1.
Land Tenure & Resource Management
IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE TENURE AND
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (TGCC)—ZAMBIA
Lead researchers—Heather Huntington, PhD (The Cloudburst Group),
Lauren Persha, PhD, (The Cloudburst Group and UNC Chapel Hill),
M. Mercedes Stickler (USAID)
November 2015

2.
OUTLINE
• Context:
• Background on agroforestry relating to tenure and climate change in Zambia
• Program overview of USAID-funded Tenure and Global Climate Change (TGCC)
• Objectives and methodology of the impact evaluation
• Key baseline findings
• Tenure security
• Agricultural Investment & Land Use Planning
• Agroforestry & Climate Smart Agriculture
• Conclusions and lessons learned from the process and results.

3.
CONTEXT

4.
Evaluation Context
• Resurgence in promoting agroforestry in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): to meet
food security challenges and climate change (CC) adaptation objectives for
poor rural farmers
• Many small-scale studies show a range of benefits to smallholders from
agroforestry:
• Improved soil fertility & crop yields
• Risk smoothing via crop diversification; increased or more reliable income
• Increased availability of wood products for HH use (e.g., fuelwood, fodder)

5.
Development Problem
Despite promotion and studied benefits, agroforestry uptake in SSA has
been persistently low, due in part to
• Cash, resource and inputs constraints
• e.g. labor & credit availability; farm size
• Insufficient technical knowledge
• Incompatible land management practices within villages
• e.g. communal livestock browsing during past-harvest season
• Broader cultural, demographic, institutional factors
• Insecurity over rights to land

6.
Research Motivation
• To what extent does land tenure insecurity serve as a barrier to agroforestry
uptake, and wider implementation of other climate-smart agricultural
practices?
• Widely hypothesized, but few studies show a definitive link
• Difficult to rigorously test at scale (challenges of piloting tenure interventions;
introducing experiments)
• Empirical studies have substantial endogeneity challenges to overcome
• Widely varying results across existing empirical work (Place 2009; Arnot et al
2011; Lawry et al 2014)

7.
Research Motivation, cont’d.
• Challenges to research methods also contribute to equivocal knowledge base
• Different definitions & measures of tenure security
• Different empirical strategies for analysis
• Generally, small-N studies: few villages, couple hundred HHs
• Household level rather than field level data
• No clear consensus; little understanding of how this relationship might vary across
different country, socio-cultural, policy contexts

8.
USAID’s Tenure and Global Climate Change (TGCC)
Project
• 2-year RCT in 5 chiefdoms of Chipata District, Eastern Province
• Cross-cutting tenure and agroforestry interventions aimed at increasing the adoption of
CSA
• Opportunity to test relative contributions of strengthening customary land governance
and agroforestry extension support on HH tenure security and CSA adoption
• IE focuses on identifying effects of village and household level interventions
• Agroforestry intervention focuses on:
• Extension support around establishment of 3 agroforestry species:
Faidherbia albida (msangu); Gliricidia sepium; Cajanus cajan (Pigeon pea)

9.
USAID’s Tenure and Global Climate Change (TGCC)
Project, cont’d.
• Tenure intervention focuses on:
• Establishing Village Land Committees
• Participatory mapping to aid land allocation
• Support dissemination of land management rules agreed at chief level
• Capacity building to headmen, indunas, VLCs, around land administration processes, including land
dispute resolution and administration of customary land certificates
• Facilitate implementation of customary land certificates (at chief’s consent)
• HH-level paralegal extension support around land rights, certification and dispute resolution

10.
Evaluation Purpose
How do changes in property rights that strengthen a farmer’s perception of long-term
security over farmland affect a farmer’s decision to practice climate smart agriculture,
including agroforestry, on their own farms?
Motivating Questions:
1. Do chiefdom- and village-level tenure strengthening activities reduce land disputes?
2. What is the additional effect of documenting land occupancy at the household level on farmer
perception of tenure security, as well as behavior change towards CSA?
3. Are land tenure strengthening activities alone sufficient to change farmer behavior towards greater
agroforestry uptake?
4. How does improved farmer access to agroforestry extension resources additionally impact a
farmer’s decision to engage in agroforestry?

11.
METHODOLOGY

12.
Evaluation Design & Analytic Approach
• Randomized Control Trial (RCT) implemented across 294 villages in Chipata District
• 5 survey instruments developed:
• (1) household survey, (2) headperson survey, (3) land tenure key informant interview, (4) agroforestry key
informant interview and (5) focus group protocol for women, youth, and land-constrained households.
• 15 HHs sampled per village, stratified by gender of HH head, wealth status and tribe.
• Quantitative instruments designed to cover three outcome areas:
1. Household perceptions of tenure security over their smallholdings;
2. Planned and applied agricultural investment and other land use plans resulting from perceived tenure
security, including improved adoption of agroforestry and related CSA activities; and
3. Distal outcomes around improved agricultural productivity, livelihood improvements, and increased
climate resilience.
• Qualitative instruments to add context and depth, particularly around agroforestry, land tenure and
land disputes, and land governance and management issues.

