LAW No. 015-2025/ALT OF OCTOBER 21, 2025
Agricultural and Land Reform in Burkina Faso:
What the new law really changes
Unanimously adopted by the Transitional Legislative Assembly on October 21, 2025, and promulgated by Decree No. 2025-1362/PF on October 28, 2025, Law No. 015-2025/ALT on agrarian and land reform in Burkina Faso constitutes a fundamental reform of national land law. It simultaneously repeals Law No. 034-2012/AN of July 2, 2012, on agrarian and land reform, and Law No. 009-2018/AN on expropriation for public use. With 214 articles divided into eight titles, this new law reshapes the entire legal framework applicable to land in Burkina Faso. The ALI NEYA Law Firm offers a comparative analysis of the law, article by article.
I. Background: Why reform land law in 2025?
Burkina Faso is no longer the same country it was in 2012. Since then, the security crisis has triggered massive internal displacement affecting millions of people, pressure on rural land has increased significantly, and the need to modernize public administration has highlighted the limitations of the current legal framework. The 2012 law, itself a product of reforms initiated in 1984, had not anticipated these upheavals.
Three major shortcomings prompted the reform. First, the state land ownership regime lacked clarity, leaving uncertainties regarding the actual scope of state title, which undermined the confidence of both investors and private individuals. Second, management of the national land domain was fragmented across multiple agencies with no clearly designated lead entity, which encouraged discretionary practices. Third, the growing importance of digital issues, the need for a reliable land registry, and the care of internally displaced persons required legal solutions that the 2012 law could not provide.
The new law was developed through a participatory process. In accordance with Article 13, the development and updating of agrarian policy are carried out through “an inclusive dialogue involving all categories of stakeholders: the State, local authorities, customary and traditional chieftains, professional and interprofessional organizations in the agricultural, forestry, pastoral, fisheries, and wildlife sectors, civil society, and the private sector .” This unprecedented consultative process lends the law enhanced social legitimacy.
II. Major innovations: a comparative analysis
1. The State’s solemn declaration of full and complete ownership
This is the most symbolic and foundational innovation of the entire reform. Article 20 of the new law unambiguously states that “the national land domain is, by operation of law, the property of the State.” This wording stands in stark contrast to the previous regime, which, while establishing the principle of state ownership, left conceptual uncertainties regarding the manner in which that ownership was exercised.
The scope of this provision is twofold. On the one hand, it confirms that no one may assert a competing title to land within the national land domain against the State, unless they have obtained a lawful transfer under the conditions provided by law. On the other hand, it specifies that lands lawfully transferred to natural or legal persons cease to be the property of the State (Art. 20, para. 3), thereby securing existing titles.
This solemn affirmation is part of a broader effort to reaffirm national sovereignty over natural resources. It is consistent with Article 32, which states that lands and other immovable property within the national land domain are, by operation of law, the property of the State, with the exception of those lawfully transferred or assigned to local authorities. It constitutes the foundation upon which all other innovations of the law rest.
2. The ban on the permanent transfer of rural land to foreigners
The 2012 law contained no provision explicitly prohibiting foreign nationals from acquiring property rights in rural land. This gap left the nation’s rural land assets vulnerable to acquisition by foreign nationals, sometimes under opaque conditions and for purposes that did not necessarily align with the national interest.
Section 50 of the 2025 Act clearly addresses this gap: “Foreign nationals may not hold property rights over rural lands as defined in Section 23 of this Act, subject to the principle of reciprocity.” The rural lands in question are those intended for agricultural, pastoral, forestry, wildlife, fisheries, aquaculture, and mining activities, as well as conservation areas and any other land specified by the relevant spatial planning instrument.
The principle of reciprocity addresses the diplomatic dimension of the measure: a national of a State that authorizes Burkinabè to acquire rural land on its territory may receive the same treatment in Burkina Faso. An important transitional provision is set forth in Article 212: land titles previously issued for rural land to foreign nationals remain valid, thereby preserving the legal certainty of acquired rights.
