MCC Impact Evaluation of Mozambique Land Reform

Jigar Bhatt & Jennifer Witriol Millennium Challenge Corporation World Bank ARD Conference March 2009

Overview

   

MCC Land Tenure Services Project

 Objectives    Activities Scope and Rollout Area Selection Methodology

Impact Evaluation Strategy

       Indicators Data Collection Initial Evaluation Plan Evaluation: Pillars 1, 2 and 3 Implementers Project Rollout and Design Implications Impact Evaluation Design Options

Next Steps Questions

Land Tenure Services Project: Objective

 Establish more efficient and secure access to land by  improving the policy framework;  upgrading land information systems and services;  helping beneficiaries meet immediate needs for registered land rights; and  increasing access to land for investment

Land Tenure Services Project: Activities

 Policy Monitoring Pillar (I)    Address implementation problems with the existing land law Conduct regulatory reviews to improve upon land policy environment Support training for predictable, speedy resolution of disputes  Capacity Building Pillar (II)  Build the institutional capacity to implement policies and to provide quality public land-related services by investing in human and information resources, including upgrading land information management systems, land offices, and cadastral services.

 Site-specific Pillar (III)   Facilitate access to land use by helping individuals and businesses with clear information on land rights and access and with registering their grants-of-land use Delimitation / Demarcation and land use planning in hot spot areas

Land Tenure Services Project: Scope and Rollout

 National land administration and policy assessment and strategy formation: Year 1  4 Northern Provinces: Cabo Delgado, Nampula, Niassa and Zambezia  8 municipalities, 12 districts and “hot spot” areas in each  Pilot areas: Year 2  Rollout in Northern provinces over remaining areas: Year 3-4

Land Tenure Services Project: Area Selection Methodology

 Outreach by MCA and provincial government  Interested municipalities and districts submit application, including hot spot areas  NLPAG shortlists project areas based on selection criteria to 5 districts and 3 municipalities in each province  Random selection of 3 out of 5 districts and 2 out of 3 municipalities that short listed

Indicators: Activity Level

Project Activity Indicator Policy and Legal Support Institutional Capacity Building

Adopting legislation that allows land use rights to be transferred without undue delay or risk Promote knowledge and awareness of land tenure reforms Legal Strengthening National, Provincial and Municipal Institutional Strengthening / upgrading Land use inventory, mapping, and planning process Land use inventory, mapping, and planning process

Site Specific: Increasing access and tenure rights

Increasing community tenure rights Demarcations Streamlining access to land in priority areas Number of new or revised regulations, revisions to specific articles of existing law, or decrees changing administrative procedures Percentage of population made aware of land tenure laws / changes Number of paralegals trained by CFJJ Number of people trained / offices upgraded Number of targeted districts fully covered by base maps developed under projects Percentage of parcels in selected districts included in the cadastral database Number of communities delimited / receiving user rights Number of parcels demarcated Number of investors receiving assistance with land access

Indicators: Objectives and Outcomes

Indicators

Small-holder land value Urban parcelholder land value

Definition

Value per hectare Value per parcel

Unit of Measurement

Meticais, 2009 values Meticais, 2009 values Value of Investments Value of fixed investments Number of new businesses Number of partnerships between communities & investors Number of new businesses formally registered & established Number of partnerships between private investors and communities Time to get land usage rights (DUAT) Cost to get land usage rights (DUAT) Number of days required to obtain land usage rights (DUAT) Amount of money required to obtain land usage rights (DUAT) Number of land parcels that have conflicts Number of land parcels experiencing a live conflict Efficient, free and secure land transfers / transactions Transactions tracked and registered.

Meticais, 2009 values Businesses Community Partnerships Days Meticais, 2009 values Land parcels Transaction

Level of Disaggregation

None None Agricultural / urban / community None None Small holders and urban parcelholder Small holders and urban parcelholder New / existing Formal / informal

Data Collection



TIA



Household Survey



Business Census



Administrative Data



FIAS/Doing Business

Initial Evaluation Plan

 Simultaneous interventions require a complex and multi-faceted approach to evaluation  Evaluating Pillar I: Policy Monitoring and Legal TA  National Level TIA  Evaluation of outreach and educational activities  Evaluating Pillars II & III   National Level TIA Baseline and Follow-up surveys using experimental / quasi-experimental research design  Evaluation of institutional upgrading / capacity building and site specific activities

Evaluating Pillar I

 National Level TIA – administered in all rural districts in Mozambique  Before / After design  Snapshot in 2009 vs. Snapshot in 2013  Tests rural households’ knowledge of land law with a focus on 1997 Land Law Reform and Gender / Women’s access and rights to Land

Evaluating Pillars II & III

 Multiple Layered Approach using Interaction Effects  TIA & Pillar II   Comparing impact of institutional strengthening and Tech Asst on indicators of investment, conflicts, and transactions (costs, types, frequency) in Northern Provinces vs. Rest of Country Cannot remove effect of Pillar I, Policy Monitoring

Pillar II Intervention Area (Northern Moz)

-

=

Potential intervention effect

TIA Coverage (All Moz)

Evaluating Pillars II & III cont.

 Evaluating the Site Specific Component (Pillar III)    Through Interaction effects:  Capacity Building (II) + Securing access to land (III) vs. just Capacity Building (II) or no intervention Why? Areas receiving site specific access to land also affected by all other ‘higher level’ interventions How to resolve?

  Timing of implementation Community Land Fund Evaluation – Focuses on securing community access to land

With Pillar III Without Pillar III Possible Comparisons With Pillar II

Box=Both interventions Box=Just capacity building

Without Pillar II

Box=Just securing access to land Box = No intervention

Implementers

 The Mozambican Ministry of Agriculture Department of Economics and US based Michigan State University  Implementing Entity Agreement between MCA and Ministry of Agriculture Department of Economics (the implementers of the Trabalho Inquerito Agricola, or TIA).

 MCC contract with the Michigan State University, which has a team based at the Ministry of Agriculture in Maputo.

Project Rollout and Design Implications

Evaluating the Site Specific Access to Land Component (III)  Project area selection method changed due to environment   Required intensive field work Districts/Municipalities not randomized  Experimental design through hot spot selection  Difficult to compare hot spot areas chosen for different reasons (conflict, agricultural investment, land planning)   Potentially choose neighboring area as control (even if not hot spot) Choose hot spots with similar concerns across districts/municipalities (potential for different base characteristics)  Rollout implications: Pilot 8 hotspots chosen from 2 Provinces in first year

Impact Evaluation Design Options

Evaluating the Site Specific Access to Land Component (III)  Option 1: Random selection of hotspot for intervention   Step 1: Have district/muni propose at least 2 hotspots Step 2: Randomly select one hotspot for MCA intervention  Option 2: Matching hotspots to their bordering areas    Step 1: Have district/muni propose at least 2 hotspots Step 2: Identify hotspot for intervention Step 3: Identify area that: a) shares border with hotspot; b) is nearly identical to hotspot in important ways; and c) will not receive intervention.

Next Steps

 Evaluating Policy Monitoring (I) and Upgrading/TA (II)  Analyze 2009 TIA data  Evaluating Site Specific activity (III)  Determine which 2 Provinces receive intervention first  Determine evaluation design:  Randomized selection or   Matching hotspot(s) Determine geographic focus of evaluation – urban / rural  Evaluating Community Land Fund (III)  Determine feasibility of rigorously evaluating CLF

Questions?