This evaluation focuses on the ITC (Community Land Fund) outcomes in two iTC/G6 provinces (Manica and Cabo Delgado) and one iTC/MCA province (Zambézia). The evaluator used what it called a 'Outcomes Harvesting' approach and method. The evaluator identified program objectives and then sought to uncover or 'harvest' outcomes corresponding to specific, measurable changes in the behavior and relations of communities and their organizations, outcomes which the activities and interventions of KPMG and its service providers contributed to being realized. Overall, the evaluation harvested 171 outcomes, triangulated from multiple sources and found that iTC contributed to these successful outcomes at the community level.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
Not applicable to this evaluation; no quantitative data to be shared
The initial phase starting in 2006 covered Manica, Gaza and Cabo Delgado Provinces with Tete and Sofala provinces added in 2010. The Millennium Challenge Account extended iTC's activities (iTC/MCA) in a second phase into Nampula, Niassa and Zambézia.
Unit of Analysis
Individuals living in project-targeted provinces.
Producers and sponsors
Authoring entity/Primary investigators
Effective Development Group
Millennium Challenge Corporation
UK Department for International Development
Swiss Agency for Development
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
Netherlands Ministry of Development Cooperation
Danish International Development Agency
In Manica, the evaluation sampled five of the 13 completed ITC contracts which involved community or association land interventions. 12 sites were sampled within the five contracts Thus the Manica sample covers completed delimitation interventions (involving community boundary delimitation, social preparation, CGRN formation) and completed demarcation interventions (involving legalization of associations, social preparation, and demarcation of association claimed land). The sample was stratified: one half comprised communities from pre-2010 interventions and the other half from 2010-2012 interventions. One community site was included specifically because it was the only case where the CGRN had reached three agreements with outside investors, and was thus of major interest for the evaluation.
In Zambézia, the sample selection started with a decision to cover the 6 of the thirteen contracts which had finished and had final reports. However, the Service providers for one had no staff member in the areas following the end of its iTC contract. That contract was excluded and replaced with another contract managed by the same service providers that was near completion and for which a final report was provided to the ET by the end of fieldwork. Zambézia contracts were generally for large areas under the overall authority of a regulo 1 (regulos) or local leader or chief and members of that area all recognized his overall authority. Under these areas, communities or povoacões were identified individually and were assisted by service providers either individually or in some cases in groups of 2 or more communities (facilitating service provider work and reducing costs). Delimitations, however, were done at the community level so that lower level regulos had the boundaries of their communities delimited in individual delimitations rather than as a single delimitation of the area of the whole community covered by the regulo 1. Within the six contracts, the team contacted a total of 22 communities. It met with as many of the CGRNs and associations (pre-existing and those formed by iTC) as possible, without regard to whether or not they had land demarcated to them. Some outcomes refer to areas covered by a regulo 1 and the larger administrative area under the regulo. Separate meetings were held with CGRNs and associations. Outcomes for CGRNs and associations refer to the specific association or CGRN and because of service providers' grouping of povoacões for carrying out their work, might cover more than one povoacão. Specific communities (povoacões or larger localidades), associations and CGRNs were selected by the team. The team interviewed those associations (including older associations which did not demarcate land) found within selected povacões even though iTC only identifies those which it legalized or demarcated.
In Cabo Delgado 6 projects were selected. However most of these projects were clusters created during the contract process to expedite, facilitate and reduce costs. As such, various communities (often non-contiguous) with diverse land-related issues were included in the same contract. One community was selected in each of the clusters. iTC listed 23 contracts that iTC provided. Three did not have approved final reports. Thus selection of the 6 was from the universe of 20 contracts for which final reports were available.
Dates of Data Collection (YYYY/MM/DD)
The evaluation was led by Jeff Dorsey. Other key evaluation members include: David Stanfield; Ingrid Nelson, Esme Joaquim and Andrew Koleros.
The field survey workers were: Helder Daniel Victorino, Ines Pedro Salimo, Ana Moniz Amone, Nelsson Paulo Trocinho, Dramusse Sale, Elisa Filismina, E. C. Mesa, Bulaiton Zivale, Baulene Artur, Cristovão Francisco Gibante, Maria Cristina João Domingos Camisola, Verónica Delfina Nhica, Adélia da Conceição Muataco, Lucas Francisco da Silva Massiuana, Adêncio Jesuino Tomas Adêncio, Amarildo José Alberto Lobo, Danilo Félix Santos Júlio, Paulina Jaime and Paulina Luís.
Type of Research Instrument
Household questionnaire at the community level
Semi-structured interviews with the CGRN (Community Natural Resource Management Committee)
Semi-structured interviews with government representatives
Semi-structured interviews with investors
Semi-structured interviews with Community Associations
Effective Development Group
The Effective Development Group. Evaluation of the Mozambique Community Land Use Fund Final Report. May 2014.