LFS, can generate policy relevant insights within about 12-months in a way that is cost effective,<sup>26</sup> scalable, and consistent with the IAEG-SDG mandate of building local capacity for sustainability.<sup>27</sup> Data from the module point towards high levels of tenure insecurity, demand for title, and limits on transferability of land. This suggests that for residential state land, award of (full) title is a viable strategy. At the same time they caution that, without regulatory and procedural reform, responding to such demand in a systematic way may be difficult, desired impacts may not materialize, affordability and sustainability may be limited, and negative gender impacts cannot be ruled out. Our data also show that titling is not a silver bullet to secure tenure in Zambia: 45% of households without title overall and 40% (23%) of those without title who perceive their land to be (very) insecure do not want to acquire title while 29% (20%) of those who have title feel (very) insecure. Unless other avenues to secure land tenure, including recognition of customary boundaries -possibly in return for greater accountability on land management- are available, transparent and effective use of the country’s rural land resources may be difficult to achieve.

To the extent that private owners’ willingness to pay can provide a lower bound estimate for the economic benefits from land title, survey data on demand and willingness to pay for title can help identify villages or regions where such an intervention may be justified and economically viable in principle. Despite high demand, current fees for title issuance are unaffordable and several times above stated willingness to pay. Regulatory reform to streamline processes and reduce fees is thus essential if such an intervention is to be affordable and sustainable and greater interoperability can greatly enhance long-term benefits. At the same time, with LFS data showing that the current titling process reinforces pre-existing gender bias rather than alleviating it,<sup>28</sup> changes in procedures for women to assert and protect their property claims during land titling are essential. Unless such changes are made ahead of any program, efforts such as the National Land Titling Program may disempower women rather than facilitating their economic and social participation. Continued collection of the variables highlighted here would be important to monitor progress and ensure unintended negative impacts are avoided or, if they arise, are addressed quickly.

Our results suggest that Prindex together with other cross-national initiatives such as the World Bank’s Doing Business, is a complementary approach that can motivate debate on property but is unlikely to reach the level of granularity, detail, and continuity of national household surveys, particularly for agricultural land. If methodological issues identified here for Zambia are resolved, there are ample opportunities to

> 26 At the incremental cost (US$ 50,000, in addition to few days of long-distance support to programming and training) for administering the land tenure module in Zambia, some US$ 5 million would be needed to cover 100 countries. 27 The fact that such surveys are conducted in regular intervals (most LFSs are annual) offers opportunities to anchor land tenure in national statistics and generate data of high policy relevance that are in high demand from analysts. In Zambia’s case, data for the 2019 LFS are currently collected with an improved questionnaire that corrects some of the initial shortcomings identified here (e.g. in terms of non-response), at the NSO’s own initiative without additional funding from outside.

> 28 Our analysis shows that, even if transfers are possible, titles may make it easier to forestall female spouses’ input into transfer decisions.

18