1 / 18

MCC Impact Evaluation of Mozambique Land Reform

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

chelsa
Download Presentation

MCC Impact Evaluation of Mozambique Land Reform

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MCC Impact Evaluation of Mozambique Land Reform Jigar Bhatt & Jennifer Witriol Millennium Challenge Corporation World Bank ARD Conference March 2009

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Indicators: Activity Level

  8. Indicators: Objectives and Outcomes

  9. Data Collection TIA Household Survey Business Census Administrative Data FIAS/Doing Business

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. Questions?

More Related