Scope for Decentralization of Land Administration in Africa: Evidence from Local Administrative Data in Mozambique Raul Pitoro Michigan State University, USA Paper prepared for presentation at the “ANNUAL WORLD BANK CONFERENCE ON LAND AND POVERTY” Washington DC, March 20-24, 2017

“Burtland Declaration” Motivation “Burtland Declaration” Successful land administration lead to reduction in land conflicts, improve socio-political stability, and governance. Challenges: institutional and organizational arrangements, and limited capacity for service delivery (MINAG, 2010). Several initiatives YET, land registration is a lengthy and complex process Low performance BD: Sustainable development requires a sound land administration system designing poverty reduction policies according to the nature of poverty in question improving the targeting efficiency of the scarce resources in rural areas

Objective and Research Questions and Hypotheses To learn how to improve the performance of Land Administration System (LADS) based on the current structure and performance Research Questions: Is the current land administration performance significantly associated with its structure? If so, what structural transformation would lead to improved performance? Research Hypothesis: Structure performance hypothesis: The performance of LADS is a function of its structure

Conceptual Framework No internationally accepted methodology to evaluate the performance of LADS (Steudler et al., 2004) But, a more comprehensive approach is needed (Lavandez et al., 2002) To fill this gap: The Structure-Conduct-Performance Approach: Performance of an industry is determined by it’s conduct and structure Structure is measured in terms of size of firms’ concentration, fragmentation, and competition Better administrative structure high performance Inverse relationship between concentration and fragmentation Market structure measured in terms of the size of firms’ concentration, fragmentation, and competition.

Data Administrative data records during 1981-2013 from the National Land Authority (DNTF) Over 44,000 sporadic land use right applications countrywide Processing time of land use rights application (days) Land use, land size, gender, ownership Population census data from the Bureau of National Statistics (INE) Projections from 2007 for 158 Districts Population Area size Infrastructures Source: www.emapsworld.com

Estimation Strategy: Structure-Conduct-Performance Approach Measures of Structure Concentration: Population density and number of applications per Km2 Fragmentation or competition: Number of localities per Km2 Authority level : Number of applications approved by authority level Level 1: Provincial governor (parcels <1,000 ha) Level 2: Ministry of Agriculture (parcels 1,000 – 10,000 ha) Level 3: Council of Ministries (parcels >10,000 ha) Measures of performance Time to process land use rights registration (days) Analysis in two regions No internationally accepted methodology to evaluate the performance of LADS (Steudler et al., 2004) But, a more comprehensive approach is needed (Lavandez et al., 2002) To fill this gap: The Structure-Conduct-Performance Approach

Estimation Strategy: Empirical model where Yi represents the performance indicators of unit j in District i; CMi is a vector of measures of a measure of concentration (population density and applications per Km2); FGi is a measure of fragmentation or competition (localities per km2) ATi is a measure of authority level; Xi is a vector of District characteristics; and єi is the random error term. Hypothesis: Structure performance hypothesis: α 1 ≠ 0, α 2 ≠ 0, α 3 ≠ 0 Concentration hypothesis: α 1 ≠ 0, α 2 = 0, α 3 = 0 Fragmentation/competition hypothesis: α 1 = 0, α 2 ≠ 0, α 3 = 0 Power differential hypothesis: α 1 = 0, α 2 = 0, α 3 ≠ 0 Market structure measured in terms of the size of firms’ concentration, fragmentation, and competition. A combination of these is possible

Results Low demand, High fragmentation and Low performance Significant differences between two regions Central and Northern regions are better-off than Southern region Central & northern: high demand, low fragmentation and high performance Southern: Low demand, high fragmentation and low performance High demand long processing times but high revenue collected Central and Northern regions are better-off than Southern region Low demand, High fragmentation and Low performance High demand, Low fragmentation and High performance

Results High demand and large areas  slow processing Decentralization Performance gain under High demand High demand and large areas  slow processing No Decentralization under low demand

Conclusions and recommendations The performance of land administrative system in Mozambique is function of its structure Increased demand for services slow down the processing time Long processing times on large areas and high demand Flexible procedures for large land areas Potential for decentralization to lower administrative level under high demand for land administration services under low fragmentation Regional differences should be taken into account Challenges: human, financial, physical capital Opportunities: INFATEC, Donors few applications but long process vs many applications and less complex but limited access

Limitations Caution! Due to data limitation  two indicators of performance were used A comprehensive evaluation requires more performance indicators (World Bank 2007). At least four: Annual registered transfers as percentage of registered parcels, Ratio of annual registry running costs/registered parcels, Registration staff days/registration, and Ratio revenue/expenditure --a version used in this study)

Thank You!