Final Evaluation of the Land Conflict Resolution Project in Liberia August 2014 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Chris Huggins and Karen Azeez on behalf of Social Impact, based on field data collected by Chris Huggins, Karen Azeez, Kou M. Gbaintor-Johnson and Richmond T. McIntosh. FINAL EVALUATION OF THE LAND CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROJECT IN LIBERIA August 18, 2014 Project Number AID-669-TO-11-00001; Evaluation Mechanism Number: AID-OAA-M-13-00011 Cover Photo: An LCRP-trained dispute resolution practitioner, Nimba County (photo: Chris Huggins) DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................... i I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. ii II. Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................ 1 III. Project Background ............................................................................................................................... 2 IV. Evaluation Methods & Limitations ......................................................................................................... 4 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................. 6 V. Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Q1: To what extent have the deliverables and outputs set forth in the task order and work plans been met? .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Q1A: What factors have affected the project’s success, including but not limited to relationships among key stakeholders?........................................................................................................................................... 9 Q1B: What lessons regarding the integration of key stakeholder interests can inform future USAID programming?........................................................................................................................................15 Q1C: What specific project achievements are or are not sustainable, and what is required to ensure sustainability?.........................................................................................................................................15 Q2: Do dispute resolution practitioners trained or supported by LCRP resolve land disputes or contribute to their resolution? ........................................................................................................................................18 Q2A: Are disputes resolved in accordance with applicable law? ................................................................19 Q2B: Are dispute resolution practitioners viewed as competent and just? .................................................19 Q2C: What types of disputes appear to be especially resistant to alternative dispute resolution methods and why? .....................................................................................................................................................21 Q2D: What future interventions might help address these cases? .............................................................22 Q3: What possibilities exist for further engagement in this area? According to project stakeholders what are some key achievements/successes which could be replicated or scaled up in future programming?..................24 Q4: Did the project take into account gender disparities in access to land and security in carrying out activities? ................................................................................................................................................................25 Q4A: How effective has dispute resolution capacity of supported ADR providers been in addressing gender disparities in land and land-related issues?................................................................................................26 Q5: Has the project M&E been effective? How was the monitoring and evaluation system used to inform project decisions/learning? .....................................................................................................................................28 VI. Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................29 VII. Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................30 Annexes ......................................................................................................................................................33 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ......................................................................................................34 Annex II: Key LCRP Actors and Activity Locations.......................................................................................42 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments .......................................................................................................43 Annex IV: Documents Consulted................................................................................................................66 Annex V: Evaluation Fieldwork ...................................................................................................................68 Annex VI: Evaluation Team.........................................................................................................................74 Annex VII: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest ........................................................................................75 i ACRONYMS ADR Alternative dispute resolution DQA Data quality assessment GoL Government of Liberia GPS Global positioning system ICC Interim Coordination Committees INL Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs LC Land Commission LCC Land Coordination Centers LCCCMIS Land Coordination Centers Case Management Information System LCP Liberia Crusaders for Peace LCRP Land Conflict Resolution Program LDR Land Dispute Resolution M&E Monitoring and evaluation MLDL Mitigating Local Disputes in Liberia MoU Memorandum of understanding NGO Non-governmental organization NRC Norwegian Refugee Council RFP Request for proposals SDI Sustainable Development Institute SI Social Impact UN United Nations USAID United States Agency for International Development ii I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE In April 2014, the United States Agency for International Development’s Mission in Liberia (USAID/Liberia) commissioned Social Impact (SI) to conduct a final performance evaluation of its three￾year, $6.7 million Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP). The objective of this performance evaluation was to conduct a full and independent final evaluation of the LCRP. This evaluation sought to: 1) examine the degree to which LCRP has or has not achieved its intended results 2) explain any failure to achieve those results, including inadequacies, if any, in the project’s design, and/or changed circumstance, 3) and set forth recommendations and lessons learned to guide future programming in the sector. The primary intended users of this evaluation are USAID/Liberia program staff and USAID natural resource management and land governance staff in other missions. Secondary users include the Government of Liberia Land Commission and other land-related agencies, other donors and implementers working on land governance in the region, and local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). BACKGROUND Historical and Political Context Land in Liberia, as in other countries, is a resource with great economic, cultural, and political value, and has therefore been highly contested since the nation was founded. Historically, more powerful state and private sector actors expropriated land at the expense of customary landholders, exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, fueling injustice, and contributing significantly to the outbreak of civil conflict that plagued Liberia for nearly thirty years. Land tenure and property rights issues have remained an important source of tension in the national reconstruction process since the civil war ended in 2003, undermining peace and negatively impacting sustainable investment and broad-based economic growth. The Land Commission (LC) was created by the Government of Liberia (GoL) in 2009 as a semi￾permanent institution with a five-year mandate to review, propose, and advocate land policy and legal reform, and coordinate the implementation of land programs in Liberia to advance land tenure security and property rights. However, due to its limited financial and technical capacity, the LC required support to design and test land dispute resolution methodologies to fulfill its mandate. Program Design In August 2011, USAID, recognizing the need to formalize existing informal methods of land dispute resolution and to support the GoL’s nascent policy and institutional building initiative, launched the LCRP. The program included support to the GoL to pilot the new Land Coordination Centers (LCCs), decentralized entities with offices at the county level, which was intended to build capacity, enhance coordination, and establish monitoring and evaluation and quality control mechanisms in Lofa and Nimba Counties. It also emphasized the formalization of existing individuals and systems already involved with dispute resolution—e.g., traditional authorities, county officials, NGOs, and the formal court system. In 2012, the project was expanded both in scope and scale, increasing the range of the project to three additional Counties (Margibi, Bong and Maryland), and adding a number of communications/awareness, stakeholder engagement, and training/capacity-building activities. iii Implementation Considerations Implementation of the LCRP confronted several obstacles, including significant delays in the establishment and staffing of the LCCs, and the hesitation of key actors within the Land Commission to proceed with proposed land conflict mapping before the land rights policy was put in place. These delays affected the scope the LCRP, and the long-term sustainability of the project. As evident in the third year work plan, the project experienced delays in piloting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methodologies, and had to significantly scale down its planned activities of mapping communities and establishing clan-level LDR entities. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODS Specific evaluation questions included the following: 1. To what extent have the deliverables and outputs set forth in the task order and work plans been met? a. What factors have affected the project’s success, including but not limited to relationships among key stakeholders? b. What lessons regarding the integration of key stakeholder interests can inform future USAID programming? c. What specific project achievements are or are not sustainable, and what is required to ensure sustainability? 2. Do dispute resolutions practitioners trained or supported by LCRP resolve land disputes or contribute to their resolution? a. If so, are these disputes resolved in accordance with applicable law? b. Are dispute resolution practitioners viewed as competent and just? c. What types of disputes appear to be especially resistant to alternative dispute resolution methods and why? d. What future interventions might help address these cases? 3. What possibilities exist for further engagement in this area? According to project stakeholders what are some key achievements/successes which could be replicated or scaled up in future programming? 4. Did the project take into account gender disparities in access to land and security in carrying out activities? How effective has dispute resolution capacity of supported ADR providers been in addressing gender disparities in land and land-related issues? 5. Has the project M&E been effective? How was the monitoring and evaluation system used to inform project decisions/learning? The evaluation was carried out by a four-member SI team from June to August 2014. The team conducted a cross-sectional, comparative study of land conflict resolution in beneficiary and non￾beneficiary villages within the five program counties. Data collection methods involved (1) a desk review, (2) site visits (involving focus group discussions, household surveys, and local key informant interviews), (3) key informant interviews in and around Monrovia, and (4) secondary data analysis. The team conducted a desk review prior to in-country data collection. Upon arriving in Liberia, the team spent one week conducting key informant interviews with LCRP staff, government officials and partners, iv subcontractors, NGO stakeholders, and donor organizations prior to departing to the field, and then spent over three weeks conducting field research. Limitations to the evaluation include limited time and difficult travel conditions in-country, resulting in a small household survey sample size, no direct observation of program activities, and difficulty in reaching remote areas. Furthermore, the evaluation team received and heeded LC guidance not to interview parties of active disputes, which reduced the potential sample of disputants during data collection. Finally, almost all LCRP activities occurred in conjunction with funding from other national and international donors, so it is difficult to attribute any outcomes specifically to the LCRP. MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. To what extent have the deliverables and outputs set forth in the task order and work plans been met? Overall, the project met the majority of the objectives laid out in the revised LCRP workplan. Revisions to specific activities were made in coordination with USAID after the project began; however, certain activities completed seemed to fall short of what would be considered comprehensive fulfillment of the workplan revisions, including property rights inventory efforts and the impact assessment. a. What factors have affected the project’s success, including but not limited to relationships among key stakeholders? While the LCRP’s close relationship with the LC was necessary, and increased the long￾term sustainability of the project, it also contributed to significant delays in program implementation. The LCRP team devoted considerable time to influencing the development of the Land Rights Policy and other policy statements, and achieved notable success in both engaging stakeholders on land dispute resolution issues and gaining important influence during the policy drafting process. Relationships with other stakeholders, including customary land dispute resolution practitioners, LCC staff, and LCRP subcontractors, resulted in improved program sustainability and on-the-ground results. However, relations with other organizations and actors such as the Mitigating Local Disputes in Liberia (MLDL) project, and county-level land authorities sometimes resulted in redundant efforts and strained relations between LCRP￾funded LCCs and county-level government entities. b. What lessons regarding the integration of key stakeholder interests can inform future USAID programming? The LC changed its orientation towards pilot projects, and developed a workplan during the time period following the finalization of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and prior to the commencement of LCRP activities in Liberia. The ensuing disconnect between the activities laid out in the Task Order and the LC’s plans led to significant delays and obstacles. The options open to USAID in the future are to (a) seek greater commitments from institutions (such as written agreements) prior to issuing an RFP; (b) reduce the length of the period between the issuing of the RFP and beginning project activities; and/or (c) to make RFPs in the land sector broad enough to allow implementing institutions sufficient latitude to bring activities in line with changing priorities. v c. What specific project achievements are or are not sustainable, and what is required to ensure sustainability? Key elements of sustainability related to this project include ‘buy-in’ from relevant GoL actors (i.e. their broad acceptance of the LCRP objectives and technical approaches), sufficient technical capacity amongst relevant GoL actors to oversee and potentially manage activities, and cost-effective methodologies, appropriate to the local context. These three elements would be necessary for project activities to be continued (with adaptations, as necessary) after the completion of the LRCP. As the LCRP was conceptualized as a pilot project, it is not expected that all activities will simply continue after the completion of the LCRP. However, as the role of a pilot project is to test new approaches prior to possible replication, it is reasonable to expect that the GoL gain sufficient technical capacity to gage strengths and weaknesses of LCRP approaches, and replicate the most effective approaches, while making modifications as dictated by technical, political, financial, and other considerations. In the original Task Order, TetraTech was directed to “define and establish clan-level dispute resolution entities.” Through various modifications, more emphasis was placed on supporting the LC to establish county-level LCCs, with personnel in the centers reporting to the LC, rather than to LCRP. The LCC model is more sustainable than the original model, which would have put LCRP in more direct day-to-day control of the LCC management. By putting the LC in charge, this model helps to develop ‘buy-in’ from the LC as well as technical capacity to manage the small network of LCCs. Despite the need for significant donor support, capacity-building, and continued funding, the LC has gained a better understanding of land dispute dynamics at the local level and is interested in the continuation and proliferation of the LCC model. However, the LCC’s have not yet been able to offer services across the entirety of the two pilot districts in each pilot County, indicating that the LCC activities should not yet be geographically extended. In addition, it is not yet clear how the LCCs will be funded in future. In comparison to LCC activities, community boundary demarcation activities commenced even later in the LCRP project cycle, and the sustainability of the activities that have been conducted in the Gbarlin clan area is questionable. At the time of the evaluation (late June and July 2014) parts of the boundary had yet to be agreed upon and several sections of the boundary had not been agreed upon by the Gbarlin representatives and members of neighboring communities. Maps have been prepared showing where the different communities understand the boundary to be; but these maps have significant differences, which have not yet been reconciled through negotiation, collection of global positioning system (GPS) coordinates for boundary areas, and the production of a final map which is acceptable to all parties. The community is no longer receiving support from LCRP or its subcontractor, Sustainable Development Institute (SDI), in completing these activities, but community members have expressed the need for continued involvement. Furthermore, some key stakeholders expressed doubts that the LC could replicate the community boundary mapping activities without major technical and other forms of support. If more time had been available for this activity, based on an assessment of the approaches used and successes thus far, it may have been sustainable; however, procedures have not yet been put in place to determine the extent and type of support offered by LCRP and its partner organizations to the community organizations when negotiation and demarcation proves vi challenging. The evaluation team is therefore unable to state whether the activity would have been sustainable if more time had been available to carry it out. 2. Do dispute resolution practitioners trained or supported by LCRP resolve land disputes or contribute to their resolution? Interviews with LCC staff suggest that 60% - 65% of the more than 500 mediation practitioners trained with LCRP support are actively involved in mediating disputes. While no targets were set for active involvement in mediation, the LCRP was able to meet its goal for the number of practitioners trained. Additionally, around 7% of all documented disputes are resolved using LCRP’s criteria (signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) representing agreement between the parties). The LC, which has a different criteria (verbal agreement, not necessarily written agreement), recognises more documented disputes as resolved: in interviews, LCC staff reported that about 15% of cases were resolved, while figures obtained from the Land Commission at the end of July 2014 indicate a figure of 20%. While the 7% figure seems very low, we cannot say with certainty that it is an indication of poor program effectiveness because there is no comparison data on pre-intervention dispute resolution as defined by the LCRP. Disputant interviews revealed that in most cases, one or more parties was generally unsatisfied with the result of the mediation or written agreements were not actually signed or available, a prerequisite for a ‘resolved’ case according to LCRP standards. In some areas, LCC mediation committees comprised of LCRP-trained mediation practitioners have mediated disputes without telling the LCC staff, and without documenting them as per LCC procedures. This tendency suggests that trained mediators are mediating a greater number of disputes than is indicated in the LCC’s database. a. Are disputes resolved in accordance with applicable law? LCC personnel state that the vast majority of disputes are resolved in accordance with the law. However, in a few cases an MoU might represent a compromise between the statutory law and principles of reconciliation and social harmony. Further analysis is constrained by the small sample size of disputants that could be reached during fieldwork. b. Are dispute resolution practitioners viewed as competent and just? One of the criteria for selection of mediation practitioners was that they had already been involved in land dispute mediation. Therefore, many of those selected have some role in the state-managed local authority system or in the customary land governance system, so they are not neutral parties in affairs related to land. Practitioners are generally perceived as experienced and legitimate actors in the land dispute resolution sector. However, the evaluation team learned that they sometimes revert to arbitration, the traditional method of dispute resolution. It is not clear to what extent this is a matter of conscious choice, or an unconscious lapse into habit. Dispute resolution practitioners interviewed by the evaluation team voiced acceptance of mediation as a dispute resolution technique, but behavior change can be a prolonged process involving lapses into previous patterns. Alternatively, practitioners may be reluctant to relinquish decision-making power in their communities, preferring to continue to arbitrate. An additional challenge is that a minority of practitioners have been parties to multiple land disputes themselves, potentially undermining their neutrality and legitimacy. A small number reported that they would give preference to their own religious or ethnic group over minority groups, undermining the LCRP training tenets of competence and justice. vii c. What types of disputes appear to be especially resistant to alternative dispute resolution methods and why? The LC has told LCCs to avoid ‘political’ disputes which involve, for example, administrative boundaries, or commercial concessions. Unfortunately, these difficult or ‘off-limits’ disputes are generally of greater concern to broader development objectives. Other challenging situations for mediation arise when individuals possess documents, or claim to possess documents, for large areas within town boundaries, or when the resolution of the dispute requires some form of demarcation of land parcel boundaries. d. What future interventions might help address these cases? The LCCs could be supported to examine the functions that surveying plays, and identify more appropriate and affordable ways to achieve them. Additionally, in order to encourage and assist the mediation practitioners to use mediation techniques rather than relying on arbitration, LCC personnel could, for example, conduct annual refresher trainings. In fact, practitioners in almost every County asked for follow-up training. For future community boundary demarcation projects, guidelines could be developed around external intervention, and could be used to draw up a budget for external support (with logistical as well as technical components). More specifically, interventions should have an adequate timeline in order to fully complete all objectives, sufficient funding should be available to enable community members to travel between towns and conduct mediation activities when these requirements exceed their own fundraising capacities, and most importantly some form of external facilitation should be considered for the most challenging boundary disputes. In towns where large portions of farmland or residential land are owned by individuals, and commercialization of land is causing tensions and disputes, methods such as participatory, community-level land-use planning and town-level community boundary demarcation can identify alternative areas for residential settlement or for farmland. The proactive engagement of LCC staff with any future court-based or court-sanctioned ADR system could improve the quality of dispute resolution processes for those involving land documents. The exact form of this engagement will depend on the institutional shape that the ADR system takes. 