October 2023 How Do Shifts in Land Tenure Affect Farmers EAST ASIA AND in the Philippines? PACIFIC GENDER INNOVATION LAB The East Asia and Pacific Gender KEY FINDINGS Innovation Lab • Land titling interventions often span several years. The impacts of an intervention (EAPGIL) carries out that subdivides collective land titles and issues individual titles can vary across impact evaluations and individuals and time. inferential research • The vast majority of farmers in the sample prefer to own land individually rather to generate evidence than collectively. However, an intermediate stage in the intervention—between on what works in survey subdivision and issuance of individual titles—decreases their perceptions closing gender gaps of tenure security, trust in government, happiness, and women’s decision- in assets, economic making authority in the short-term. opportunities, and • These shifts are not universal across farmers, and the anxiety related to a change agency, and how in tenurial status may fade over time. closing these gaps can help achieve • The receipt of individual land titles improves perceived tenure security and can other development lead to investment in the land. outcomes. Ultimately, • To ensure positive or neutral impacts throughout the process of the transition in EAPGIL seeks to land rights, clear communication and access to support services are essential, increase the welfare as well as ensuring titles are distributed in a timely manner. of women and men in East Asia and the Pacific by promoting CONTEXT the uptake of effective Economic theory predicts that formalized property rights can influence investment decisions policies and programs and productivity by reducing the threat of expropriation, increasing access to credit, and/or gains identified based on from trade.1 However, rigorous evidence documenting impacts is thin, and most analysis does not evidence. 1  ee: Besley, Thomas. 1995. “Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana.” Journal S of Political Economy 103(5): 903-937. focus on the period during which land rights are in transition. Land reform programs can take many years to implement, so understanding the impacts during this transitionary period is important for considering both beneficiary welfare and economic impacts. The potential impacts during transition are ambiguous. On one hand, change can breed anxiety, so shifts in land tenure arrangements could have negative impacts on farmers. Nevertheless, intermediate steps of land reform can also provide clarity on borders, settle boundary disputes, and reassure farmers that they will soon formally possess their land. We explore the impacts of a land reform program in the Philippines using mixed methods at different periods of program implementation. Over 4.9 million hectares of land have been redistributed to over 2.8 million Filipino farmers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) part of a subdivision survey that measured the boundaries since its inception in 1988. Of these, almost half were awarded of their new individual parcels, but only a small portion of in the form of collective titles that did not provide beneficiaries them had received their formal individual title documents. with full individual property rights. The Department of Agrarian As such, the findings from the quantitative impact evaluation Reform (DAR) is in the process of subdividing these collective only represent the effects of an intermediate stage of the titles and distributing individual land titles to the respective subdivision process, which may be different from the long- Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs). The DAR’s Parcelization term effects after titles have been received. Program includes two major milestones: first, a subdivision To better understand the mechanisms of the impacts survey demarcating the exact boundaries of each individual observed in the short-term and to try to understand the likely plot in the collective landholding and second, the registration long-term effects of the parcelization program, follow-up and distribution of individual title documents. Prior to the qualitative work was conducted in April and May 2022.The subdivision survey, a pulong-pulong, or community meeting, qualitative sample included ARBs who had already received is held to inform beneficiaries about the parcelization process, documentation requirements, and schedule of activities and individual titles and those who were still waiting for individual to resolve border disputes, if any. land titles. A total of 66 interviews were completed in two provinces: Misamis Oriental and Davao Oriental. The sample included ARBs, spouses of ARBs, and local DAR staff. WHAT DID WE DO? EAPGIL, in partnership with Innovations for Poverty Action WHAT DID THE QUANTITATIVE (IPA) and researchers from the University of Maryland and ANALYSIS SHOW? University of the Philippines Los Baños, carried out an experimental impact evaluation (IE) of the DAR’s Parcelization The vast majority of ARBs in our sample prefer to own Program. The IE randomized 475 collective titles across 12 land individually rather than collectively. At the time of provinces into equal treatment and control groups after our the quantitative baseline survey, when all ARBs were still baseline survey was completed in 2017.2 Treatment titles farming collective titles, we asked them if they would prefer were prioritized for the subdivision survey, while control titles to own 1 hectare of land with an individual title or 3 hectares began the process only after the study. Our follow-up survey, of land jointly with another farmer. 