1. Jordan Chamberlin 1,2, Munguzwe Hichaambwa 2, Nicholas Sitko 1,2 (1) Michigan State University, USA (2) Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Zambia G ENDERED IMPACTS OF S MALLHOLDER L AND T ITLING : A plot-level analysis in rural Zambia MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

2. Land titling in Zambia Most land in Zambia is under customary tenure However, increasing conversion of customary to leasehold tenure 1995 Land Act formalized conversion mechanisms Ministry of Lands: plots titled for agricultural purposes has increased by 183% since 1995 Survey data for 2012: 8.4% smallholders have title to at least some portion of their the land under their control 9.8% of smallholder land area 1

3. Titling & agricultural development Theory is straightforward: title  security, collateral  investments Empirical evidence elsewhere in SSA is mixed Institutional context may favor access by elites Land Act does not identify development objectives But productivity growth is a major policy objective of gov’t Primary access mechanisms: Via state: settlement and resettlement schemes, farm blocks Direct conversion (requires approval of chief)  Vehicle for elite land capture and patronage? If so, are such acquisitions for speculative or productive purposes? 2

4. What role does land titling play in smallholder agricultural development in Zambia? Research questions: 1.Who acquires title? 2.What are the impacts of title on farm investment, productivity & income? Are there important gender dimensions to participation and/or impacts? How does the institutional setting condition these outcomes in systematic ways? 3

5. Data & methods Rural Agricultural Livelihoods Survey: 2012 8,600+ smallholder households Geospatial data: access, population density Household econometric model Determinants of title acquisition Impacts of title possession on farm orientation & investments Host of endogeneity issues… 4

6. Perceptions about land availability, access and institutions % of households indicating "yes" all male- headed female- headed difference (male- female) p- value "Is it possible to change the tenure status of customary land in this village (i.e. to convert customary land into titled property)?" 31.3%32.0%28.9%3.1%0.042** "Is it possible to buy or sell customary land in this village, without first changing it to titled land?" 24.0%24.6%22.1%2.5%0.055* "In your perception, do village headmen/authorities still have unallocated arable land that could be given to households in this area?" 45.9%46.3%44.6%1.7%1.080 5

7. Credit and collateral Total # of households Households with agricultural loans Households with loans who used collateral Households using collateral who used land title deeds n n%n%n% Households without title7780130517%36228%144% Households with title93512113%4739%12% Total8715142616%40929%154% 6

8. Descriptive statistics for male- and female-headed households totaltitle-holders malefemalemalefemale % households80.8%19.2%81.6%18.4% % with title10.8%10.3%-- % with title - State land6.4%5.1%59.2%50.0% % with title - former customary land4.4%5.1%40.8%50.0% Avg. age of head44.450.547.149.1 Avg. education of head6.64.38.46.3 Avg. adult equivalents5.03.75.14.3 Avg. farm size3.01.92.92.0 Avg. # of plots4.03.33.73.2 Avg. % of plots controlled by females8%98%11%98% Avg. % of plots with title-- 92%93% % of HHs which are local88%91%82%84% farm income per capita ('000s ZMW)1,2311,2091,1551,148 off-farm income per capita ('000s ZMW)8577741,3601,556 total income per capita ('000s ZMW)2,0751,9562,5642,606 7

9. Descriptive statistics for male- and female-headed households totaltitle-holders malefemalemalefemale % of plots acquired from chief44%45%19%14% % of plots acquired from family38% 19%20% % of plots acquired from gov't4% 32%31% % of plots acquired from pvt actors7% 25%31% % of plots acquired as "self-given"6%5% 4% % with irrigation19%13%26%19% % with erosion control structures23%20%23%32% % with agroforestry4%3%4%6% % using inorganic fertilizer59%44%77%70% 8

10. Determinants of title acquisition (household-level model) APE p-value Female head (=1)0.0036-0.702 Age of head-0.0001-0.746 Education (years)0.0085***0 Farm size (ha)0.0009-0.562 Adult equivalents0.0009-0.623 Assets (ZMK)0.0000***0 Chief kin (=1)-0.0318***-0.001 Immigrant (=1)0.0246**-0.035 Civil service (=1)0.0142-0.476 Number of plots0.0052***-0.01 Polygamous (=1)0.0015-0.912 Conversion ok0.0033-0.858 Unallocated-0.1450***0 Resettlement area (=1)0.6399***0 Pop. density0.0008***0 Hours to town-0.0047***0 N8362 9

11. Determinants of land- productivity investment decisions (1)(2)(3)(4) IrrigatedErosion controlAgroforestryFertilizer coef./p-value Female head (=1)-0.0078**-0.0035-0.0026-0.0297*** (0.048)(0.609)(0.267)(0.001) Has title (=1)0.0214***0.0490***0.00310.0745*** (0.002)(0.000)(0.320)(0.000) Plot size-0.1213***-0.0134***-0.0006*-0.0022* (0.000) (0.071)(0.065) Age of head-0.0006***-0.0007***-0.0000-0.0011*** (0.000) (0.512)(0.000) Education (years)0.0004-0.00110.00030.0266*** (0.499)(0.201)(0.278)(0.000) Farm size (ha)0.0039***0.0028***0.00010.0084*** (0.000)(0.001)(0.675)(0.000) Adult equivalents0.00050.0065***0.00060.0063*** (0.541)(0.000)(0.160)(0.000) 10

12. Change in predicted probability of investments with respect to change in tenure status, by household type IrrigationErosion structuresAgroforestryFertilizer dy/dxp-valuedy/dxp-value dy/dxp-valuedy/dxp-value male-headed0.02250.002***0.04870.000***0.00150.6440.06790.000*** female-headed0.01720.2450.05140.000***0.00970.2260.10090.001*** 11

13. Determinants of land- productivity investment decisions (1)(2)(3)(4) IrrigatedErosion controlAgroforestryFertilizer coef./p-value Female control (=1)-0.0410-0.0169-0.0535-0.0562** (0.339)(0.572)(0.393)(0.033) Has title (=1)0.2269***0.1435***0.06180.2382*** (0.001)(0.004)(0.412)(0.000) Fem. control * titled-0.03890.2470***0.05360.0255 (0.768)(0.009)(0.745)(0.796) Plot size-1.3867***-0.0636***-0.0168*-0.0073* (0.000) (0.063)(0.061) Age of head-0.0076***-0.0033***-0.0012-0.0038*** (0.000) (0.431)(0.000) Education (years)0.0045-0.00570.00750.0864*** (0.493)(0.178)(0.277)(0.000) Farm size (ha)0.0453***0.0134***0.00260.0278*** (0.000)(0.001)(0.658)(0.000) Adult equivalents0.00720.0315***0.01630.0224*** (0.396)(0.000)(0.136)(0.000) 12

14. Conclusions On the whole, smallholder titleholders are: Economically orientated toward wage earnings, rather than agriculture Earn less agricultural income than those with customary tenure Results suggest speculative rather than productive objectives for title acquisition 13

15. Conclusions However, women and men appear to utilize titled land in different ways Female title-holders: more productive orientation Lower productivity of FHHs is partially offset by title possession Gendered results likely associated with lower security under customary tenure systems… 14

16. Policy implications Update land policy to better articulate objectives What is the goal of titling and other land policies with respect to agricultural growth and rural development objectives? Figure out how to better engage women in titling process (+/or other security-enhancing institutions) Lower institutional & cultural access barriers 15

17. Thank You For more information visit: http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/ or contact me at: chamb244@msu.edu