Presented by: Sarah Lowery (USAID, E3/Office of Land and Urban) JESSICA NABONGO / CLOUDBURST WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF 2ND LEVEL LAND CERTIFICATION RELATIVE TO 1ST LEVEL CERTIFICATION? Quasi-experimental Impact Evaluation Findings From Ethiopia Strengthening Land Tenure And Administration Program And Ethiopia Land Administration Program (ELTAP/ELAP) Presented by: Sarah Lowery (USAID, E3/Office of Land and Urban) Evaluation Team: Lauren Persha, PhD (NORC – University of Chicago), Adi Greif, PhD (Stanford Research Institute, Cloudburst Group), Dan Mattingly, PhD (Stanford University, Cloudburst Group), and Heather Huntington (Cloudburst Group)

OUTLINE CONTEXT METHODOLOGY FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CONTEXT

1st Level Farmland Certification in Ethiopia Government of Ethiopia (GoE) began registering rural land in 1990s using low-cost, participatory process Neighbors and local government confirm boundaries Certificates include simple sketch map Names of owners and neighbors Much research suggests this is one of most successful, cost-effective land registration programs in Africa E.g. Alemu 2006; Deininger, Ali, Holden & Zevenbergen 2008; Land Equity International 2006 Not seen as suitable for long-term land administration No GPS mapping of individual plots No cadastral map No digitized land registry Evaluation Purpose “Does 2nd level land certification marginally increase tenure security and improve rural livelihoods as compared to 1st level land certification?”

2nd Level Farmland Certification in Ethiopia Designed to overcome perceived shortcomings of 1st level certification GPS mapping of individual plots Cadastral map Digitized land registry Implemented by GoE with support from various donors (USAID, SIDA, Finland, World Bank, DFID) Main objective of USAID’s ELTAP: provide enforceable tenure security through land certification Main objective of USAID’s ELAP: strengthen and enhance rural tenure security and administration USAID implementing partner limited to surveying and certificate preparation; GoE must issue certificates This resulted in a large gap between the number of parcels surveyed and those with certificates Regional governments had discretion to implement certification according to their own standards This resulted in potentially relevant differences, e.g. if joint certification (husband/wife) was required Evaluation Purpose “Does 2nd level land certification marginally increase tenure security and improve rural livelihoods as compared to 1st level land certification?” Other differences: Whether pictures of landholder only or landholder and spouse were attached to the certificate, both their names or only one, etc.

Evaluation Purpose Does 2nd level land certification marginally increase household tenure security and improve rural livelihoods as compared to 1st level land certification? Motivating Questions: What are the marginal household welfare and tenure security benefits of 2nd vs. 1st level? How, if at all, have 2nd level land certificates been used as proof of ownership? How do landholders and local officials perceive the value of 1st and 2nd level certification? How has 2nd level certification affected intra-household welfare? NOTE: Per the original design, this evaluation does not measure impacts on land administration Evaluation Purpose “Does 2nd level land certification marginally increase tenure security and improve rural livelihoods as compared to 1st level land certification?”

METHODOLOGY

Evaluation Design & Analytical Approach Quasi-experimental fixed effects Difference-in-Difference (DID) Coupled with an entropy balancing, as a matching strategy to: Improve accuracy of the impact estimates, and Mitigate potential confounding due to where the program was implemented: High agricultural potential in terms of high rainfall, irrigation, and cash crops grown; High land transactions in terms of renting and sharecropping; Good infrastructure and access to markets; Presence of agricultural investors. Program selection characteristics are also likely to influence outcomes, thus analyses aim to explicitly account for them to extent possible

Access to credit (informal or formal sources)* Land disputes; Household Impacts Assessed for Indicators of: Variance of Impacts Assessed Across: Access to credit (informal or formal sources)* Land disputes; Land rental activity; Soil and water conservation investments Land tenure security** Female empowerment Female- vs male-headed households Widows vs other households ELTAP vs ELAP rounds Total landholding at baseline Household distance to regional capital Household wealth status Age of household head Column 1: The evaluation estimates impacts to household beneficiaries of 2nd over 1st level certification, across six outcome families Column 2: It also examines how impacts due to 2nd level certification vary across seven programming relevant factors *Certificates cannot formally be used as collateral to obtain loans from banks, but it is possible they are taken into account in less formal lending contexts, which are also common sources of credit for rural smallholders in Ethiopia. The credit outcome indicators focused on credit access and amount, with secondary attention to the source of credit. ** Already high at baseline for several indicators.

Four Different Treatment Groups Assessed Full or partial 2nd level certification relative to 1st level certification Full 2nd level certification relative to 1st level certification Partial 2nd level certification relative to 1st level certification Full or partial 2nd level certification relative to no or 1st level certification “Partial” 2nd level certification = Land was surveyed by program but no certificate issued Four different comparison groups assessed: Full or partial 2nd level certification relative to 1st level certification Full 2nd level certification relative to 1st level certification Partial 2nd level certification relative to 1st level certification Full or partial 2nd level certification relative to no or 1st level certification

FINDINGS

Overview of Key Findings Overview of Key Findings: Significant Average Treatment Effects (full findings across all outcomes available in the endline report & annexes) Reported results are based on impact estimates obtained via an entropy-weighted fixed effects difference-in-difference model. Increasing statistical significance is indicated by larger and bolder font. Significance reported as: +/-: α<0.10; +/-: α<0.05; +/-: α<0.01

