Mozambique - Land Tenure Regularization - Rural and Urban

Version 1 (2020-1-27): This is the first metadata entry for the Mozambique Compact Land Tenure Services Project Evaluation. It has been developed on the basis of the Evaluation Design Report.

Overall, the endline evaluation aims to validate the program logic underlying each activity and assess the sustainability of proposed and achieved outcomes after project close. Twelve evaluation questions (EQs) motivate this endline evaluation of the Land Project:

1. Were project outputs sustained, particularly SIGIT and continued issuance of DUAT certificates post-compact, including those in diferido status?

2. Has the Land Project changed the efficiency of land adminsitration, particularly changes in time, cost, and number of steps to conduct to process/acquire a DUAT certificate or conduct a secondary land transaction?

3. Did the Land Project improve access to land and land markets, including changes in demand and approvals for DUAT certificates and other secondary land transactions? Was there a related change in awareness or confidence in the land governance system? What are the other characteristics of those applying for DUAT certificates and conducting land transactions?

4. Did those parcels which received DUAT certificates remain in the statutory system or were parcels transferred informally during the post-compact period?

5. What was the effect of the Land Project on incidence of conflict?

6. Has the Land Project resulted in improved access to formal credit?

7. Did receipt of a DUAT certificate lead to changes in perceptions of tenure security or de facto land tenure?

8. For households which received a DUAT certificate, what was the impact on land investment and utilization, including transfer and renting of land? If there were changes in investment or utilization of land, what was the effect on land values?

9. Did effects differ by district/municipality, parcel size, land use or gender? For gender, were effects dependent on whose name was included on the DUAT certificate?

10. Did those areas which received DUAT certificates lead to demand for DUATs in neighboring areas or for demand for DUAT certificates for additional parcels held by the beneficiary households?

11. Where the success of project outputs (such as a complete cadaster and a SIGIT system still fully functional post-compact) had the potential to change how municipalities provided services and related tasks, does the evaluation find evidence of improvements in municipal planning, land tax adminsitration, and supply and access to public services?

12. Was the process of commercial investment (in rural land) - when it took place in areas where DUAT certificates had been issued by the project - expedited by the provision of DUAT certificates with defined boundaries of land parcels to land holders? Does the availability of cadastral index maps with the list of DUAT certificate holders help the government to direct investors to available land and help investors conclude investment agreements to access land? Did a DUAT certificate, where held, aid DUAT certificate holders to engage with government or investors related to potential investments?

To comprehensively address all evaluation questions, we propose three separate evaluations: (1) Institutional Strengthening, (2) Rural Site-Specific, and (3) Urban Site-Specific. Each of these will include impact and performance evaluation components. Each evaluation will include causal impact analysis for indicators that can be addressed in a rigorous manner and will assess performance indicators and outcomes through a mixed-methods approach that triangulates findings from multiple quantitative and qualitative sources. To ground and explain both the impact and performance findings, each evaluation will collect relevant data on contextual factors and mechanisms linking the Land Project interventions to the expected outcomes of interest.

Overall, our evalution design utilizes the following quantitative data sources:

- Panel household surveys

- Wives survey

- Community leader survey

- Land administrative data

- Satellite imagery and geospatial data

- Direct observation of land offices and equipment

- Other government/administrative data (where available) (e.g., banks, municipal planning and taxation, census data)

- Secondary data and annual/quarterly reports from contractors

We also propose the following qualitative data sources:

- Focus group discussions (FGD) with household-level beneficiaries

- Structured key informant interviews with land administrative unit officials

- Open-ended key informant interviews with other relevant stakeholders, including Directors of Municipal and District Land Offices, Mayors/President of the Municipality, Head of the SDAE, Investors, as well as loan officers from banks/MFI, representatives of the Registo Predial, and notaries.

In addition to answering each of these evaluation questions through the endline evaluation, SI will produce a revised calculation of the ERR of the Land Project. Further, SI incorporates as part of the design ways to measure outcomes related to productivity and incomes/livelihood improvements aligned with the theory of change (e.g., increased land tenure security is hypothesized to result in higher productivity, and increased incomes for rural and urban families).

Difference-in-Difference The units of analysis include individuals, households, communities, land administrative units, levels of investment and land-use, and land offices and equipment.

Sample survey data [ssd], Census/enumeration data [cen], Administrative records data [adm], Observation data/ratings [obs], Geospatial/Satellite data, Focus Group/Interview data, Secondary data

TBD

The policy activity was implemented at the national level, while the capacity building and site-specific activities focused on four northern provinces of Mozambique - Nampula, Zambezia, Cabo Delgado, and Niassa. Within these four provinces, district-level capacity building took place in 12 districts and municipal-level interventions focused on ten municipalities.

For the Institutional Strengthening Evaluation, SI will evaluate project activities focused on the land administration system and institutions. Thus, the performance evaluation (PE) component will cover all project activities at the national, provincial, district and municipal levels for the Policy Activity and Capacity Building Activity. The impact evaluation component will evaluate interventions under the Capacity Building Activity that were implemented at the district and municipal levels. In municipalities, the interventions of interest include installation of SIGIT, upgrading of equipment and facilities and professional and development training provided to local land administration staff. In districts, the impact evaluation will only investigate treatment effects related to upgrading facilities and professional training for land administration staff, since SIGIT was implemented across all SPGCs, resulting in no valid control districts for the SIGIT component. For the Rural and Urban Site-Specific Evaluations, SI will evaluate project activities focused on landholders. Both the performance and impact evaluation components cover interventions under the Site-Specific Activity that relate to knowledge and awareness-raising and piloting a sound approach to area-wide registration of land rights. The relevant geographic levels include hotspot areas within Nampula city and Monapo vila municipalities and within Malema and Mecufi districts.