3. The prohibition on changing the status of administrative reserves
Under the 2012 law, changes to the status of administrative reserves were not subject to sufficiently strict regulations. This loophole had led to certain abuses: land set aside for public facilities could be rezoned, to the detriment of the affected communities and the public interest.
Section 52 of the 2025 Act now establishes a prohibition: “Land subject to administrative reservations may not be rezoned.” ” Only one regulated exception is permitted: the Minister responsible for public lands may authorize a modification by decree based on requirements of public utility or national interest, but only after consulting the ministers responsible for urban planning and the relevant sector of activity. The procedures for modification are left to be determined by regulation.
Article 53 supplements this provision by requiring the systematic registration of administrative reserves. This formality grants them the maximum protection afforded by the land registration system: no one may claim ignorance of their existence or assert competing rights over them. This represents a significant step forward in urban governance and in the fight against land speculation on public spaces.
4. A stronger legal framework for the national land registry
The land registry existed under the 2012 law, but its legal framework was incomplete and scattered across several regulatory texts. The new law devotes an entire chapter to it: Chapter 4 of Title III, Articles 80 through 86, which establishes its comprehensive legal basis.
Article 80 formally establishes the national cadastre, defined as “the inventory of real property rights,” providing information on ownership, other real property rights, the use or purpose, and the valuation of all built and unbuilt properties within the national land domain. Its purposes are specified in Article 81: the identification of holders of real property rights and the technical identification of the land, the determination of the cadastral valuation methodology used to calculate the tax base for real property, and the certification of the physical boundaries and areas of real property.
Cadastral records including the cadastral register, section reports, and cadastral maps are freely accessible to the public, either through on-site consultation or by requesting a cadastral extract (Art. 84). This transparency is essential for securing land rights and preventing disputes.
Article 85 introduces a binding obligation to cooperate: any public administration or natural or legal person holding documents or information necessary for the establishment of the cadastre is required to provide them to the competent cadastral authority within thirty days of receiving the request. In the event of a refusal, Article 208 provides for a penalty of one hundred thousand CFA francs per day of delay, without prejudice to applicable criminal penalties. This is an unprecedented innovation in Burkinabé law.
5. The resettlement of internally displaced persons as a matter of public interest
This innovation reflects Burkina Faso’s recent history. Neither the 2012 law nor Law No. 009-2018/AN on expropriation for public use mentioned internally displaced persons or victims of natural disasters among the grounds that could justify an expropriation proceeding.
Article 158 of the 2025 law addresses this gap by expressly including, among the operations that may justify involuntary transfer for public use, “the resettlement of displaced persons, refugees, or victims of natural disasters.” The other grounds remain: transportation infrastructure; urban, agricultural, forestry, pastoral, land-use, or mining developments; military works; nature conservation; protection of historic sites; water management projects; energy facilities; social and educational infrastructure; and any project of general interest.
In practical terms, this provision provides the State with a solid legal basis for carrying out resettlement and relocation operations for internally displaced persons without risking legal challenges based on the lack of a legal basis. It addresses a real humanitarian and security emergency. Article 195 further establishes a national compensation fund for persons affected by public works or projects, and Article 196 establishes a national body responsible for monitoring and evaluating compensation and resettlement operations.
6. Streamlining and restructuring the eminent domain process
The expropriation procedure established by the 2012 and 2018 laws was technically regulated but lacked specific deadlines for each stage, making the duration of the proceedings uncertain. The new law, in Articles 163 through 196, completely restructures this procedure by dividing it into seven sequential stages with specific statutory deadlines.