3. What possibilities exist for further engagement in this area? According to project stakeholders what are some key achievements/successes that could be replicated or scaled up in future programming? The effectiveness of the LCCs could be improved if their purpose and mandate was expanded slightly, and if the roles of some LCC positions could be reconfigured to build on the current focus on land dispute case management towards a stronger role in supporting the LC to coordinate county-level land-related activities. Rather than expanding the LCCs to more districts or Counties, the LCC mandate should be broadened within existing offices to encompass wider monitoring and analysis, and more strategic national and regional activities, including handling some of the more difficult land cases mentioned above. viii In the Gbarlin clan area, and in other areas where community boundary demarcation activities are carried out in the future, synergies could be identified between the clan-level Interim Coordination Committees (ICCs) that were established with LCRP support to address land governance and boundary negotiation in project areas and the LCC staff and mediation practitioners. One of the main strengths of the LCRP was the quality of the training (the content, the processes involved, and the skills of the training personnel). This could be leveraged in future activities linked to the implementation of the Land Rights Act, such as awareness￾raising and capacity-building regarding community land governance institutions. 4. Did the project take into account gender disparities in access to land and security in carrying out activities? LCRP systematically integrated material on women’s land rights into all trainings. Furthermore, the LCRP, in conjunction with the LC, purposely relaxed the literacy and prior land dispute mediation experience criteria for selection of female mediation practitioners, in order to ensure that more women were included in the LCC mediation committees. This is because women in Liberia have historically been excluded from mediating land disputes, and from accessing education. The fact that LCRP-trained women practitioners are now actively mediating land disputes should be considered a significant achievement. Unfortunately, a relatively small proportion of the LCC staff are women. Those institutions managing any future LCC recruitment activities should attempt to recruit more women, who could provide more gender￾specific forms of support to female mediation practitioners, female disputants, and other stakeholders. a. How effective has dispute resolution capacity of supported ADR providers been in addressing gender disparities in land and land-related issues? Most mediation practitioners demonstrate knowledge of women’s rights to land, and acknowledged the importance of enforcing these rights. However, it appears that the practitioners have not yet been able to affect a widespread change in knowledge and attitudes to women’s land rights in the areas in which they operate. This is perhaps not surprising given the short duration of their work to date and the limited nature of the public awareness and outreach activities that have been carried out. 5. Has the project M&E been effective? How was the monitoring and evaluation system used to inform project decisions/learning? The evaluation team’s findings as well as the data quality assessment conducted in April 2014 revealed some strengths and weaknesses of the LCRP’s data management and reporting systems, as well as the quality of the data being managed and reported. Overall, the LCRP’s M&E activities have been performed adequately, and there is a good system in place for monitoring and conducting M&E related tasks. Much of the project’s M&E data is collected from the LC-managed LCC database, which was well-designed in consultation with LCC staff, but unreliable internet connections prevent most LCCs from regularly updating the cloud-based database. The project has had four M&E Specialists in three years, and the frequent turnover has hindered the smooth operations of the project’s data management and reporting system. Furthermore, the influence of the LC over the LCRP’s scheduling, among other factors, may have limited the use of the M&E system for project decision￾making. ix RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are grouped into, first, recommendations for USAID; and secondly, recommendations for actors – both national and international – in the land sector in Liberia. Recommendations for USAID The evaluation team recommend that USAID continue to provide support for key actors in the land sector in Liberia. This is particularly important given the evident prevalence of land disputes around the country, and the potential opportunities and challenges that the Land Rights Policy and draft Land Rights Act represent. Specifically, it is recommended that USAID: • Provide further support to land dispute resolution systems, building on existing frameworks such as the LCC structure, and avoiding duplication between different projects (i.e. ensuring that projects such as MLDL and LCRP are designed to be complementary and are implemented in coordinated ways). • Engage with, and influence, the emerging ADR policy and legal framework that is being coordinated by the Ministry of Justice. For example, support could be provided for the identification of specific mechanisms through which the Land Dispute Resolution Policy Statement of Intent could be implemented within the ADR policy and legal framework. • Support further collective level land rights clarification and provision of land tenure security for community land. Such support should have several aspects including, for example, community￾based boundary negotiation and demarcation activities in additional areas; the analysis, digitization and systematic storage and management of land rights documents; and the building of capacity amongst community-level institutions for negotiation with external actors, such as commercial firms and government agencies. This should be carried out in line with the Land Rights Act, assuming that it is promulgated in the near future. • Support community-based implementation mechanisms for the Land Rights Act, when it is promulgated. The category of ‘community land’ represents a historic opportunity to secure the customary land rights of the majority of Liberian citizens. However, the institutional framework for the identification and governance of community land will require significant investments of funding, time and energy. In addition, further advocacy and capacity-building work will be required within government agencies in order to ensure that efforts to secure community land rights are supported by government stakeholders and their constituencies. Recommendations for Actors in the Land Sector • The LCCs represent a very useful resource, particularly given the exit of Norwegian Refugee Council’s land dispute resolution program. If the LC or other GOL agencies are not able to continue to support the LCCs (for example, when the LC mandate expires), other organizations should consider providing material support to the LCCs. • The Land Commission and/or any other government agency that takes on management responsibilities for the LCC system should consider reconfiguring staff roles, responsibilities, and compensation at the LCCs. For example, case intake monitors are currently dealing with a very large workload, and are underpaid considering the central importance of their work. It is possible, for example, that database officers could assist in some case intake activities and x generally provide desk-based support to the case intake monitors, who spend much of their time ‘in the field’. • LCC staff should be supported to consolidate existing work (e.g. to provide some communication tools, such as phone scratchcards, to practitioners; to provide refresher training for practitioners; to strengthen outreach activities and link these more systematically with other elements of LCC work; and to train more mediation practitioners and provide them with transport costs in order to reach all parts of the pilot districts). It is too early for LCCs to be required to extend their services beyond the two pilot Districts in each County. • Institutions that provide support for the LCCs should develop more systematic policies for support to LCCs: planning and other responsibilities should be decentralized to the LCCs. The LCCs should be facilitated to live up to their potential of coordinating Land Commission activities in the pilot Counties, rather than focusing only on land dispute resolution. • In order to avoid the erosion of legitimacy and credibility of the mediation system, the type and extent of any gift-giving (from disputants to mediation practitioners) should be reported by mediators to the LCCs, and actively monitored by LCC personnel. Mediation practitioners should be dissuaded from accepting any gifts except those of negligible, essentially token value. • Those institutions managing any future LCC recruitment activities should attempt to recruit more women, who could provide more gender-specific forms of support to female mediation practitioners, female disputants, and other stakeholders. While gender inclusion is not just about ‘women’, including more women as LCC staff would nevertheless have multiple benefits, including sending a clear signal that women can be managers and decision-makers in land dispute resolution and the broader land governance sphere. • Follow-up training for practitioners should be conducted, and should include a significant component of legal training. This service was requested by almost all of the practitioner groups the evaluation team spoke with. Furthermore, it would enable practitioners to construct better dispute resolution agreements (MOUs), and ensure that agreements comply with statutory law. • LCC public awareness and outreach staff who are not already doing so should be encouraged to actively target women’s associations and similar institutions in order to encourage women disputants to use the LCC’s services. • The cloud-based LCC case management information system (LCCCMIS) could be managed by LC staff in Monrovia (who have better internet access than the LCC staff), based on Excel files received from the field. This would ensure that the MIS is kept up-to-date. The MIS could then be a resource for LCCs but primarily used by the Monrovia-based LC staff, funding agencies, and other stakeholders. • Communities in neighbouring clans undergoing boundary demarcation should be provided with more training (e.g. in negotiation skills) to reduce the knowledge imbalance between the ICCs and the committees representing neighbouring clans. • A policy should be put in place regarding support to the local institutions (e.g. ICCs) managing boundary demarcation, and external facilitation of boundary dispute resolution. While ICCs should be expected to take the lead in managing boundary negotiations and seeking resolution xi of any boundary disputes, it is not realistic to expect that ICCs can resolve all boundary disputes without logistical or technical support to specific negotiation processes. • Coordination of different land dispute resolution and land governance actors should be prioritized. Land ‘disputes’ are linked to land governance and development dilemmas, and should be embedded within broader policy and legal frameworks for land administration, ADR, and community land governance. As a part of this, actors in the land sector should coordinate with the LCCs, which have the potential to take on broader responsibilities than those related to land dispute resolution that they manage currently. 1 II. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE USAID/Liberia commissioned Social Impact to conduct a full and independent final evaluation of its Land Conflict Resolution Project to serve as (1) a retrospective evaluation of LCRP implementation and achievement, as well as (2) a forward-looking assessment to inform future USAID project design and implementation in the land reform and conflict resolution sector in Liberia. EVALUATION QUESTIONS SI’s performance evaluation sought to provide answers to the following evaluation questions and offer recommendations for the future: 1. To what extent have the deliverables and outputs set forth in the task order and work plans been met? a. What factors have affected the project’s success, including but not limited to relationships among key stakeholders? b. What lessons regarding the integration of key stakeholder interests can inform future USAID programming? c. What specific project achievements are or are not sustainable, and what is required to ensure sustainability? 2. Do dispute resolution practitioners trained or supported by LCRP resolve land disputes or contribute to their resolution? a. If so, are these disputes resolved in accordance with applicable law? b. Are dispute resolution practitioners viewed as competent and just? c. What types of disputes appear to be especially resistant to alternative dispute resolution methods and why? d. What future interventions might help address these cases? 3. What possibilities exist for further engagement in this area? According to project stakeholders what are some key achievements/successes which could be replicated or scaled up in future programming? 4. Did the project take into account gender disparities in access to land and security in carrying out activities? How effective has dispute resolution capacity of supported ADR providers been in addressing gender disparities in land and land-related issues? 5. Has the project M&E been effective? How was the monitoring and evaluation system used to inform project decisions/learning? 2 III. PROJECT BACKGROUND HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT Land in Liberia, as in other countries, is a resource with great economic, cultural, and political value, and has therefore been highly contested since the nation was founded. Historically, more powerful state and private sector actors expropriated land at the expense of customary landholders, exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, fueling injustice, and contributing significantly to the outbreak of civil conflict that plagued Liberia for nearly thirty years. Land tenure and property rights issues have remained an important source of tension in the national reconstruction process since the civil war ended in 2003. These tensions undermine peace and negatively impact sustainable investment and broad-based economic growth. Several of the following factors, among others, have contributed to land disputes over individual and collective claims to land and property, which often take the form of multiple overlapping claims to the same property: (1) imprecise and overlapping land allocation by customary and state-appointed local authorities, (2) displacement of populations as a result of the war and subsequent claims to property now occupied by others, (3) a shortage of qualified and certified surveyors to accurately demarcate land boundaries, and, (4) allocation of large parcels of land to commercial companies as concessions, often without proper consultation with local leaders and communities, without adequate demarcation of parcel boundaries, and despite the fact that land is often occupied and used by communities. Land disputes are widespread and frequently lead to destruction of property or violence. The Land Commission was created by the GoL in 2009 as a semi-permanent institution with a five-year mandate to review, propose, and advocate land policy and legal reform, and coordinate the implementation of land programs in Liberia to advance land tenure security and property rights. Since its establishment, the Land Commission, along with other GoL partners, spent considerable time and resources inventorying current land ownership around Liberia (for example by creating an inventory of tribal certificates), and passing a Land Rights Policy and a draft Land Rights Act to formally define the types of land, ownership, use rights and documentation process for land in the country. However, due to its limited financial and technical capacity, the LC required support to design and test land dispute resolution methodologies to fulfill its mandate. Members of the LC are negotiating with GoL actors to have the Commission’s mandate extended by a year, though this had yet to be confirmed at the time of the evaluation. The GoL plans to establish a Land Agency to coordinate the land sector when the Land Commission has been disbanded. However, the legislation required for such an Agency had yet to be drafted at the time of the evaluation. PROJECT DESIGN Recognizing the need to formalize existing informal methods of land dispute resolution and to support the GoL’s nascent policy and institutional building initiative, in August 2011, USAID launched the three￾year Land Conflict Resolution Project. The LCRP fit within the comprehensive land dispute framework developed by the Land Commission and the Land Dispute Resolution Task Force, which emphasized the involvement of existing individuals and systems involved with dispute resolution—e.g., traditional authorities, county officials, NGOs, and the formal court system. The framework also included decentralized entities with offices at the county level and a national oversight and coordination structure, intended to build capacity, enhance coordination, and establish monitoring and evaluation and 3 quality control mechanisms. Originally, the LCRP entailed the piloting of ADR methodologies for resolving land disputes in two counties. In 2012, however, the project was expanded both in scope and scale. In terms of scope, additional activities were added, including the design and implementation of community-oriented alternative land dispute trainings for third party intermediaries, increasing the amount of land rights documentation captured by the Land Commission database, the implementation of a public information campaign to reinforce the use of ADR mechanisms, and the organization of a national and regional consultations around the national Land Policy. In terms of scale, three additional counties were added to the project, and the number of direct beneficiaries for the project was increased. The $6.7 million project was therefore implemented in Bong, Lofa, Margibi, Maryland, and Nimba Counties in coordination with partners in the Land Commission and associated Land Coordination Centers. As originally designed, the project entailed the following activities:  Activity 1: Pilot dispute resolution activities in Bong, Lofa, Margibi, Maryland and Nimba Counties.  Activity 2: Establish property rights inventories in the same five counties o Activity 2.1: Increase the amount of land rights documentation captured and maintained in the Land Commission database.  Activity 3: Develop clan-level land dispute resolution (LDR) entities.  Activity 4: Promote the legal recognition of LDR, its practitioners, and land dispute agreements. o Activity 4.1: Hire and train a dedicated coordinator to assist the judiciary and the Land Commission; Establish a judicial liaison with county-level entities to build pathways between customary and statutory land dispute resolution mechanisms.  Activity 5: Provide technical input and written content for a land dispute resolution information campaign and coordinate the public awareness campaign.  Activity 6: Develop and implement a project impact assessment to measure the efficacy of different dispute resolution approaches, and to provide information about how such approaches affect stakeholder perceptions of land conflict risk and tenure security. Implementation Considerations It should be noted that implementation of this challenging project has confronted several obstacles which were largely outside of LCRP control, including significant delays in the establishment and staffing of Land Coordination Centers (LCCs) in the five Counties, and the hesitation of key actors within the Land Commission to proceed with land conflict mapping before the land rights policy was put in place. These delays affected both the scope of work of the LCRP, and the overall long-term sustainability of the project. As evident in the third year work plan, the project experienced delays in piloting ADR methodologies, and had to significantly scale down its planned activities of mapping communities and establishing clan-level LDR entities. A full list of key LCRP actors and activity locations can be found in Annex 1I. 4 IV. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS METHODOLOGY The evaluation team conducted a cross-sectional, comparative study of land conflict resolution in beneficiary and non-beneficiary villages in a selection of three of the five program counties. Data collection methods involved (1) a desk review, (2) site visits (involving a range of research activities), (3) key informant interviews, and (4) secondary data analysis. The team conducted a desk review prior to in-country data collection. Upon arriving in Liberia, the team spent six days meeting with USAID/Liberia, conducting key informant interviews with LCRP staff, government officials and partners, subcontractors, NGO stakeholders, and donor organizations prior to departing to the Land Coordination Centers (LCC) pilot counties. A total of three weeks were spent in Lofa, Bong, and Nimba Counties, and an additional day was devoted to LCC interviews in Margibi County. The decision was made to focus on three counties, Lofa, Bong, and Nimba, based on time constraints and road conditions. Furthermore, the team felt it necessary to spend sufficient time in each county in order to maintain sufficient balance between depth and breadth of understanding of the project’s activities. Additional interviews were conducted in Monrovia, prior to the team’s departure from Liberia. The in-country evaluation period was from the June 19 through July 25, 2014. Desk Review: The evaluation team benefited from a relatively rich project document set. Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, the team reviewed the Program Description, Results Framework and Performance Management Plan, the Liberia Mission’s Country Development and Cooperation Strategy, and all available project reports to develop initial answers to the evaluation questions. The evaluation team also paid particular attention to non-USAID primary and secondary sources, including but not limited to the GoL Agenda for Transformation through Action; Liberia’s Vision 2030; the National Peace Building, Healing and Reconciliation Roadmap; and the May 2013 Land Rights Policy. Additional documentation, including additional project reports, and the July 2014 Land Rights Act were collected during fieldwork. These provided additional details and context for both understanding the activities of the LCRP, and quantifying the project’s accomplishments. The documents consulted are listed in Annex IV. Site Visits: The core of the evaluation fieldwork revolved around site visits to the counties where the LCRP has been implemented. The team spent over a week in each of three counties: Lofa, Nimba and Bong. Within each county, SI conducted key informant interviews with county-level stakeholders, and research activities in at least three villages, including two villages that benefited from the project’s ADR activities and mapping exercises, and one comparison village that did not participate in any LCRP-related activities. Within the constraints of site accessibility, sites were selected to ensure variation in project implementation quality and amount of activities, total population in the town, accessibility via a major road, and variation in the types of land conflicts. Comparison villages were selected to have similar characteristics to at least one of the LCRP areas, particularly in terms of the extent and types of land disputes. Furthermore, to evaluate the participatory mapping activities in Lofa, the team visited the pilot site of Gbarlin Clan and selected Ganglota town, which borders the Gbarlin clan and received only limited 5 intervention from LCRP, to provide a point of comparison. In these communities, the team conducted focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The following evaluation activities were conducted in each of the selected counties within the LCRP￾supported and comparison villages:  Semi-structured focus group discussions with local LCC mediation practitioners (who are organized on a geographical basis into local mediation committees, usually of five members) and with local land dispute mediators including community leaders, elders and traditional landlords who did not benefit from LCC ADR training. o LCC mediation committee interviews focused on interviewees’ roles as direct project beneficiaries (e.g. participation in four-day LCRP-led training and use of LCRP provided equipment) and as implementing partners (e.g. role in implementing ADR mechanisms and community mapping). o For those in comparison communities, interviews focused more on the methods these practitioners were currently using to resolve disputes, and about the causes, nature, and frequency of disputes currently affecting their communities.  Focus groups with community members. In each community, the team held a minimum of two focus group meetings. These groups were disaggregated either by gender, participation in training, ethnic groups, or age, depending on which issue seemed to stand out most in the communities. There were an average of six people in each focus group.  Structured interviews with the parties to resolved land disputes that were mediated by LCC￾trained practitioners. Lists of parties to resolved disputes were provided to the team by the LCCs, and the team attempted to contact and interview all the parties listed. Due to difficulties in contacting the parties (most of whom did not have working cellphone numbers or were travelling outside of their home area) as well as logistical constraints (many disputants live at a significant distance from the field sites visited by the evaluation team, and travel was often difficult as it was the rainy season), only some of the parties could be interviewed. A total of seven interviews were conducted with disputants.  