1 / 12

Plan Foncier Rural Impact evaluation

Plan Foncier Rural Impact evaluation . Katherine Mark (Urban Institute/ NORC) Annette Richter (MCC Benin). Overview. MCA Benin Compact Access to Land project Plan Foncier Rural Evaluation Objectives/ Hypothesis Methodology Household survey Implementation Next Steps. MCA Benin Compact.

trevor
Download Presentation

Plan Foncier Rural Impact evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Plan Foncier RuralImpact evaluation Katherine Mark (Urban Institute/ NORC) Annette Richter (MCC Benin)

  2. Overview • MCA Benin Compact • Access to Land project • Plan Foncier Rural • Evaluation • Objectives/ Hypothesis • Methodology • Household survey • Implementation • Next Steps

  3. MCA Benin Compact • Access to land: more secure & useful land tenure • Access to financial services: enhance credit facilities and grants given to micro, small, and medium enterprises; • Access to justice: bring courts closer to rural populations and improve court functioning • Access to markets: eliminate physical and procedural constraints to the flow of goods through the Port of Cotonou

  4. Access to Land Project • Policy & Legal Reform • Achieving formal property rights to land in rural & urban areas • Improving land administration & information management • Decentralizes land registration by establishing regional offices • Provides education on land policy

  5. Plan Foncier Rural (Rural Landholding Plan) Objective: Expand creation of rural land plans, land tenure certificates and local land management capacity Process: • Information campaigns • Assess socio-economic & land tenure conditions of villages in selected communes • Prepare village profiles including documentation of location-specific land tenure terms and norms • Produce land use and tenure maps (the PFR) • Participatory method • Rural and holding plan submitted for public review and comment • Rural land use certificates issued & facilitation of formal, written records of subordinate land rights using improved approaches

  6. Evaluation objective/ hypotheses Objective: Measure project impact on household income in PFR project areas and on investment in targeted rural parcels Hypotheses: • Households will invest in making their property more productive (without fear of not recouping investment because of losing access to the land) • Enhanced land tenure security should facilitate land transactions from less efficient producers to more efficient producers, raising productivity • Capital constrained owners can use land as collateral to finance investments on parcel

  7. Evaluation Methodology • Randomization PFR implementation at the village level • Pipeline: original plan to roll out PFR in EMICOV villages over approximately 3 years • Order of PFR implementation based on commune’s likelihood of benefitting from program

  8. Link to household survey data • National household living standards measurement survey - EMICOV • EMICOV sample used as a basis for creating treatment and control groups • Qualifying villages randomly assigned to treatment or control groups • EMICOV survey provides data for assessing project impact • Implement PFR first in eligible EMICOV villages Treatment & control villages PFR Eligible communes EMICOV sample

  9. Evaluation implementation • Rapid diagnostic in EMICOV sample villages • Diagnostic determines PFR eligible villages- does village possess characteristics that would allow the land reform activities to succeed • Half of pool of eligible villages assigned to the “treatment’ group where land reform activities will occur and half will be assigned to the “control” • Expected pool of 270 eligible EMICOV villages • 135 would be randomly assigned to treatment 135 treatment villages Eligible villages Random selection } 270 villages Rapid Diagnostic in EMICOV villages 135 control villages Non eligible villages

  10. Implementation Challenges • Implementation delays • Selection process included EMICOV & Non EMICOV villages • Randomization applied to EMICOV & Non EMICOV villages (separately) • First round pool of eligible EMICOV villages lower than expected • Target # treatment villages was 34- only 26 selected • Unlikely to achieve targeted pool of EMICOV villages and # of EMICOV treatment villages • At least 120 treatment villages feasible

  11. But wait… you want randomization? • Separate randomization also used to select non EMICOV villages for PFR participation • Participants perceived increased transparency and fairness in this process

  12. Next steps • PFR preparatory process on going (land lexicons, etc) • Analyzing baseline characteristics of sample villages through EMICOV data • Qualitative work- short term proxies such as: • changing attitudes towards land security • intent to invest • using titles as collateral • wealth effects • The “after” comparison

More Related