MCC Impact Evaluation of Mozambique Land Reform

Jigar Bhatt & Jennifer WitriolMillennium Challenge Corporation

World Bank ARD ConferenceMarch 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

SupportAdopting legislation that allows land use rights to be transferred without undue delay or risk

Number of new or revised regulations, revisions to specific articles of existing law, or decrees changing administrative procedures

Promote knowledge and awareness of land tenure reforms

Percentage of population made aware of land tenure laws / changes

Legal Strengthening Number of paralegals trained by CFJJ

Institutional Capacity Building

National, Provincial and Municipal Institutional Strengthening / upgrading Number of people trained / offices upgraded

Land use inventory, mapping, and planning process

Number of targeted districts fully covered by base maps developed under projects

Land use inventory, mapping, and planning process

Percentage of parcels in selected districts included in the cadastral database

Site Specific:

Increasing access and

tenure rights

Increasing community tenure rightsNumber of communities delimited / receiving user rights

Demarcations Number of parcels demarcated

Streamlining access to land in priority areasNumber of investors receiving assistance with land access

Indicators: Objectives and Outcomes

Indicators DefinitionUnit of

MeasurementLevel of

Disaggregation

Small-holder land value Value per hectare Meticais, 2009 values None

Urban parcelholder land value Value per parcel Meticais, 2009 values None

Value of Investments Value of fixed investments Meticais, 2009 valuesAgricultural / urban /

community

Number of new businesses Number of new businesses formally registered & established

Businesses None

Number of partnerships between communities & investors

Number of partnerships between private investors and communities

Community Partnerships

None

Time to get land usage rights (DUAT)

Number of days required to obtain land usage rights (DUAT)

Days Small holders and urban parcelholder

Cost to get land usage rights (DUAT)

Amount of money required to obtain land usage rights (DUAT)

Meticais, 2009 valuesSmall holders and urban parcelholder

Number of land parcels that have conflicts

Number of land parcels experiencing a live conflict

Land parcels New / existing

Efficient, free and secure land transfers / transactions

Transactions tracked and registered.

Transaction 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)

TIA

Coverage

(All Moz)

= Potential intervention effect-

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

Possible Comparisons

  With Pillar II Without Pillar II

With Pillar III Box=Both

interventions Box=Just securing access

to land

Without Pillar IIIBox=Just capacity

building  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?