Land Tenure & Resource Management

IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE TENURE AND GLOBAL CLIMATE

CHANGE (TGCC)—ZAMBIALead researchers—Heather Huntington, PhD (The Cloudburst Group),

Lauren Persha, PhD, (The Cloudburst Group and UNC Chapel Hill), M. Mercedes Stickler (USAID)

November 2015

OUTLINE

• Context: • Background on agroforestry relating to tenure and climate change in Zambia• Program overview of USAID-funded Tenure and Global Climate Change (TGCC)

• Objectives and methodology of the impact evaluation• Key baseline findings

• Tenure security• Agricultural Investment & Land Use Planning• Agroforestry & Climate Smart Agriculture

• Conclusions and lessons learned from the process and results.

CONTEXT

Evaluation Context• Resurgence in promoting agroforestry in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): to meet food security challenges and climate change (CC) adaptation objectives for poor rural farmers

• Many small-scale studies show a range of benefits to smallholders from agroforestry:• Improved soil fertility & crop yields• Risk smoothing via crop diversification; increased or more reliable income• Increased availability of wood products for HH use (e.g., fuelwood, fodder)

Development ProblemDespite promotion and studied benefits, agroforestry uptake in SSA has been persistently low, due in part to

• Cash, resource and inputs constraints • e.g. labor & credit availability; farm size

• Insufficient technical knowledge• Incompatible land management practices within villages

• e.g. communal livestock browsing during past-harvest season• Broader cultural, demographic, institutional factors• Insecurity over rights to land

Research Motivation• To what extent does land tenure insecurity serve as a barrier to agroforestry uptake, and wider implementation of other climate-smart agricultural practices?• Widely hypothesized, but few studies show a definitive link• Difficult to rigorously test at scale (challenges of piloting tenure interventions; introducing experiments)

• Empirical studies have substantial endogeneity challenges to overcome• Widely varying results across existing empirical work (Place 2009; Arnot et al 2011; Lawry et al 2014)

Research Motivation, cont’d.• Challenges to research methods also contribute to equivocal knowledge base• Different definitions & measures of tenure security• Different empirical strategies for analysis• Generally, small-N studies: few villages, couple hundred HHs• Household level rather than field level data• No clear consensus; little understanding of how this relationship might vary across different country, socio-cultural, policy contexts

USAID’s Tenure and Global Climate Change (TGCC) Project• 2-year RCT in 5 chiefdoms of Chipata District, Eastern Province• Cross-cutting tenure and agroforestry interventions aimed at increasing the

adoption of CSA• Opportunity to test relative contributions of strengthening customary land

governance and agroforestry extension support on HH tenure security and CSA adoption• IE focuses on identifying effects of village and household level interventions

• Agroforestry intervention focuses on:• Extension support around establishment of 3 agroforestry species: Faidherbia albida (msangu); Gliricidia sepium; Cajanus cajan (Pigeon pea)

USAID’s Tenure and Global Climate Change (TGCC) Project, cont’d.• Tenure intervention focuses on:

• Establishing Village Land Committees• Participatory mapping to aid land allocation• Support dissemination of land management rules agreed at chief level• Capacity building to headmen, indunas, VLCs, around land administration processes,

including land dispute resolution and administration of customary land certificates• Facilitate implementation of customary land certificates (at chief’s consent)• HH-level paralegal extension support around land rights, certification and dispute

resolution

Evaluation PurposeHow do changes in property rights that strengthen a farmer’s perception of long-term security over farmland affect a farmer’s decision to practice climate smart agriculture, including agroforestry, on their own farms?

Motivating Questions:1.Do chiefdom- and village-level tenure strengthening activities reduce land disputes? 2.What is the additional effect of documenting land occupancy at the household level on

farmer perception of tenure security, as well as behavior change towards CSA? 3.Are land tenure strengthening activities alone sufficient to change farmer behavior

towards greater agroforestry uptake? 4.How does improved farmer access to agroforestry extension resources additionally

impact a farmer’s decision to engage in agroforestry?

METHODOLOGY

Evaluation Design & Analytic Approach• Randomized Control Trial (RCT) implemented across 294 villages in Chipata District• 5 survey instruments developed:

• (1) household survey, (2) headperson survey, (3) land tenure key informant interview, (4) agroforestry key informant interview and (5) focus group protocol for women, youth, and land-constrained households.

• 15 HHs sampled per village, stratified by gender of HH head, wealth status and tribe.• Quantitative instruments designed to cover three outcome areas:

1. Household perceptions of tenure security over their smallholdings; 2. Planned and applied agricultural investment and other land use plans resulting from perceived

tenure security, including improved adoption of agroforestry and related CSA activities; and 3. Distal outcomes around improved agricultural productivity, livelihood improvements, and

increased climate resilience. • Qualitative instruments to add context and depth, particularly around agroforestry, land

tenure and land disputes, and land governance and management issues.