13.
TGCC Project: A Randomized Control Trial of Land Tenure
Strengthening and Agroforestry Extension Impacts on
Smallholder Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture
Agroforestry interventions implemented in 177 villages;
land tenure intervention implemented in approximately 130
villages.
Eligible
Chiefdoms
Randomization Step
Control Villages CONTROL
Agroforestry Villages AGROFORESTRY
Land Tenure Villages LAND TENURE
Agroforestry and
Land Tenure Villages
AGROFORESTRY
and LAND TENURE
Saili AGROFORESTRY
TGCC
Chiefdoms
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN

14.
Baseline Data
Collection
• Baseline completed Aug 2014;
Endline expected Aug 2017;
True panel survey
• Qualitative & Quantitative:
• 3,523 households surveyed across
294 villages in Chipata District
• Headperson survey
• Key informant interviews:
• agricultural extension officers;
individuals involved in local land issues
(e.g., Indunas, village elders)
• Focus groups with women, youth, land-
constrained HHs (45 villages)
• Nested data collection across fields,
HHs, villages

15.
Household Impacts
Assessed for Indicators of:
• Female- vs male-headed households
• Widows vs other households
• Land-constrained households
• Household wealth status
• Land disputes & resolution
• Land decision-making & allocation
• Tenure security (perceived expropriation
risk)
• Land rights & administration knowledge
• Land use & agricultural investments,
particularly for CSA
• Agroforestry uptake & survivorship rates
Variance of Impacts
Assessed Across:

16.
KEY BASELINE FINDINGS

17.
Outcome 1—Tenure Security:
High Overall, but Elite Capture Concerns
• Relatively high tenure security across the surveyed chiefdoms
• Little evidence of strong marginalization around land issues for female-headed or poorer
household
Perceived Likelihood of Elite Capture at Household Level
Response Category
Elites/Big people may take
this field without your
permission in 1–3 years?
Chief will give up this field for
investment purposes in 1–3
years
Household level—at least one field—
‘Impossible/would never happen’ or ‘highly
unlikely’
93% (N=3271) 89% (N=3129)
Household level—at least one field—‘Very likely’
or ‘likely’
28% (N=993) 40% (N=1393)

18.
Outcome 1—Tenure Security: Land Reallocation
Risk
• Land expropriation events are uncommon (experienced by < 2% HHs)
• But, household concern over this is high (15–25% of fields surveyed). Two main sources of concern:
• dispossession by chiefs for investment purposes; and
• boundary disputes with other HHs in village
Per field, Perceived Livelihoods of Reallocation or Forced Removal
Response Category
Reallocation by
headperson:
1–3 years
Reallocation by
headperson: beyond
4 years
Encroachment by
extended family: 1–3
years
Encroachment by
extended family:
beyond 4 years
N % N % N % N %
Impossible/Would never happen 6659 75% 6619 75% 6389 72% 6369 72%
Highly unlikely 1030 12% 849 10% 960 11% 786 9%
Unsure/I don't know 185 2% 200 2% 140 2% 148 2%
Likely 792 9% 784 9% 1158 13% 1178 13%
Very likely 155 2% 368 4% 170 2% 337 4%
Happening right now 2 <1% 3 <1% 8 <1% 9 <1%
Prefer not to respond 29 <1% 29 <1% 27 <1% 35 <1%
Statistically significant difference
between male- and female-
headed households?
No (p=.77) No (p=.71) No (p=.62) No (p=.69)

19.
Outcome 1—Tenure Security:
Land Documentation
• 91% of HHs would like to obtain
documentation over customary land
they use (current holders of
documentation are very uncommon; <
1% of households)
• Links to strong household-level interest
in land documentation
2%
98%
Yes; N=86
No; N=3523
HOUSEHOLD HAS PAPER DOCUMENTATION
FOR THEIR LAND
33%
9%
13%
25%
20%
Husband only;
N=34
Wife only;
N=10
Husband and
Wife; N=14
Husband, Wife,
and Children;
N=27
Other; N=21
HOUSEHOLD MEMBER LISTED ON LAND
DOCUMENTATION
6%
94%
Yes; N=207
No; N=3242
HOUSEHOLD HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION
ABOUT CUSTOMARY LAND CERTIFICATES
92%
8%
Yes;
N=3224
No; N=299
HOUSEHOLDS WANT TO OBTAIN PAPER
DOCUMENTATION FOR THEIR LAND

20.
Outcome 1—Tenure Security
Land Disputes
• HHs commonly experience land-related disputes, despite fairly high overall
tenure security:
• 26% of households (N=707) experienced a land conflict on at least one field in past 3
years;
• prior disputes recorded on 10% of fields surveyed (N = 1007 fields)
• Clear indication of dampening effect of land disputes on household
perception of security over land