The standard procedure is structured as follows: first, a declaration of intent published in the Official Gazette and posted for one month (Art. 165–166); second, a public utility inquiry opened one month after the declaration of intent and conducted by a specialized commission (Art. 167–168); third, a declaration of public utility by decree of the Council of Ministers or order of the president of the local authority council, setting a three-year implementation period, extendable by two years (Art. 169–173); fourth, a parcel-by-parcel survey to precisely identify the properties and their owners (Art. 175–176); fifth, a declaration of transferability by joint order (Art. 177–180); sixth, a six-month negotiation phase accompanied by a mandatory conciliation attempt in the event of disagreement (Art. 181–185); seventh, payment of the fees due (Art. 186).
Several procedural safeguards are worth noting. An appeal against the declaration of public utility must be filed within one month of its publication in the Official Gazette; an appeal or a petition for review by the Court of Cassation must be filed within fifteen days of the decision’s pronouncement or notification; and the administrative judge has forty-five days to render a decision (Art. 172). These short but precise deadlines limit procedural uncertainty for the expropriating authority. However, Article 173 specifies that an appeal against the declaration of public utility does not suspend the expropriation proceedings.
A separate emergency procedure is provided for in Articles 187 through 190 for situations involving disasters or calamities, unforeseeable events, defense and security needs, or urgent commitments by the State. In such cases, a decree of the Council of Ministers may simultaneously declare the emergency, designate the necessary properties, and authorize immediate taking of possession, subject to notification within seven days and the preparation of an inventory of fixtures within thirty days.
7. The creation of the administrative long-term lease and its exclusivity
The long-term lease was already provided for in the 2012 law, defined as a long-term contract granting the lessee a right of superficies over land in the private real estate domain. The new law significantly refines the framework by distinguishing between two categories and establishing exclusivity for certain categories of land.
Article 96 establishes the fundamental distinction: the administrative long-term lease is one entered into between the State or a local government and one or more natural persons or a legal entity governed by private law. It takes the form of an administrative contract. The notarized long-term lease, on the other hand, is one entered into exclusively between natural persons or legal entities governed by private law. The term remains fixed at a minimum of eighteen years and a maximum of ninety-nine years (Art. 95), and the lease cannot be renewed by tacit agreement.
The most significant change is set forth in Article 102: on unallocated private state-owned land developed for non-residential, for-profit purposes, the State gives preference to long-term leases. But above all, “on land developed for agricultural, forestry, pastoral, fisheries, and wildlife purposes, as well as for sports, recreation, and playgrounds,” the long-term lease is the only authorized form of tenure. This exclusivity is absolute: no permanent transfer of ownership is possible on such land. It ensures that areas of strategic importance for food security, the environment, or recreation cannot be sold to private individuals.
The administrative long-term lease regime is meticulously regulated by Articles 103 through 112. Registration fees and the public registration of the leasehold right are the responsibility of the lessee (Art. 103). The lessee is required to develop the land in accordance with the terms of the specifications (Art. 104) and may not make any changes that diminish the value of the property without the lessor’s consent (Art. 105). The grounds for termination are specifically listed in Article 110: failure to develop the land within the prescribed time limits, non-payment of rent after a formal notice has remained unanswered for three months, serious deterioration of the property, or use of the property for unauthorized purposes. Finally, Article 111 clearly states that any investments made by the lessee revert to the lessor upon expiration of the contract without any right to compensation, a provision that deserves special attention from investors.
8. Incorporating the costs of permanent disposal directly into the law
Under the 2012 law, the costs associated with the transfer of land from the State’s private real estate portfolio were largely left to be determined by regulatory provisions, which made the system difficult for economic operators to understand and exposed beneficiaries to discretionary practices.
The 2025 law incorporates the applicable fee schedules directly into its text, distinguishing between developed and undeveloped land, and adjusting costs based on geographic location and intended use. For developed land in the municipalities of Kadiogo Province and in Bobo-Dioulasso (Art. 72), the cost is set at two hundred thousand CFA francs for land designated for residential or social use allocated to nonprofit organizations, one thousand seven hundred CFA francs per square meter for land designated for commercial or professional use, four hundred CFA francs per square meter for industrial or artisanal use, and thirty CFA francs per square meter for land used for educational, health, agricultural, forestry, or pastoral purposes.
