Community Land Use Fund 2013

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.