Structured household surveys administered to a randomized sample of 12 households per community, resulting in about 36 interviews per County and 109 overall. The random sampling methodology was a version of that described by Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) in the LCRP Baseline Assessment reports. Based on information from key informants, the team identified the total number of ‘quarters’ (neighborhoods) in each town, and the proportional size of each quarter (i.e. total households). Based on this analysis, the twelve interviews were distributed randomly between the town quarters in a way that reflected the proportional size of each. The interviews were subsequently coded and analyzed using basic statistical methods. All data collection instruments and protocols are included in Annex III. Additional Semi-Structured Key Informant Interviews: The team also conducted semi￾structured key informant interviews with GoL, national and international stakeholders throughout Liberia, across varying perspectives, roles, and levels. Informants ranged from subcontractor staff, to county-level land authorities and Ministers of land-implicated ministries and departments within the GoL. In total, 34 KIIs were conducted, and a list of informants is presented in Annex V. 6 Interviews with a diverse group of key informants exposed the evaluation team to varied perspectives and allowed it to triangulate a response to the evaluation questions above. Interviews were semi￾structured, allowing for adequate and uniformed questions to cover the research questions but still permitted flexibility. Secondary Data Analysis: The LCRP generated data through (1) its own monitoring and evaluation plan, (2) the baseline and midline studies done by the Norwegian Refugee Council and (3) the Land Commission database. The evaluation team collected data on LCRP deliverables and deadlines, MoUs drafted by LCC staff for dispute resolution, statistics on land dispute cases recorded by the LCCs, and data on the effectiveness of ADR training from the above mentioned sources to inform the final evaluation and recommendations. Data Analysis: The team used parallel analysis to examine the evidence from its document review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, household survey, and secondary data analysis. The team used a “methods triangulation,” in which data related to an evaluation question (and relevant indicators) was analyzed using different methods in parallel and then across the data collection methods and across the different research sites. Outcomes observed were analyzed for contribution by the LCRP. To illustrate, the team first analyzed relevant documents to develop preliminary findings about program effectiveness. Then, the team analyzed data from key informant interviews to develop additional preliminary findings regarding effectiveness. Third, the evaluation team coded and analyzed data from site visits to do the same. The team compared these three findings to provide a more accurate response to the research questions. The team also disaggregated data—e.g., women, location, direct beneficiaries, accessibility, etc. This method, source, and data triangulation strengthened the reliability and validity of the team’s findings and conclusions. LIMITATIONS The evaluation confronted a few important methodological limitations, including: 1. No major field-based activities were being conducted at the time of field research, so direct observation of LCRP project activities was not possible. 2. The evaluation team was requested by the Land Commission not to interview disputants involved in LCC-mediated disputes that were ongoing, so only parties to resolved disputes could be interviewed. This reduced the potential sample of disputants considerably, especially as contact information (such as correct, active cellphone numbers) were only available for a minority of former disputants. This may also have led to a biased sample, as less tractable cases could not be incorporated. 3. The evaluation was conducted during the rainy season which made transport more difficult. Most roads in the rural areas of Liberia are murram (dirt) roads and deteriorate rapidly due to heavy rains. This increased the amount of time involved in travelling to each field site. Due to these and other logistical, time, and budget constraints, the evaluation team was able to conduct household surveys with only a small, non-representative sample. 4. Household surveys were intentionally quite short and simple, and hence resulted in only a modest level of detail and disaggregation. 5. Multiple land-related activities have been implemented in Liberia during the period of LCRP implementation, and in some cases it is difficult to attribute outcomes or impacts or even perceptions of outcomes and impacts solely to LCRP when other organizations have been active in the same geographical areas. Regarding the Land Commission’s activities, they have often received funding and technical support from several donors, which again makes it difficult to distinguish LCRP-specific contribution to outcomes or impacts. 7 V. FINDINGS Q1: TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE DELIVERABLES AND OUTPUTS SET FORTH IN THE TASK ORDER AND WORK PLANS BEEN MET? Overall, the project met the objectives laid out in the revised LCRP workplan. However, the definition of some of the activities underwent reinterpretation during the life of the project, based on communication between the implementing organization and the USAID Contracting Officer’s Representative, and in the case of activities 2, 3, 4 and 6, it is not clear to the evaluation team that the tasks completed by the LCRP represent the comprehensive fulfillment of the activities as laid out in the revised plan of activities. The LCRP seems to have met the requirements of the revised contract terms, but some activities were not completed as exhaustively as originally intended, especially the participatory mapping exercise in Lofa County. Activity 1: Pilot dispute resolution methodologies in Lofa, Nimba, Bong, Margibi and Maryland Counties  Activities were by and large piloted, but on a very long delay. LCRP trained 505 LC members, LCC staff, and dispute resolution practitioners in all five counties. LCRP also provided funding and technical support to LCCs, building capacity to pilot LDR methodologies.  LCRP faced challenges in the timely implementation of activities due to delays in the establishment and staffing of the LCCs (for which LCRP was not responsible) and the subsequent frequent negotiation necessary to gain buy-in from the LC. o Technical support to LCCs was delayed in all counties throughout Year 1 and most of Year 2 of LCRP. o LCC buildings were yet to be completed, so no cases were registered until Year 3. o Staff for all five LCCs were not on contract until July 2013, which necessitated “back￾and-fill” technical assistance. Activity 2: Establish property rights inventories in five counties Activity 2.1: Increase the amount of land rights documentation captured and maintained in the Land Commission database that will support the mapping of land conflicts for a more accurate database  During the first two years of the project, the LCRP Land Tenure Specialist worked with LC staff and advisors to develop a program for the mapping of customary tenure arrangements in a pilot project. Progress on this initiative was stalled for a year due to the LC’s desire to predicate any inventorying exercise on a clear land rights policy. Consequently, LCRP shifted its focus to supporting the LC in the development of this policy as a way of laying the groundwork for an eventual property rights inventory exercise.  The proposal to establish property rights inventories in five counties was not fully implemented, and was instead associated with the community boundary demarcation exercise in the Gbarlin clan area in Lofa County. The requirement to undertake the inventory in five counties was changed to a requirement of at least 21 towns and villages.  Evaluation fieldwork in the Gbarlin area demonstrated that there are several sections of the clan boundary that are still contested, and will require further negotiation between communities before boundary identification and mapping can take place. It is unlikely, therefore, that the activity will be completed by the end of the project period. 8  Where community boundary demarcation was conducted, it is debatable whether this represents what would usually be considered a property rights inventory: for example, while it does include an examination of the history of land uses and community land claims in the area, it does not represent a comprehensive attempt to collect land ownership information and documentation from community members and external actors such as concessionaires. As such, the mapping exercise can be considered to have only minimally met the requirements of this activity.  The LCCCMIS database was launched late in the project (in late 2013). While the system is well-designed and user-friendly, the lack of internet connection makes it nearly impossible to update on a regular basis. LCC staff rely on offline Excel files to do most dispute tracking. This is discussed in Q5 below. o There are problems with proper documentation and categorization of disputes that could be addressed with further capacity-building and training. These are discussed in Q2 below. Activity 3: Develop clan-level LDR entities  LCRP has done considerable research and policy work to ensure that the clan-level LDR entities will be accepted and successful once established, but no clan-level entities have actually been established. o Dr. Chris Moore, Director of LCRP sub-contractor CDR Associates, conducted interviews with the LC, LCC staff and major stakeholders to provide the basis for his observations and recommendations for the Mediation and Arbitration Committees and LCCs. o Mediation practitioners operate within two pilot districts in each of the five pilot counties, but are not linked to specific clans. Activity 4: Promote the legal recognition of LDR and its practitioners, and of land dispute agreements Activity 4.1: Hire and train a dedicated coordinator to assist the Judiciary and the Land Commission; establish a judicial liaison with county-level entities to build pathways between customary and statutory land dispute resolution methodologies  The ADR advisor was expected to fulfil the roles of coordinator and judicial liaison, but the judiciary, Ministry of Justice and LC did not coordinate as expected (i.e. in organizing meetings and identifying synergies), limiting the extent to which LCRP could accomplish this activity. The lack of coordination between the LC and Ministry of Justice was noted by key informants.  LCRP served as an advisory member to the national technical committee on ADR.  LCRP drafted an ADR statement of intent, and held a workshop to clarify language with international, national and local stakeholders, in order to provide input to ADR policy process being coordinated by the Ministry of Justice.  There were initial delays as the LC, Ministry of Justice and the Judiciary negotiated in order to clarify roles. Activity 5: Provide technical input and written content for a land dispute resolution campaign and coordinate public awareness campaign  LCRP, in partnership with the Liberia Crusaders for Peace (LCP), undertook a massive awareness-raising campaign, assisting local communities in three counties to understand the role and function of the LC, and prepare them to engage with the LCCs.  From November 2012 through May 2013, LCRP’s public information activities were devoted to regular support to the LC’s draft land rights policy. In addition to participating on the drafting 9 committee and coordinating public forums across the country, LCRP printed thousands of copies of the draft policy, as well as banners, posters, flyers, bumper stickers, scarves, and agendas for six regional and five interest-group consultative meetings.  The theme, “Know Your Land Rights,” was developed jointly by the LC and LCRP technical team. LCRP purchased radio and television air time for LC appearance on talk shows, and arranged for print press coverage in Monrovia at various points during the life of the project.  LCRP created the “I Belong to You: Liberia’s Land Rights Policy” documentary DVD, which was distributed in all five counties.  Due to delays in the establishment of LCCs, many of these entities were not included in the 2012 awareness raising activities. Activity 6: Develop and implement a project impact assessment to measure the efficacy of different dispute resolution approaches, and to provide information about how such approaches affect stake holder perceptions of land conflict risk and tenure security  LCRP designed its impact assessment on the basis of a strict interpretation of the project Technical Approach immediately following project inception, which extended well into Year 1 of the project period (October 2011–August 2012) for several reasons.  During Year 1, LCRP successfully negotiated an agreement with the NRC to gather baseline data in Lofa County. NRC prepared a research methodology in June 2012 and drafted a baseline assessment at the end of August 2012.  The change in LCRP activities, however, was substantial enough such that the impact assessment baseline instrument could not effectively measure the effect of the LCRP’s changed scope of work.  While an endline survey was conducted, and provided valuable information, the assessment could not measure project impacts for the above reasons. Q1A: What factors have affected the project’s success, including but not limited to relationships among key stakeholders? The analysis that follows considers LCRP’s approach and relationship with the following key stakeholders and strategic foci to illustrate both the strengths and potential weaknesses of the intervention:  The Land Commission  LCRP focus on policy  Informal dispute resolution mechanisms  Land Coordination Centers  Sub-contracted organizations  Local leadership structures  The MLDL program The LCRP’s relationship with the Land Commission The LC was a key stakeholder, due to its mandate to coordinate the implementation of land programs in Liberia. As the government agency most directly involved in land conflict resolution matters, the Commission was in a position to offer significant government support to LCRP activities, or to withhold this support and ensure that they would not be seen as a viable model for replication in future. The evaluation team found that while LCRP approach was initially disconnected from the LC’s, a warranted change in strategy allowed the LCRP to gain the cooperation of the LC. 10 The commencement of the relationship between the LCRP and the LC was difficult. According to several well-informed respondents, this was due to a disconnect between the activities outlined in the LCRP Task Order and the LC’s work plan. Some respondents suggested that the LCRP activities were ‘ahead’ of the LC’s plans (i.e. moving more quickly in the direction of clarification of community-level property rights than the Commission would prefer), while others contended that the activities duplicated some existing plans that had been made by the Commission in conjunction with its main donor, the United Nations (UN) Peacebuilding Fund, working in partnership with UN-Habitat. One of the reasons for this gap between LCRP and Commission plans was the approximately twelve month time-lag between the finalization of USAID’s RFP and the start of project implementation. The RFP was based on consultation with LC personnel, who at that time (late 2009-2010) had yet to formulate clear operational plans, and were broadly in favor of testing field-based dispute resolution and land rights mapping approaches while the legal and policy frameworks were being developed. By the time that LCRP started implementation, the LC had engaged in planning with other donors, and had become more inclined to formulate legal and policy mechanisms prior to testing of field-activities. The plans and policy positions of the LC had therefore evolved significantly by the time that the LCRP became operational. An additional challenge was dissatisfaction amongst some LC personnel that LCRP support to the land sector would not be channeled through the Commission (in the same way that the UN Peacebuilding finances are, for example), but rather would be provided directly to institutions and individuals involved in the implementation of the LCRP. According to members of the LC and other informed stakeholders, key actors at the LC wanted the LCRP to be more directly accountable to the Commission, rather than to USAID. These issues are intrinsic to the nature of USAID project funding and could not have been overcome by LCRP. Nevertheless, they made negotiations with the LC very challenging during the first twelve months of the project. The LCRP invested considerable time and effort in coordinating and negotiating with the LC, particularly during Year 1 but also during the later stages, especially regarding specific activities such as the community boundary demarcation component. The Commission had several concerns regarding potential unintended and negative consequences of implementing this activity, and LCRP staff used a number of strategies to demonstrate to them that the risk of negative outcomes was small, or could be mitigated. For example, LCRP’s Land Tenure Specialist visited the sites of an SDI community boundary mapping project in Rivercess County, and reported the strengths of SDI’s work to the LC in an effort to encourage the Commission to endorse community mapping in Lofa. The decision for LCRP to negotiate with the LC regarding project activities meant that activities were delayed, both because of the need to consult and negotiate with the Commission, and the need to wait for the Commission to put certain institutions in place before LCRP could support them. For example, the Commission delayed in establishing several of the LCCs, for reasons that have not been made clear to the evaluation team. Some of the reasons suggested by respondents – for example, that there were problems identifying adequate office space in one County – do not seem plausible. The alternative to working with the LC would be to work more independently from the GoL. However, this would undermine some of the key objectives of the LCRP Task Order – specifically, contributing to improved coordination within the land sector in Liberia, and encouraging the GoL to make long-term investments to support property rights and land tenure reform. LCRP was intended to pilot a sound and replicable dispute resolution strategy, with the expectation that this would inform the actions of the GoL, particularly when a permanent land governance agency is established. The long-term impacts of LCRP on GoL decision-making would in all likelihood be reduced if LCRP activities had been taken without the involvement of the Land Commission. 11 The LCRP’s focus on policy The LCRP was intended to pilot particular dispute resolution methodologies in order to “inform the development of legislation pertaining to mediation, arbitration, and adjudication of land rights”, according to the project Task Order. The medium- and long-term impacts of the pilot activities are contingent on the development of an appropriate legal and policy framework to allow for them to be replicated (and adapted as necessary) by the GoL and other stakeholders. LCRP project documentation and key informant interviews demonstrated that the LCRP team devoted considerable time to contributing to the development of the Land Rights Policy and other policy statements. These efforts were largely successful, as the LCRP directly contributed to the Land Rights Policy, the draft Land Rights Act, the Land Dispute Resolution Draft Policy Statement of Intent, and a Concept Note on Customary Land Recognition under the Land Policy, as described in further detail below. A great number of organizations, including Government Ministries, national and international NGOs, and UN agencies, were involved in the process of developing the Land Rights Policy. However, only six people were regularly involved in the final drafting process; one of these was an LCRP land tenure specialist. The LCRP also funded the public consultation process for the Land Rights Policy and was engaged in drafting the agenda for the consultations. The consultations were generally seen as successful by key informants interviewed during the evaluation and external observers, though they have been criticised by some by key informants for being overly structured and not sufficiently comprehensive; part of the reason for this might be that they were organized and conducted within a fairly short timeframe. However, given the lack of any strong precedent within Liberia for policy consultation processes, they have generally been seen as a positive initiative. LCRP chaired the Taskforce for customary land implementation, which was developing policy recommendations and mechanisms to enable implementation of the Land Policy. The LCRP land tenure specialist’s engagement with the Taskforce was similar to its experience with the Land Rights Policy development process, as he was initially part of a large group, but later became one of only a few remaining people working on it. LCRP’s work on this resulted in a detailed concept note, which is a useful resource for the Land Commission and other actors as they seek to implement the Land Policy. This concept note also enabled the community boundary mapping to take place in the Gbarlin clan area of Lofa County. It represents the culmination of two years of active engagement with the Land Commission, which was unwilling to move ahead with this activity in the absence of an official Land Rights Act. Another useful piece of policy material developed with LCRP support is the Land Dispute Resolution Draft Policy Statement of Intent, which was drafted with significant input from LCC personnel and other key stakeholders at the Land Dispute Resolution Forum in June 2014. The policy statement is intended to inform the development of ADR policies and legal frameworks, particularly in the context of ongoing efforts within the Ministry of Justice. The Forum included personnel from the Ministry of Justice, members of the judiciary, Peace Committees from LCC pilot Districts, and other Liberians with expertise in land dispute resolution. The Statement of Intent is a useful policy instrument, as it represents a consensus from a wide group of actors in this field, and includes important lessons from the field. Similarities between customary land dispute resolution systems and the LCRP approach One of the strengths of the LCRP was that it built on existing informal dispute resolution mechanisms and worked with traditional authorities with experience in arbitrating disputes. As noted in the LCRP Task Order, people involved in land conflicts who lack land documents or the ability to pay legal fees in 12 Liberia typically seek redress through informal dispute resolution mechanisms, involving customary authorities as well as some government-appointed local leaders. The LC and other Liberian land dispute resolution actors view traditional leaders as important stakeholders in their policies and activities. Within that context, the approach taken by LCRP built upon customary norms, while also seeking to influence dispute resolution methodologies. Specifically, the system of selection of mediation practitioners put in place by the LCRP and the LC ensured that only individuals already practising land dispute resolution were selected for training (with some exceptions for women, as discussed below under Q4). In practice, this meant that many of the mediation practitioners occupied positions in the elders’ council or other customary institutions, or were part of the state-managed local authority system (i.e. quarter chiefs or town chiefs). Based on focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and household interviews, it is clear that in many cases, there are overlaps between the customary and state-managed system, as chiefs are members of powerful families with inherited roles in customary town governance systems. There are significant differences between the typical approach to dispute resolution in Liberia’s towns – which are broadly based on customary norms – and the mediation approach taught in LCRP training. For example, customary systems manifest power imbalances between the young over the old, and men over women; they are also characterised by ‘judgments’ and are hence closer to arbitration than mediation. Nevertheless, the fact that many LCRP-trained mediators had positions within customary systems meant that they were seen as credible and authoritative by local communities. The LCRP approach was, therefore, not seen as being in opposition to customary systems, but rather a variation on existing practices. This was largely seen as positive by respondents, who argued that it made the LCC-coordinated mediation system more likely to be followed. There are some negative aspects to this, which will be discussed later in this report (see Q2B). Coordination between LCRP and LCCs The personnel of the LCCs in the four Counties visited by the evaluation team were overwhelmingly positive regarding the quality of coordination with the LCRP. LCC staff reported that the forms of support provided to the LCCs were practical and appropriate. In particular, the training provided by LCRP in conjunction with the subcontractor organizations (the Carter Center and NRC) was described as excellent, both in terms of the quality of the material content, and the methods of delivery. LCC staff were involved in trainings on ADR and legal aspects of land dispute resolution as participants, and all of those asked about the training reported that it was useful and effectively delivered. Additional training was provided on specialist topics for a smaller sample of LCC staff, such as training on the use of the database for the LCC database officers. This was also rated very highly by those who had received the training. In addition, LCRP staff visited the LCCs quite regularly as part of public information and troubleshooting activities, making coordination easier. There were some minor coordination problems, in cases where LCRP staff did not adequately consult LCC personnel before organizing events or purchasing equipment; however, the evaluation team did not find these instances to be systematic in nature. LCRP coordination with sub-contracted organizations The LCRP sub-contracted several organizations to carry out specific tasks, namely the Carter Center (training activities), LCP (public information and outreach activities), NRC (baseline studies, impact assessment, and training aspects), and SDI (community boundary demarcation aspects). 