For undeveloped land (Art. 73), costs are naturally higher in order to encourage the actual development of land that has already been allocated. A system of geographic adjustment applies: costs are reduced by one-third for land located in municipalities housing regional capitals other than Ouagadougou and Bobo-Dioulasso, and reduced by half for land located in other municipalities. These schedules are presented as lump sums and are representative of the land price, registration fees, title registration fees, land registry fees, and costs for copying the land title (Art. 75), which considerably simplifies the settlement of fees.
9. The establishment of management committees and ad hoc committees
The 2025 Act strengthens and formalizes the governing bodies for the private real estate domain. Section 79 establishes three standing committees: the Committee for the Assessment and Determination of Land Development, the Committee for the Withdrawal of Land from Residential Use, and the Committee for the Withdrawal of Land from Non-Residential Use. The composition, organization, and operation of these commissions are set forth in a decree issued by the Council of Ministers.
The innovation lies in the new possibility of establishing an ad hoc commission for the temporary transfer of residential land parcels. This institutional flexibility is invaluable in emergency contexts such as resettlement programs or the relocation of internally displaced persons where the cumbersome nature of standard procedures could jeopardize the effectiveness of public action. The ad hoc commission can be activated quickly to handle large-scale land allocations without undermining the permanent structure of the management system.
10. The identification and designation of priority areas
The 2012 law did not include a specific legal framework for areas requiring special attention from public authorities. This gap encouraged a one-size-fits-all approach to the territory, which was ill-suited to the highly varied geographical, demographic, and security realities of Burkina Faso.
Article 7 of the 2025 law addresses this gap by defining priority areas as “areas for sustainable land use planning and development, priority rural development areas, and sensitive areas.” These areas may be subject to emergency interventions by public authorities to ensure their development and reduce regional disparities. Article 5 complements this provision by specifying that planning strategies must include specific support measures for marginalized or vulnerable areas, to address disparities and overcome disadvantages stemming from unfavorable geographic, demographic, or economic conditions.
The definition of priority areas thus creates a legal framework for territorial affirmative action policies, allowing the State to concentrate its interventions where needs are most acute without having to systematically justify deviations from standard procedures.
11. The inclusion of new properties in the natural public domain
The natural public domain, as established by the 2012 law, did not explicitly include a number of properties whose heritage, cultural, and ecological protection is nonetheless essential. The new law addresses this omission.
Section 28 of the 2025 Act includes in the natural public domain classified sacred sites, protected areas and other classified natural formations, undeveloped lowlands of local interest, and hills. These properties thus join the public domain of water, airspace, and mineral and quarry deposits and sites that were already on the list. This inclusion is not insignificant from a legal standpoint: assets in the public domain are inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable under Article 39. No private individual may acquire a right to a classified sacred site or a protected area through prescription. No creditor may seize these assets.
For classified sacred sites, this legal protection reflects a deep-seated social and cultural reality in a society where sacred spaces play a central role in community cohesion and the resolution of local land disputes. The enshrinement of their protection in land legislation is a remarkable innovation.
12. The establishment of a single manager for the state’s land holdings
The fragmentation of land management responsibilities across multiple ministries and administrative bodies was a recurring source of jurisdictional conflicts, delays in processing cases, and inconsistencies in public property policy. The 2012 law had not sufficiently clarified this issue.
Article 78 of the 2025 law settles the matter: “The private real estate domain is managed by the minister in charge of state property.” While the designation of a single manager establishes the principle, the law immediately provides the flexibility necessary for decentralized and effective management: the minister may delegate the management of all or part of the private real estate domain to central and decentralized state agencies, state-owned enterprises, public-private partnerships, and local governments. Delegation does not relieve the minister of his ultimate responsibilities, but it allows for the local management that is essential in a country as vast as Burkina Faso.