94 percent chose the conducted between November 2019 and February 2020, former option even though the latter gave them 50 percent interviewed 641 ARBs across 324 titles.3 At the time of our more land. Importantly, most land originally awarded to ARBs follow-up survey, most ARBs in our treatment group had been as collective titles was done so to expedite the progress 2  ur sample included collective titles in the provinces of Camarines Sur, Albay, Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur, Davao Occidental, Sarangani, Sultan Kudarat, O North Cotabato, Surigao del Sur, Misamis Oriental, and Bukidnon. 3 At the time of endline, treatment titles in the provinces of Bukidnon and Davao Occidental had seen little movement and were excluded from the sample as the intervention had not progressed enough to measure impacts. Pairwise randomization was carried out, so control and treatment titles from those provinces were excluded. FIGURE 1: ALMOST ALL FARMERS PREFER INDIVIDUAL TITLES “WOULD YOU PREFER TO OWN 1 HECTARE OF LAND WITH AN INDIVIDUAL TITLE, OR 3 HECTARES OF LAND OWNED COLLECTIVELY WITH ANOTHER FARMER IN YOUR COMMUNITY?” 3 hectares of land jointly with another farmer in 6.8% the community 1 hectare of land with an individual title 93.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% of redistribution, not because farmers exercised collective secure in their ability to restrict access to their parcels and ownership or management of their land. Titles where ARBs felt less secure from eviction (Figure 2). Treatment ARBs also prefer to remain under collective ownership are not subdivided had less faith in the ability of their Barangay Council5 and by the DAR.4 municipal government to help them enforce their land rights in the event of disputes with neighbors, government bodies, However, impact evaluation results showed that on or private companies (Figure 3). Aligned with a decrease in average the subdivision survey—an intermediate stage of tenure security and trust in government, we also find that the parcelization process—reduced ARBs’ tenure security the subdivision survey increased ARBs’ anxiety levels by 9 and trust in government, reduced their life satisfaction, percent and decreased their life satisfaction by 26 percent. and increased their anxiety. Despite high demand for the Interestingly, although tenure security decreased, the likelihood intervention at baseline, at the time of our quantitative follow- of leasing out the land increased after the subdivision survey, up survey, ARBs in the treatment group reported significantly possibly due to clarity regarding the area that can be leased lower tenure security and trust in government compared to or to increase cash flow to make amortization payments, as the control group. In particular, they reported feeling less described below. FIGURE 2: THE SUBDIVISION SURVEY LOWERS ARBS’ FEELINGS OF TENURE SECURITY EFFECT OF SUBDIVISION SURVEY ON SELECTED TENURE SECURITY OUTCOMES 0.15 “very certain” or “somewhat certain” Change in ARBs reporting being 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 Can restrict access to parcel Feels secure from eviction Parcel likely to be confiscated by others 4 ARBs of seven of our treatment titles opted to maintain collective ownership, and their titles were not subdivided. 5 Barangay is the lowest level of local government in the Philippines, equivalent to a township. FIGURE 3: THE SUBDIVISION SURVEY LOWERS ARBS’ TRUST IN GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THEIR LAND RIGHTS EFFECT OF SUBDIVISION SURVEY ON TRUST THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES CAN PROTECT THEIR LAND RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF DISPUTES Barangay: Barangay: Barangay: Municipal: Municipal: Municipal: Dispute with Dispute with Dispute with Dispute with Dispute with Dispute with Neighbor Government Private Company Neighbor Government Private Company 0 Change in ARBs reporting being “very certain” or -0.05 “somewhat certain” -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 Note: All treatment effects are statistically significant at the 5% level. These impacts are concentrated among ARBs whose make the required amortization payments. However, this land is compensable, meaning that they would need rarely occurred in practice, and numerous support services to repay the value of the land. Until the New Agrarian were available from the DAR for ARBs who struggle to Emancipation Act was signed into law in July 2023, 6 make payments. As shown in Figure 4, declines in tenure recipients of CARP-awarded lands that were formerly security were concentrated among ARBs on compensable privately held were required to make payments to the Land lands, and ARBs on compensable lands were much more Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to compensate the former likely to lease out their parcels.8 Moreover, while ARBs on landowners. The receipt of an individual title