13 These organizations were well-chosen, as they all have significant experience in the particular activities in which they were involved. Interviews with staff of these organizations suggest that LCRP interacted with them continuously throughout the project activities, resulting in collaborative and effective processes. For example, LCRP, LCP and the Land Commission debated and refined the public information ‘messages’ and materials (many of which were developed in conjunction with the LCC public information and outreach officers) for a considerable period of time before they were finalized. The case of SDI is particularly important, as LCRP’s relationship with this organization enabled SDI to improve its own interactions with the Land Commission. SDI has operated under an MoU with the Land Commission since 2009, but based on interviews with LC staff, SDI personnel, and key stakeholders, it is clear that the relationship has sometimes been strained due to some of SDI’s advocacy positions, as well as its pioneering work on community land rights demarcation in several counties, which was conducted before relevant national policy and legislative frameworks were in place. Interviews with LC staff, SDI personnel, and key stakeholders strongly suggest that LCRP’s efforts to present SDI’s methods and results to the LC as a useful pilot experience helped to improve SDI’s relationship with the Commission. This opened the door for SDI and LC members to work directly together on LCRP-supported community boundary demarcation issues, an experience which represents a significant capacity-building activity. NRC pioneered land dispute mediation work in Liberia, and was an important source of technical information and expertise to the project. NRC and LCRP responded to challenges that they faced in completing the impact monitoring aspects of the project (because of changes in the LCRP workplan) by linking impact monitoring to a mentoring program, and hence building capacity amongst a sample of practitioners, as well as gathering important information on the nature, and impacts, of mediation by LCRP-trained practitioners. Staff at the Carter Center, who partnered for the first time with NRC on the LCRP-funded training activities, stated that LCRP had worked in a very ‘participatory’ way, with information and methodologies being shared effectively. LCRP coordination with statutory local leadership structures The Task Order directed LCRP to “coordinate its efforts with the Land Dispute Resolution Task Force, the Liberian Ministry of Lands, Mines, and Energy, country resolution committees, the county land commissioner, country surveyor, judicial authorities, land dispute resolution committees, and customary authorities.” Interviews demonstrate that LCRP and the LCC staff who had been trained and supported by the LCRP found it easy to be in regular contact with local town chiefs, particularly as chiefs are often members of the mediation committees or were involved in the selection of the mediation practitioners. Nonetheless, according to interviews with government authorities at the county level, LCC personnel, and other key stakeholders, County authorities were contacted less frequently by the LCRP or LCC staff. In some cases, County authorities reported that they had not been adequately consulted or informed before the LCC was launched. While the primary responsibility for consulting with County authorities lies with the Land Commission, LCRP could have facilitated such interactions in a more systematic way. This would have been useful in order to improve knowledge-sharing between the LCCs and County authorities, who are often involved in the resolution of disputes over District and town boundaries, and other land disputes. For example, LCRP staff are not part of the Legislative Land Dispute Investigative Committee for Nimba County, which is coordinated from the County headquarters. Improved coordination could also allay concerns that the LCC was established in order to take responsibilities away from county-level stakeholders. 14 Interview evidence from multiple sources suggests that some County Land Commissioners, in particular, were under a misconception that the LCCs would ‘take their jobs’. Finally, the LCCs could have gained greater visibility and access to land disputes if County-level authorities had enough trust in, and knowledge of, the LCCs to provide LCC referrals to disputants. In some cases, County level personnel, including County Land Commissioners, reported to the evaluation team that they consciously chose not to refer land disputants to the LCC or otherwise coordinate with the LCC. This potentially reduced the number of cases received by the LCCs in these Counties. The LCRP’s relationship with the Mitigating Local Disputes in Liberia program The US Government, through the US Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), funds the MLDL program, which operates in Lofa and Nimba Counties and is implemented by Tetra Tech DPK. The program’s name was originally Mitigating Land Disputes in Liberia, but this was changed to reflect the program’s wider goals. The overall goals of MLDL are to strengthen community ties, improve the ability of local organizations to identify potential flashpoints before they erupt into violence, and prevent crime by building ties between the community and the police and improving police investigative skills. The program aims to defuse and address potential land conflicts that could destabilize the community. The activities of MLDL and LCRP overlapped significantly. For example, they both work in Lofa and Nimba Counties, and both conducted training in ADR methods, with an emphasis on land dispute resolution. Personnel associated with MLDL and LCRP (specifically, mediation practitioners and LCC staff trained by LCRP) mediated land disputes in Lofa and Nimba Counties; though the emphasis of MLDL was on land disputes with a ‘collective’ aspect (i.e. municipal boundary disputes or disputes between neighbouring communities) while LCCs tend to focus on individual-level disputes. Given these similarities, efforts were made to coordinate activities. For example, bimonthly Chief of Party meetings were held in Monrovia with a number of Tetra Tech ARD and Tetra Tech DPK personnel, MLDL staff were invited to trainings conducted by LCRP, and MLDL also participated in meetings regarding preparation of ADR training materials. Nevertheless, the extent of information-sharing and coordination between LCRP and MLDL was low, given the fact that some activities were very similar, and others complementary. Interviews suggest that LCRP took the lead in ensuring that some coordination occurred. LCRP shared all its training materials with MLDL, as well as the training calendar, inviting MLDL staff to participate. It was sometimes difficult for senior MLDL personnel to attend meetings as the MLDL office is in Ganta, Nimba County, whereas LCRP offices are in Monrovia. However, ADR training materials could have been developed in a more coordinated way, and synergies could have been further developed. For example, MLDL could have considered including LCC-trained mediation practitioners in local community forums (recently￾established institutions intended to identify priority security concerns in the community and to facilitate the resolution of those concerns before they escalate to full-blown disputes), and lessons could have been systematically shared regarding the similarities and differences in mediation of different types of land conflict. 15 Q1B: What lessons regarding the integration of key stakeholder interests can inform future USAID programming? Integration of Government of Liberia interests Drawing from the discussion above (see Q1A), there are important lessons that can be learned for future USAID programming. As described above, the LCRP Task Order was issued in a fluid institutional and policy context, during a period in which the Land Commission was formulating its own workplan along with other donors. The Land Commission changed its orientation towards pilot projects, and developed a workplan, during the time period following the finalization of the RFP and prior to the commencement of LCRP activities in Liberia. The ensuing disconnect between the activities laid out in the Task Order and the plans of the Land Commission led to significant delays and obstacles. The options open to USAID in future, to reduce the risk of such disconnects, are to seek greater commitments from Government of Liberia institutions (such as written agreements) prior to the RFP being issued; reducing the length of the period between the issuing of the RFP and initialization of project activities; and/or to make RFPs in the land sector broad enough to allow implementing institutions sufficient latitude to bring activities in line with changing GoL priorities. Each of these options entails its own challenges and risks. Q1C: What specific project achievements are or are not sustainable, and what is required to ensure sustainability? Sustainability of the Land Coordination Center model The establishment of LCCs within the Land Commission offers a key mechanism to help ensure sustainability. In the original Task Order, the LCRP contractor was directed to “define and establish clan-level dispute resolution entities in Lofa and Nimba Counties… help define the roles and responsibilities of these entities, provide training, and establish them on the clan level”. Through various modifications, and following discussions with the LC, more emphasis was placed on supporting the Commission to establish county-level dispute resolution centers known as LCCs, with personnel in the centers reporting to the LC, rather than to LCRP. The LCC model, which is based on support from LCRP (directly) and UN-Habitat (through the Land Commission), is more likely to be sustainable than the original model. As the LCCs are part of the LC, rather than separate and independent dispute resolution entities, it is far more likely that they will remain operational after the completion of the LCRP. Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that the LCCs have improved the LC’s effectiveness by providing the LC with a stronger understanding of local disputes. For example, Land Commission officials reported in interviews that they have gained a better comprehension of the dynamics at the local level through regular LCC reports, visits by LC personnel to the LCCs, and events such as the Working Forum on Land Dispute Resolution. The mediation model employed by the LCCs is founded on a principle of volunteerism, which by reducing costs increases the prospects for future financial sustainability but also risks creating insufficient incentive for local participation. Under the principle of volunteerism mediation practitioners are not paid for their mediation activities. Aside from the provision of training (including reimbursement of any travel, food and lodging expenses) and some LCRP materials (such as T-shirts), practitioners have not received any material incentives. The principle of volunteerism is fundamental to the model, as one of the justifications for the mediation services is that they are more accessible than existing dispute resolution services, which involve fees (such as arbitration by customary leaders or local authorities). 16 The sustainability of such volunteer models is open to question, as practitioners are not only providing their time for free, but also incur financial costs (such as costs of phone calls and transport to mediation sites). In order, to ensure sustainability, therefore, it would be desirable to learn from other voluntary systems, some of which provide regular, but minor, ‘incentives’ such as scratch cards for phone calls, or transportation reimbursement; emphasis is often placed on providing recognition for the importance of their mediation work, rather than outright financial reward. Ensuring that practitioners are able to participate in land-related and peace building activities organized by the GoL, USAID, or their partner organizations can also enhance recognition. An official practice of volunteerism might also incentivize informal mechanisms of compensation. In many customary systems, dispute resolution practitioners receive small gifts from parties to the dispute (such as gifts of food). In some situations, this practice may result in a perception, or a reality, that the party with the most valuable ‘gift’ is likely to receive the most favourable outcome. In order to avoid the erosion of legitimacy and credibility, the type and extent of any gift-giving should be reported by mediators and monitored by LCC personnel. There are, however, costs incurred in running the LCCs, which are currently highly dependent on donor funding without a clear source of future government revenue. In carrying out daily activities, LCC staff incur operating costs, as they described in interviews. Each LCC has a total of five staff (one coordinator, one database officer, two case intake monitors, and a public information and outreach officer), all of whom are paid a full-time salary. Major operating costs include gasoline for travel: case intake monitors, in particular, need to travel around the two pilot districts in order to contact parties to the disputes, provide mediators with documentation about the cases, and attend mediation case conferences. The activities of public information and outreach officers, as well, require frequent travel. Each LCC has only two motorbikes, which limits the ability of staff to travel. Other significant costs include fuel for generators, communication expenses (internet and phone), and food and per diem costs for participants in trainings or for LCC staff travelling as part of their duties. Office equipment, as well as motorbikes, must be maintained and repaired as necessary. Therefore, the LCC system does represent a significant, though not extravagant, regular cost. The Land Commission receives relatively little funding from the GoL (only the salaries of some key staff are paid by the government), making the Commission, and the LCCs, highly dependent on donor funding. The LCC model was explicitly established as a pilot activity. Nevertheless, given the capacity-building activities which have taken place and the knowledge and skills acquired by the LCC staff in each County, it would be preferable if actors in the land sector, including USAID, could continue to support the LCCs. There are also opportunities for more efficient organization of the LCCs. For example, the LC could also consider re-examining the responsibilities of different LCC positions. For example, case intake monitors have a very time-consuming and demanding job, given the number of cases that they are expected to manage, and the travel that each case requires. In order to keep up with demand, some LCC Coordinators reported in interviews that they are regularly performing some case intake monitor activities, which undermines the Coordinators’ abilities to work on the more managerial and strategic aspects of their job. While further consultation and inquiry is necessary regarding the demands of the various LCC positions, it seems likely that the database officers could take on more responsibility for documenting cases and perhaps some of the everyday office management responsibilities currently being taken on by the LCC coordinators. In addition, public outreach and education officers might combine their activities with some formal or informal monitoring and coaching of mediation practitioners in order to gain the maximum program impact from their visits to the field. 17 Sustainability of the community boundary demarcation activities Community boundary demarcation activities commenced very late in the LCRP project cycle – in 2014 – due to the LC’s concerns about possible unintended consequences of these activities (such as a potential increase in tensions around land disputes, or misunderstandings about the legal status of the boundary maps and other documents produced through the project), and unwillingness to conduct such interventions prior to the finalization of the Land Rights Act. Most of the boundary mapping activities took place during a two-month period, which is extremely short considering the complexity and scale of the initiative. Similar activities that had been conducted earlier by SDI in Rivercess County lasted for 18 months. Evaluation fieldwork in the Gbarlin area demonstrates that there are several sections of the clan boundary which are still contested, and will require further negotiation between communities before boundary identification and mapping can take place. It is unlikely, therefore, that the entire boundary of the Gbarlin clan will have been successfully demarcated by the time that the LCRP project cycle is finished. Sustainability of this activity can be understood in at least two different ways. First, how sustainable are the activities that have been conducted in the Gbarlin clan area itself, and the institutions that have been established there? Second, can the approach (the methods and combination of actors) be replicated in future absent the LCRP? The sustainability of the activities that have been conducted in the Gbarlin clan area is questionable, because at the time of the evaluation parts of the boundary had yet to be agreed upon and demarcated. Several ICCs (a land governance and boundary negotiation institution established with LCRP support within the project areas) members and animators stated that more external support would be necessary for remaining boundary disputes to be resolved. Some of this support would be purely material (such as financial or in-kind support for transport and mediation meetings expenses) while external facilitation of mediation processes would be necessary in some cases. Moreover, considerable differences of opinion were visible during several focus group discussions held at Kpanaquelleh, Lofa County, within the ICC and between the members of the ICC and the animators (who are particularly involved in facilitating negotiation around the clan boundaries). While some ongoing debates are to be expected within such a complex undertaking, these focus group discussions revealed significant tensions around particular boundary areas. The sustainability of the community boundary mapping approach as a whole is contingent upon the shifting institutional context in Liberia’s land sector. The main issue is whether the small team of Land Commission personnel involved in the activities will continue to work for the LC (e.g. if its duration is extended) or will be part of the proposed Land Agency that may be established in coming years. LCRP opted for a capacity-building approach, in which SDI, LCC personnel, and other actors worked very closely with a small team within the Land Commission, and transferred skills and knowledge to LC personnel. Land Commission personnel benefitted from training as well through ‘learning by doing’: SDI and other LCRP implementing actors intentionally allowed Land Commission staff to take the lead on certain activities so that they could gain valuable experience. Nonetheless, some key stakeholders expressed doubts that the LC could replicate the community boundary mapping activities without major technical and other forms of support. The capacity issue relates not only to the methods involved in community organization and mapping, but also the conceptual lens through which the LC views the activities. According to stakeholders involved in the community boundary mapping component, it is as yet difficult for some LC personnel to view the 18 project from the community perspective and take a process-oriented approach that acknowledges the complex and challenging nature of the exercise. LC personnel stated that the community boundary mapping approach should be replicated and reported that the training they received from LCRP and SDI was useful; but they strongly implied that, due to the rushed nature of activities, their capacity has not been built to the extent necessary for adequate follow up and replication. Q2: Do dispute resolution practitioners trained or supported by LCRP resolve land disputes or contribute to their resolution? LCC staff estimate that 60% - 65% of the more than 500 mediation practitioners trained with LCRP support are actively involved in mediating disputes. According to the LCRP, 23 of 327, or around 7% of all documented disputes are resolved, and 80 of 327, or about 25% of cases are in the mediation process. As such, there is some evidence that dispute resolution practitioners trained by LCRP are aiding in the resolution of disputes. Nonetheless, there are several concerns, including (1) disagreement over when to determine a case resolved, (2) some dissatisfaction with outcomes by disputants, (3) inadequate enforcement mechanisms, and (4) inadequate monitoring and follow-up. Regarding the first concern, the concept of dispute ‘resolution’ is understood differently by different institutions. For example, the LC considers a verbal agreement between the parties to represent a resolution. By contrast, LCRP only considers a dispute to be resolved if a written agreement (usually an MoU) has been signed by the parties. Therefore, while LCRP considers about 7% of cases to be resolved, the LC considers 20% of all cases to be resolved. Second, the evaluation team interviewed seven parties to disputes that had been categorized as ‘resolved’ according to the LCC’s database. These interviews revealed that four of these seven disputants were generally unsatisfied with the result of the mediation. In some cases, disputants agreed to a resolution due to social or family pressure (as in the case of one disputant who was pressured by local authorities, and advised by her family to agree). In other cases, they had initially been ‘convinced’ by the mediators but had since concluded that the agreement was not favourable to them. Third, interviews with disputants, and analysis of a sample of MoUs, shows that there are sometimes misunderstandings regarding the nature of the LCCs’ mandate. In several cases, MoUs state that LCC staff will assist a party to the dispute to reclaim a particular parcel of land or to receive financial compensation. Some disputants are under the misconception that LCC staff have legal powers to compel individuals to take such actions, which is not the case. This puts resolution of cases into doubt, as the mechanisms by which MoUs will be implemented are not clear to all parties. Nevertheless, the agreements have the force of contract law and could be enforced through litigation. Fourth, the rate at which MoUs are successfully implemented is not clear at the moment, because not all LCCs have a clear system for case follow-up. The LCCs have been provided with forms for case follow￾up, but these were not mentioned during interviews with most of the case intake monitors and other LCC staff. LCC personnel mentioned that they try to follow-up on agreements after a particular period (i.e. six months after the MoU was signed), but there do not seem to be firm planning or monitoring systems in place to ensure that this follow-up is done. Furthermore, some written agreements held by the LCRP are completely illegible (i.e. due to very poor quality photocopying or scanning), and are poorly organized. This makes it difficult to assess whether the disputants have particular commitments that must be fulfilled before the dispute can be considered resolved. In many cases, MoUs state that a land boundary survey will be done. However, given the expense involved in privately commissioning a survey, this aspect of the agreement is often delayed. This puts the 19 durability of such agreements into doubt, and raises the overall cost of the land dispute resolution process for the beneficiaries (whereas the low cost of mediation for beneficiaries is a major justification for this version of ADR). In some areas, LCRP-trained mediation committees have mediated disputes without telling the LCC staff, and without documenting the disputes using LCC procedures. The most extreme example of this pattern was a community in which only one of ten recently-mediated disputes had been processed according to LCC procedures. The mediators had called for LCC assistance with one dispute because it was particularly sensitive (involving members of different ethnic and religious communities). This tendency suggests that trained mediators are mediating a greater number of disputes than is indicated in the LCC’s database. The pattern also raises questions regarding the commitment of some mediation committees to the processes of case documentation that the LCC system requires. Several mediators mentioned that they sometimes use the skills acquired through the LCRP-supported training to mediate non-land cases, such as disputes between husbands and wives. Such cases are not processed through the LCC system. Q2A: Are disputes resolved in accordance with applicable law? Some mediation practitioners demonstrated knowledge of laws (on land purchase and inheritance, for example) but as only a minority of practitioners received legal training from LCRP, it cannot be assumed that all practitioners know the key laws