Average Impacts of 2nd Level over 1st Level Certification Summary of Key Findings (for Treatment A, unless otherwise specified): Possible Impacts on Credit Access* (may relate to certificate use in an informal lending context) 10% increase in likelihood of obtaining any credit for farming purposes Small increase in average amount of credit obtained Female Empowerment 11% increase in likelihood of a wife possessing land in her name† 0.32 ha increase in land held jointly or by female-headed households‡ 44% increase in wives deciding what crops to grow on land in her possession Credit, Land Tenure & Female Empowerment: Small but statistically significant positive impacts of 2nd level certification on indicators of: Credit Access 10% increase in likelihood of households obtaining any credit for farming purposes Small increase in average amount of credit obtained Land Tenure Security 10% increase in likelihood that a household feels more secure entering into business transactions with holders of land certificates. Female Empowerment & involvement in land-related decisions 11% increase in likelihood of a wife possessing land in her name 0.32 hectare increase in land held jointly by husband or wife, or female-headed households *These findings should be interpreted as suggestive, since land certificates cannot be used as collateral by formal lending institutions in Ethiopia and the mechanism for credit impacts was not testable with the study data. † 2nd Level relative to no or 1st Level HHs (Treatment D). ‡ Full 2nd Level certification group only (Treatment B).

Impacts on Selected Sub-groups Positive credit impacts for male & female-headed HHs, but impacts are larger for male- headed HHs on both indicators Few differences in impacts for female vs male-headed HHs overall Possibly stronger impacts for ELAP program relative to ELTAP Particularly for credit access and tenure security indicators But, may also relate to different time trends Kebele distance & total landholding may modify some impacts Kebeles closer to city centers tend to have stronger positive impacts Positive impacts on credit indicators less certain for HHs with larger landholdings Summary of Findings II: Key Sub-groups & Heterogeneous Effects Positive credit impacts (obtaining any credit for farming investments & amount of credit obtained) for male & female-headed HHs, but impacts are larger for male-headed HHs on both indicators Few differences in impacts for female vs male-headed HHs overall Possibly stronger impacts for ELAP program round relative to ELTAP Particularly for credit access and tenure security indicators But, could also relate to different time trends captured by the ELTAP data collection (2007-2015) vs ELAP data collection (2012-2015) Indication that kebele distance from urban center (regional capital) & HH total landholding modifies some impacts: Kebeles closer to city centers tend to have stronger positive impacts on several outcomes Positive impacts on credit indicators less certain for HHs with larger landholdings

Full vs Partial 2nd Level Certification Few substantive differences in impacts across HHs that had land surveyed but did not receive a land certificate vs those which did. Evaluation does not conclude that surveying alone is sufficient to generate positive tenure security or household economic impacts. Land-related perceptions and behaviors for surveyed-only HHs could reflect expectations to eventually receive certificates. Summary of Key Findings III: Full vs. Partial 2nd level Certification Some differences in impacts across HHs that had land surveyed but did not receive a land certificate vs those which did, but few that were substantive. Evaluation does not conclude that surveying alone is sufficient to generate positive tenure security or household economic impacts. Given that HHs in partial 2nd level certification group anticipated receiving a land certificate, their land related perceptions and behaviors could reflect their expectation to eventually receive formal documentation of their land use rights.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation Conclusions Evaluation results suggest positive impacts that are: Small but potentially important on informal credit access and female empowerment indicators Smaller in more isolated kebeles and for HHs with much larger than average landholdings Little evidence for additional HH-level impacts beyond 1st level certification across: Land disputes (but, HHs reported very few land disputes) Land rental activity (but, study had lower power to detect small changes in this indicator) Soil or water conservation measures Given generally small magnitudes of impacts at HH level, it is also possible that: Technological improvements in delineating land parcels and strengthening ease of access or longevity of land records via the 2nd level certification process could result in HH benefits after longer time periods Or, once HHs are faced with particular kinds of land challenges or disputes Evaluation results suggest: Small but potentially important additional impacts to HHs from the 2nd level process, relative to 1st level certification, on credit access, land tenure security and female empowerment indicators Positive impacts of 2nd level certification tend to be smaller for households located in more isolated kebeles, and those with much larger than average landholdings Little evidence for additional impacts beyond 1st level certification across: Land disputes (but, HHs reported very few land disputes in either baseline or endline survey waves) Land rental activity Soil or water conservation measures Given generally small magnitudes of impacts, it is also possible that: Technological improvements around delineating HH land parcels and strengthening ease of access or longevity of records introduced by 2nd level process could result in HH benefits only after longer time periods, or once HHs are faced with particular kinds of land challenges or disputes (e.g., those stemming from a particular expropriation risk, for which the added-value of the 2nd level process may be more immediately apparent)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy Recommendations Include a land tenure activity in agribusiness support projects to improve (informal) credit access Support regional legal reforms to promote “thicker” land rental markets in rural Ethiopia, e.g. to allow: Longer-term leasing Leasing of larger percentages of a household’s land Further expand emphasis on joint titling and certification in both husband and wife’s names e.g. to areas where joint titling may still be at discretion of local officials. Identify programming gaps and opportunities, for example around capacity, financing, or process for certificate provisioning, as well as enhanced donor coordination around land programming. To improve credit access in an environment where certificates may not be used for secured lending, policy makers may wish to include a land tenure activity in agribusiness support projects.

Closing Considerations 2nd level certification may be required to maintain identified benefits of 1st level certification 2nd level certification likely needed to support transparent land markets and spread of credit for rural land holders over the longer term ELTAP and ELAP were designed to provide land administration benefits beyond HH level, while impact evaluation was designed to consider impacts only at the HH level Baseline data at farm level precluded robust measurement of agricultural productivity As a result, findings should not be considered a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the 2nd level certification process.

THANK YOU www.land-links.org