also came with compensable lands were less likely to make investments an amortization schedule, as the subdivision survey enables on their land after subdivision, those on non-compensable the calculation of the value of the parcel that each ARB lands increased their investments in irrigation and sheds on owns. Legally, ARBs could lose their land if they did not 7 their land after subdivision. FIGURE 4: FARMERS ON NON-COMPENSABLE LANDS SAW NO CHANGES IN TENURE SECURITY AND WERE MORE LIKELY TO INVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION SURVEY ON SELECTED OUTCOMES BY LAND COMPENSABILITY STATUS 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 Leased out parcel Can restrict access Feels secure Attempted to build to parcel from eviction irrigation or shed Compensable lands Non-compensable lands Note: Dark bars represent statistically significant coefficients. 6  he New Agrarian Emancipation Act (Republic Act 11953) was signed into law on July 7, 2023 and condones principal payments, interests, and penalties T on land that ARBs are currently tilling. The law also assumes the obligation of ARBs who were required to make direct compensation to former landowners, exempts ARBs from the payment of estate tax, and grants ARBs who have paid their debts already priority access to credit facilities and support services. 7 Clarity on parcel boundaries also makes amortization payments more enforceable. 8 43 percent of ARBs in our sample were on LBP-compensable land, and amortization payments were required at the time of the study. Impacts were also heterogeneous by gender, with In addition to heterogeneous impacts across female ARBs more likely to lease out their land and less households, the subdivision survey shifted dynamics likely to plan to invest in their land after the subdivision within households—reducing the decision-making power survey. Compared to the control group, female ARBs in the of the wives of male ARBs and reinforcing conservative treatment group were 24 percentage points more likely to gender norms. Compared to their counterparts in the lease out their parcels, while male ARBs were 8 percentage control group, wives of male ARBs are 51 percentage more likely.9 Following the intervention, female ARBs were also points less likely to say that their decision can prevail after less likely to say they will make investments in their land such a disagreement with their spouse over major decisions on as planting new crops, building new structures, or expanding the parcel. Consistent with this finding, male ARBs are 33 the area planted (Figure 5). In contrast, the subdivision survey percentage points less likely to say that both spouses can increased the likelihood that male ARBs plan certain types of make decisions about agriculture. The subdivision survey investments including planting new crops. Female ARBs have also reinforced more conservative gender norms regarding fewer agricultural assets and have tilled their parcels for less land ownership and gender roles. Wives of male ARBs were time than male ARBs, but also have relatively more education less likely to say that their names were on the titles of the and are more likely to have non-agricultural income. Gender parcel, while male ARBs themselves were 34 percentage differences in impacts may be due to the clarification of land points less likely to say that women should be the final rights in the intervention allowing female farmers to lease decision-makers on parcels they own3 (Figure 6). Notably, their parcels to more experienced farmers and concentrate these declines in women’s decision-making power occurred on off-farm work where they have a comparative advantage. only in the households of male ARBs: in the households of However, female ARBs also experience stronger declines in female ARBs there were no significant changes in decision- their trust in government and greater increases in their anxiety making, and if anything, women’s involvement in decision- compared to male ARBs. making may have slightly increased.   FIGURE 5: FEMALE ARBS WHO RECEIVED THE TREATMENT WERE MORE LIKELY TO LEASE OUT THEIR PARCELS AND LESS LIKELY TO MAKE INVESTMENTS IN THEIR LAND EFFECTS OF SUBDIVISION SURVEY ON SELECTED PLOT-LEVEL OUTCOMES BY GENDER, COMPARED TO CONTROL GROUP 0.3 0.2 Change in ARBs reporting the affirmative 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 Can restrict access Feels secure Can restrict access Feels secure Attempted to build to parcel from eviction to parcel from eviction irrigation or shed Male ARBs Female ARBs Note: Dark bars represent statistically significant treatment effects. 