1. Can Collective Property Right Protection Measures be an Inclusive Alternative: The Case of Community Land Delimitation (CLD) Initiative in Mozambique? Hosaena Ghebru (1), Raul Pitoro (2), and Sileshi Woldeyohannes (1) (1) International Food Policy Research Institute – IFPRI; (2) Michigan State University - MSU Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty Washington, DC March 23 – 27, 2015

2. Background There were successive efforts which were culminated with Land Policy (1995), Land Law (1997), and Land Law Regulations (1998) Some of the salient features : Gov’t owns land; All have Use Right; Communities entitled to Certificate Main objectives of the Mozambique’s Land Policy: security of land tenure; participation in decision making; and benefit sharing

3.  In 2009, the MCC provided more than US$61 million to fund a five-year project  The Community Land Initiative (iTC) – established in 2006 by a group of six donors (DFID, Netherlands, SIDA, Irish Aid, SDC, and DANIDA)  GESTERRA (Capacity Building for Land Management and Administration in Mozambique) program supported bythe Netherlands and Swedish Embassy in Maputo  Community-investor Partnerships supported by IFAD Background: Mozambique Land Projects

4. Background The Community Land Delimitation (CLD) :  is a legally defined PARTICIPATORY process which involves Community Sensitization Community Consultation Community Map Description Community Land Mapping (Cartogram) production Land Map Validation by neighboring community Issuance of Community Land Certificate

5. Objective of the Study To develop an evaluation framework that helps to assess the impact of community land formalization in Mozambique Specifically, the study attempts to assess the CLD process with respect to:  Its adherence to the legally defined procedure  Improving communities’ land administration and management  conflict resolution and prevention

6. Methodology and Data Methodology: Descriptive Analysis Data: The study uses  community-level Community Land Delimitation survey conducted in September 2014 comprehensive community-level questionnaire was administered 94 communities were surveyed  secondary data collected from different NGOs involved in the CLD Process Government Offices

7. Findings based on Secondary Data

8. Between 2006 and 2013  659 communities were delimited  about 35 million hectares of land  413 CLDs were made by the Community Land Initiative (Iniciativa de Terras Comunitárias-iCT).  2,802 Land Law dissemination workshops were conducted

9. Summary of CLDs in Mozambique from 2006 to 2013 by region Province # of delimitatio ns Total area delimited (ha) # of Land Law dissemination workshops # of land conflicts reported # community land mgt. councils created NIASSA 1483,431,8791711936 C. DELGAD O 43364,119437784 NAMPUL A 77675,37815318418 ZAMBEZI A181 1,853,528 81 94171 TETE9 3,984 1,053 7185 MANICA 4115,600,0008895487 SOFALA 623,756,9821571855 INHAMBA NE 168,461,6901583592 GAZA 58516,609757269 MAPUTO 2445,9752217643 Total65934,710,1442,8026341,140 Source: Author's compilation based on MINAG (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010b, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)

10. Between 2006 and 2013  No stable trend observed in CLD Process  The major causes of land conflicts vary by period and region In the initial period, land conflicts were related to land access in the Central and Northern regions In the later period, land conflicts were related to land use in all regions of the country  Negative association was observed between delimitated area and the number of land related conflicts

11. Findings based on Secondary Data Figure : Number of community delimitations and the corresponding area

12. Findings based on Secondary Data Before 2010, little has been done both in terms of number of  seminars conducted to disseminate the land legislation and  the number of participants The largest number of outreach seminars were in 2011  997 meetings with 12,009 participants  The % of female participants was only 37%

13. Findings based on Secondary Data Figure : Dissemination of Land Law

14. Findings based on Community Level Survey

15. Findings from CLD Communities In the CLD survey,  94 communities were surveyed  CLD process was introduced in 60 % of the communities  Several NGOs were involved in several of communities’ CLD process iTC (Community Land Initiative) ORAM OLIPIA Forum Terra Etc…

16. Reasons for Initiating CLD process

17. Of the total CLD communities surveyed, in  74 % the Community Land Management Committee (CLMC) was established  71 % sensitization phase completed  95 % delimitation phase completed  62 % demarcation phase completed  62% acquired Certificate  Only 2% have an approved business plan

18. Findings: Reasons for the Halt of CLD Process  Only in 32 % attempts were made to restart the process

19. Findings from CLD Communities In 67 % of the CLD communities, issues with the bordering communities were raised during the CLD processes, and the issues were  Border disputes ( 77% )  Lack of bordering communities’ involvement (9%)  Bordering communities were not aware (29%) 78 % of the issues were resolved through  Certificate and approved map (32%)  District gov’t resolution (39%)  Mutual agreement (39%)

20. Findings from Non-CLD Communities Non-CLD communities have limited awareness

21. Findings from Non-CLD Communities Only 8% of the non-CLD communities were offered CLD services from NGOs Only 6% of the non-CLD communities attempted to contact NGOs Among the reasons given for not contacting NGOs,  Lack of fund (7%)  Lack of awareness(76%)  Lack of consensus within community(21%)

22. Findings: Involvement of Non-CLD Communities in CLD Process

23. Findings from Non-CLD Communities: WTP All non-CLD communities surveyed are willing to partake in NGOs initiated CLD process WTP for CLD process ObservationsMean How much is the WTP of the community per each household? 90 MT (Metical) per hh at one time 3348% 90 MT per hh at three installment 1650% A subsidized price of 45 MT per hh 1164% Man days of free labor per hh 1932 Source: Authors' computation from community survey 2014

24. Conclusion  62 % of the CLD communities have completed the CLD process and acquired CERTIFICATE  The major reason for initiating CLDs was private-community land conflict, and land related disputes are still the first most common disputes  Results suggest positive impact of the delimitation process on land conflicts

25. Conclusion  There are cases where later phases of the CLD process were started without the completion of earlier phases  All non-CLD communities are willing to partake in NGO initiated CLD process  Non-CLD Communities also have some degree of WTP for CLD processes

26. Policy Implication The CLD process is worth continuing as  it is the best way to tackle the private-community and inter-community land conflicts  communities are willing to partake in and contribute for CLD processes Efforts should be made to keep the participatory nature of the CLD process. In this regard, emphasis should be given  For completion of all the phases of CLD process  Specially, to involve bordering communities Efforts should be made to link the CLD process with Development Initiatives

27. Obrigado! 27 qualquer pergunta?