Impact and Sustainability of the LTR Program in Rwanda Daniel Ayalew Ali and Klaus Deininger Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty 23 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 CellRandomized 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 land21.0%14.7% Sold land8.8%16.4% Inheritance and gift Acquired through inheritance and gift14.6%12.5% Given out land in the form of inheritance and giftN/A14.0% Total Number of households

Sold parcels in Kigali (2013 registry – 6500 parcels )

Sold parcels (central Kigali)

Level of informality of transactions Transferred-inTransferred-out All Types of TransactionsN=674, Size=0.11 haN=635, Size=0.11 ha Completely informal36.1%64.3% Only informally registered with the village leader18.7%19.7% Officially registered at the DLO/Deputy registrar45.3%16.1% Land MarketN=307, Size=0.11 haN=319, Size=0.10 ha Completely informal31.6%62.1% Only informally registered with the village leader32.9%24.5% Officially registered at the DLO/Deputy registrar35.5%13.5% Inheritance and GiftN=275, Size=0.11 haN=316, Size=0.12 ha Completely informal33.8%66.5% Only informally registered with the village leader4.7%14.9% Officially registered at the DLO/Deputy registrar61.5%18.7%

Determinants of transaction registration Transfer-inTransfer-out Participated in land week meetings 0.164***0.042 (3.548)(1.249) Purchased/sold parcel-0.111** ** * (-2.337) (-2.567) (-1.773) (-1.764) Government allocated parcel (0.087) (-0.212) Parcel size0.037** 0.034* (2.053) (1.852) (-0.240) (-0.230) Has certified parcel0.188*** 0.196*** 0.084*** 0.083*** (3.038) (3.187) (2.651) (2.624) Year acquired-0.193*** *** (-6.605) (-6.767) Age of head of household * (1.434) (1.767) (1.234) (1.205) Female head (0.340) (0.190) (0.648) (0.742) Years of head education *** (0.357) (-0.285) (2.637) (2.665) Value of household assets (-0.520) (-0.436) (0.053) (-0.017) Parcel sub-division0.043 (1.267)(1.264) Number of observations

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-inTransfer-out Participated in land week meetings 0.164***0.042 (3.548)(1.249) Purchased/sold parcel-0.111** ** * (-2.337) (-2.567) (-1.773) (-1.764) Government allocated parcel (0.087) (-0.212) Parcel size0.037** 0.034* (2.053) (1.852) (-0.240) (-0.230) Has certified parcel0.188*** 0.196*** 0.084*** 0.083*** (3.038) (3.187) (2.651) (2.624) Year acquired-0.193*** *** (-6.605) (-6.767) Age of head of household * (1.434) (1.767) (1.234) (1.205) Female head (0.340) (0.190) (0.648) (0.742) Years of head education *** (0.357) (-0.285) (2.637) (2.665) Value of household assets (-0.520) (-0.436) (0.053) (-0.017) Parcel sub-division0.043 (1.267)(1.264) Number of observations

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 transactions N=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 percent Kigali (admin data)Rural Areas (survey data) Mean 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