Fotografía de PATH

The second phase of the Land Administration Project in Honduras (PATH II) involved a study to determine to which degree supporting the security of tenure improves livelihoods in poor households.

Improving the transparency of property information, land administration services and tenure security are few of the objectives of the Land Administration Project in Honduras (PATH), an ongoing project that began in 2004 under the lead of the Property Institute (PI). Financed by the World Bank and with FAO’s technical support, the PATH has focused on updating cadastral information, land titling and protected areas delimitation, the recognition of indigenous land and territorial rights, and strengthening land administration institutions, including municipalities. In order to determine whether reinforcing land tenure rights and facilitating land titling processes improves livelihoods in poor households, an impact assessment was conducted, considering 21 hypotheses[1] organized into nine major topics. This assessment reveals the project results and establishes lessons learned during the first two phases that may be useful for the formulation of a potential third phase of the project.

The hypotheses address the link between land tenure security and improving the livelihoods of poor households in terms of their economies, assets, access to services, capacity development, and strengthening social capital. The PATH hired two specialized firms at the beginning and end of the project to interview a representative sample of the households whose land plots were subject to cadastral surveys during Phases I and II of the project. A total of 1,800 households were surveyed at the beginning and over 2,000 at the end of the project, which allowed for a comparison to be made between households in similar conditions: with and without land titles granted under the PATH (the treatment group and control group, respectively). The procedures used to compare these two groups involved analyzing the results using experimental and quasi-experimental methods (click here for more information about these methods). The surveys of PATH I beneficiaries were analyzed quantitatively in order to confirm trends detected in PATH II, considering that the PATH I beneficiaries had previously been granted land titles.

According to the results of this assessment, the PATH II’s land titling efforts were focused on households in situations of relative and moderate poverty (90% of the population). In regard to the use of these lands, nearly 90% of the properties that were granted land titles are for residential use, while 5% of them are used for production purposes. The data also shows that for non-project participants, less than 5% of the population with lands in irregular legal situations was able to obtain land titles through their own efforts, while nearly half of the project participants were granted titles.

The 40,0000 households that received land titles through PATH II experienced a greater level of tenure security and a decrease in the risk of being dispossessed of their land or homes due to conflict. In contrast to the households that were not granted titles, the project beneficiaries considered that the value of their property had increased by 30%, and one out of every five invested their own resources in improving their property. More than half of the land title beneficiaries are women, and of those who opted to invest in their property, many did so in order to build a home, specifically 20% more than men. Although the resulting observations do not allow for solid conclusions to be made regarding access to financial services, an analysis of certain cases reveals that the project beneficiaries obtained more than double the amount of loans than in the control group. Additionally, a 5.3% increase was reported in collecting taxpayers’municipal property taxes.

Conclusions and recommendations

The assessment clearly demonstrates the positive impact of the PATH/IP land titling program on the perception of tenure security in poor households, which has translated into greater investments made in housing and businesses. The increase in property values is due to a reinforced sense of legal certainty regarding the properties as well as the improvements residents have made through their own investments. The surveys of PATH I beneficiaries have demonstrated that the effects of the perceived sense of security seem to have consolidated over time. This assessment also highlights the importance of this project, since poor households that have not participated in the project have very limited opportunities to obtain land titles of their own accord; when they do manage to obtain said titles, the beneficiaries are primarily men, as demonstrated in a similar assessment conducted in Nicaragua.

Nevertheless, the PATH’s titling efforts have focused on the urban population, and many of the regularization processes are still pending in rural areas. The obtained results show clear evidence of households increasing investment in their respective properties after obtaining land titles; as such, formalizing property could have a greater economic impact in rural areas. The project has also had a positive impact in regard to taxes, as there has been an increase, albeit modest, in collecting associated taxes.

Although strengthening legal certainty through this project has led to an improved perception of tenure security, it is safe to say that the PATH has not sufficiently dealt with the potential for land tenure conflicts. This can be seen in the current institutional arrangements, which do not address alternative means of support for conflict resolution. This aspect should be taken into account for future processes of strengthening land administration institutions.

Lastly, there is only minimal evidence of land titles improving poor households’ access to different types of services, which necessitates the consideration of how to link land tenure regularization processes with rural and territorial development processes, which would consequently help increase the economic benefits for the most vulnerable populations.

Authors: Fabrice Edouard (FAO-TCIC) and Sherry Ordoñez (Monitoring and Evaluation expert, PATH)

[1] For more information, see: http://www.fao.org/3/a-av217s.pdf

http://www.path.hn/