Capturing tenure status requires triangulation of data between administrative, survey, and project data. Due to outdated official records and lack of awareness by households on differences in land rights documentation, these different data sets often provide conflicting information on a parcel’s tenure status. Tenure status drives key outcomes like perceptions of tenure security and conflict. When administrative data and survey data do not show the same tenure status, land program implementation data can also provide missing tenure information, including what may be driving the inaccuracies between statutory and perceived tenure status in program areas. An early review of land office databases, along with sharing of project documentation from collections of land records in the field for program areas, can help clarify tenure status and which tenure status is best to use in the analysis. Perception of tenure status drives tenure security and related outcomes while land administration data provides official figures and can provide key information on land transactions rates over time.
The administrative data and self-reported tenure status often do not match due to gaps in administrative data/outdated or non-matching records combined with misunderstanding of tenure documentation by households. These differences in tenure status can lead to variances in interpretation of findings. In Mongolia Special Hashaa Plot Survey, the evaluator used the General Authority of State Registration (GASR) official tenure status as the main data source and noted the large discrepancies between perceived tenure status and official tenure status. GASR administrative records and self-reporting of registration only matched with 73% of Mongolia survey respondents. This could have been due to respondents confusing the certificate of governor’s decision with a registered title or outdated GASR files due to someone previously holding a title and transferring it informally to a new owner. Those who perceived they had title had higher land values. By comparison, in Ghana the evaluator used the survey data to determine tenure status. Later MCC evaluations try to triangulate tenure data where possible to understand outcomes. In future evaluations, it will be key to coordinate with the land project implementation team to obtain and use both land administrative data and land implementation data in addition to survey data.