropriate management of common 2 v  property 2 vi Compensation due to land use changes  Mechanisms for Recognition 3 i Use of non-documentary forms of evidence to recognize rights  3 ii Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession  3 iii First-time registration on demand is not restricted by inability to pay formal fees  3 iv First-time registration does not entail significant informal fees  3 v Formalization of residential housing is feasible and affordable  Efficient and transparent process to formally recognize long-term unchallenged 3 vi  possession Restrictions on Rights 4 i Restrictions regarding urban land use, ownership and transferability  4 ii Restrictions regarding rural land use, ownership and transferability  Clarity of Mandates 5 i Separation of institutional roles  5 ii Institutional overlap  5 iii Administrative overlap  5 iv Information sharing  Equity and Non-Discrimination 6 i Clear land policy developed in a participatory manner  6 ii Meaningful incorporation of equity goals  Policy for implementation is costed, matched with the benefits and is adequately 6 iii  resourced 6 iv Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation  Transparency of Land Use 7 i In urban areas, land use plans and changes to these are based on public input  7 ii In rural areas, land use plans and changes to these are based on public input  7 iii Public capture of benefits arising from changes in permitted land use  7 iv Speed of land use change  Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 372 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Efficiency of Land Use Planning 8 i Process for planned urban development in the largest city  8 ii Process for planned urban development in the 4 largest cities (exc. largest)  8 iii Ability of urban planning to cope with urban growth  8 iv Plot size adherence  8 v Use plans for specific land classes (forest, pastures etc) are in line with use  Speed and Predictability Applications for building permits for residential dwellings are affordable and 9 i  processed in a non-discretionary manner. 9 ii Time required to obtain a building permit for a residential dwelling  Transparency of Valuation 10 i Clear process of property valuation  10 ii Public availability of valuation rolls  Tax Collection Efficiency 11 i Exemptions from property taxes are justified  11 ii Property holders liable to pay property tax are listed on the tax roll  11 iii Assessed property taxes are collected  11 iv Property taxes correspondence to costs of collection  Identification of Public Land Public land ownership is justified and implemented at the appropriate level of 12 i  government 12 ii Complete recording of publicly held land  12 iii Assignment of management responsibility for public land  12 iv Resources available to comply with responsibilities  12 v Inventory of public land is accessible to the public  12 vi Key information on land concessions is accessible to the public.  Incidence of Expropriation 13 i Transfer of expropriated land to private interests  13 ii Speed of use of expropriated land  Transparency of Procedures 14 i Compensation for expropriation of ownership  14 ii Compensation for expropriation of all rights  14 iii Promptness of compensation  14 iv Independent and accessible avenues for appeal against expropriation  14 v Appealing expropriation is time-bounded  Transparent Processes 15 i Openness of public land transactions  15 ii Collection of payments for public leases  15 iii Modalities of lease or sale of public land  Completeness of Registry 16 i Mapping of registry records  16 ii Economically relevant private encumbrances  16 iii Economically relevant public restrictions or charges  16 iv Searchability of the registry (or organization with information on land rights)  Accessibility of records in the registry (or organization with information on land 16 v  rights) Timely response to a request for access to records in the registry (or 16 vi  organization with information on land rights) Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 373 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Reliability of Records 17 i Focus on customer satisfaction in the registry  17 ii Registry/ cadastre information is up-to-date  Cost Effective and Sustainable 18 i Cost of registering a property transfer  18 ii Financial sustainability of the registry  18 iii Capital investment  Transparency 19 i Schedule of fees is available publicly  19 ii Informal payments discouraged  Assignment of Responsibility 20 i Accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms  20 ii Informal or community based dispute resolution  20 iii Forum shopping  20 iv Possibility of appeals  Low Level of Pending Conflicts 21 i Conflict resolution in the formal legal system  21 ii Speed of conflict resolution in the formal system  21 iii Long-standing conflicts (unresolved cases older than 5 year)  Validated Country Scorecard for Nigeria – Large Scale Acquisition of Land Rights Score LSLA Topic A B C D 1 Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered  2 Conflicts generated by land acquisition and how these are addressed  3 Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified.  4 Public institutions in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner.  5 Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent.  6 Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture  There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and 7  investors. Information required from investors to assess projects on public/community 8  land. 9 Information provided for cases of land acquisition on public/community land.  