Prindex Baseline Data and Final Analytical Report - Colombia Land For Prosperity

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by the Global Land Alliance under contract to Tetra Tech for USAID’s Land for Prosperity Activity.

Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the perception of land tenure security—the Prindex survey—in 10 municipalities1 across Colombia which were selected for the implementation of the Land for Prosperity (LFP) Activity as some of the most vulnerable areas affected by the armed conflict. The LFP Prindex Baseline survey was conducted between February and April of 2021 for the purpose of: (i) establishing the base-line level of the perception of tenure security in selected LFP municipalities; (ii) supporting better targeting and the evidence-based design of the LFP activities; and (iii) providing elements for the future assessment of direct and indirect effects of LFP activities on the population of pilot municipalities. Overall, 5,227 individuals participated in the Prindex survey.

Key findings:

• The Prindex survey conducted for LFP is one of the largest assessments of tenure security in conflict affected areas globally.

• On average, 63% of the adult population in the 10 LFP municipalities feel secure about their property rights for the main housing property and the attached land, which is close to the national average of 65% (as recorded by Prindex in 2018). However, two communities stand out. In the municipality of Cáceres (Department of Antioquia) only 38% of adults feel secure about their property rights which is significantly below the rest of LFP Prindex municipalities. On the other hand, 80% of adult residents of the municipality of Ataco (Department of Tolima) feel secure about their rights, which is significantly above the LFP Prindex and the national averages. The different impact of the internal conflict in either municipality may partially explain these results (Cáceres being most exposed to the activities of guerilla and paramilitary groups) thereby showing the mid-to-long term impacts of the conflict in terms of perceptions of land tenure security.

• As approximately one in three people in the LFP Prindex municipalities feel insecure about their property rights (33% of adult population), the reasons for this insecurity provide guidance for policy reform and LFP programmatic interventions to improve tenure security. The structure and strength of the reasons for insecurity in LFP Prindex municipalities is very different from the respective national averages partly reflecting the variety of regional connections with the internal conflict that ended in 2016 (from high to low-level intensity).

• The top reason for insecurity (reported by 19% of adults) is that the owner or renter of the property may ask the respondent to leave. This number is higher than the national average of 13%. This difference is driven by the fact that the structure of tenure in the LFP Prindex municipalities is different from the national average: 51% of adults are living in and using the property that belongs to other family members (compared with 32% on average in Colombia). Thus, the primary insecurity factor is internal to the household. The rental market is underdeveloped with only 11% of adults living in the rented houses (compared with 28% on average at the country level) and is even more insecure than the family arrangements (58% of renters report insecure tenure). The fact that about 11% of respondents (compared with 4% at the national level) report the disagreement with the family members as a reason for insecurity confirms the above statement. Respondents have to live in family owned or rented property as they may have a lack of affordable and safer alternatives despite the perceived insecurity of the current arrangement. The high complexity and cost of the estate/probate rules may partially explain this level of uncertainty within families, as well as the variety of living together/marriage/divorce/separation arrangements that are not legally settled.

• The second most reported reason for tenure insecurity was the conflict, terrorism, or criminal activities. This differs greatly from the national Prindex Data. In LFP Prindex municipalities, about 15% of adults reported conflict, terrorism or criminal activities being the source of tenure insecurity. By contrast, less than 1% of adults nation-wide have mentioned these reasons. Once again, Cáceres stands out as a particularly insecure location with more than 60% of respondents pointing to conflict, terrorism, or criminal as a reason for insecurity as noted above.

• On average, the share of respondents who possess formal documentation confirming property rights in the LFP Prindex municipalities is half that of the country average (28% compared with 57% nationally), suggesting there was an adequate targeting of the LFP intervention municipalities. However, the most vulnerable municipality of Cáceres (Antioquia) has some of the highest level of possession of the formal documents among the LFP municipalities – 48% partially as a result of previous formalization efforts in spite of being located in an internal conflict hot spot.

