Land Tenure and Property Rights in the Agricultural Areas of Kenya: Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts

  • 413 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
413
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Net returns to land allows direct comparisons between different land uses and production strategies. It is gross revenues less direct and indirect costs of production. The term “rent” (which has nothing to do with a lease) refers to these net returns. On the rangelands, producers try and “capture” rents from agricultural, livestock and wildlife production. See my Economics of Conservation paper on the web site

Transcript

  • 1. Land Tenure and Property Rights in the Agricultural Areas of Kenya: Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts
    • “…… There is a fundamental connection between secure property rights, freedom and prosperity. Be it property rights to one's self (human capital), to one's investments in land and property (physical capital) or to one's ideas (intellectual capital), secure claims to assets give people the ability to make their own decisions, reaping the benefits of good choices and bearing the costs of bad ones. Without property rights, no other rights are possible…..”
      • Mike Norton-Griffiths
      • Senior Research Fellow
      • ODDG/ICRAF
  • 2. Commercial Leasehold
    • Large commercial farms, typically with 999 year lease, under the Registration of Titles Act (Cap. 281) 1920
  • 3. Adjudicated Land
    • Adjudicated under the Land Adjudication Act CAP 284 1968, intensive smallholder cultivation with clear freehold title
  • 4. Unadjudicated Land
    • Unadjudicated land, no firm legal title
  • 5. Economic Impacts
  • 6. Note (*) : % of non-Government Land 12 18 35 Unadjudicated 56 67 44 Freehold 32 15 21 Leasehold % Net Agricultural Returns % Rural Population % Land (*) Major Tenure Types in the Agricultural Lands of Kenya
  • 7.  
  • 8.  
  • 9.  
  • 10.  
  • 11.  
  • 12.  
  • 13.  
  • 14. Agricultural Rents net returns to land ($NRL) $NRL = gross revenues – (direct & indirect costs) as $ ha -1 y -1
  • 15.
    • $ Net Returns to Land
    • $ NRL ha -1 y -1
      • Tenure
        • Freehold versus Unadjudicated
      • Environment
        • Elevation
        • Temperature
        • Rainfall
        • Available Soil Moisture
      • Infrastructure
        • Distance to all weather roads [ ….]
        • [Distance to principal town] [ …..]
      • Population 1989
        • Density
        • [ growth rate ]
  • 16. 0.006 2.770 0.351 0.102 0.283 Freehold tenure * 1989 Population (per km2) 0.000 3.909 0.425 0.094 0.367 1989 Population (per km2) 0.007 2.703 0.055 0.349 0.943 Freehold tenure * Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.000 4.239 0.072 0.197 0.836 Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.610 0.510 0.012 5.116 2.607 Freehold tenure * Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 8.776 0.225 3.551 31.162 Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 14.117 0.251 5.168 72.952 Freehold tenure * Elevation and Temperature 0.000 4.881 0.086 3.304 16.125 Elevation and Temperature 0.000 5.865 0.310 15.408 90.372 Freehold tenure 0.000 10.113 0.000 11.075 112.008 CONSTANT p-value t Std. Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient $ Effect
  • 17. 0.006 2.770 0.351 0.102 0.283 Freehold tenure * 1989 Population (per km2) 0.000 3.909 0.425 0.094 0.367 1989 Population (per km2) 0.007 2.703 0.055 0.349 0.943 Freehold tenure * Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.000 4.239 0.072 0.197 0.836 Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.610 0.510 0.012 5.116 2.607 Freehold tenure * Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 8.776 0.225 3.551 31.162 Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 14.117 0.251 5.168 72.952 Freehold tenure * Elevation and Temperature 0.000 4.881 0.086 3.304 16.125 Elevation and Temperature 0.000 5.865 0.310 15.408 90.372 Freehold tenure 0.000 10.113 0.000 11.075 112.008 CONSTANT p-value t Std. Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient $ Effect
  • 18. 0.006 2.770 0.351 0.102 0.283 Freehold tenure * 1989 Population (per km2) 0.000 3.909 0.425 0.094 0.367 1989 Population (per km2) 0.007 2.703 0.055 0.349 0.943 Freehold tenure * Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.000 4.239 0.072 0.197 0.836 Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.610 0.510 0.012 5.116 2.607 Freehold tenure * Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 8.776 0.225 3.551 31.162 Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 14.117 0.251 5.168 72.952 Freehold tenure * Elevation and Temperature 0.000 4.881 0.086 3.304 16.125 Elevation and Temperature 0.000 5.865 0.310 15.408 90.372 Freehold tenure 0.000 10.113 0.000 11.075 112.008 CONSTANT p-value t Std. Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient $ Effect
  • 19.  
  • 20. 0.006 2.770 0.351 0.102 0.283 Freehold tenure * 1989 Population (per km2) 0.000 3.909 0.425 0.094 0.367 1989 Population (per km2) 0.007 2.703 0.055 0.349 0.943 Freehold tenure * Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.000 4.239 0.072 0.197 0.836 Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.610 0.510 0.012 5.116 2.607 Freehold tenure * Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 8.776 0.225 3.551 31.162 Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 14.117 0.251 5.168 72.952 Freehold tenure * Elevation and Temperature 0.000 4.881 0.086 3.304 16.125 Elevation and Temperature 0.000 5.865 0.310 15.408 90.372 Freehold tenure 0.000 10.113 0.000 11.075 112.008 CONSTANT p-value t Std. Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient $ Effect
  • 21.  
  • 22.  
  • 23. Tenure Effect (Freehold versus Unadjudicated) Dummy Freehold Tenure = 0 $NRL = $126 Dummy Freehold Tenure = 1 $NRL = $288 TENURE EFFECT (aebe) 2.28
  • 24. Environmental Impacts
  • 25. Tenure and Investment in Woody Vegetation
  • 26. Machakos District; % Land with Erosion Control (terracing, bunds, contour ploughing or tied ridging)
  • 27. Social Impacts
  • 28. 0.628 0.485 0.079 0.019 0.009 Freehold tenure * Embedded Land Tenure * 1989 Population (per km2) 0.056 1.909 0.282 0.018 0.034 Embedded Land Tenure * 1989 Population (per km2) 0.000 4.311 0.185 1.818 7.837 Freehold tenure * Embedded Land Tenure 0.002 -3.157 -0.089 1.762 -5.564 Embedded Land Tenure 0.006 2.770 0.351 0.102 0.283 Freehold tenure * 1989 Population (per km2) 0.000 3.909 0.425 0.094 0.367 1989 Population (per km2) 0.007 2.703 0.055 0.349 0.943 Freehold tenure * Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.000 4.239 0.072 0.197 0.836 Distance (km) to all weather roads 0.610 0.510 0.012 5.116 2.607 Freehold tenure * Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 8.776 0.225 3.551 31.162 Rainfall and Soil Moisture 0.000 14.117 0.251 5.168 72.952 Freehold tenure * Elevation and Temperature 0.000 4.881 0.086 3.304 16.125 Elevation and Temperature 0.000 5.865 0.310 15.408 90.372 Freehold tenure 0.000 10.113 0.000 11.075 112.008 CONSTANT p-value t Std. Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient $ Effect
  • 29.  
  • 30.  
  • 31. Lessons to be Learned?
    • 1. Strengthening tenure and property rights is possibly the single most effective intervention to address rural poverty.
  • 32. Lessons to be Learned?
    • 1. Strengthening tenure and property rights is possibly the single most effective intervention to address rural poverty.
    • 2. This is not to say that people with private, freehold tenure will never be poor – only that they would be even poorer without private tenure.
  • 33. Lessons to be Learned?
    • 1. Strengthening tenure and property rights is possibly the single most effective intervention to address rural poverty.
    • 2. This is not to say that people with private, freehold tenure will never be poor – only that they would be even poorer without private tenure
    • 3. BUT, private tenure and strong property rights are not a panacea on their own – they require a free market economy flourish.