21.
Outcome 2—Agricultural Investment & Land Use
Planning
• Upfront costly field investments are uncommon:
• Planting basins: 10% of fields
• Live fencing: 1% of fields
• Drip irrigation: < 1% of fields
• Less costly CSA investments somewhat more common:
• Zero tillage: 8% of fields
• Manuring: 18% of fields
• Fallowing: 7% of fields
• Ridging (85% of fields) and crop rotation (82% of fields) very common

22.
Field Investments at the Household and Field Level
Field Household
Statistically significant difference between
male and female-headed households?
Planting basins
N 909 789
.20 (.65)% 10% 22%
Zero tillage
N 748 626
.65 (.42)% 8% 18%
Ridging
N 7528 3300
.94 (.33)% 85% 94%
Fencing
N 88 77
.30 (.58)% 1% 2%
Manure
N 1568 1278
3.93 (.047)**% 18% 36%
Crop rotation
N 7264 3219
2.25 (.13)% 82% 91%
Fallowing
N 656 559
.004 (.95)% 7% 16%
Drip irrigation
N 5 5
% <1% <1%
Asterisks indicate statistical signifigance: * at 90%, ** at 95%, and *** at 99%

23.
Outcome 3—Agroforestry & Climate Smart
Agriculture
• Agroforestry uptake currently very low (11% of HHs (N=383); 5% of fields (N=404))
Response Category Percent (%)
Planted agroforestry trees 11% (N= 383)
No agroforestry trees planted 89% (N=3140)
5% of fields have agroforestry trees planted (404 out of 8859 fields)
Statistically significant difference between male- and female-headed
households? No (p value=.85)
Statistically significant difference between across treatment arms? No (p value=.32)
63%14%
5%
1%
4%
1%
12% Musangu (Faidherbiaalbida); N=239
Gliricidia (Gliricidiasepim); N=54
Sesbaniasesban; N=20
Ububa (Tephrosiavogelii); N=4
Cowpeas; N=14
Pigeon peas; N=4
Mix/other species; N=47
AGROFORESTRY TREE SPECIES PLANTED
10%
43%
18%
14%
15% None; N=41
1-10 trees/shrubs or crops;
N=167
10-20 trees/shrubs or crops;
N=69
20-49 trees/shrubs or crops;
N=57
50 or more trees/shrubs or crops;
N=57
AGROFORESTRY SPECIES SURVIVAL

24.
Summary of Findings: Agricultural Investments &
Agroforestry
• Agroforestry uptake currently very low (11% of HHs (N=383); 5% of fields (N=404))
• Other upfront costly field investments also uncommon:
• Planting basins: 10% of fields
• Live fencing: 1% of fields
• Drip irrigation: < 1% of fields
• Less costly CSA investments somewhat more common:
• Zero tillage: 8% of fields
• Manuring: 18% of fields
• Fallowing: 7% of fields
• Ridging (85% of fields) and crop rotation (82% of fields) very common

25.
CONCLUSIONS

26.
LEARNING FROM BASELINE
PROCESS:
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED

27.
Evaluation Challenges and Lessons Learned
Methodological
• GPS
• Village listing
• Accounting for spillovers
• Unexpected rarity of occurrences—power of the study
• Capturing implementation shift or variation
• Linking the IE with program M&E

28.
LEARNING FROM BASELINE
RESULTS:
POLICY & PROGRAMMING LINKAGES

29.
Key Overall Messages: TGCC Baseline Findings
• Overall, relatively high tenure security across the surveyed chiefdoms
• Collective understanding of cultural norms around customary land access,
allocation and inheritance appear to be strong overall and well-functioning,
including mediating equitable access to land for traditionally vulnerable
groups (also strongly supported by qualitative data)
• Traditional informal and customary norms over land access, allocation,
inheritance appear to be strong
• Little evidence of strong marginalization around land issues for female-
headed or poorer households.

30.
Key Overall Messages: TGCC Baseline Findings,
cont’d.
However
• Clear indication of dampening effect of land disputes on household perception of security
over land
• Clear indication of concern over emergent challenges to land rights, such as expropriation
by chiefs for investments
• Links to strong household-level interest in land documentation.
Role of stronger tenure security in promoting agroforestry?
• Some indication of its effect on broader costly land investments
• Currently very low uptake constrains the baseline analyses;
• A need for more nuanced work as a next step

31.
Ongoing Research drawing on TGCC Baseline
Data
(L. Persha, H. Huntington, M. M. Stickler, in prep)
To what extent does land tenure insecurity serve as a barrier
to agroforestry uptake, and wider implementation of other
climate-smart agricultural practices?
1. How secure are the rights of Eastern Province
smallholders over the land they use, under Zambia’s
prevailing dual customary and state tenure system?
2. What are household level determinants of stronger
tenure security?
3. What role does tenure security play in shaping
household land use strategies and CSA investments
(agroforestry uptake in particular)?

32.
Thank You