mcc impact evaluation of mozambique land reform jigar bhatt & jennifer witriol millennium...
TRANSCRIPT
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?