Presentation on theme: "MCC Impact Evaluation of Mozambique Land Reform Jigar Bhatt & Jennifer Witriol Millennium Challenge Corporation World Bank ARD Conference March 2009."— Presentation transcript:
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 ActivityIndicator Policy and Legal Support Adopting 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 StrengtheningNumber of paralegals trained by CFJJ Institutional Capacity Building National, Provincial and Municipal Institutional Strengthening / upgradingNumber 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 rights Number of communities delimited / receiving user rights DemarcationsNumber of parcels demarcated Streamlining access to land in priority areas Number of investors receiving assistance with land access
Indicators: Objectives and Outcomes IndicatorsDefinition Unit of Measurement Level of Disaggregation Small-holder land valueValue per hectareMeticais, 2009 valuesNone Urban parcelholder land valueValue per parcelMeticais, 2009 valuesNone Value of InvestmentsValue of fixed investmentsMeticais, 2009 values Agricultural / urban / community Number of new businesses Number of new businesses formally registered & established BusinessesNone 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 values Small holders and urban parcelholder Number of land parcels that have conflicts Number of land parcels experiencing a live conflict Land parcelsNew / existing Efficient, free and secure land transfers / transactions Transactions tracked and registered. TransactionFormal / 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 / Womens 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 IIWithout Pillar II With Pillar III Box=Both interventions Box=Just securing access to land Without Pillar III Box=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
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.