This clarification of land governance is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the law’s other innovations. A land registry is useless if multiple entities are competing to update it. Land transfer procedures lose their consistency if multiple authorities can decide on them simultaneously. A unified management structure is the prerequisite for land security.
13. The establishment of the long-term lease as the sole form of tenure for agricultural, pastoral, sports, and recreational lands
It is worth revisiting this innovation which was already mentioned in connection with the administrative long-term lease in more detail, as it deserves to be highlighted in its own right. Article 102 provides that “on land developed for agricultural, forestry, and pastoral use, for fisheries and wildlife, and for sports, recreation, and playgrounds, only the long-term lease constitutes the mode of occupation.”
This provision has major practical implications for investors in these sectors. An investor wishing to operate a farm, a ranch, a fish farm, a sports complex, or a recreational park on state-developed land will never be able to acquire full ownership of the land. They may only obtain a long-term right of use: eighteen to ninety-nine years, in the form of an administrative long-term lease. Upon expiration of the lease, the investments made revert to the lessor without compensation (Art. 111).
This rule is consistent with the objective of preserving the national land heritage in sectors strategic to the country’s food security and economic sovereignty. It nevertheless requires investors to reconsider their financial models by incorporating the lease term, development obligations, and the absence of compensation upon expiration as fundamental parameters of their economic equation.
14. The requirement to digitize land-related procedures and documents
The failure to digitize land registration procedures was a structural weakness of the system inherited from the 2012 law. Long processing times, lost documents, registration errors, and the risk of document fraud were partly attributable to the land registry’s reliance on paper-based processes.
The 2025 Act breaks with this legacy by establishing legal requirements for digitization at three distinct levels. Article 69 stipulates that the procedures for applying for, reviewing, and issuing land use titles “must be digitized.” Article 89 extends this requirement: “Land management tools must be digitized.” “ Article 129, for its part, specifies that ”the maintenance of the land register, records, and related documents must be computerized.”
These three converging obligations cover the entire land cycle: from the application for a title to its issuance, including the maintenance of the public register. The land information system, defined in Article 87 as “a set of processes and mechanisms for collecting and processing information, and for storing, analyzing, and disseminating data relating to land ownership and its subdivisions,” is established as the digital infrastructure for land governance. Article 88 requires the actors within this system to collaborate through regular exchanges and sharing of information and data.
It should be emphasized that these legal obligations entail significant investments in digital infrastructure, staff training, and the upgrading of existing systems. Their effectiveness will depend on the availability of budgetary resources and the timeline for adopting implementing decrees.
15. The tightening of sanctions
The 2025 law significantly tightens the penalties for violations of land rights, reflecting the legislature’s commitment to making the effective enforcement of land laws a priority.
Section 206 punishes any person who develops a portion of the territory in violation of the provisions of the development plan or master plan with imprisonment for three months to three years and a fine of five million to ten million CFA francs. For professionals acting without a license and licensed experts, the prison sentence and fine are doubled, and the suspension or revocation of the license may be ordered.
Article 207 provides for imprisonment for a term of two months to three years and a fine of one million to three million CFA francs for any person who enters into a land transaction in violation of the provisions of this Act. The penalty is significantly increased for complicit public officials: imprisonment for two months to three years and a fine of ten million to twenty million CFA francs. This provision directly targets notaries and other public officials who knowingly assist in irregular transactions.
Article 208 establishes a formidable administrative penalty mechanism for refusal to disclose cadastral data: one hundred thousand CFA francs per day of delay following the expiration of a ten-day period after a formal notice has gone unanswered. For licensed individuals, the suspension or revocation of the license is added to these penalties. Article 210 specifies that criminal penalties are imposed without prejudice to the payment of damages to the victims.
