Evaluating the impact of Land Administration Interventions in Africa: Status and challenges

1. Evaluating the impact of Land Administration Interventions in Africa: Status and challenges Klaus Deininger Land Tenure Adviser Nov. 19, 2007

2. What’s special about Africa? Many land-related challenges Title vs. non-title debate Gender & inheritance rights (HIV/Aids) Customary authorities & decentralization Access to land by foreign investors Governance & corruption (state land) Most rapid urbanization in the world .. but more limited resources than elsewhere Plenty of land policy reform initiatives 21 countries with new land laws since 1990 Lengthy processes of public consultation Recognition of customary rights w/o reg’n Protection of women’s rights Low-cost documentation (e.g. CCROs) Process half-finished in many respects Laws & regulations incomplete/contradictory Other policies (inheritance, rural-urban, valuation, eminent domain) to be adjusted Little progress on procedures or issuance Updating arrangements unclear/parallel Coverage spotty at best (elite lands only?) Due to lack of technology or other factors?

3. What do projects do? Issuance of certificates Systematic, area-wide adjudication Often as pilots Both in rural and urban areas .. in addition to hardware, legal work, etc. Enormous variation in Nature & length of certificates Transferability/scope to mortgage rights Options & procedures to upgrade later Process (intensity, gender, CPRs) Technology & cost Record-keeping/updating arrang’s Beneficiaries’ awareness/perceptions Complementary interventions Simple data can tell a lot on these .. even if only based on proxies Show dangers of on-demand approach Promote cost-effective processes Increase transparency of process Evolve service standards, Develop ‘readiness’ criteria Policy dialogue & build capacity -> even more for IA …

4. Identification strategy & rationale Ex ante: DD treatment / control Define treatment (info & adjudication) Roll-out strategy (lottery across parishes?) Select spatial control units (externalities?) Baseline before intervention, follow-up Possibly “densify” national survey Maybe complement w other interventions Ex post: Discontinuity possible Partial issuance (clouds, war, budgets, admin) Or dense panel sample Possibility of low-cost fill-in … can help justify/generate hypotheses What can be learned from a baseline? Knowledge of law/procedures by diff’t groups Awareness of procedures, security perception Demand (WTP) for documentation Incidence of conflict Outstanding policy issues Potential benefits from greater security Design a robust/sequential process Combine administrative, community, and indiv. data for continuing follow-up Integrate qualitative/satisfaction survey … critical to keep ears close to the ground, get feedback, & sustain policy level support

5. Example I: Ethiopia The government program Systematic land rights certification >6 mn hhs; 20 mn. parcels 2003-5 … bigger & faster than WB projects Elected Land Use Committee, adjudication But key policy weaknesses Sequence of engagement Case study in 4 regions National survey (panel) half way Regional panel: 4th round Results on process Cost an order of magnitude below others No anti-poor bias; most conflicts resolved Joint cert’s: 40-90%; picture key Significant investment impact WTP; Perception of females; compensation But clear gaps on policy, registries, CPRs -> Many recommendations taken up -> Registration component under SLM Ongoing research & follow-up Quantified severity of market imperfections Data entry for 4th panel round ongoing Impact on gender, investment, productivity, Land market functioning & migration Impact evaluation of SLM project w. IFPRI

6. Example II: Uganda A “baseline” w/o a project Request for project 2004 ($ 24 mn; PSD) Government-run SD pilots: 6 parishes Baseline after basic sensitization done Process stopped after mob incident -> knowledge impact on investment Limited knowledge but sig. effect on tenure security, investment, prod’y Transfer rights not less on customary Mailo overvalued due to land fund Impact of overlapping rights Key unresolved policy issue Inclusion of plot-level data in UNHS Within-household variation to identify Surprisingly big investment effects: Trees 5x; soil conservation & manure 2x SD impact evaluation baseline Purposive selection of districts, SCs Pipeline of parishes within SC Joint with local research institute Building on 2005 questionnaires

7. Example III: Tanzania Outstanding policy issues $ 30mn. component under PSD project Some legal work done under BEST Proposed spot adjudication in rural RLs in urban areas Integration with LUP & pastoralists Villages demarcated; no certificates Unwieldy processes allow land grabbing Over-conversion from rural to urban Urban evaluation RLs to 0.2/0.4 mn plots issued in Dar Discontinuity & clouds to identify impact Will also provide baseline for CROs Overlap with CIUP (infra w & w/o tenure; tenure w/o infra) of great interest Delay due to funding issues; now resolved Rural baseline Identified 2 pilot districts for systematic Village selection ongoing (gov’t) Once done, identify matches, do baseline Link to other ongoing efforts Causes & impacts of land conflicts Revision of deSoto pilots Legal review (registries, LUP law)

8. Some tentative lessons Land IE in Africa not straightforward There is no neat ‘standard’ product Loose ends on policy to be addressed Need for joint land & IE expertise else danger of miscommunication, delays … but has huge unexploited potential In-country analytical capacity emerging Policy debate wide open Technology far ahead of practice Demand for tenure security is growing Analytical work to help define the agenda Speed & independence are required Traditional land bureaucracies too slow or lacking the ability to take a critical look Projects to support follow-up, not baseline Funding modes to be adjusted accordingly .. and collaboration across domains Little IE capacity among land consultants Few IE understand land, technology, legal Need joint effort to pull things together 2-3 lead cases per region Interaction & experience sharing Baselines to inform policy dialogue Everybody could benefit

9. Thank you !