TGCC Project: A Randomized Control Trial of Land Tenure Strengthening and Agroforestry Extension Impacts on Smallholder Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture

Agroforestry interventions implemented in 177 villages; land tenure intervention implemented in approximately 130 villages.

Eligible Chiefdoms

Randomization Step Control Villages CONTROL

Agroforestry Villages AGROFORESTRY

Land Tenure Villages LAND TENURE

Agroforestry and Land Tenure

Villages

AGROFORESTRY and LAND TENURE

Saili AGROFORESTRY

TGCC Chiefdo

ms

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN

Baseline Data Collection• Baseline completed Aug 2014;

Endline expected Aug 2017;True panel survey

• Qualitative & Quantitative:• 3,523 households surveyed across

294 villages in Chipata District• Headperson survey• Key informant interviews:

• agricultural extension officers; individuals involved in local land issues (e.g., Indunas, village elders)

• Focus groups with women, youth, land-constrained HHs (45 villages)

• Nested data collection across fields, HHs, villages

Household Impacts Assessed for Indicators of:

• Female- vs male-headed households

• Widows vs other households• Land-constrained households• Household wealth status

• Land disputes & resolution• Land decision-making & allocation• Tenure security (perceived

expropriation risk)• Land rights & administration

knowledge• Land use & agricultural

investments, particularly for CSA• Agroforestry uptake & survivorship

rates

Variance of Impacts Assessed Across:

KEY BASELINE FINDINGS

Outcome 1—Tenure Security: High Overall, but Elite Capture Concerns• Relatively high tenure security across the surveyed chiefdoms• Little evidence of strong marginalization around land issues for female-

headed or poorer householdPerceived Likelihood of Elite Capture at Household Level

Response Category

Elites/Big people may take this field without your permission in 1–3 years?

Chief will give up this field for investment purposes in 1–3 years

Household level—at least one field—‘Impossible/would never happen’ or ‘highly unlikely’

93% (N=3271) 89% (N=3129)

Household level—at least one field—‘Very likely’ or ‘likely’ 28% (N=993) 40% (N=1393)

Outcome 1—Tenure Security: Land Reallocation Risk• Land expropriation events are uncommon (experienced by < 2% HHs)• But, household concern over this is high (15–25% of fields surveyed). Two main sources of concern:

• dispossession by chiefs for investment purposes; and • boundary disputes with other HHs in village

Per field, Perceived Livelihoods of Reallocation or Forced Removal

Response Category

Reallocation by headperson: 1–3 years

Reallocation by headperson: beyond 4 years

Encroachment by extended family: 1–3 years

Encroachment by extended family: beyond 4 years

N % N % N % N %Impossible/Would never happen 6659 75% 6619 75% 6389 72% 6369 72%Highly unlikely 1030 12% 849 10% 960 11% 786 9%Unsure/I don't know 185 2% 200 2% 140 2% 148 2%Likely 792 9% 784 9% 1158 13% 1178 13%Very likely 155 2% 368 4% 170 2% 337 4%Happening right now 2 <1% 3 <1% 8 <1% 9 <1%Prefer not to respond 29 <1% 29 <1% 27 <1% 35 <1%Statistically significant difference between male- and female-headed households?

No (p=.77) No (p=.71) No (p=.62) No (p=.69)

Outcome 1—Tenure Security: Land Documentation• 91% of HHs would like to obtain

documentation over customary land they use (current holders of documentation are very uncommon; < 1% of households)

• Links to strong household-level interest in land documentation

2%

98%

Yes; N=86No; N=3523

HOUSEHOLD HAS PAPER DOCUMENTATION FOR THEIR LAND

32%

9%

13%

25%

20%

Husband only; N=34

Wife only; N=10

Husband and Wife; N=14

Husband, Wife, and Children; N=27

Other; N=21

HOUSEHOLD MEMBER LISTED ON LAND DOCUMENTATION

6%

94%

Yes; N=207No; N=3242

HOUSEHOLD HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT CUSTOMARY LAND CERTIFICATES

92%

8%

Yes; N=3224No; N=299

HOUSEHOLDS WANT TO OBTAIN PAPER DOCUMENTATION FOR THEIR LAND

Outcome 1—Tenure Security Land Disputes• HHs commonly experience land-related disputes, despite fairly high overall tenure security: • 26% of households (N=707) experienced a land conflict on at least one field

in past 3 years;• prior disputes recorded on 10% of fields surveyed (N = 1007 fields)

• Clear indication of dampening effect of land disputes on household perception of security over land

Outcome 2—Agricultural Investment & Land Use Planning• Upfront costly field investments are uncommon:

• Planting basins: 10% of fields• Live fencing: 1% of fields• Drip irrigation: < 1% of fields

• Less costly CSA investments somewhat more common:• Zero tillage: 8% of fields• Manuring: 18% of fields• Fallowing: 7% of fields

• Ridging (85% of fields) and crop rotation (82% of fields) very common

Field Investments at the Household and Field Level

    Field Household

Statistically significant difference between male and female-headed households?