9 30 percent of ARBs in our sample are women. FIGURE 6: THE SUBDIVISION SURVEY HAD NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE WIVES OF MALE ARBS IMPACTS OF SUBDIVISION SURVEY ON WOMEN’S DECISION-MAKING IN HOUSEHOLDS OF MALE ARBS, COMPARED TO CONTROL GROUP Wife reports she Husband reports Husband believes can make the both spouses women should be Wife believes final decision make decisions decision-makers about her name is on about agriculture about agriculture parcels they own the land title 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 WHAT DID THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS expanding the portion tilled or clearing, cleaning, and planting SHOW? more permanent crops or perennial trees. Other ARBs felt that their land claim is temporary until the title is released, The issuance of individual land titles bolstered the sense and without the title there is a risk that the government could of security and control that ARBs felt over their land, confiscate their property. though the perceived impacts of individual land titles on ARBs’ quality of life were diverse. Individual land titles The pulong-pulong and subdivision survey are effective made ARBs feel more secure in their land rights and provided at helping beneficiaries understand the parcelization assurance that no other claims would be made on the land process and resolving border disputes; however, the awarded to them. ARBs also perceived that with individual process could be more informative and inclusive. Most land titles they are in a better position to make decisions on respondents had positive impressions of the pulong-pulong the land, such as what crops to plant, the area to plant, what and felt that the discussion enabled them to feel more animals to raise, and how many. Some ARBs believed that not secure in their land rights. However, some respondents much had changed in their life after receipt of the individual were apprehensive about the amortization and the property land titles, while others felt that their quality of life improved, tax to be paid and were concerned about their ability to pay as they gained more autonomy over the land and were able to off the land. Relatedly, ARBs only had a general working invest more in it. Some ARBs were able to use their individual knowledge about amortization and did not know when they land titles to gain access to electricity or water services. will be expected to start making amortization payments. Perceptions of land rights during the transitionary Several beneficiaries reported not receiving invitations to the stage—after the subdivision survey and before receipt pulong-pulong, and in most cases, invitations were only sent of individual titles—depend on the ARB. ARBs and their to ARBs and not to the spouses of ARBs despite the land spouses perceive the subdivision survey as the final step to being conjugal property. Some ARBs complained that the obtaining the individual land title. Some ARBs felt their land location of the pulong-pulong was far from the communities rights were clear and permanent after the subdivision survey, where they lived, and others found the subdivision survey to and they began investing more in the land—for example, by be physically taxing. WHAT DO THESE RESULTS MEAN? during a long transition process. Quantitative results showed that the negative impacts of the subdivision survey Even programs that can bolster land tenure security in were concentrated among ARBs on compensable land that the long run can breed anxiety and uncertainty during a would need to be repaid. ARBs on non-compensable land, transitionary stage for some individuals. Change can breed in contrast, began investing more in the land. Qualitative anxiety, and many land reform programs span several years, work revealed that ARBs generally did not understand the increasing feelings of uncertainty. On average, ARBs in the amortization process well and were unsure of when they quantitative analysis had undergone the subdivision survey 20 would need to make payments. Some also were concerned months prior to the endline survey, and ARBs in the qualitative about their ability to make these payments. Because ARBs interviews had been waiting several years for their titles. The on compensable land were also more likely to lease out their impact evaluation results demonstrated that on average, land, we can deduce they may decide to lease their land to ARBs felt less secure in their land rights and greater anxiety farmers with more access to productive inputs or greater in the first two years after subdivision. These impacts were skills and/or engage in non-farm activities in order to ensure greater for some individuals, including those on compensable they can meet their payment schedule. In addition, ARBs lands and women. The qualitative analysis similarly revealed relinquish the original collective title after the subdivision that the way the subdivision survey impacted tenure security survey, so it can be cancelled and an individual title issued. differed among individuals, with some feeling more secure This leaves ARBs without formal documentation proving in their land rights whereas others felt that their rights were their ownership, which can exacerbate tenure insecurity. only temporary. It is also possible that these feelings change Aspects of program implementation may also explain over time. Anxiety may be higher in the relatively short-term, the decline in women’s decision-making authority in and once ARBs have observed that nothing has materially households of male ARBs. By law, the land issued under changed in their access to the land or have witnessed other CARP is considered conjugal property when ARBs are ARBs in their community receiving titles, these feelings shift married. Nevertheless, most ARBs reported in qualitative again. interviews that only the ARB was invited to the pulong-pulong Aspects of program implementation—including and subdivision