rates for non-eroded plots. Organic fertilizer decisions do not appear to be made based on the erosion status of a plot. That suggests that farmers view organic fertilizer application neither as an investment in improving soil health nor as a waste of scarce resources. Interestingly, outside of Malawi, where the differences are practically insignificant, eroded plots are slightly more likely to be irrigated than are non-eroded ones.

Table 23: Differences in input use between plots characterized as eroded or not

||% of<br>plots|% u|sing organic<br>fertilizer|% u|sing inorganic<br>fertilizer|Averag<br>ferti|e total inorganic<br>lizer(kg/ha)|% using any<br>improved seed|%<br>|using agro-<br>chemicals||% using<br>irrigation|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||eroded|No|Yes<br>sig|No|Yes<br>sig|No|Yes<br>sig|No<br>Yes<br>sig|No|Yes<br>sig|No|Yes<br>sig|
|Malawi|35|13|**14**|67|**68**|**126**|126|-<br>**-**|2|**3**<br>*|**<1**|<1|
|Niger|19|33|**36**|11|**13**|**2**|1<br>**|2<br>**2**|6|**7**|1|**1**|
|Tanzania|17|11|**15**|15|**17**|10|**13**|-<br>-|12|**12**|2|**2**|
|Uganda|24|9|**15**|**4**|1<br>***|**2**|1<br>**|-<br>-|**11**|9|2|**7**<br>*|
|_Average _|_24_|_17_|_20_<br>_-_|_24_|_25_<br>_-_|_35_|_35_<br>_-_|_2_<br>_2_<br>_-_|_8_|_8_<br>_-_|_2_|_3_<br>_-_|

Note: In Malawi, the extent of erosion is broken down into several categories, of which we lump together here. *, **, and *** denote that difference in mean between groups is statistically significant using t-values of 1.645, 1.96, and 2.58 respectively. Inorganic fertilizer application rates are unconditional and represent total, not nutrient, values. The “average” row includes simple (unweighted) averages across the statistics reported at the country level.

To the extent that crop response rates to particular inputs will vary significantly by soil quality and erosion status, these finding suggests the need for more farmer education about how to tailor management practices to increase or deal with those conditions, as suggested by burgeoning recent research (e.g., Sheahan, Black, Jayne 2013). The use of organic inputs in particular may also increase the quality of the soil and productivity of the land over time, so the fact that “poor” plots are no more likely to receive organic fertilizer in Uganda and eroded plots are not statistically significantly more likely to receive organic fertilizer application in any of the four listed countries is cause for concern.

# <u>Land tenure/ownership</u>

There is a large theoretical and empirical literature on the link between land tenure, agricultural productivity, and input intensification. Evidence from certain countries shows that land tenure does affect input intensification (e.g., Gavian and Fafchamps 1996; Holden and Yohannes 2002) while others find no connection (e.g., Fenske 2011; Pender et al. 2004; Place and Hazell 1993). In Madagascar, Bellemare (2013) found that formal land rights, manifested in possession of a certificate of title, are not associated with higher productivity. While saying nothing of the relationship to input use, this finding necessarily forces us to think more broadly about land ownership in the SSA context.

We define plot ownership rather loosely, meaning possession of a title or certificate is unnecessary, for the purposes of correlating input use with land ownership. The notes to Table 24 describe the conditions in each country under which we consider a plot “owned” by the household in each country. We find that an overwhelming majority of the plots operated in the main season are considered owned by the households, suggesting a slim land rental market in these countries. With percentages in the 80s and 90s, our findings mirror those from summaries of FAO agricultural census data in the 1960s across Africa (Otsuka, Chuma, Hayami 1992).

Table 24 also shows that owned plots are statistically significantly more likely to receive organic fertilizer than are unowned plots. One hypothesis might be that households operating owned 33