Planting basinsN 909 789

.20 (.65)% 10% 22%

Zero tillageN 748 626

.65 (.42)% 8% 18%

RidgingN 7528 3300

.94 (.33)% 85% 94%

FencingN 88 77

.30 (.58)% 1% 2%

ManureN 1568 1278

3.93 (.047)**% 18% 36%

Crop rotationN 7264 3219

2.25 (.13)% 82% 91%

FallowingN 656 559

.004 (.95)% 7% 16%

Drip irrigationN 5 5

 % <1% <1%Asterisks indicate statistical signifigance: * at 90%, ** at 95%, and *** at 99%

Outcome 3—Agroforestry & Climate Smart Agriculture• Agroforestry uptake currently very low (11% of HHs (N=383); 5% of fields

(N=404))Response Category Percent (%)Planted agroforestry trees 11% (N= 383)No agroforestry trees planted 89% (N=3140)5% of fields have agroforestry trees planted (404 out of 8859 fields)Statistically significant difference between male- and female-headed households? No (p value=.85)Statistically significant difference between across treatment arms? No (p value=.32)

63%

14%

5%1%4%

1%12% Musangu (Faidherbiaalbida);

N=239Gliricidia (Gliricidiasepim); N=54Sesbaniasesban; N=20Ububa (Tephrosiavogelii); N=4Cowpeas; N=14Pigeon peas; N=4Mix/other species; N=47

AGROFORESTRY TREE SPECIES PLANTED

10%

43%

18%

15%

15% None; N=411-10 trees/shrubs or crops; N=16710-20 trees/shrubs or crops; N=6920-49 trees/shrubs or crops; N=5750 or more trees/shrubs or crops; N=57

AGROFORESTRY SPECIES SURVIVAL

Summary of Findings: Agricultural Investments & Agroforestry• Agroforestry uptake currently very low (11% of HHs (N=383); 5% of fields

(N=404))• Other upfront costly field investments also uncommon:

• Planting basins: 10% of fields• Live fencing: 1% of fields• Drip irrigation: < 1% of fields

• Less costly CSA investments somewhat more common:• Zero tillage: 8% of fields• Manuring: 18% of fields• Fallowing: 7% of fields

• Ridging (85% of fields) and crop rotation (82% of fields) very common

CONCLUSIONS

LEARNING FROM BASELINE PROCESS: PRACTICAL CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED

Evaluation Challenges and Lessons Learned Methodological• GPS• Village listing• Accounting for spillovers • Unexpected rarity of occurrences—power of the study• Capturing implementation shift or variation• Linking the IE with program M&E

LEARNING FROM BASELINE RESULTS: POLICY & PROGRAMMING LINKAGES

Key Overall Messages: TGCC Baseline Findings• Overall, relatively high tenure security across the surveyed chiefdoms

• Collective understanding of cultural norms around customary land access, allocation and inheritance appear to be strong overall and well-functioning, including mediating equitable access to land for traditionally vulnerable groups (also strongly supported by qualitative data)

• Traditional informal and customary norms over land access, allocation, inheritance appear to be strong

• Little evidence of strong marginalization around land issues for female-headed or poorer households.

Key Overall Messages: TGCC Baseline Findings, cont’d.However• Clear indication of dampening effect of land disputes on household perception of

security over land• Clear indication of concern over emergent challenges to land rights, such as

expropriation by chiefs for investments• Links to strong household-level interest in land documentation.

Role of stronger tenure security in promoting agroforestry?• Some indication of its effect on broader costly land investments• Currently very low uptake constrains the baseline analyses; • A need for more nuanced work as a next step

Ongoing Research drawing on TGCC Baseline Data(L. Persha, H. Huntington, M. M. Stickler, in prep)To what extent does land tenure insecurity serve as a barrier to agroforestry uptake, and wider implementation of other climate-smart agricultural practices?1. How secure are the rights of Eastern Province

smallholders over the land they use, under Zambia’s prevailing dual customary and state tenure system?

2. What are household level determinants of stronger tenure security?

3. What role does tenure security play in shaping household land use strategies and CSA investments (agroforestry uptake in particular)?

Thank You