Contractual provisions on benefits and risks sharing regarding acquisition of 10  land 11 Duration of procedure to obtain approval for a project  12 Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture  13 Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture  Procedures for economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial 14  investments. 15 Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture  Procedures to complain if agricultural investors do not comply with 16  requirements. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 374 Annex 7.8 References Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Annex 7.8 References Adedipe, N. O., J. E. Olawoye, E. S. Olarinde, and A. Y. Okediran, 1997, Rural Communal Tenure Regimes and Private Landownership in Western Nigeria, Land reform 1997/2: Tenure regimes, W Nigeria, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/Ltdirect/LR972 /w6728t13.htm (Viewed 20/06/2011) Adegboye, R.O. 1964. Improving land use in Nigeria through removing defects in land inheritance, (World Agric. Econ. Rur. Sociol. Abstr. 7, abs. 322). Adegboye, R.O., 1966(a). An analysis of land tenure structures in some selected areas in Nigeria, Bull. Rur. Econ. Sociol.. Ibadan, 2, 38-49. (World Agric. Econ. Rur. Sociol. Abstr. 9, abs. 500) Adegboye, R.O., 1966(b). Farm tenancy in Western Nigeria, Niger. Jor. Econ. Soc. Stud, 8, 441- 453. (World Agric. Econ. Rur. Sociol 10, abs. 429). Adegboye, R.O., 1967. The need for land reform in Nigeria. Niger. Jor. Econ. Soc. Stud, 9, 339- 350. (World Agric. Econ. Rur. Sociol. Abstr. 11, abs. 1206). Adeniyi, P. O. (1979), Some Fundamental Issues in Land and Land Use Planning in Nigeria; Nigerian Geographical Journal, Vol. 22, pp 59 - 76 Adesina F. A. (2008) Living in a Severely Altered World. Inaugural Lecture Series 218. Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Adun, O., 2005. Establishing enterprises in Nigeria: Corporate structures and regulatory issues. Ngex reports. http://www.ngex.com/reports/business_in_nigeria.pdf (accessed 20th of June 2011) Adun, O., Intellectual property protection in Nigeria: the position of the law on copyright infringement and protection. th http://www.ngex.com/reports/intellectual_property%20.pdf (accessed 20 of June 2011) Adun, O., Investing in real estate in Lagos: Land acquisition procedures, a Lagos example. Ngex reports. www.ngex.com/reports/investing_in_realestate.pdf (20th of June, 2011) Agoro, B., Proposed Property Ratification and Regularization Programme in Lagos, Accessed from www.lagoslands.net/lreg.doc (20th of June, 2011) Aribigbola, A., 2008. Improving urban land use planning and management in Nigeria: the case of Akure. Theoretical and empirical researches In Urban management, Year 3, Nr. 9 Arogundade, K., 2008. Property development in Nigeria-what you need to know. Accessed from www.tradeinvestnigeria.com/feature_articles/895420.htm (20th of June, 2011) Arua, E.O. and Okorji, E.C. 1997. Multidimensional analysis of land tenure systems in eastern Nigeria. Land Reform Bulletin. No.2 http://www.fao.org/sd/LTdirect/LR972/w6728t14.htm (accessed 20/06/2011) Augustinus, C. and K. Deininger, 2006. Innovations in Land Tenure, Reform and Administration in Africa. In: Land Rights for African Development: From Knowledge to Action. CAPRi Policy Brief. International Food Policy Research Institute, UNDP, and international Land Coalition. Ayanwale, A. B. 2009. Policy, Legal and Institutional Assessment Framework for Large Scale Acquisition of Land Rights for Agriculture and Natural Resource-Base: Nigeria Country Study. Report Submitted to the World Bank/FAO/IIED. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 376 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Baldwin, K.D.S., 1963. Land tenure problems in relation to agricultural development in the Northern region of Nigeria in African Agrarian systems, Biebuyck, D. London: Oxford University press. Bamire, A.S. and O.F Deji (2007) ―Implications of Land tenure and gender Differentials on the Profitability of Maize Production in Nigeria‖ Journal of Agricultural Management and Rural Development Vol IV pp137-157 Bamire, A.S. and Y.L.Fabiyi (2002) ―Economic Implications of property Rights on Smallholder Use of fertilizer in Southwest Nigeria‖ Land Reform 2002/2 www.fao.org/docrep/105/y2519t Benschop, M., 2004. Women‘s Right to Land and Property. Commission on Sustainable Development. Benson Enikuomehin (2005) Land Acquisition in Lagos State: factors to consider. Public Lecture Delivered at Ikorodu Town Hall Dec.2, 2005 Bisong, F. and E. Andrew-Essien, 2010. Indigenous Land tenure reforms in the conservation of common property resources in the high forest regions of south-eastern Nigeria. Journal of sustainable development. Vol. 3, No.4 Pp 257-267 Boedels, J.S., 2002. Doing business in Nigeria-Tax system (part 3) accessed from www. nigeria- oil-gas.com/doing-business-in-nigeria-tax-system-109-1-2-art.html Butler, S (2009). ―Improving Land Policy for Private Sector Development in Nigeria: Lessons and Challenges Ahead‖. World Bank Conference on Land Governance in support of MDGs March 9-10 Washington, DC Butler, S.B., 2009. Improving Land Policy for Private Sector Development in Nigeria: Lessons and Challenges Ahead, A paper presented at the World Bank Conference on Land Governance in Support of the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, DC. March 9- 10 Country Report 2003. South Africa (Based on the PCGIAP-Cadastral Template 2003) Deininger, K., 2007. Evaluating the impact of Land Administration Interventions in Africa: Status and Challenges Fabiyi, Y.L., 1990. Land policy for Nigeria: Issues and Perspective. Inaugural Lecture Series 99, Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University Press Ltd. Famoriyo, S., 1975. Land tenure studies in Egba and Ondo areas of southern Nigeria. NISER, University of Ibadan. Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development. About Felis. Accessed from www.felis.gov.ng/about.asp Jegede, J.K., 1971. The changing features of a family ownership of land in Nigeria, Nigerian Law Journal, Vol. 5 Kadiri, W.A., (ed) 2009. Our Cities, our future: dialogue on urban planning challenges and management, Abeokuta: Gbenga Gbesan and Associate. Kingsdalec, J., 2008. Nigeria: Another form of expropriation? Accessed from www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/1867341 Land Use Decree Act 1978 Federal Republic of Nigeria. . Macdowell, C.M., 1966. An introduction to the problems of ownership of land in Northern Nigeria, Res. Mem. Inst. Admin. Zaria. No.5 Maduako, D., 2011. Surveyors want Land Use Act expunged from constitution, Nigerian Tribune, 31 May, p 20. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 377 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Marcel, G. J., D. Kapitango, and R. Witmer, 2009. Land Registration using aerial photography in Namibia: costs and lessons. Accessed from www.fig.net/pub/fig_wb_2009/papers/sys/sys_ 2_meijs_kapitango.pdf (20th of June 2011) McEwen, A., ( ) Land Reform in developing countries: legal and institutional aspects Mendie, A., J. Atser, and B. Ofem, 2010. Analysis of Public Lands Acqusition in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, Journal of Human Ecology 31(3) Pp197-203 NESG &USAID 2006. Report of the stakeholders workshop on the review and amendment of the Land Use Act 1978. February 8, 2006 Nuhu, M.B. and A.U. Aliyu, 2009. Compulsory acquisition of communal land and compensation issues: the case of Minna Metropolis. A paper presented at FIG working week, Eilat, Israel, 3-8 May 2009. Nuhu, M.B., 2007. Property development as a panacea to poverty alleviation in Nigeria. FIG working week 2007, Hong Kong SAR, China, 13-17 May 2007. Nuhu, M.B., 2008. Public land Policy, New Trends: challenges in Nigerian institutional frameworks for state and public sector land management. A paper presented at the FIG/FAO/CNG international seminar on state and public sector land management, Verona, Italy, September 9-10, 2008. Nuhu, M.B., 2009. Efficacy or ineffectiveness of compensation as provided in the land use act of 1978 in Nigeria. A paper presented at the 39th annual conference of the Nigerian institute of surveyors and valuers, Anambra 22-24 April, 2009. Nuhu, M.B., 2009. Enhancing Land titling and registration in Nigeria. A paper presented at FIG working week, Eilat, Israel, 3-8 May 2009. Ogedengbe, P.S., (2004) Formulating a good urban land policy for Nigeria. Journal of human ecology. Vol. 15(2) pp91-96. Ojo, S.O (2008): ―Effects of land Acquisition for Large Scale farming on the Performance of Small Scale farming n Nigeria‖ Journal of Human Ecology 24(1) 35-40 Kamla-Raj India Olayiwola, L.M. and O.A. Adeleye (2006): ―Land Reform: Experience from Nigeria‖ Paper presented at the 5th FIG Regional Conference on Promoting Land Administration and Good Governance. Accra Ghana march 8-11, 2006 Osa-Okunbor, K., 2011. Presidential land reform committee needs base maps, says SGF. The NATION, February 8, 2011. Owei, O. (2007): ―Distortions in the Urban Land Market in Nigerian Cities and the Implications for Urban Growth Patterns: The case of Abuja and Port Harcourt‖ Paper presented at the fourth Urban Research Symposium. 2007 Owei, O., Ede, P., and Akarolo, C., 2008. Land Market Distortions in Nigerian Cities and Urban Sprawl: the Case of Abuja and Port Harcourt. A paper presented at 44th ISOCARP congress held in Dalian, China 19-23 September, 2008. Prosterman, R.L and T. Hanstad, 2000. Land Reform: A Revised Agenda for the 21st Century, Rural Development institute reports on foreign aid and development #108 Saraki, A. B. (2007). ―Project Development and Implementation: Kwara Commercial Agricultural Project in Focus‖ Lecture delivered at the University of Ibadan, 29Nov. 2009. 29p Starns, W.W., 1974. Land tenure among the rural Hausas, The Land Tenure Centre (LTC), No. 104. University of Wincosin Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 378 Contract No. 2011X028.ADE Tenuche M. S. and O.O. Ifatimehin 2009. ―Resource Conflict among farmers and Fulanis herdsmen: Implications for Resource Sustainability‖ African Journal of Political S cience and International Relations 3(9):360-364 Sept. 2009. www.academicjournals.org Titilola, S. T., 2000. Environment and Sustainable Agricultural Development in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 2, No 1. http://www.jsd-africa.com (Accessed 11/04/2011) Uwakonye, M.N., and Osho, G.S., 2007. An econometric analysis of two possible land reform strategies in Nigeria, Journal of business and economic research. Vol. 5. No.3 World Bank and IFC 2008: Doing Business in Nigeria 2008. Company Regulation in 10 States and Abuja FCT. Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) in Nigeria Page 379