• The proportion of residents of the LFP Prindex municipalities that have experienced eviction is three times that of the rest of the country (33% compared with 9%). In Tumaco (Nariño), about 60% of respondents have reported evictions in the past which highlights the level of insecurity in this region of the country that has not been the target of previous formalization programs. Moreover, about 10% of evictions in Cáceres (Antioquia) and Chaparral (Tolima) took place over the last 12 months and prior to the LFP Prindex survey.

• The LFP Prindex baseline suggests a link between the observable characteristics of housing and tenure security. The use of block, brick, rock, and polished and rough wood is more frequent in properties where respondents feel secure about their tenure (67% compared with 59%). On the other hand, rough wood is significantly more frequent in properties where respondents feel insecure about their tenure (15% compared with 23%). Thus, the observable characteristics of property could serve as a predictor of tenure insecurity. This fact would confirm the assumption that secure tenure generates incentives to make investments in housing quality as opposed to precarious tenure.

• There is a significant correlation between the income sufficiency and tenure insecurity. Those who perceive difficulties living off their current income have significantly higher levels of tenure insecurity, compared to those who manage to get by with the current income (36% compared with 25%).

• As age increases, the proportion of the population feeling insecure about their tenure tends to decrease. This result is consistent with previous global Prindex studies showing that levels of insecurity of younger people are considerably higher than those of older generations, this partially reflects the change in tenure structure and higher income level.

• The respondents demonstrate a much higher confidence in non-governmental organizations (NGO) and international organizations that focus on social issues (69% of respondents) than to the justice system (35%), local government (38%) or the local police (40%), which creates opportunity for successful engagement of the LFP project with the local residents. Nevertheless, for sustainability purposes LFP may wish to explore avenues to strengthen the institutions that should regularly provide security of tenure to local residents.

Implications for implementation of the LFP Activity:

• The baseline values of the LFP-6 indicator - Proportion of Households Who Perceive Their Tenure Rights to Land or Marine Areas, as Secure as a Result of United States Government (USG) Assistance – is equal to 63% (as a simple average across the pilot municipalities). The EG.10.4-8 - Number of adults who perceive their tenure rights to land or marine areas as secure is 254,070.3

• There are several opportunities for the quick wins: areas with a relatively more secure situation in terms of the armed conflict and the lower level of possession of formal documents (e.g., Tumaco (Nariño), Santander de Quilichao (Cauca) and San Jacinto (Bolívar) are likely to be more responsive to the formalization efforts, which may also translate into the higher level of tenure security) as a result of an early steep curve in terms of land titling. The LFP formalization efforts could potentially support improvements in the public infrastructure (e.g., water supply in San Jacinto (Bolívar), Tumaco (Nariño)) or by converting land into productive use (e.g., Puerto Lleras (Department of Meta)).

• Populated centers within the LFP Prindex municipalities are potentially a good starting point as they should have an easier access in terms of logistics for implementation and a relatively low level of tenure security: 55% compared with 63% and 68% in urban and rural disperse areas respectively.

• Securing the rights of family members and renters could potentially contribute to a greater improvement in the overall level of tenure security but would require finding alternatives to the high costs of lawyers, notaries and registries.

• A viable system for ongoing monitoring of tenure security and public awareness about the project may greatly benefit LFP implementation. A new mechanism for quicker and more cost-effective monitoring of tenure security and public awareness based on the overall Prindex methodology could provide a reasonable solution. Periodic focus groups/expert consultations are among the alternatives.

• Further research on tenure security in Colombia could benefit policy design and reform as well as program implementation (e.g., assessment of sources of insecurity for potentially vulnerable population - women, indigenous population, holders of customary or collective rights). The link between the violence and tenure security requires further study as well. The use of housing quality characteristics as an indicator of tenure security and combination of such data with the available external data sources (e.g., image analysis of remote sensed geospatial data and census data) may also provide an opportunity for cost-effective large-scale assessments.

Read the report here: