Impact and Sustainability of the LTR Program in Rwanda

Daniel Ayalew Ali and Klaus Deininger

Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty23 March 2015

Background: Legal and institutional reforms followed by registration (LTR)

• Undertaken a series of legal reforms• 1999 Inheritance Law• 2004/5 Land Policy and Organic Land Law• Still an ongoing process: the New Land Law was enacted in 2013

• Demarcation and Registration (supported by DFID)• 2007/9: piloted in 4 cells (some 15,000 parcels)• 2010/12: the first time registration was scaled-up at the national level• As of 2013:

• 10.4 million parcels were demarcated• 8 million leases and certificates were issued with about 5.8 million certificates picked up

• The approach is now emulated by a number of African countries (e.g., Nigeria, Ethiopia)

Impact evaluation of the LTR program

• RNRA-DFID-World Bank forged a successful collaboration to assess the impact of both the pilot and the national programs• In the absence of baseline data, geographic discontinuity strategy was used

in the pilot study • comparing households within and outside the boundary of the pilot program areas

• A randomized phase-in design is used to identify the impact of the national program• Excellent collaboration from RNRA to implement the randomized roll-out and giving

access to administrative data• Panel data: 2011, 2012, and for a relatively longer-term impact the third round is

currently in the field (CAPI, real time data)

Impact evaluation design

Pilot Design: Kabushenge Cell Randomized phase-in (National program)

Main results: Pilot

• Land-related investment• Significant increase in soil conservation investment (10%)• Particularly pronounced for female-headed households

• Female land rights and clarity of inheritance• Positive impact (+17%) for those with formal marriage certificate• But negative for those with no legal marriage certificate (-7%)• Motivation for adjustment in instructions for the national roll-out

• Land sales market• Uniform reduction in level of activity, but not distress sale observed

Main results: National program (after 1 year)• Perceived tenure security

• LTR households are less likely to have had a disagreement over land• Same for male/female owned parcels• No significant change on the likelihood of expropriation

• Land-related investment• In light of the short time span, no clear positive impact on investment emerges• Having a longer time period will hopefully give more clarity (third round survey)

• Women’s land rights• Women are more likely to be registered as owners• Unlike the pilot program, women with marriage certificates get the same rights as those

without• Actions taken by Government in response to the pilot findings might have been effective

• Land market participation• Significant increase in land rental activities• No significant impact on purchases/sales

Challenges for the sustainability of the system

• Completeness: are all the land mapped and certified with the owners identified and recorded?• Disputes, payment of registration fees, difficulty identifying owners, etc

• Are subsequent land transactions being recorded? • Sales (including prices), inheritance, mortgages, etc.

• To monitor progress and achieve sustainability administrative as well as survey data are needed• The panel data for the impact evaluation of the national program provides

valuable insights on the rate of land transaction and level of informality particularly in rural areas

Share of rural households participating in land transactions over a period of 3 years

2011 (Before LTR) 2015

Land sales market

Purchased land 21.0% 14.7%

Sold land 8.8% 16.4%

Inheritance and gift

Acquired through inheritance and gift 14.6% 12.5%

Given out land in the form of inheritance and gift N/A 14.0%

Total Number of households 3600 1491

Sold parcels in Kigali (2013 registry – 6500 parcels)

Sold parcels (central Kigali)

Level of informality of transactions

Transferred-in Transferred-out

All Types of Transactions N=674, Size=0.11 ha N=635, Size=0.11 ha

Completely informal 36.1% 64.3%

Only informally registered with the village leader 18.7% 19.7%

Officially registered at the DLO/Deputy registrar 45.3% 16.1%

Land Market N=307, Size=0.11 ha N=319, Size=0.10 ha

Completely informal 31.6% 62.1%

Only informally registered with the village leader 32.9% 24.5%

Officially registered at the DLO/Deputy registrar 35.5% 13.5%

Inheritance and Gift N=275, Size=0.11 ha N=316, Size=0.12 ha

Completely informal 33.8% 66.5%

Only informally registered with the village leader 4.7% 14.9%

Officially registered at the DLO/Deputy registrar 61.5% 18.7%

Determinants of transaction registration  Transfer-in Transfer-out

Participated in land week meetings 0.164*** 0.042

(3.548) (1.249)

Purchased/sold parcel -0.111** -0.123** -0.054* -0.054*

(-2.337) (-2.567) (-1.773) (-1.764)

Government allocated parcel 0.011 -0.026

(0.087) (-0.212)

Parcel size 0.037** 0.034* -0.002 -0.002

(2.053) (1.852) (-0.240) (-0.230)