survey. Program implementers mentioned amortization, clarity of information, and documentation— that spouses tend to be invited if they cannot locate the ARB. can amplify feelings of tenure insecurity and anxiety ARBs and their spouses believed ensuring the presence of the spouse in the pulong-pulong and subdivision survey processes would make the process more inclusive and informative and would enable spouses to have an equal voice on decisions about the land. Despite some challenges during the transition in land rights, parcelization can be beneficial for ARBs. Most ARBs have a strong preference for individual titles—most would prefer to have less land individually than more land held collectively. In addition, ARBs highlight how individual titles bolster their sense of security over their land and grant them more autonomy over agricultural decisions. Some also credit the individual titles with improving their lives by encouraging investment in the land or enabling access to services such as electricity and water connections. Importantly, there is no evidence of any lingering issues of tenure insecurity after individual titles have been received. The results of the impact evaluation can only shed light on the intermediate stage in the process when land rights are still in transition, and the qualitative evidence demonstrates that these effects are likely transitory. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Communications about parcelization and land rights should be improved with more ACKNOWLEDGMENTS attention to invitations, detailed information about recent changes in amortization This brief was prepared by requirements, and more appropriate venues for community meetings. Many ARBs Hillary C. Johnson and Forest report not receiving invitations to the pulong-pulong, and the agenda for the discussion Jarvis, with inputs from is not clearly understood among those that do receive invitations. Extra effort needs to be Kathrine Kelm and David made to ensure that all beneficiaries are aware of these critical information sessions and Llorico Llorito. We gratefully understand the importance of their attendance. ARBs and their spouses did not have a clear acknowledge funding from the understanding of how amortization would work, and this is a source of anxiety. The recent Umbrella Facility for Gender reform removing ARBs’ obligation to pay amortization means that better communication Equality (UFGE) to carry out about how amortization works will no longer be necessary. However, communications should this work. EAPGIL is supported ensure that ARBs and their spouses are aware of the new law, understand that they will no by UFGE in partnership with longer be required to pay amortization, and that their land is also no longer subject to estate the Australian Department tax. Venues for community meetings should be selected with the objective of facilitating of Foreign Affairs and Trade. beneficiary participation: the venue should be in the community where most beneficiaries UFGE has received generous reside and be a well-ventilated and calm environment. contributions from Australia, The parcelization process should be more gender-sensitive and inclusive of spouses. Canada, Denmark, Finland, The central DAR office can develop a toolkit that provides clear guidance to local DAR offices Germany, Iceland, Ireland, on how to promote gender equality through their regular interactions with ARBs. Invitations the Netherlands, Norway, to pulong-pulong and the subdivision survey should be addressed to both the ARB and Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the spouse when the land is conjugal property to enable spouses to feel included in the the United Kingdom, the process, have the necessary information to fully participate in intra-household discussions United States, the Bill and and decisions regarding the land, and reinforce the notion that land is conjugal property. Melinda Gates Foundation Information on spousal rights to conjugal property can be disseminated through the DAR’s (BMGF), and the Wellspring interactions with ARBs and their spouses. Finally, support services can be more inclusive by Philanthropic Fund (WPF). targeting not only ARBs but also their spouses and other household members. Accelerating the parcelization process, improving transparency throughout the process, and providing access to support services could alleviate concerns and enable beneficiaries to take advantage of increased clarity in land rights. The long duration of the parcelization process creates uncertainty and is a source of frustration for beneficiaries. Improved coordination among the different agencies involved in parcelization and the digitization of the process could speed up implementation. More frequent communication about the status of titles could build trust in the system, and provision of a temporary document may alleviate concerns when beneficiaries must surrender their collective title documents for processing of individual documents. Finally, improving access to support services could enable beneficiaries to take advantage of the clarity in their parcel boundaries to make more investment in the land. FOR MORE INFORMATION Forest Brach Jarvis fjarvis1@worldbank.org Hillary C. Johnson hjohnson1@worldbank.org www.worldbank.org/eapgil