defining and regulating rights to land. Due to time constraints, it was not possible to systematically assess the extent to which practitioners know the key laws on land. Legal knowledge notwithstanding, the extent to which land dispute resolution MOUs reflect land laws is a different question, and difficult for the team to answer due to lack of information. LCC case intake monitors state that the vast majority of disputes are resolved in accordance with the law, according to their observation of mediation processes. Some LCC personnel report that in a few cases, an MoU might represent a compromise between the statutory law and principles of reconciliation and social harmony. For example, in cases in which one party possesses a land document (such as a tribal certificate), that party might compromise regarding the boundaries of the land parcel in order to successfully reach an agreement. Therefore, the boundary agreed upon may not be congruent with the parcel limits stipulated in the tribal certificate. In general, however, the land claims of a disputant who has some form of documentation for a disputed parcel of land (such as a tribal certificate or deed) will be treated as having more legitimacy than a disputant with only a customary claim. In this sense, the disputes are resolved in accordance with the statutory legal system. It is not possible to provide further analysis of the congruence between the agreements reached through LCC-supported mediation and Liberian laws, as the team was able to conduct interviews with only seven LCC disputants, and was unable to directly observe mediation processes. As mentioned above in the Evaluation Methods & Limitations section, only a few of the parties to disputes categorized as ‘resolved’ could be reached by cellphone, or were otherwise contactable. While MoUs provide one source of evidence as to the ways in which competing land claims have been treated by mediation practitioners, they cannot be readily interpreted without a full understanding of the disputants’ claims and the process used to arrive at the agreement. Q2B: Are dispute resolution practitioners viewed as competent and just? As mentioned above (see Q1A), one of the criteria for selection of mediation practitioners was that they had already been involved in land dispute mediation. This has meant, in practice, that many of those selected have some role in the state-managed local authority system, or in the customary land governance system (e.g. elders, landlords, ‘town-owners’, and others). The implication of this, for the 20 mediation process, is that practitioners are perceived as experienced actors in the land dispute resolution sector. When asked who mediates disputes in the community, the vast majority of household respondents mentioned quarter chiefs, town chiefs, and other such local authorities (with referral to higher-level authorities and eventually the courts as a last resort). This perception is related to the competency of the mediators. Some practitioners also demonstrate good knowledge of land acquisition procedures and other relevant legal aspects, which, if this knowledge is used during mediation, is likely to make them more competent and to increase perceptions of competence as well. However, the mediation practitioners’ positions as land-owners and authorities means that they are not neutral parties in affairs related to land but have particular positions regarding, for example, the respective importance of customary or state-managed land ownership systems; in many cases the mediation practitioners are owners or custodians of significant parcels of land in the same geographic area where they are mediating land disputes. A minority of mediation practitioners are involved as disputants in several ongoing land disputants. In one case, members of a mediation committee have been unable or unwilling to address a major land dispute because the most influential member of the committee is a party to the dispute, as well as several others. The mediator’s involvement in this high￾profile and potentially violent dispute (which has led to police charges against the parties involved), and the committee’s failure to address it, undermines the perception of competence and justice at the level of the mediation committee. The other implication of their established positions in the community is that many mediation practitioners have already developed a method of land dispute resolution, prior to LCRP-supported training. The typical approach of local authorities and customary leaders towards land disputes is more closely related to arbitration than mediation: after the parties have made their claims, those intervening in the dispute impose a judgement based on their own analysis. The LCRP-supported mediation training differentiates between arbitration, negotiation, mediation and other methodologies, and those mediation practitioners who were interviewed demonstrated knowledge of these different approaches. Nevertheless, LCC case intake monitors reported that some mediation practitioners often use arbitration approaches and require ongoing coaching as a result. While it is not clear whether arbitration is primarily a matter of choice on the part of practitioners, or a habit that they are trying to break, it is possible that short refresher training (which could be combined with training on the legal framework, for example) would have a positive impact. The majority of mediation practitioners who were interviewed or participated in focus group discussions for this evaluation demonstrated reasonable knowledge of women’s rights to land as well as positive attitudes towards those rights. The question of whether these attitudes and forms of knowledge translate into non-discriminatory mediation practices is difficult to answer as the team was unable to observe mediation processes. Female disputants who were interviewed generally reported that they were able to participate in mediation processes in similar ways to men, but the respondent sample size was too small to be generalizable. In addition to gender considerations, it is important to examine the ways in which the land claims of ethnic or religious minorities are treated. For example, in Nimba and Lofa Counties, members of the minority Mandingo population have frequently been involved disputes with the numerically predominant ethnic groups over post-war ‘secondary occupation’ of houses and land. In areas with a significant Mandingo population, mediation committees included Mandingo practitioners. In the past, LCRP and the LC (who screened the list of prospective mediation practitioners prior to mediation training) have sometimes been forced to intervene to ensure that members of minority groups are included. A small minority of the mediation practitioners who were interviewed during the evaluation stated that they would give preference to their own ethnic or religious group over that of a minority ethnic and/or 21 religious group (e.g. a town leader who refuses to allocate land to people of Mandingo origin). This is despite their LCRP-supported training, which emphasizes the importance of inclusive and non￾discriminatory mediation approaches. Some of those community members interviewed during the household survey stated that ethnic and religious minorities are not treated justly by mediators, including LCRP-trained mediators. Q2C: What types of disputes appear to be especially resistant to alternative dispute resolution methods and why? The evaluation identified two types of disputes that present particular challenges for ADR methods, including (1) disputes in urban areas between powerful land claimants and weaker tenants, and (2) disputes requiring costly land demarcation. In addition, the Land Commission has told LCCs to avoid ‘political’ disputes or ‘high level’ conflicts (which involve, for example, collective administrative boundaries, or commercial concessions) on the basis that these are not amenable to the mediation practitioner’s methods. LCCs have been instructed to refer any disputants approaching them about such cases to the Land Commission in Monrovia. Typically, such cases will be addressed by senior members of the LC in conjunction with County authorities and other agencies (such as the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy, and Ministry of Internal Affairs). Occasionally the Land Commission may direct the LCC to work on such ‘political’ cases. For example, one LCC was requested by County authorities to play a role in a multi-institutional response to a dispute around a concession, and the Land Commission authorized them to do so. However, according to the LCC staff involved, the requested intervention is not a standard mediation but is rather a form of applied research. One of the most challenging situations for mediation occur in town and urban areas between powerful individuals claiming to be land owners (and claiming to have legitimate land ownership documents) and long term residents without any documented ownership rights to land. Population growth is contributing to increased competition for land, so that many households are requesting plots to build houses, or fields to cultivate within these areas that are seemingly privately owned. Individuals claiming landowner status are charging very high rates for urban land parcels. In many cases (according to focus group discussions and household interviews), multiple households have resided and farmed on these ‘privately owned’ areas for decades, and multiple disputes can ensue when the land owner starts to claim rental payments for land, or when land users try to plant ‘life crops’ such as rubber trees (which are a symbol of land ownership in Liberia). Unless they are able to pay large amounts of money, many local people find themselves as land users or so-called ‘squatters’ on privately owned land. One of the challenges of such disputes is that the documents (tribal certificates or, more rarely, ownership deeds) may have been issued without proper verification of the status of the land being acquired; for example, existing inhabitants may not have been consulted or acknowledged, and surveys may not have been accurately conducted. Problems with the land administration system (such as technical failings and outright fraud) have long been recognised as a source of disputes in Liberia, leading the government to place a moratorium on all public land sales in 2009.1 Disputants possessing land documents typically go to court, rather than to local land mediation services, but LCRP-trained mediation practitioners may sometimes be called upon to mediate such disputes. It is difficult for mediators to ascertain if documents are authentic, or if they were obtained fraudulently, both because of logistical constraints (it is expensive to visit the relevant archives, or contact the Ministries and agencies concerned) and because of the 1 De Wit, P and S. Caleb (2014) 100 Years Of Community Land Rights In Liberia: Lessons Learned For The Future. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2014 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. The World Bank - Washington DC: March 24-27. 22 inherent limitations of the land administration system (many documents were not properly registered with the government, and/or were not properly archived, making it difficult to authenticate them). In some cases, those land-owners with documents for large parcels of land within densely populated areas are also customary authorities or members of the statutory local government system. When they occupy such positions of power, or indeed are members of mediation practitioner committees, it is more difficult for local people to challenge the authenticity of land ownership documents. As mentioned above, the resolution of many LCC-mediated disputes involves some form of demarcation of land parcel boundaries, as indicated by the evaluation team’s study of MoU documents and interviews with LCC staff, disputants, and other key stakeholders. Many Liberian citizens, including many household members randomly selected and interviewed, consider a boundary survey to be a necessary form of closure to a dispute. Often, therefore, the parties plan to commission a formal survey, which involves significant expense. The disputants may fail to raise the funds for a survey and this can undermine the overall sustainability of an agreement. This does not mean that such disputes are resistant to ADR (as the approximate boundaries may have already been agreed upon through a process of mediation), but rather that the agreements arising from the mediation may not be honoured, in the absence of a survey. The ICCs involved in the community boundary demarcation project in Gbarlin clan area have organized negotiations with neighbouring communities. They have collected money and in-kind support (such as food) from Gbarlin communities in order to hold the negotiation meetings, which are facilitated by animators who have been trained with LCRP support. While many of these meetings have been successful, there are sections of the clan boundary which have yet to be definitively mapped and demarcated, as negotiations with neighbouring have not yet been conclusive. According to ICC members and animators, their financial and technical capacity to resolve these disputes has been severely challenged, and it is unlikely that the clan boundaries will be completely demarcated without significant external support. The LCRP, LC, SDI and LCC actors involved in the community demarcation process do not have a policy regarding external intervention, and it is currently unclear what kinds of support will be provided to the ICCs in the final weeks of the LCRP project, and after the conclusion of the project. Q2D: What future interventions might help address these cases? As mentioned above, ‘political’ or ‘high level’ cases are not currently handled by the LCCs on the advice of the LC. As such, donor interventions to support the LCCs to address these cases may not be appropriate at the current time. However, the LC may consider involving LCC Coordinators in efforts to resolve these conflicts, first as observers, and later as actors with some responsibilities. This would allow the Coordinators to gradually take on a broader role within the pilot Counties, and to gain the skills necessary to understand and mitigate a wider range of disputes. While land dispute resolution projects necessarily place disputes in different categories, in reality, disputes often have various different characteristics, transform and bring in different actors over time, and hence cannot be easily categorized as ‘political’ or ‘non-political’ in nature. The experience and mandate of the LCCs may evolve over time in response to this. In towns where large portions of farmland or residential land are owned by individuals, and commercialization of land is causing tensions and disputes, methods such as participatory, community￾level land-use planning and town-level community boundary demarcation may help to identify alternative areas for residential settlement or for farmland. The objective of such activities would be to identify land which could be made available for settlement or cultivation on an affordable basis, to provide town residents with land tenure security. Such processes could be part of, or be linked to, the implementation 23 of the Land Rights Act once it is promulgated. Identification of the new category of ‘community land’, and the establishment of the management institutions needed to govern community land, will be a massive task. LCCs could potentially play an important part in these processes. For example, a necessary first step will be to raise awareness of this new land tenure category and the steps involved in identifying and documenting it, as well as the responsibilities of community land management institutions. LCC personnel could, for example, train mediation practitioners to carry out information-awareness sessions in their communities. The proactive engagement of LCC staff with any future court-based or court-sanctioned ADR system (i.e. as a result of the current ADR policy development process coordinated through the Ministry of Justice) could improve the quality of dispute resolution processes for those involving land documents, especially those that have an ambiguous status (i.e. that have not been properly completed or registered, or that may be fraudulent). It is too early in the ADR policy development process to speculate on what this interaction might involve, but in general, the combination of local historical knowledge and land law awareness that the mediation practitioners and LCC staff possess could be very valuable for judicial ADR processes. In order to encourage and assist the mediation practitioners to use mediation techniques rather than relying on arbitration, LCC personnel could conduct refresher training (annually, for example). Indeed, some LCCs have already done this on their own initiative, and practitioners in almost every County asked for follow-up training during interviews with the evaluation team. This training (which could be much shorter than the full five-day initial mediator training) could focus not only on the techniques involved, but also the benefits of mediation compared to arbitration – i.e. increased ‘ownership’ of the agreement by the parties to the dispute, and hence an increased chance that the agreement will be upheld. The training could also be participative in nature and provide an opportunity for mediation practitioners to exchange their own tips and experiences, and for LCC staff to learn more about the practitioners’ successes and challenges. Several respondents, both LCC staff members and disputants, recommended that the LCCs be provided the financial or technical resources necessary to commission or conduct boundary surveys. Those interviewed often mentioned that NRC had until recently provided this service, and argued that the end of NRC’s land dispute resolution work in Liberia left a significant vacuum. However, surveying should not be considered a ‘magic bullet’ or problem-free way to resolve a land dispute, and the costs and logistical challenges involved in providing free or affordable surveying services would be significant. An alternative approach would be to examine the functions that surveying plays, and identify more appropriate and affordable ways to achieve them, consistent with the concept of ‘fit for purpose' land administration, which reduces costs to expand access to land administration services. For example, if done properly, surveying (and associated activities) should involve: accurate clarification of a boundary; documentation of this boundary in an easily-accessible medium; and storage of the information in a searchable, credible data management system. These objectives could be achieved through other technologies. For example, in some disputes, demarcation is done by the parties themselves ‘walking’ the boundary and placing traditional markers (or planting particular trees) at regular intervals. Such forms of demarcation gain extra legitimacy because they are witnessed by other community members. Such methods could be better documented through video (using cellphone or other inexpensive technology) and included in LCC electronic files as well as the digital databases of other Government agencies, if necessary. Photos and narrative descriptions of the demarcation process and key boundary points could be attached to the dispute MoUs. Alternatively, LCC staff could be trained to record GPS coordinates (indeed, some staff already possess this skill) and provided with GPS equipment to record key boundary coordinates, which could be included in MoUs. Integrating the LCC’s database of ‘hard copy’ MoUs into 24 the database of a permanent government institution (such as the Archives or the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy) would also make the boundary demarcation information more accessible in case of future disputes. As mentioned above (see Q2C), there is not currently a policy regarding external intervention in the negotiations around the clan-level community demarcation process. This ambiguity may be one of several factors that undermined the potential sustainability of the community demarcation approach in the Gbarlin clan area (see Q1C). For future community boundary demarcation projects, guidelines could be developed to determine a longer timeline for intervention, and could be used to draw up a budget for external support (with logistical as well as technical components related to organizing trainings, facilitating inter- and intra-community meetings, and other boundary harmonization activities). Those facilitating the community boundary demarcation process could continue to emphasize community self￾reliance and ownership of the negotiation process, but could also acknowledge that negotiations can be challenging and time-consuming, and sometimes exceed the capacity of the ICCs. Q3: What possibilities exist for further engagement in this area? According to project stakeholders what are some key achievements/successes which could be replicated or scaled up in future programming? The effectiveness of the LCCs could be improved if their purpose and mandate was expanded slightly, and if the roles of some LCC positions could be reconfigured. The title ‘Land Coordination Center’ implies a coordination role for various land-related activities in the pilot counties. However, in practice, the LCCs have focused almost exclusively on overseeing land dispute resolution activities. This is partly because of budgetary constraints, and partly because of the nature of the relationship between the LC in Monrovia and the LCCs. Interviews demonstrate that the LC has not decentralized various kinds of decision-making power to the LCCs. In particular, the LCC coordinators are not sufficiently consulted and informed regarding budgetary considerations. Rather than focusing only on managing land dispute cases and doing whichever public information and outreach campaigns might be possible with limited funding, LCCs could take on a more proactive role as the County ‘representatives’ of the LC. They could be tasked with providing broader analysis of land issues, based not only on land dispute data but also on interactions with key stakeholders in the pilot Counties. The LC staff in Liberia could also consider visiting the LCCs more often, including LCC staff in more policy￾level activities, and generally building the capacity of LCC coordinators, in particular, to understand the legal, policy, and other dimensions of land tenure in Liberia. The participation of LCC staff in the Working Forum on Land Disputes is a good example of the potentials for increased information-sharing between Monrovia and the County LCC staff. Synergies could be identified between the clan-level ICCs (or their successor organizations) and the LCC staff and mediation practitioners in the Gbarlin clan area, and in other areas where community boundary demarcation activities are carried out in the future. In the Gbarlin area, the Lofa LCC coordinator has been involved in training the ICC and animators, which is a useful start. While the transport and other costs involved in linking LCC staff and mediation committees with the ICCs may be significant, it makes sense to build on LCRP’s training investment by (for example) facilitating information-sharing sessions; or including some ICC members in future LCC training activities. Such approaches would make the most of the knowledge generated through mediation and ICC activities and provide continued recognition for the mediation practitioners; and the ICC after the conclusion of the LCRP and LC intervention. In addition, actors in the land sector in Liberia could include the Gbarlin clan ICC members in relevant activities in or adjacent to the Gbarlin area in order to encourage the ICC to maintain its identity as an 25 institution. It may be some time before support is available to assist Gbarlin community members to establish a more permanent community land governance institution. During this period, ICC members could be encouraged to continue their activities in the land sector. Maintaining their active commitment to land dispute negotiation and other land-related activities could strengthen the capacity of the Gbarlin land governance institution which will eventually be created when the Land Rights Act is promulgated. Engaging with the ICC will also allow external actors in the land sector to assess the expectations amongst Gbarlin community members regarding community boundaries and the legal status of Gbarlin territory. Until the Land Rights Act is promulgated, and further interventions are conducted in the Gbarlin area by the Land Commission or another government agency, it is unclear how the community land demarcation can be leveraged by the community; for example, the demarcation does not, as yet, have any legal status beyond that of a contract. If the activities of the LC (and other land sector agencies) in the Gbarlin area end upon completion of the LCRP, there is a danger that community expectations of the utility of the exercise will not be met, and that this may lead to community frustrations (e.g. in the event of acquisition of land in the Gbarlin territory by the GoL or commercial actors). The approaches piloted in the Gbarlin area, based on previous work by SDI in other Counties (but with an added dimension of useful coordination between the LC, SDI, and LCC personnel) offer a fruitful model to be replicated. However, future community boundary mapping exercises should be implemented over a longer period; imbalances in the training offered to communities within the clan area and those neighboring the area should be rectified; and policies on external support to the ICC’s negotiation efforts should be put in place. One of the main strengths of the LCRP was the quality of the training (the content, the processes involved, and the skills of the training personnel). This was clear from interviews with LCC staff, LCRP-trained mediation practitioners, and LCRP staff, as well as from the training materials. This project success could be leveraged in future activities linked to the implementation of the Land Rights Act, such as awareness-raising and capacity-building regarding community land governance institutions. Elements of the training materials developed by LCRP (both the land dispute mediation training, and the legal training on land acquisition procedures, women’s land rights, and other issues) and in particular the training and outreach expertise of LCC staff, could be harnessed by the GoL and other actors in the land sector. Q4: Did the project take into account gender disparities in access to land and security in carrying out activities? LCRP systematically integrated material on women’s land rights into all trainings (e.g. for LCC staff and mediation practitioners) The material had both legal dimensions (e.g. explaining relevant laws and procedures) and normative aspects (e.g. explaining some of ways in which women’s land rights can be secured in practice, given the many existing socio-cultural and socio-economic obstacles) and the benefits of ensuring that women are able to claim their rights. Many respondents – both men and women –reported that this material was new to them, and that it was very useful. When asked whether training materials were appropriate to the socio-cultural context, none of the mediation practitioners stated that the material on gender issues was presented in a way that was disrespectful to customary norms. Many of the mediation practitioners recommended that more ‘legal’ training be provided (as only a small proportion of the practitioners received the legal training), and if training on legal frameworks is indeed provided in future, it should include detailed explanations of the laws on women’s rights to land and property. 