1. Impacts of Formalizing Customary Land Rights in Burkina Faso: Preliminary Findings From MCC Rural Land Governance Project 2015 World Bank Conference on Land And Poverty March 25, 2015 Ye Zhang Sara Borelli and Teerachat Techapaisarnjaroenkij IMPAQ International, LLC

2. Road Map  MCC RLG Project Overview and Activities  Evaluation Design and Analytical Methods  Data  Preliminary Empirical Results  Conclusions 2

3.  The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) signed a $480.9 million 5 years compact with the Government of Burkina Faso in 2008.  MCC Compact funds the following four projects  Rural Land Governance Project (RLG);  Agriculture Development Project (ADP);  Roads Project; and  Burkinabé Response to Improve Girls' Chances to Succeed Schools Project (BRIGHT 2) MCC RLG Project Overview 3

4. …project overview 4  The Rural Land Governance Project (RLG) was designed to increase investment in land and rural productivity through improved land tenure security and land management.  RLG phased approach:  Phase I (pilot): 17 communes  Phase II (extension): 30 communes

5. 5 MCC RLG Project Activities (1) Legal and procedural change and communication  Rural Land Law and revisions of the Agrarian and Land Reorganization legislation (RAF), support for other legal reforms;  participatory stakeholder processes and validation;  communications and outreach tools; (2) Institutional development and capacity building  Strengthen land registration and mapping services;  decentralization of land tenure services, including establishing new commune- level rural land services offices (SFRs) and construction of 47 municipal buildings to provide offices for the decentralized municipal land services;  capacity building to mediate in land conflicts (training of judges, lawyers, law school curriculum modules, and establishing Village Conciliation Commission);

6. 6 …project activities (3) Site-specific land tenure interventions  participatory land use management planning: training, mapping, operational costs, and the necessary assistance by regional and provincial institutions; and  preparation of rural land possession certificates (Attestation de Propriété Foncière Rurale -APFRs ) for non-irrigated land in the Project’s 47 implementation communes from 2013-2014;  preparation of land titles and leases for recipients of farmland in the new Di Irrigation Perimeter in 2014;  preparation of leases for users of land in existing irrigation perimeters near the Di Perimeter in 2014;  provision of APFR-like certificates to households in Ganzourgou Province in 2010;

7. 7 MCC RLG Project Logic Model

8. 8 Evaluation Research Questions What are the effects of the interventions on:  Perception of land tenure security?  Number of land conflicts?  Producer’s investment decisions?  Agricultural productivity and revenues?

9. Impacts are measured using a non-experimental design :  Treatment Group: households located in the 17 project communes: Communes were grouped in 15 clusters to facilitate the coordination of MCA-BF programs; Commune is near or within the agricultural development areas (zones d’aménagements-ZAs) of MCA-BF program or near another irrigation perimeters; Commune has important land tenure issues;  Comparison group: households located in 17 communes not subject to the intervention (comparison communes) (Selection of comparison areas was based on a combination of objective criteria and local knowledge of MCA-BF: similarity of population, being in the same province; importance of land conflicts, and similarity in land administration systems) 9 Impact Evaluation of Phase I RLG Project

10.  Difference-in-Differences (DID) compare before-after changes in outcomes of households in the treatment group and households in comparison group. 10 Evaluation Design

11.  MCA–BF contracted with IDEA Consult International in collaboration with Bureau d’Etude et de la Recherche pour le Developpment (BERD) to collect data on households living in the intervention and comparison communes.  Baseline data on approximately 3,500 households have been collected in 34 Phase I communes early 2010.  Follow-up data on the same households have been collected early 2012; Since the Phase I follow-up survey took place only 2 years after the baseline, when many activities had not yet been implemented, the DID analysis based on the baseline and follow-up survey will only capture Activity 1 and initial Activity 2 effects. 11 Data

12. 12 Survey Instruments  The survey instruments were composed of four separate modules  Household;  Individual;  Parcel;  Agricultural Revenues;  Questionnaires collect information about: background characteristics of the household and its members; individual perception of land security; incidence of land conflicts and investments in land; agricultural production and revenues;

13. 13 DID Regression Model

14.  Individuals’ perceptions of land tenure security are measured by respondents’ opinions about whether some land-related scenarios represent potential land conflict problems E.g. respondents asked whether they are concerned about the arrival of new people into the village to exploit land  Concern over the influx of newcomers to exploit land decreased by 7.4 percentage points between baseline and follow-up among treatment group individuals relative to comparison group 14 Summary of Results: Impacts on Perception of Land Security

15.  Land security concerns over previous villagers’ claims on land: decline of 6.7 percentage points No statistically significant impacts for other land security perception outcomes (like concerns about inheritance disputes among villagers or concerns over damages caused by animals)  We observed a general improvement in land tenure security perceptions in both treatment and comparison areas for several perception measures. This result may indicate the effectiveness of national and regional RLG activities.  Results were similar for male and female respondents. 15 Summary of Results: Impacts on Perception of Land Security

16.  Specific actions intended to measure farmers’ authority over their own land (e.g. ability to rent, sell, plant trees): we did not find consistent patterns, nor statistically significant impacts;  Investments on the land: we did not find empirical evidence that individuals changed their investment activities on land;  Incidence of user rights on the parcel: no evidence of impact on user right status in the whole sample; positive and significant impact on female user right status findings might be consistent with delays in Activity 3 implementation activities (i.e. land certificates) and only partial implementation of Activity 2 during the short time span between baseline and follow-up data collections 16 Summary of Results: Impacts on Capacity of Action on Land

17.  No statistically significant impact on incidence of land conflicts measured at the parcel level, nature of conflict (i.e. whether with villagers or household members) nor conflict resolution mechanisms.  We do find 2 to 3 percentage point decrease in the fraction of parcels that experienced land conflicts between 2010 and 2012 in both treatment and comparison areas;  No statistically significant impact on farmers’ confidence in various institutions of land conflict resolution (like land chiefs, village commissions);  No differential impacts between men and women  Findings might be consistent with rollout of the national and non-site-specific interventions of the RLG Project and the delays in site-specific intervention implementation; 17 Summary of Results: Impacts on Land Conflicts and Conflict Resolution

18.  Data Limitation prevented to analyze impacts on agricultural production;  No statistically significant impact on agricultural revenues across major crops except for: the proportion of male farmers who sold part or all of the millet production significantly increased by 6 percentage points; statistically significant increase in female farmers’ niébé revenues levels ;  Null results for other crops: given the short time span between baseline and follow-up, it is challenging to detect the changes in agricultural production and/or revenues with precision 18 Summary of Results: Impacts on Agricultural Revenues

19.  The findings from the evaluation of early implementation of the RLG Project suggest some encouraging interim results especially for non-site-specific activities and outcomes that are more likely to change in the short run (e.g., perception of land security).  Subgroup analysis indicated very similar results for both men and women.  Lack of statistically significant results for several outcomes might be related to the short time span between baseline and follow-up data collection and delays in site specific implementation activities.  Longer term outcome could be better assessed with an additional survey conducted approximately 2 years after all activities had been fully rolled out. 19 Summary and Conclusions

20. 20 Thank you