III. Practical implications for operators
The entire 2025 Act, regardless of the specific innovation in question, is geared toward a single objective: strengthening land tenure security while promoting investment. This dual goal protection and development has concrete implications for every stakeholder in the land sector.
For private investors
The primary concern relates to the land regime for agricultural, forestry, pastoral, sports, or recreational uses: no permanent transfer of ownership is permitted for such lands. Any investment project in these sectors must be structured on the basis of an administrative long-term lease, with a financial model that incorporates development obligations, grounds for termination, and, above all, the lack of compensation for investments upon the lease’s expiration. The maximum term of ninety-nine years nevertheless provides sufficient long-term visibility for most projects.
The pricing transparency introduced by Articles 72 through 75 significantly simplifies land due diligence. Investors can now calculate the total cost of a definitive transfer directly under the law, without having to consult multiple regulatory texts. This transparency enhances the region’s attractiveness.
The requirement for prior registration before any definitive transfer (Articles 70 and 118) is absolute. Any investment involving unregistered land is exposed to significant legal risks. Verification of prior registration in the name of the State must be systematic in all land acquisitions.
For local governments
Section 25 provides for the transfer to local authorities of a portion of the national land holdings located within their jurisdictions, in accordance with procedures established by decree of the Council of Ministers. This transfer constitutes a significant land resource for local authorities, but it comes with strict management obligations, notably the requirement to prioritize long-term leases for land used for purposes other than housing.
Local authorities also have the authority to initiate expropriation proceedings for their own projects of public interest (Art. 170), provided they follow the seven-step procedure. They may also be delegated the management of public real estate by the State (Art. 43) or private real estate (Art. 78), thereby strengthening their land autonomy.
For legal professionals
Land law practitioners will need to familiarize themselves with the new procedural framework for expropriation, whose specific time limits create statutes of limitations at each stage. The one-month deadline for challenging a declaration of public utility and the fifteen-day deadline for filing an appeal are particularly short; failure to meet these deadlines results in the appeal being dismissed as inadmissible.
Foreclosure sales remain governed by the provisions of the OHADA Uniform Acts on simplified collection procedures and enforcement measures (Art. 156), creating an interface between national law and OHADA community law that warrants constant attention. The absolute imprescriptibility of real property rights registered in the land registry (Art. 115 and 125) is a fundamental rule that must be systematically reminded to clients.
Notaries must be fully aware of the increased penalties to which they are personally exposed: a fine of ten to twenty million CFA francs for knowingly aiding and abetting an unlawful transaction (Art. 207). Verifying the formal and substantive validity of the real estate transactions they execute is no longer merely a professional obligation: it is a legal necessity.
IV. Conclusion
Law No. 015-2025/ALT is much more than a technical update to Burkina Faso’s land law. It articulates a clear political vision: land is a sovereign national asset, and its management must be transparent, digital, equitable, and socially responsible. The protection of rural heritage against foreign acquisitions, strict regulation of administrative reserves, the establishment of the long-term lease as the preferred tool for developing strategic land, and the mandatory digitization of land deeds all demonstrate a commitment to breaking with past practices.
This ambition will inevitably come up against the realities of a land administration system in need of profound modernization. The law refers to a dozen implementing decrees—covering registration procedures, transfer terms, the composition of commissions, lease regulations, compensation scales, and the land information system, among other matters—whose adoption will determine the effectiveness of the reform. The regulatory work ahead is considerable.
Economic operators, investors, local authorities, and legal practitioners now have the responsibility to familiarize themselves with this new legal framework. Old habits and practices inherited from the 2012 law will need to be reviewed in light of the new provisions. The legal transition will be all the smoother if stakeholders are informed, trained, and supported.
Attorney Ali NEYA
Attorney at Law, admitted to the Bar of Burkina Faso
Ali NEYA Law Firm (CAAAN) — Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
Published on June 1, 2026 | Land Law | Agrarian and Land Reform