26 The LCRP, in conjunction with the LC, purposely relaxed the criteria for selection of mediation practitioners in the case of women, in order to ensure that more women were included in the mediation committees. Specifically, the requirement that mediation practitioners should have prior experience in land dispute mediation was waived in the case of women: waiving this requirement makes sense in a context in which women are not able to mediate land disputes in the customary context. This meant that about 80% of those women nominated for mediation training were accepted, according to LCRP staff. Around 27% of the trained mediation practitioners were women. While this does not represent gender parity, it can be considered a reasonable proportion, given a context in which women have been systematically excluded from decision-making on land in the customary context. The fact that LCRP-trained women practitioners are actively mediating land disputes should be considered a significant achievement. NRC’s land dispute resolution program trained women to be mediators; however, there is a difference between NRC’s approach, which relied on paid NRC staff to mediate disputes, and the LCC approach, which relies upon unpaid community volunteers. Female NRC staff mediated disputes as part of a more comprehensive institutional process involving a large (mostly male) team, hence the NRC female staff were likely to be ‘accepted’ by disputants as part of this broader process. In contrast, LCRP-trained female mediation practitioners take on the bulk of responsibility for handling a dispute themselves, and despite the support they receive from LCC staff, are the public face of the dispute mediation process. Although one of the LCC coordinators is female, a relatively small proportion of the LCC staff are women. Those institutions managing any future LCC recruitment activities should attempt to recruit more women, who could provide more gender-specific forms of support to female mediation practitioners, female disputants, and other stakeholders. Gender inclusion is not just about ‘women’, but including more women as LCC staff would have multiple benefits, including sending a clear signal that women can be managers and decision-makers in land dispute resolution and the broader land governance sphere. Some LCC public awareness and outreach staff reported that they actively target women’s associations and similar institutions in order to encourage women disputants to use the LCC’s services. This strategy should be replicated in all five LCC Counties, as enforcement of women’s rights to land remains a major challenge in Liberia. Q4A: How effective has dispute resolution capacity of supported ADR providers been in addressing gender disparities in land and land-related issues? In interviews and focus group discussions, most mediation practitioners demonstrated knowledge of women’s rights to land, and acknowledged the importance of enforcing these rights. However, based on the household survey conducted as part of the evaluation, it appears that the practitioners have not yet been able to affect a widespread change in knowledge and attitudes to women’s land rights in the areas in which they operate. This is perhaps not surprising, given the short duration of their work to date; and the limited nature of the public awareness and outreach activities which have been carried out. As mentioned above in the limitations section, the household survey conducted as part of the evaluation had a small sample size and cannot be used to generalize to the larger population; however, it may provide an indication of the situation in the towns that the evaluation team visited. The evaluation team did not find many discernible differences between the towns where LCC activities had been conducted and towns without any LCC interventions in terms of knowledge of, or attitudes towards, women’s’ land rights. 27 As can be seen in the chart below, about 50% of the 109 householders surveyed believed that women were able to buy land on their town. There is some indication that this perception was more common in towns where LCRP-supported activities were conducted. In these communities, 60% (43of 72) respondents believed that women were able to buy land in their town while only 33% (12 of 36) shared this believe in non-LCRP communities. This may not necessarily represent a change in actual behavior (i.e. women buying land more frequently in areas where LCRP interventions were conducted) but rather a change in knowledge of and attitude towards women’s land rights, leading to a perception that women could buy land. In LCRP-activity towns, about 24% of respondents could provide examples of women who actually owned property in their town. In non-LCRP towns this figure was only 11%. This is not an indicator that the LCRP project could be necessarily expected to affect over the course of the project, but it does suggest that the LCRP might have fostered a change in the ‘visibility’ of women’s land rights. Less than 20% of those interviewed believed that women have an equal right to men, in practice, to inherit land in their town. A much higher proportion (almost half) believed that women have a right to inherit land under certain circumstances (which we have categorized, for convenience, under the heading ‘limited inheritance’ in the chart). For example, many respondents stated that a woman could inherit land only if she did not have an older brother; or only if she did not have any male siblings. When the data are disaggregated according to the sex of the respondents, men described a more positive situation for women’s land rights than women did. For example, 60% of men said that women could purchase land in their town, compared to just 44% of women who said the same thing. It is possible that men provided answers that were more in line with what they thought ‘should’ be the case, whereas women replied more candidly. However, the reasons for this difference cannot be determined with the evidence available. Figure 1: Perceptions of Women’s Rights Source: Household survey (n=109) Note: Aggregated responses for men and women in LCRP beneficiary and non-beneficiary communities In terms of land dispute resolution mediation processes and outcomes, LCC staff report that MoUs are in line with the law, as the mediation practitioners are knowledgeable about women’s rights and would not support an agreement that violated them. The evaluation team studied a large sample of MoU documents and did not identify any that seemed to violate women’s rights to land under the law. 28 Female disputants in ‘resolved’ LCC-mediated cases who were interviewed reported that they were treated similarly to male disputants during the mediation process. Q5: Has the project M&E been effective? How was the monitoring and evaluation system used to inform project decisions/learning? LCRP Monitoring and Evaluation The evaluation team’s findings revealed some strengths and weaknesses of the LCRP’s data management and reporting systems, as well as the quality of the data being managed and reported. Overall, the LCRP’s M&E activities have been performed adequately, and there is a good system in place for monitoring and conducting M&E related tasks. However, the project has had four M&E Specialists in three years, and the frequent turnover has hindered the smooth operations of the project’s data management and reporting system. In terms of the system, it is generally functional and has the capabilities to manage the project’s M&E activities. The M&E specialist and other staff members with data management and reporting responsibilities have had M&E trainings and possess the skills and experience necessary to complete reporting requirements. Additionally, their roles are well defined and understood, and the team seems to collaborate well. The M&E specialist also has a good working relationship with the LCC Database Managers in all five counties, and therefore has had good oversight and access to data collected on site. However, the LCRP indicators have undergone both minor and major revisions throughout the life of the project. When it became clear that some LCRP activities could not be carried out as originally laid out in the Task Order, the Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan were significantly modified. Indicators related to the property rights inventory component were removed, and participatory mapping indicators were added. These changes reflected the revised structure and program planning of the LCRP. In addition, the USAID Data Quality Assessment (DQA) discovered some minor issues with the definitions of indicators, and how they were being counted, which were rapidly corrected according to the DQA document, LCRP staff, and LCRP project documents. Furthermore, while the USAID DQA (dated April 3, 2014) was able to verify most of the data reported, it was noted that seven of 14 indicators were underreported, and one was over reported. Additionally, figures reported in USAID’s Project Indicator Database System were frequently inconsistent with quarterly reports for the same periods. The high staff turnover was identified as one cause of these errors, which were corrected after the findings of the DQA. Finally, the evaluation team was not able to ascertain whether data gathered from the M&E system has been used to make programming decisions. It is possible no M&E specialists stayed long enough to become adequately familiar with LCRP activities and milestones, making it difficult for them to make “big picture” observations, or have enough time to think about new strategies for accomplishing different indicators. LCRP staff also noted that the project’s schedule of activities was to a large degree dependent on the timing of LC decision-making regarding the activities. For example, the timing of logistical and training support to LCCs was linked to the launch of the LCCs in different Counties (with the launch of several LCCs being delayed, without any clear and plausible reasons presented to the evaluation team); and the community boundary mapping activities were initiated when the LC gave the formal go-ahead in 2014. The influence of the LC over the LCRP’s scheduling limited LCRP’s use of M&E data for logistics, but could still be used for monitoring results / effectiveness and identifying challenges or obstacles to progress towards program objectives. 29 LCC Monitoring and Evaluation While the LCCCMIS database is the responsibility of the LC, it is discussed in this evaluation because it was developed in conjunction with the LCRP, and much of the project’s M&E data is collected from the LCCs. The LCCCMIS database works through two elements. There is an online database that the database managers are meant to update regularly, and an Excel version that is intended to be used as a back-up to the online version. Overall, the online version of the database is very user-friendly and easy to understand, even for someone with limited technological skills. Furthermore, LCC staff overwhelmingly agreed that they were adequately consulted during the database design stage, and were happy with the final product. However, due to unreliable internet connections in most of the LCC locations, the LCCCMIS is not updated regularly. As observed by the evaluation team, statistics from the online database vary significantly from the Excel back-ups maintained by each LCC. In fact, access to the LCCCMIS is so unreliable that LCC staff report relying primarily on the Excel database for reporting and planning purposes. This does not pose a huge problem, as the LCCs mostly operate independently of each other, and the Excel database can be emailed to the LC when internet is available. However, this means that ‘real time’ data is not available to the LC: there is always a slight time lag as Excel files are emailed to Monrovia and the Commission’s centralized figures are updated. It would make sense for the cloud-based system to be managed by LC staff in Monrovia, based on Excel files received from the field. If that was the case, the online system would be useful for the LCCs primarily as a reference, and they would not require the regular internet connectivity necessary to keep it updated from the field. A more important challenge, however, is the categorization of cases. LCC staff are not consistent in the criteria they use to label case statuses and other dispute indicators. For example, one major indicator for the LCRP, 3.1 “Number of disputes resolved through CDR [collaborative dispute resolution] through the support of LCRP,” is highly unreliable. As noted in Q2 above, LCCs do not seem to have a systematic program for following up on ‘resolved’ disputes to ensure that any commitments listed in the MoUs have in act been upheld. In particular, the MoUs of some disputes categorized as ‘resolved’ require a survey to be carried out. As indicated above, however, (see Q2D), given the expense involved in surveying, long delays are common and failure to implement the survey is likely in many cases. As a result, the data for this indicator may be overstated. Finally, some LCCs use the database more strategically than others. For example, in Nimba, the LCC staff determined that town boundary cases were taking longer to mediate than other types of disputes by aggregating data from the LCCCMIS. They went back to their dispute resolution training materials to improve the techniques they used to manage these cases and reduce the time to reach an agreement. Other LCCs have not yet reached this level of engagement with the database. This may be related to the capacity of the individual database managers, but could also have been addressed with more in-depth training. VI. CONCLUSIONS As noted in Q1A, stakeholder buy-in and coordination took up a significant portion of the overall project timeline, and various delays in getting the go-ahead from the Land Commission meant that the initial program design underwent several modifications. Some of the most significant results of this have been that (1) the LCRP has had greater impacts at the level of policy than was previously planned; (2) project activities have been supported by (and in some cases, such as the boundary demarcation component, implemented jointly with) the Land Commission; (3) the LCCs are part of the Land 30 Commission (rather than part of the LCRP, as per the original project design); and (4) the concept of ‘property rights inventories’ was largely dropped from the project. (The community mapping demarcation exercise was conducted over a very short period and will not be completed by the end of the project cycle.) It is the view of the evaluation team that implementing activities without LC support would have undermined the overall aim of the LCRP Task Order, which was to, “pilot methodologies developed in coordination with the Land Commission, GoL, and international partners” and to generally assist the GoL “to make long term investments to support property rights and land tenure reform.” Particularly given the politically and economically sensitive nature of land tenure reform in Liberia, it would have been counter-productive for the LCRP to attempt to pilot particular methodologies without the support of the LC in the hope that they would later be taken up, adapted and/or replicated by the Commission, any successor agency, or other GoL institutions. Partly in order to help create a policy environment in which LCRP activities could be conducted, LCRP personnel became more heavily involved in policy development and promotion than was originally envisioned in the Task Order. According to the Task Order, LCRP should assist the GoL “to make long term investments to support property rights and land tenure reform.” The various policy-related elements of the LCRP’s work support a long-term land rights framework, in which the more concrete and short-term land dispute resolution achievements can be situated. The LCRP has provided sufficient inputs for successful delivery of most outputs and deliverables. However, the requirement to produce property rights inventories in at least 21 communities, which was associated with the community boundary demarcation exercise, can be considered to have only been minimally achieved and does not represent an example of best practice. In part this was due to the fact that LCRP support to the community boundary demarcation exercise commenced extremely late in the life of the project, due to the LC’s unwillingness to support the exercise. It is therefore unlikely that all parts of the Gbarlin clan boundary will be agreed upon and demarcated by the end of the LCRP project cycle. Moreover, the improvements in LC capacity to facilitate such activities may not be sufficient to enable the Commission to replicate the exercise in future. This is unfortunate, as the activity represents an important way for the LCRP to move beyond the level of the ‘individual’ and to engage with ‘collective’ land ownership and collective land disputes. Generally, the LCRP provided high-quality support to the community boundary demarcation exercise, and the delays in implementation of this component were largely outside of its control. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are grouped into, first, recommendations for USAID; and secondly, recommendations for actors in the land sector in Liberia. Recommendations for USAID The evaluation team recommends that USAID continue to provide support for key actors in the land sector in Liberia. This is particularly important given the evident prevalence of land disputes around the country, and the potential opportunities and challenges that the Land Rights Policy and draft Land Rights Act represent. Specifically, it is recommended that USAID: • Provide further support to land dispute resolution systems, building on existing frameworks such as the LCC structure, and avoiding duplication between different projects (i.e. ensuring that 31 projects such as MLDL and LCRP are designed to be complementary and are implemented in coordinated ways). • Engage with, and influence, the emerging ADR policy and legal framework that is being coordinated by the Ministry of Justice. For example, support could be provided for the identification of specific mechanisms through which the Land Dispute Resolution Policy Statement of Intent could be implemented within the ADR policy and legal framework. • Support further collective level land rights clarification and provision of land tenure security for community land. Such support should have several aspects including, for example, community￾based boundary negotiation and demarcation activities in additional areas; the analysis, digitization and systematic storage and management of land rights documents; and the building of capacity amongst community-level institutions for negotiation with external actors, such as commercial firms and government agencies. This should be carried out in line with the Land Rights Act, assuming that it is promulgated in the near future. • Support community-based implementation mechanisms for the Land Rights Act, when it is promulgated. The category of ‘community land’ represents a historic opportunity to secure the customary land rights of the majority of Liberian citizens. However, the institutional framework for the identification and governance of community land will require significant investments of funding, time and energy. In addition, further advocacy and capacity-building work will be required within government agencies in order to ensure that efforts to secure community land rights are supported by government stakeholders and their constituencies. Recommendations for Actors in the Land Sector • The LCCs represent a very useful resource, particularly given the exit of Norwegian Refugee Council’s land dispute resolution program. If the LC or other Government of Liberia agencies are not able to continue to support the LCCs (for example, when the LC mandate expires), other organizations should consider providing material support to the LCCs. • The LC and/or any other government agency that takes on management responsibilities for the LCC system should consider reconfiguring staff roles, responsibilities, and compensation at the LCCs. For example, case intake monitors are currently dealing with a very large workload, and are underpaid considering the central importance of their work. It is possible, for example, that database officers could assist in some case intake activities and generally provide desk-based support to the case intake monitors, who spend much of their time ‘in the field’. • LCC staff should be supported to consolidate existing work (e.g. to provide some communication tools, such as phone scratchcards, to practitioners; to provide refresher training for practitioners; to strengthen outreach activities and link these more systematically with other elements of LCC work; and to train more mediation practitioners and provide them with transport costs in order to reach all parts of the pilot districts). It is too early for LCCs to be required to extend their services beyond the two pilot Districts in each County. • Institutions that provide support for the LCCs should develop more systematic policies for support to LCCs: planning and other responsibilities should be decentralized to the LCCs. The LCCs should be facilitated to live up to their potential of coordinating Land Commission activities in the pilot Counties, rather than focusing only on land dispute resolution. 32 • In order to avoid the erosion of legitimacy and credibility of the mediation system, the type and extent of any gift-giving (from disputants to mediation practitioners) should be reported by mediators to the LCCs, and actively monitored by LCC personnel. Mediation practitioners should be dissuaded from accepting any gifts except those of negligible, essentially token value. • Those institutions managing any future LCC recruitment activities should attempt to recruit more women, who could provide more gender-specific forms of support to female mediation practitioners, female disputants, and other stakeholders. While gender inclusion is not just about ‘women’, including more women as LCC staff would nevertheless have multiple benefits, including sending a clear signal that women can be managers and decision-makers in land dispute resolution and the broader land governance sphere. • Follow-up training for practitioners should be conducted, and should include a heavy component of legal training. This service was requested by almost all of the practitioner groups the evaluation team spoke with. Furthermore, it would enable practitioners to construct better resolutions, and ensure that agreements comply with statutory law. • LCC public awareness and outreach staff who are not already doing so should be encouraged to actively target women’s associations and similar institutions in order to encourage women disputants to use the LCC’s services.  The cloud-based LCCCMIS could be managed by Land Commission staff in Monrovia (who have better internet access than the LCC staff), based on excel files received from the field. This would ensure that the MIS is kept up-to-date. The MIS could then be a resource for LCCs but primarily used by the Monrovia-based Land Commission staff, funding agencies, and other stakeholders. • Communities in neighbouring clans undergoing boundary demarcation should be provided with more training (e.g. in negotiation skills) to reduce the knowledge imbalance between the ICCs and the committees representing neighbouring clans. • A policy should be put in place regarding support to the local institutions (e.g. ICCs) managing boundary demarcation, and external facilitation of boundary dispute resolution. While ICCs should be expected to take the lead in managing boundary negotiations and seeking resolution of any boundary disputes, it is not realistic to expect that ICCs can resolve all boundary disputes without logistical or technical support to specific negotiation processes. • Coordination of different land dispute resolution and land governance actors should be prioritized. Land ‘disputes’ are linked to land governance and development dilemmas, and should be embedded within broader policy and legal frameworks for land administration, ADR, and community land governance. As a part of this, actors in the land sector should coordinate with the LCCs, which have the potential to take on broader responsibilities than those related to land dispute resolution that they manage currently. 