MOBILE APPLICATION TO SECURE TENURE (MAST): RESULTS FROM ILALASIMBA, TANZANIA Yuliya Neyman USAID

MAST is a pilot that tests whether mobile technology, combined with a crowdsourced approach, can help map and document rural land rights. Hypothesis: the MAST method can map land and deliver CCROs in a participatory, cost- effective and time-effective manner by employing local ‘trusted intermediaries’ and open source technology. MAST is currently being piloted in three villages in the Iringa region of Tanzania: Ilalasimba Itagutwa Kitayawa INTRODUCTION Mobile Application to Secure Tenure (MAST)

METHODOLOGY How MAST Works Activity 1: Coordinate project with local stakeholders Activity 2: Establish and build capacity of local government and institutions Activity 3: Training and awareness raising related to land laws and rights Activity 4: Provide training and select Trusted Intermediaries for field mapping/adjudication. Activity 5: Conduct field mapping/ adjudication Activity 6: Verify field work, identify and resolve conflicts. Activity 7: Issue adjudication forms for village leadership Activity 8: Issue Certificates of Customary Rights of Occupancy (CCROs) to villagers

TECHNOLOGY The MAST Stack Open Source Android App to capture and verify spatial data (GPS), and personal and demographic information needed for CCRO issuance Cloud-based storage facility to hold data collected through the App Data Management Infrastructure to organize, clean, and manage data

TECHNOLOGY How MAST Works

ILALASIMBA Preliminary Results Implementation: March – July 2015 Trainings delivered to: District Land Office, Village Council, Land Adjudication Committee, Hamlets, Trusted Intermediaries 8 Trusted Intermediaries trained to use app Trusted Intermediaries successfully mapped nearly all parcels in the village – +900 in total – in 20 days time. 30% of mapped parcels registered in woman’s name only; 30% jointly registered; 40% in men’s names only.

MAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Introduction One of three evaluations associated with MAST: Performance Evaluation for Ilalasimba – Conducted by MSI / NORC Time and Cost Special Study for Itagutwa and Kitayawa Impact Evaluation for LTA (USAID/Tanzania program that will scale MAST to 41 additional villages) Performance Evaluation Questions: 1. How did beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the first pilot site perceive MAST? a)Was the mapping and verification process seen as transparent and participatory? b)What disputes arose in the course of mapping and verification, and were these disputes resolved fairly? c)Were the data collected by MAST sufficient to allow for the issuance of CCROs? d)Did MAST outreach and communications activities inform and educate users of land in the MAST village on the appropriate land laws and related processes?

MAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Evaluation Methodology Qualitative approach: solicits information on the “experiences, perceptions, opinions, feelings, and knowledge” of individuals that inform the context, function and impacts of the MAST project. Interviews with 2 key groups: Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with : Village government officials, adjudicators, community members who were involved in disputes, and district-level land office staff representing the MLHU. Group Discussions (GDs) with: Ilalasimba residents who had participated in MAST and received CCROs; Ilalasimba residents who had participated in MAST but were still awaiting CCROs; Trusted Intermediaries; Residents of neighboring villages, who did not participate in MAST; Pastoralists; Village Council and Land Adjudication Committee members; Female land users; and Youth. Sample size: Information collected from 93 individuals: 84 GD participants and 9 KII participants.

MAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Findings – Question 1(A) and 1(B) I(A): Was the mapping and verification process seen as transparent and participatory? Overall, considered to be transparent and participatory however, occasional disputes were caused by individuals who did not participate fully in the pre- mapping and verification activities Individuals expressed concern that the Village Land Use Plan (VLUP), which was conducted outside of MAST as a pre-requisite for the intervention, did not properly account for all land use and access I(B): What disputes arose in the course of mapping and verification, and were these disputes resolved fairly? Types of disputes: Boundary disputes (neighbors); returned absentees; past and current owners; family disputes; gender-based disputes. Dispute resolution: Villagers & Village Land Tribunal members trained on dispute resolution as part of MAST, and therefore felt ready to resolve disputes. Few remain unresolved / resolution considered unfair.

MAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Findings – Question 1(C) & I(D) I(C): Were the data collected by MAST sufficient to allow for the issuance of CCROs? Nearly all land parcels in the village have been completely mapped and registered for the issuance of CCROs. However, at the time of the study, only a small fraction of the CCROs had actually been delivered to villagers. Delivering CCROs is not the responsibility of MAST – the District Land Office signs and delivers CCROs – yet this delay caused certain beneficiaries to view MAST with skepticism, and even to wonder whether MAST was a a land grabbing scheme. I(D): Did MAST outreach and communications activities inform and educate land users in Ilalasimba on the appropriate land laws and related processes? Outreach and communications activities were viewed positively by most – dispelled misinformation about MAST being a land grab scheme, and built understanding of MAST However there were some villagers who were unable to participate in these activities and therefore could not benefit from the outreach and sensitization involved. CCRO Delivery Ceremony, July 14, 2015 in Ilalasimba

MAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Other Interesting Findings Education & Outreach component was positively perceived. Those who did not participate in sensitization were often the ones who experienced disputes during mapping. Implication: Sensitization is critical, and extra effort should be made to ensure participation. The two processes that led to the most concerns (the VLUP process and Issuance of CCROs component) are not direct responsibilities of MAST, but of the DLO. Implication: Current GoT processes may be insufficient to build trust/confidence in the VLUP and CCCRO process, and should be strengthened. VLUP process seen as inadequate, particularly by vulnerable groups, and VLUP deficiencies led to CCRO disputes. Implication: Projects should address VLUP process and spend time up front to make sure it is comprehensive. When CCROs were not delivered, villagers assumed MAST was a land grab scheme. Implication: Significant sensitivities exist around land grabbing, perhaps in particular by foreigners. Extra effort should be paid to sensitization.

MAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Other Interesting Findings Significant changes in perception around women’s land rights, and CCRO delivery to women. Implication: communities may not know that women can own land, and can be open to the idea once sensitized. Women’s land rights should be prioritized in pre- intervention sensitization. Youth concerned that issuance of CCROs will prohibitively increase the cost of acquiring land in the future. Implication: pressures on land are increasing, and youth do not feel secure in their ability to access it. Projects should pay special attention to the concerns of youth. Dispute resolution involved an interplay between institutional-legal mechanisms (land laws, land tribunals, land courts, land department) and informal process (customary land authorities such as clan elders, elders of the family, etc…). Implication: projects should consider how to incorporate traditional methods during dispute resolution.

MOTIVATION THANK YOU