Securing Land Rights in Mozambique: Can the community land delimitation initiative in Mozambique be a cost-effective and inclusive alternative?

Securing Land Rights in Mozambique: Can the

community land delimitation initiative in Mozambique be a

cost-effective and inclusive alternative?

Hosaena Ghebru (Ph.D)

Presented at a Seminar “IFPRI-MSU Policy Workshop”

November 20, 2014

Maputo, Mozambique

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Introduction

• New land reforms high on the development agenda:

• (High Level) Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor - LPI

• USAID, The World Bank, DFID (scaled up financing of land reform projects)

• Land governance – integral component of the G-8 alliance for food security

• MDGs: Rights based approaches


The three (neo-classical) justifications for

land rights formalization• Tenure security

• Enhance investment

• Transferability

• Gains from trade

• Reallocate land to more efficient users

• Credit access

• Land as collateral

How important are each of these and are they always achievable?


Introduction: Mozambique

• In 2009, the MCC provided more than US$61 million to fund a five-year project

• The Community Land Initiative (iTC) – established in 2006 by a group of six donors (DFID, Netherlands, SIDA, Irish Aid, SDC, and DANIDA)

• GESTERRA (Capacity Building for Land Management and Administration in Mozambique) program supported bythe Netherlands and Swedish Embassy in Maputo

• Community-investor Partnerships supported by IFAD


Mixed stories: failed reforms

• Land titling in Kenya and Madagascar

• Have not enhanced tenure security, promoted investment,

land and credit markets (e.g. Place and Migot-Adholla

1998, Jacoby and Minten 2006,2008)

• Sucessful reforms:

• Ethiopia: Low-cost land registration and certification

• China: Household responsibility system

• India: Computerized registry system, tax-base

• Recent innovative reforms:

• Community land delimitation initiative – Mozambique

• Customary land secretariat – Ghana


New land reform approaches: The continuum tenure approach

Lin

ks b

etw

een

Ten

ure

Secu

rity a

nd

Fo

od

Secu

rity:

Ev

iden

ce fro

m E

thio

pia

6



Lin

ks b

etw

een

Ten

ure

Secu

rity a

nd

Fo

od

Secu

rity:

Ev

iden

ce fro

m E

thio

pia

7



Lin

ks b

etw

een

Ten

ure

Secu

rity a

nd

Fo

od

Secu

rity:

Ev

iden

ce fro

m E

thio

pia

8



Lin

ks b

etw

een

Ten

ure

Secu

rity a

nd

Fo

od

Secu

rity:

Ev

iden

ce fro

m E

thio

pia

9


Focus of the study and key research questions

1. Assess the factors explaining perceived tenure insecurity for

households and the implications of such tenure security on their

observed behavior in demanding for formalization of land rights in the

country.

• Distinction is made between source of risk of tenure insecurity as: :

• private or idiosyncratic tenure risks (such as ownership or inheritance

related disputes) ; and

• collective/systematic tenure risks (such as large-scale land acquisitions

by the private sector or expropriation by the government)

2. To investigate how the source/type of tenure risk households face in

protecting their land rights affects demand for formalization of

individual land rights (DUAT)


Hypotheses and Data

1. Tenure insecurity is higher the higher the land scarcity is.

2. Households demand for improved land rights is higher in high potential

areas (high land values)

3. The higher private or idiosyncratic tenure risks (such as ownership or

inheritance related disputes) the higher demand for individual DUAT;

while

4. The higher collective/systematic tenure risks (such as large-scale land

acquisitions by the private sector or expropriation by the government) the

lower the demand for individual DUAT

Data used:

• TIA-2008 Household survey data: both household and parcel level dataset

• Geo-spatial data on agricultural potential, market access, land use and

population density


Variables of interest

Tenure security proxy variable

• Possession of DUAT

• Possession of other land right documentations

• Knowledge of the land law

• Willingness-to-pay for DUAT

• Experience of land related dispute

• Perception of land related dispute – private

• Perception of land related dispute – Public


Results: Descriptive analysis


Results: Descriptive analysis


Regression results: Determinants of perceived tenure insecurity


Regression results: Determinants of demand for DUAT


Regression results: Determinants of demand for DUAT


Conclusion

• Households’ level of tenure insecurity and demand for improved land rights

is higher in areas with relatively higher land scarcity and agricultural

potential

• Results show that the type of perceived tenure insecurity (whether private or

collective tenure risks) households encounter dictates their demand and

willingness-to-pay for formalization of their individual land rights (DUAT).

• The study also revealed that a majority of households (regardless of the

gender of the head or the family structure of the household) have shown

significant demand for documentation to safeguard their rights over their

land.

• Willingness to pay for legal documentation of their rights (DUAT) on the type

of tenure insecurity farm households encounter, such as: • Parcels with higher perceived tenure insecurity of private nature have higher

demand for individual DUAT; while

• Parcels with higher perceived tenure insecurity of collective nature have lower

demand for individual DUAT

• Such results implies the need to avoid a blanket solution approach to land

policy


Obrigado!

Lin

ks b

etw

een

Ten

ure

Secu

rity a

nd

Fo

od

Secu

rity:

Ev

iden

ce fro

m E

thio

piaa

19

qualquer pergunta?

Education

Securing Land Rights in Mozambique: Can the community land delimitation initiative in Mozambique be a cost-effective and inclusive alternative?