33 ANNEXES 34 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work Final Performance Evaluation: Land Conflict Resolution Project STATEMENT OF WORK Evaluation Subject Activity Name: Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP) Award Number: AID-669-TO-11-00001 Period of Performance: Aug 2011 – Aug 2014 Funding Level: $6,750,000.00 Funding Source(s): Section 1207 NDAA Implementing Partner: TetraTech ARD Sector/Topic: Reconstruction, Security, Stabilization Introduction The objective of this performance evaluation is to conduct a full and independent final evaluation of the Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP; Task Order AID-669-TO-11-00001). This evaluation will: examine the degree to which LCRP has or has not achieved its intended results; explain any failure to achieve those results, including inadequacies, if any, in the project’s design, and/or changed circumstances; and set forth recommendations and lessons learned to guide future programming in the sector. In doing so, the evaluation should pay special attention to how results differ among the various project implementation locations, as well as between male and female intended beneficiaries. Specifically, the evaluation will: 1. Assess the success of activity implementation in achieving its objectives; 2. Identify obstacles and challenges to implementation and evaluate how effectively the activity responded to these challenges; 3. Identify deficiencies, if any, in the design of the project and provide appropriate recommendations for future programming; 4. Provide specific, forward looking, and actionable recommendations for future programming based upon lessons learned. Project Background Land in Liberia is a symbol of identify, a heritage, and a means of survival. It has been highly contested for the past century, with powerful state and private sector actors expropriating land at the expense of customary landholders. This expropriation has exacerbated social inequalities, fueled injustice, and served as a contributing factor to the outbreak of the civil conflict that started in the 1980s. While in generations past, land in Liberia was plentiful, today the demand for land is more desperate because many people have nowhere else to go and increasingly find vast tracts off limits to settlement. Land tenure and property rights issues have remained a source of tension since the end of the conflict in 2003. Left untended, these tensions can undermine peace. At a minimum, they negatively impact the investment climate and the prospects for broad-based economic growth. The government of Liberia (GoL), recognizing the central role of land tenure security and resource rights in contributing to peace and equitable development throughout the country, established the Land Commission in 2009. The Land 35 Commission’s mandate is to review, propose, and advocate land policy and legal reform and coordinate the implementation of programs in Liberia to advance land tenure security and property rights. The Land Commission established a number of taskforces, including the Land Dispute Resolution Task Force (LDRTF), comprised of representatives from several government agencies, including the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and non-governmental and civil society organizations. The Land Commission and its LDRTF have received financial and technical support to design and test land dispute resolution methodologies in fulfillment of their mandate. Along with support from USAID through LCRP, this support has included assistance provided by the Swedish International Development Agency and the UN Peacebuilding Fund through UN-HABITAT. In 2006, the United States Congress enacted Section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which appropriated funds to the Department of State to provide reconstruction, security, and stabilization assistance. The Secretary of State delegated the management of Section 1207 funds to its Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). S/CRS can transfer these Section 1207 funds to USAID for the design and implementation of related assistance programs. In Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Embassy in Liberia received Section 1207 funding to avert and defuse land￾based disputes before they could turn violent and create widespread instability. The U.S. Embassy worked in conjunction with USAID/EGAT’s Land Tenure Unit and USAID/Liberia to design the Liberia Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP). Led by USAID, this pilot program was designed to promote land dispute related alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and civic engagement with local leaders. Initially targeting Lofa and Nimba counties—two of the Liberia’s most populous, heterogeneous, and conflict-prone counties – the activity was expanded to include Bong, Margibi and Maryland counties. The activity aimed to develop and test methodologies for resolving land disputes in selected communities. LCRP seeks to address several of the U.S. Government’s key concerns in Liberia. These concerns include political stability, conflict and insecurity, economic development, good governance, and the rule of law. Liberia recognizes that to address these interconnected issues, the GoL, along with the U.S. Government and other donors, will need to make long-term investments to support property rights and land tenure security. The 2013 approval of Liberia’s Land Rights Policy and steps toward the creation of a permanent land agency to replace the temporary Land Commission are recent positive developments that signal Liberia’s continuing resolve to tackle the issues of tenure security and land administration. The Land Rights Policy represents the first formal recognition of customary land rights in Liberia, and in addition signaled official recognition of women’s inheritance rights to land. Recently (January 2014) the Land Commission completed initial drafting of legislation intended to enact the Land Rights Policy into law. The USAID/Liberia 2013-2017Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) identifies land as a major cross-cutting theme impacting all aspects of Liberia’s development. The international donor community likewise recognizes the central role that land plays in Liberia’s development. USAID/Liberia currently has two main activities that include significant land-related components, as well as one recently concluded activity, which are noted here for informational purposes: 1. The Land Policy and Institutional Support Project (LPIS) (2010-2013), an activity under the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Threshold Country Program, works with the Land Commission, the Center for National Documents and Records/Archives (CNDRA), and the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy (MLME) to increase public understanding of property rights, inform land policy reforms, and strengthen Liberia’s land administration system. 36 2. The Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP) (2011-2014) strengthens Liberia’s capacity to resolve land disputes by developing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methodologies, training practitioners, supporting ADR policy development, and engaging in public outreach and education. 3. Peoples, Rules, Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources (PROSPER) (2012-2017) introduces, operationalizes, and refines appropriate models for community management of forest resources for local self-governance and enterprise development. Support will also be provided, through PROSPER, for a 12-month “bridge” of technical assistance to the Land Commission, following the close of LPIS and pending the start of new activities under the Land Project. This evaluation concerns itself with LCRP over the three-year implementation period 2011 to 2014. LCRP Activity Objectives As set forth in the original LCRP Task Order of August, 2011, Liberia’s Section 1207 Program included the following three synergistic components to address land disputes and resulting discontent with the Government of Liberia (GoL): 1. Pilot methodologies for resolving land disputes. 2. Design and implement community-oriented security trainings about ADR mechanisms and techniques to de-escalate potentially hostile situations for members of county government (i.e., police, immigration, and customs officials), community leaders, and youth leaders. 3. Develop and implement a public information campaign that will reinforce the use of ADR mechanisms, while also building mass communication capacity. Initially, the LCRP Task Order was limited to work on the first component, “pilot methodologies for resolving land disputes.” The United States Government (USG) was to implement the other two components through separate mechanisms. In 2012, the project was modified to include a public awareness component, along with expansion of land dispute resolutions training and mitigation efforts from the previously noted two counties to five counties, and an increase of the estimated cost of the award from $5,098,997 to $6,748,99. The duration of the project remained three years. Government of Liberia project partners are the Land Commission and their associated Land Coordination Centers. Evaluation Questions The following evaluation questions are deemed to be of approximately equal importance, however, the evaluator is expected to apply the relative level of effort required to adequately address each question. The evaluator is invited to arrange the report as it sees fit to most effectively present its findings, and need not strictly adhere to the organization of questions as listed below. 1. To what extent have the deliverables and outputs set forth in the task order and work plans been met? What factors have affected the project’s success, including but not limited to relationships among key stakeholders? What lessons regarding the integration of key stakeholder interests can inform future USAID programming? What specific project achievements are or are not sustainable, and what is required to ensure sustainability? 2. Do dispute resolution practitioners trained or supported by LCRP resolve land disputes or contribute to their resolution? If so, are these disputes resolved in accordance with applicable 37 law? Are dispute resolution practitioners viewed as competent and just? What types of disputes appear to be especially resistant to alternative dispute resolution methods and why? What future interventions might help address these cases? 3. What possibilities exist for further engagement in this area? According to project stakeholders what are some key achievements/successes which could be replicated or scaled up in future programming? 4. Did the project take into account gender disparities in access to land and security in carrying out activities? How effective has dispute resolution capacity of supported ADR providers been in addressing gender disparities in land and land-related issues? 5. Has the project M&E been effective? How was the monitoring and evaluation system used to inform project decisions/learning? Data Collection and Analysis The Evaluation Team is asked to submit a detailed evaluation design and methodology. It is anticipated that the final data collection and analysis design and methodology will be developed with input from the USAID/Liberia Democracy and Governance Team, USAID/Liberia Program Office, and others, as appropriate. It is anticipated that the evaluation will include qualitative and quantitative data collection from a purposive sample of key individuals and stakeholders, with selection criteria applied clearly articulated. The evaluation will include a literature review and a series of meetings/interviews and site visits. The literature review will, at a minimum, consider: the LCRP task order and scope of work, as modified, and relevant program documents such as quarterly reports, data quality assessments (DQAs), work plans, Performance Management Plans (PMPs), newsletters, etc. The USAID mission in Liberia will assist in collecting background documents on USAID’s strategies and Tetra Tech’s program for the evaluation team in advance of the field work. The evaluator is required to gather and provide to the team outside studies, analysis, articles, etc. to fully orient the team to Liberia and the project’s context. Building on the literature review, the next step of the evaluation will include discussions with key stakeholders, including USAID, the U.S. Embassy, LCRP staff, members and staff of the Land Commission and other land-related GoL entities, and other donors engaged in supporting land reform activities, as well as target beneficiaries, including traditional leaders and elders and relevant civil society groups. Interviews with other stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Land Mines and Agencies, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Center for National Documents and Records (Archive Center), etc., may also be required. Field visits will be required, with potential locations to be identified during work planning and finalized with USAID once the team arrives in Liberia. At the minimum, the team will visit four of the five locations of the task order. USAID/Liberia will forward a preliminary list of contacts for donors, civil society, and government officials for the team prior to their travel to Monrovia. The assessment team should also seek out key USAID informants in Washington prior to the commencement of the field work phase, with POCs in the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment (E3), the Africa Bureau, and the Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) Bureau to be identified after selection. Additionally, the evaluator should conduct a conference call with USAID/Liberia prior to beginning the field work portion of the evaluation. An out-brief with a 38 PowerPoint presentation for the Democracy and Governance Team, USAID/Liberia senior management, and relevant U.S. Embassy staff will be required prior to the team’s departure from Liberia. A presentation of the final report at USAID/Washington is also expected. The Evaluation proposal should include, at a minimum: Study design (e.g., cross-sectional descriptive studies, quantitative and qualitative retrospective comparisons, etc.) and plans for data analysis. Methods of data collection (e.g., quantitative survey questionnaires, qualitative interview guides, key personnel interviews, unobtrusive or observational methods, secondary data analysis), how such tools will be developed and with whom, the scope and timeline for data collection, and key characteristics of data collection instruments (e.g., sample questions or an outline of interview guide topics). Measures and plans to ensure protection and confidentiality during data collection The project evaluators should consider a range of possible methods and approaches (taking into account cost implications) for collecting and analyzing the information required to assess program impact, establish strong correlations between activities and outcomes, and make programmatic recommendations. Evaluation Team Composition, Independence and Qualifications Suggested evaluation team members include: a Team Leader (Land Reform Expert), an ADR and Law Reform specialist (with West African regional expertise), a land and ADR Associate (preferably a Liberian) and a Liberian Logistics Assistant:  Team Leader: The Team Leader will be a Land Reform Expert with an advanced degree (MA, M.Sc., Ph.D.), significant experience working on land reform issues such as land management, land use, and land planning, and demonstrated experience in evaluating USAID projects, ideally in post-conflict and transition settings, preferably in Africa. Experience with land tenure and related land issues in West Africa highly preferred. The Team Leader will take ultimate responsibility for the management of the team, the coordination of team activities, and preparation and submission of the draft and final reports. Ability to write technical material on short timelines is required.  ADR and Land Law Reform Specialist: The ADR and Land Law Reform Specialist will have significant experience in ADR, customary law, and land dispute resolution, with special focus on community participation in land administration. The candidate should be a legal expert and political or social scientist with an advanced degree. At least five years’ experience in land dispute resolution research and programming required. Significant experience in designing and conducting evaluations of customary justice, dispute resolution, and tenure insecurity reform programs is required. West Africa experience is required and specific Liberia country knowledge is preferred. Ability to write technical material on short timelines is required.  Land and ADR Associate: The Land and ADR Associate will have an appreciable understanding of the social and political context of land law and dispute resolution in the Liberian context. The candidate should be a legal, political, or social scientist with at least a bachelor degree and at least 2 to 3 years’ professional experience in three or more counties in Liberia. Experience in designing, managing, and/or evaluating land reform related projects in 39 Liberia is required. It is important that this candidate is able to write technical materials on short timeline and communicate effectively. Liberian national preferred.  Logistics Assistant: This team member will be responsible for scheduling meetings and interviews for the evaluation team along with logistical, administrative, and clerical support throughout the evaluation. At the minimum, the Logistic Assistant should possess a high school diploma and have 3 to 5 years of experience. Must be a Liberian national. Collectively the team members must have experience in conducting both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. Prior to their arrival in Liberia, all team members are required to familiarize themselves with USAID’s Evaluation Policy, with USAID’s publication outlining a good evaluation report, and with USAID’s checklist for assessing an evaluation report. Additionally, all team members should possess a strong familiarity with the current political, economic, justice, and policy context of Liberia. Evaluation Timeline and Logistics Prior to arrival in Liberia, the evaluator should first complete a thorough desk study to understand the current land sector and policy context of Liberia, and how Tetra Tech activities have sought to address these challenges. This review should pay special attention to how the program fits into the Liberia Mission’s Country Development and Cooperation Strategy 2013-2017, the GoL “Agenda for Transformation through Action,” Liberia’s “Vision 2030,” the “National Peace Building, Healing and Reconciliation Roadmap,” and the May 2013 Land Rights Policy. To support this review, USAID Liberia will provide electronic copies to the evaluator of all documents to be reviewed three weeks prior to departure. USAID will provide a list of contacts. The evaluation team Logistic Assistant will take responsibility for all administrative and logistical requirements of the team, including scheduling of meetings and interviews. Ideally, the team will commence background review and preparation research on or about June 2 and begin field work on or about June 15, 2014. Upon arrival in country, the workplan shall be further refined with USAID/Liberia staff, as necessary. The team should also plan an out-brief with USAID/Washington following completion of the evaluation. The USAID Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for LCRP and other USAID staff may join the evaluator in selected evaluation data collection and analysis activities. Level of Effort The following is an estimated level of effort required for the evaluation, including 34 in-country work￾days: Tasks Est. Work Days)/Person Preparation and Research prior to arrival in country, including drafting of an initial work plan 10 days Round trip travel (US-Liberia-US) 3 days Evaluation of LCRP (assumes a 6 day work week) 30 days Finalization and presentation of Preliminary Findings with out-brief for USAID/Liberia Mission 4 days Draft Report due within two weeks of the out-brief 10 days 40 Final Report due within one week of receipt of USAID feedback on the draft 5 days Out-brief for USAID/Washington 1 day Total LOE 63 days Evaluation Deliverables There will be two main products for this evaluation: 1. The final evaluation report, including an executive summary, fulfilling the evaluation requirements set in this SOW. It should address the success of the program towards achieving results, identify any implementation problems and challenges that affected program results, identify issues and questions across land sector engagement and LCRP implementation, and provide actionable and strategic recommendations for possible programming. At the minimum, the report should address the following:  The continued relevance of USAID assistance to the Liberian land sector; and it should assess the current political environment and multiple scenarios for future direct or indirect engagement with the land sector actors.  The program impact on the Liberian institution(s) vis-à-vis the Mission's Democracy and Governance Objective: More Effective, Accountable and Inclusive Government and USAID/EGAT’s Land Tenure Unit.  Particular areas of success and weakness of the current pilot land project and aspects of project design and implementation that contributed, whether positively or negatively, to program outcomes.  The degree to which the expectations of the primary beneficiaries were met by the performance of the current project. Were those expectations consistent with USAID’s goals and objectives?  Recommendations for future direct or indirect engagement with GoL, given receptivity or resistance to LCRP’s program interventions and possible future interventions, including an identification of those activities that appear most appropriate and feasible, with whom, and those that show less promise and should be avoided or refined. 2. A PowerPoint presentation of the findings of the evaluation: Depending on the usefulness of the evaluation findings, USAID/Liberia could consider organizing a stakeholders’ meeting to make a presentation to the partners and stakeholders. The final report is to be cleared by the DRG LER/COR and accepted by USAID. The final report including the executive summary, but excluding annexes, should not exceed 60 pages. The evaluation team is expected to produce the following deliverables: a. Evaluation Design Proposal: The proposed design should include a timeline and matrix of the evaluation study design (including key questions and the methods and data sources used to address each question), and other data collection instruments and field testing of interview 41 protocol, as appropriate, selection criteria of respondents (including beneficiaries and non￾program beneficiaries), and an explanation of how ethical conduct of research involving human subjects and the protection and confidentiality of data will be ensured. Before the field work, a conference call will be held with USAID/Liberia and the evaluation team to discuss the proposed design, define and clarify responsibilities, logistical support, and additional secondary documentation sources before the evaluation starts. b. Oral Briefings (In-brief and Out-brief): The evaluation team will meet with USAID/Liberia upon arrival in Monrovia. The team will also provide an oral briefing of its findings and recommendations to USAID/Liberia prior to departure from Liberia. A briefing for USAID/Washington (DCHA/DRG and AFR) will also be required, with timing and attendance to be arranged by USAID/Liberia. c. Field Work: Field work for the evaluation is estimated to take approximately 5 weeks or 30 working days in-country and will be conducted according to the approved work plan. d. Preliminary Findings: Written Preliminary Findings, in English, should be prepared and delivered to the USAID/Liberia COR and the Program Office for review prior to the out-brief. e. Draft Evaluation Report: A written report, in English, should be delivered to the DRG LER COR within two weeks of the out-brief. The draft report shall include the evaluation’s methodology, any limitations of the methodology, analysis, findings, and recommendations. More specifically, the report, which shall follow USAID branding procedures, must include:  A description of the evaluation purpose and the evaluation questions addressed in the report  Statement as to how the independence of the evaluation team was protected and addressing any potential bias or conflict of interest issues  A detailed description of the data collection and analysis methods (including the sampling and/or selection criteria used)  Data analysis and findings (including acknowledgement and disclosure of any data limitations) specifically related to the evaluation questions outlined above and: o An assessment of any differential program outcomes and anticipated impacts on males and females o Statements of differences (if any) regarding significant unresolved difference of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team  Annexes, which should include: o A copy of this SOW o Data collection instruments o Sources, sites, sampling frame, individual/focus group interviews, etc., included in data collection o Disclosure of conflicts of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing existing conflict of interest f. Final Evaluation Report: The final evaluation report will be submitted electronically to the DRG LER COR and the Program Office within one week after receiving comments from USAID on the draft. The final report should include a brief (e.g., three-page) executive summary and be no more than 60 pages in length. Upon USAID final approval and guidance, the final Evaluation Report will be submitted to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) at http://dec.usaid.gov/default.htm. 42 Annex II: Key LCRP Actors and Activity Locations Contractors  TetraTech/ARD- Primary Contractor LCRP Subcontractors  Norwegian Refugee Council  Sustainable Development Institute  Liberian Crusaders for Peace  The Carter Center  CDR Associates International Stakeholders  UN-Habitat  The World Bank Government of Liberia  Land Commission  Land Dispute Resolution Taskforce  Ministry of Internal Affairs  Ministry of Justice  Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy LCC Pilot Counties  Lofa  Nimba  Margibi  Bong  Maryland Community Mapping Pilot Clans  Gbarlin Clan, Lofa County  Palama Clan (surrounding Gbarlin community) 43 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments Randomly Selected Household Members Protocol (Est. Time 30 min) Introduction: 1. What is your name? 2. How old are you (approximately)? 