Has certified parcel 0.188*** 0.196*** 0.084*** 0.083***

(3.038) (3.187) (2.651) (2.624)

Year acquired -0.193*** -0.201***

(-6.605) (-6.767)

Age of head of household 0.110 0.138* 0.072 0.070

(1.434) (1.767) (1.234) (1.205)

Female head 0.018 0.010 0.023 0.027

(0.340) (0.190) (0.648) (0.742)

Years of head education 0.003 -0.002 0.015*** 0.015***

(0.357) (-0.285) (2.637) (2.665)

Value of household assets -0.010 -0.009 0.001 -0.000

(-0.520) (-0.436) (0.053) (-0.017)

Parcel sub-division 0.043 0.043

(1.267) (1.264)

Number of observations 597 597 591 591

Potential obstacles to registering transactions

• Lack of information

• Accessibility

• Fees for transaction registration

Information campaign: Land week

• Recognizing high level of land transactions and the resulting informality, RNRA launched its first land week event in May 2014• Encourage landowners to register their land transactions• Encourage landowners to collect their leases and certificates• Discuss with local authorities and landowners on overall land issues

• How was it done?• Meetings with local leaders• Public meetings at sector and cell levels• Performance by local artists with land week messages• Media (Radio, TV and new papers) were used to communicate land week messages

• Coverage• 150 sectors from 25 districts were covered during the first land week event• The second land week event is currently underway• Recorded transactions increase from less than 10,000 to about 75,353 after the first land

week event

Determinants of transaction registration  Transfer-in Transfer-out

Participated in land week meetings 0.164*** 0.042

(3.548) (1.249)

Purchased/sold parcel -0.111** -0.123** -0.054* -0.054*

(-2.337) (-2.567) (-1.773) (-1.764)

Government allocated parcel 0.011 -0.026

(0.087) (-0.212)

Parcel size 0.037** 0.034* -0.002 -0.002

(2.053) (1.852) (-0.240) (-0.230)

Has certified parcel 0.188*** 0.196*** 0.084*** 0.083***

(3.038) (3.187) (2.651) (2.624)

Year acquired -0.193*** -0.201***

(-6.605) (-6.767)

Age of head of household 0.110 0.138* 0.072 0.070

(1.434) (1.767) (1.234) (1.205)

Female head 0.018 0.010 0.023 0.027

(0.340) (0.190) (0.648) (0.742)

Years of head education 0.003 -0.002 0.015*** 0.015***

(0.357) (-0.285) (2.637) (2.665)

Value of household assets -0.010 -0.009 0.001 -0.000

(-0.520) (-0.436) (0.053) (-0.017)

Parcel sub-division 0.043 0.043

(1.267) (1.264)

Number of observations 597 597 591 591

Accessibility: Process for transaction registration

Applicant

• Compile documents for the transaction: (i) proof of ownership, transaction agreement, marriage certificate, proof of identity (ii) depending on type: extract cadastral plan, court decision, tax clearance certificate

• Submit application to the Deputy registrar through the district land office (DLO)

District LO

• Verify authenticity and completeness of the documents and file them• Book the request for transaction (LAIS)• Accept the request for transaction• Transaction proceed in the LAIS (transaction captured and changes are made)

Deputy

registrar

• Approve the transaction• Sign and print the certificate (done automatically by the system)• Seal the original certificate and stored at the office of the Deputy Registrar• A duplicate certificate will then be sealed and forwarded to the DLO for issuing to the applicant

Improving accessibility: Sector land mangers notarizing land transactionsN=30, Avg area=810 sq km N=416, Avg area=58 sq km (7%)

~70 in place, rest in the process

Fees for transaction registration (27,000 RwF)

• 20,000 RwF transaction fees• 5,000 RwF for the new title• 2,000 RwF for notary services

Transaction fee and property value in Kigali (2013) and rural areas (2011/12)

Percentile of sale value of properties

Transaction fee rate in percentKigali (admin data) Rural Areas (survey data)

10 4.22 86.420 1.59 65.130 1.09 53.440 0.83 41.750 0.64 32.360 0.48 26.870 0.35 21.380 0.26 17.190 0.17 12.3

100 0.08 6.87Mean 0.93 33.8

Note: Rural parcels with sale value of less 27,000 RwF are dropped from the analysis (76 out of 560 parcels).

Concluding remarks

• LTR has positive effects

• Subsequent transaction registration is key for the sustainability of the program

• Next steps and long-term engagement (analysis of survey and admin data)• Information (land week campaign)• Accessibility (sector land managers)• Potential revision of transaction registration fees