3. Male or Female (interviewer observation) 4. What is your tribe? 5. Do you hold a position in the town leadership structure, or play a role in managing land disputes? Disputes: 6. Have you been involved in a land dispute in the last 2 years, which has been resolved? a. If YES: i. Please tell us about the dispute. ii. What was the cause of the dispute (i.e. boundary confusion, inheritance, etc) iii. Did either party to the dispute have documents to the land in question? iv. Who was involved in resolving the dispute? v. What was the outcome of the resolution process? Knowledge and Awareness: 7. Have you heard of the Land Coordination Centre (LCC)? (if no, ask about Land Commission). a. If YES (to either LCC or Land Commission), how did you hear about it: i. Radio program ii. Saw signboards in town or on the road iii. Saw posters, stickers, or other promotional material iv. LCC staff or trained practitioners talked about it publically v. NGO staff came to town and talked about it publically vi. Town Crier/ word of mouth vii. Other 6. If YES to question 7: what did you think of the material? 7. If YES to question 7: Do you know where the LCC office is? 8. If YES to question 6: Why didn’t you go to the LCC for mediation of the dispute? 9. Do you know who funds the Land Commission? Land Dispute Mediation Fairness and Equity: 10. Do you know people in town who resolve land disputes? 11. If YES to question 12: do these people treat everyone fairly when addressing disputes (probe: gender and ethnic minorities/migrants) 12. In this town, do women have the right to own land? [Probe for purchasing v. inheriting] 13. Do you agree with this situation? (reference answer to Q. 14) 14. If you have another kind of problem or dispute, where would you go to have it resolved? 15. Do you have anything you would like to add, or anything to ask us? 44 Members of Land Commission Protocol (Est. Time ~45 min) Introduction: 1. Warm Up: Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. 2. How long have you been a member of the Land Commission? a. What are your primary responsibilities on the Land Commission? b. What are the current priorities of the Land Commission? 3. Have you collaborated directly with the LCRP? a. If yes, can you please describe the activities that you have collaborated on? b. What were some of the most positive aspects of those collaborative activities? c. Where there any challenges involved? Effectiveness: 4. What laws, regulations or institutions do you think need to be put in place for the Land Policy to be most effectively implemented? a. [if needed] are these laws, regulations or institutions being put in place at the moment? b. Is LCRP contributing to these processes? c. Are there any challenges involved in implementing these activities? 5. Did you help to design, or contribute to, any LCRP-funded land dispute training sessions? a. If yes: i. When and where was the training held? ii. What was the overall purpose of the training? iii. What was your role, before or during the training? iv. What was your overall feeling about the impacts of the training? 6. Did you help to design, or contribute to, any LCRP-funded outreach, consultation, or public-awareness activities? a. If yes: i. Which activities? ii. What was your role in these activities? iii. What was your overall feeling about the ‘fit’ of these materials to the Land Commission’s workplan and goals? iv. What was your overall feeling about impacts of these activities? 7. Do you know some of the partner organizations that LCRP is collaborating with? a. If yes: i. Can you tell me about them? ii. Do their capacities and approaches fit with the LCRP goals? iii. Are there other organizations that might have also been useful partners for LCRP? iv. How do their capacities and approaches fit with the LCRP goals? 8. What do you think are the biggest challenges for the resolution of land disputes in Liberia? [if needed – prompt gently and respectfully] a. What are the main financial challenges? b. What are the main technical challenges? c. What are the main legal challenges? d. What are the main capacity challenges? e. What are the main gender challenges? f. What are the main political challenges? 9. What do you think are the biggest challenges for the registration of individual and community rights to land in Liberia? [if needed – prompt gently and respectfully] a. What are the main financial challenges? b. What are the main technical challenges? c. What are the main legal challenges? d. What are the main capacity challenges? e. What are the main gender challenges? f. What are the main political challenges? 45 10. Are you familiar with the community land rights mapping approaches of SDI? a. If yes: i. Can you tell me about them? ii. Do their approaches fit with the Land Commission’s goals and the Land Policy? iii. How can these approaches be modified (if necessary), institutionalized, and given enhanced legal standing? 11. Are you familiar with the LCCCMIS database? a. If yes: i. What kinds of information has it provided to the Land Commission? ii. Has this information led the Land Commission to make any policy decisions? iii. Is it straightforward to maintain the LCCMIS database? Potential Modifications/Sustainability: 12. What are your recommendations for future collaboration between USAID and the Land Commission? 13. You mentioned some challenges to the implementation of the Land Policy earlier in the interview [cite examples if needed]; could future collaboration between USAID and the Land Commission or other organizations help to overcome these challenges? 14. The mandate of the Land Commission will expire soon. How will the activities we have talked about – such as training, support and development of a legal framework around dispute resolution; registration of local level property rights; and maintaining the LCCCMIS – be continued? Perceptions: 15. Overall, how would you describe the support that LCRP has provided to the Land Commission and the land sector in Liberia more generally? 16. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for us? 46 Parties to Land Disputes Protocol (Est. Time ~30-45 minutes) Introduction: 1. Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. a. What town/clan are you from? Were you born there? b. What is your tribe? c. What is your gender? (Enumerator observation) d. Do you hold a position with the town/clan? 2. Can you please briefly describe the land dispute you are involved in? Background: 3. The dispute is between: a. Members of the same family b. Individuals in the community from different families c. Outside investors and the community d. Elites from Monrovia/abroad and the community e. Other communities and the community f. The national/district level government and the community g. Other 4. What is the dispute about? a. Boundaries b. Resources (if yes, please provide details) c. Inheritance d. Use of land e. Other 5. What caused the dispute? a. Encroachment b. Differences between government/clan boundaries c. People moving/Resource competition d. Misuse of shared areas (if yes, please explain who shares the area) e. Finding valuable resources f. Differences between national and customary laws g. Other 6. Did this dispute lead to any threats of violence, damage of property, or actual violence? If yes, please describe in detail. 7. Which party do you represent in this dispute, and how did you become involved? 8. Which individuals or institutions have been involved in mediating or arbitrating in the dispute? 9. Were women heavily involved in the dispute (either as parties or mediators/negotiators)? a) If yes, were they treated differently from men? 10. Has the dispute been resolved? a. If yes: i. How was the dispute resolved? ii. Who helped to resolve the dispute? Was anyone trained in ADR by the LCRP involved in the dispute resolution? 1. If yes, do you believe that this practitioner’s help had a positive effect on the outcome and/or process of the dispute resolution? iii. Are you happy with the way the dispute was resolved/the final agreement? b. If no: 47 i. Who do you believe will be the most important actor in resolving the dispute? Effectiveness: 11. Have you heard of the LCRP? a. If yes: i. How did you learn about it and what do you know about the program? ii. Did you receive any materials from the LCRP? 1. If so were they easy to understand? iii. Did the LCRP have any influence in your thinking about this land dispute? iv. Did the LCRP have any influence of the final outcome of this dispute? Perceptions: 12. Do you believe that the needs of you, or the party you represent, have been adequately considered in this dispute? Please explain. 13. How are disputes generally handled in your community? Do you feel the rights of all community members are respected (women, minorities, the poor, etc)? Potential Modifications 14. Do you think that the way disputes are handled in your community can be improved? a. If yes, how? Do you have any suggestions to improve dispute resolution in your town/clan? b. If no, why is the current system working well? 48 Personnel in the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy and other Ministries with ‘land’ responsibilities Protocol (Est. Time ~60 min) Introduction: 1. Warm Up: Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. a. How long have you been a member of the Ministry? b. What are your primary responsibilities at the Ministry? c. What are the current priorities of the Ministries regarding land rights registration, dispute resolution, and related issues? 2. Have you collaborated directly with the Land Commission or the LCRP? a. If yes, can you please describe the activities that you have collaborated on? b. What were some of the most positive aspects of those collaborative activities? c. Where there any challenges involved? Effectiveness: 3. What laws, regulations or institutions do you think need to be put in place for the Land Policy to be most effectively implemented? a. [if needed] are these laws, regulations or institutions being put in place at the moment? b. Is your Ministry contributing to these processes, and if so, how?] c. Are there any challenges involved in implementing these activities? 4. What institutional mechanisms exist for coordination of key actors in the land sector, including the Ministry and the Land Commission; and how do they function? 5. Do you know some of the partner organizations that LCRP is collaborating with? [prompt if necessary: SDI, LCP, PROSPER, NRC] a. If yes i. Can you tell me about them? ii. Do their capacities and approaches fit with the LCRP goals? iii. Are there other organizations that might have also been useful partners for LCRP? iv. How do their capacities and approaches fit with the LCRP goals? 6. What do you think are the biggest challenges for the resolution of land disputes in Liberia? a. [if needed – prompt gently and respectfully] i. What are the main financial challenges? ii. What are the main technical challenges? iii. What are the main legal challenges? iv. What are the main capacity challenges? v. What are the main gender challenges? vi. What are the main political challenges? 7. What do you think are the biggest challenges for the registration of individual and community rights to land in Liberia? a. [if needed – prompt gently and respectfully] i. What are the main financial challenges? ii. What are the main technical challenges? iii. What are the main legal challenges? iv. What are the main capacity challenges? v. What are the main political challenges? Potential Modifications/Sustainability: 8. What are your recommendations for future activities by USAID in the land sector? 9. Do you think that the risk of socio-political tensions or violence due to land disputes has increased or decreased over the past 3 years? 10. Do you think that the risk of socio-political tensions or violence due to land disputes is high or low? 11. You mentioned some challenges to the implementation of the Land Policy earlier in the interview [cite examples if needed]; could future collaboration between USAID and the Land Commission, your Ministry, or other organizations help to overcome these challenges? 49 Perceptions: 12. Overall, how would you describe the support that LCRP has provided to the Land Commission and the land sector in Liberia more generally? 13. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for us? 50 Liberian and/or expatriate experts on land tenure issues in Liberia Protocol (Est. Time ~45 min) Introduction: 1. Warm Up: Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. a. How long have you worked on land tenure issues in Liberia? b. Which institutions have you worked with in the past? c. What are your primary responsibilities in your current job? 2. Have you collaborated directly with the LCRP? a. If yes, can you please describe the activities that you have collaborated on? b. What were some of the most positive aspects of those collaborative activities? c. Where there any challenges involved? Overall Context: 3. Especially in terms of registration of community land rights and land dispute resolution, what do you see as the Land Policy’s main: a. Strengths b. Weaknesses? 4. What laws, regulations or institutions do you think need to be put in place for the Land Policy to be most effectively implemented? a. [if needed] are these laws, regulations or institutions being put in place at the moment? b. How did LCRP contributing to these processes? c. What other institutions are involved? d. Are there any challenges involved in implementing these activities? 5. Which government agencies are: a. Most deeply implicated in land tenure issues? b. The most committed to facilitating the registration of community land rights and land dispute resolution; c. More ambiguous in the nature of their support and why? 6. The Land Commission is the main state institutions involved in coordinating the land sector. In your view, what are the most effective means of collaborating with the Commission in order to promote improved laws, policies and practices? 7. How have large-scale commercial land-users, or those representing them, reacted to the Land Policy and draft land Law, and what strategies have they used to influence the implementation of the Policy? 8. Are you familiar with the content of any LCRP-funded land policy awareness-raising materials or land dispute training sessions? a. If yes: i. How do these materials describe relationships between statutory and customary laws and institutions? ii. How does this description fit with the realities in rural Liberia? iii. What opportunities does this material open up, or perhaps close down, for registering community land rights and resolving disputes? iv. What was your overall feeling about the material? 9. Do you know some of the partner organizations that LCRP is collaborating with? a. If yes continue to i b. If ‘no’ prompt: Sustainable Development Institute (SDI); PROSPER; Liberian Crusaders for Peace; others? i. Can you tell me about them? ii. Do their capacities and approaches fit with the LCRP goals? iii. Are there other organizations that might also been useful partners for LCRP? iv. How do their capacities and approaches fit with the LCRP goals? 10. What do you think are the biggest challenges for the resolution of land disputes in Liberia? a. [if needed – prompt gently and respectfully] b. What are the main financial challenges? c. What are the main technical challenges? 51 d. What are the main legal challenges? e. What are the main capacity challenges? f. What are the main political challenges? 11. What do you think are the biggest challenges for the registration of individual and community rights to land in Liberia? a. [if needed – prompt gently and respectfully] b. What are the main financial challenges? c. What are the main technical challenges? d. What are the main legal challenges? e. What are the main capacity challenges? f. What are the main political challenges? Potential Modifications/Sustainability: 12. What are your recommendations for future collaboration between USAID and the Land Commission? 13. You mentioned some challenges to the implementation of the Land Policy earlier in the interview [cite examples if needed]; could future collaboration between USAID and the Land Commission or other organizations help to overcome these challenges? 14. The mandate of the Land Commission will expire soon. How will the activities we have talked about – such as training, support and development of a legal framework around dispute resolution; registration of local level property rights; and maintaining the LCCCMIS – be continued? Perceptions: 15. Overall, how would you describe the support that LCRP has provided to the Land Commission and the land sector in Liberia more generally? 16. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for us? 52 LCC Case Intake Monitor Protocol 1. What is your name? 2. Please quickly describe your professional background. 3. How long have you been working here? 4. What are your main responsibilities as a Case Intake Monitor? 5. Are you familiar with the LCRP? a. If yes: i. Who funds the LCRP? ii. How have you collaborated with the LCRP in your duties? (Probe for all activities possible). iii. What is your opinion of LCRP support to the LCC overall? (Probe for greatest successes, challenges, etc). 6. Please walk me through the procedures for managing a case from beginning to end. a. How do people most often contact the LCC? (Walk-ins, phone calls, through practitioners, etc). b. How do you decide who manages which cases? c. How do you decide which practitioners to refer a case to? d. How do you decide when a case can be marked as “resolved”? e. Do you do any follow-up for resolved cases? f. Do you attend all case conferences? 7. Has a case ever become violent? 8. What are the major challenges associated with case management? 9. What are the major challenges of working with practitioners: a. During a mediation itself? (are they still arbitrating, etc) b. In case reporting? c. In conducting case management overall? 10. Did you attend the ADR training? If so, what did you think about practitioner participation and comprehension? (Probe for gender, cultural appropriateness, general understanding of material? a. Did you think the training was long enough for practitioners to gain all the skills they needed to effectively conduct ADR in their communities? 11. Do you feel that the LCC is well-known in your pilot districts? a. If yes, which communications strategies worked best? b. If no, what else should be done to create more awareness of the LCC? 12. If USAID decides to continue funding land-related projects in Liberia, what are your recommendations for priority areas? a. What are things you think Liberia, as a country, needs to minimize land disputes? b. What are things you need for the LCC to continue working effectively in your county? 53 LCC Communications Officer Protocol 1. What is your name? 2. Please quickly describe your professional background. 3. How long have you been working here? 4. What are your main responsibilities as a Communications Officer? 5. Are you familiar with the LCRP? a. If yes: i. Who funds the LCRP? ii. How have you collaborated with the LCRP in your duties? (Probe for all activities possible, especially outreach activities). iii. What is your opinion of LCRP support to the LCC overall? (Probe for greatest successes, challenges, etc). 6. Are you currently conducting any outreach activities? a. If yes: i. Please describe. ii. Has the LCRP had any involvement in these activities? 7. Were you involved with the journalist training? a. What was your overall opinion of the training? (Probe for materials, length of training, gender incorporation, cultural appropriateness). 8. Were you involved in the outreach campaign with the Liberia Crusaders for Peace? If yes, please describe. a. What are your thoughts on the overall success of this campaign? b. Are the awareness groups still conducting dramas in the pilot districts? c. Were the radio announcements comprehensive and easy to understand? 9. Did you feel that the outreach activities conducted have created sufficient awareness of the LCC? 10. Do you have a designated budget for communications activities at the LCC? 11. Have you been involved with stakeholder consultation? a. If yes: i. Please describe. ii. Do you feel that the consultation has been successful overall? iii. With which organizations do you have the best working relationship? 12. If USAID decides to continue funding land-related projects in Liberia, what are your recommendations for priority areas? a. What are things you think Liberia, as a country, needs to minimize land disputes? b. What are things you need for the LCC to continue working effectively in your county? 54 LCC Database Officer Protocol 1. What is your name? 2. Please quickly describe your professional background. 3. How long have you been working here? 4. What are your main responsibilities as a Database Officer? 5. Are you familiar with the LCRP? a. If yes: i. Who funds the LCRP? ii. How have you collaborated with the LCRP in your duties? (Probe for all activities possible, especially technical trainings). iii. What is your opinion of LCRP support to the LCC overall? (Probe for greatest successes, challenges, etc). iv. Did you feel that trainings were long enough, and comprehensive enough, to enable you to efficiently complete your work? 6. Please describe your experience designing the LCCMIS database. a. Did you have input in the overall design of the database? b. Did you feel you were fully consulted, and your concerns were incorporated, before the database was rolled out? 7. Please describe your experience using the LCCMIS database. a. How do you use the database? b. Have you ever used information from the database to alter the LCC overall workplan? 8. Are you happy with the database overall? a. What are some improvements that can be made? 9. Do you feel that you have enough time to manage the database in addition to your other responsibilities at the LCC? 10. Is it possible to get some statistics on cases? (Try to get printouts!) a. How many cases does this LCC manage? i. How many are open, pending, resolved? ii. Can we have some statistics on the geographical locations of disputes, genders involved, and time of the year when disputes take place? 11. If USAID decides to continue funding land-related projects in Liberia, what are your recommendations for priority areas? a. What are things you think Liberia, as a country, needs to minimize land disputes? b. What are things you need for the LCC to continue working effectively in your county? 55 LCC Land Coordinator Protocol 1. What is your name? 2. Please quickly describe your professional background. 3. How long have you been working here? 4. What are your main responsibilities as the Land Coordinator? 5. Are you familiar with the LCRP? a. If yes: i. Who funds the LCRP? ii. How have you collaborated with the LCRP? (Probe for all activities possible). iii. What is your opinion of LCRP support to the LCC overall? (Probe for greatest successes, challenges, etc). 6. Were you involved in the collaborative dispute resolution practitioners training? If so, please describe your role. a. When was the training held? b. What did you think about the training overall? (Probe for gender inclusion, participation, sociocultural appropriateness of materials, etc.) c. What was the level of comprehension during the training? Do you think there is a need for follow-up training? (If yes, probe for what kinds of training) 7. How many practitioners were trained? a. How many are still active? b. How do you maintain relations with them now? (Do they meet regularly, talk over the phone, etc.) 8. What levels of conflict are you dealing with in this LCC? (Probe for individuals, families, towns, concessions, etc). 9. Are conflicts ever violent? 10. Have you ever rejected a case? 11. What are the major challenges with case management? 12. How do you collaborate with other stakeholders in your county? (Probe for Land Commissioner, County Inspector, Superintendent, other NGOs, etc). a. Were they consulted prior to the arrival of the LCC? b. How often do you communicate with them now? 13. Is this LCC currently conducting any outreach activities? If yes, please describe. a. Has the overall level of outreach to towns in your pilot districts been sufficient? 14. If USAID decides to continue funding land-related projects in Liberia, what are your recommendations for priority areas? a. What are things you think Liberia, as a country, needs to minimize land disputes? b. What are things you need for the LCC to continue working effectively in your county? 56 Local Dispute Resolution Practitioners Protocol (Est. Time ~45 min) Introduction: 1. Warm Up: Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. a. What town/clan are you from? Were you born there? b. Did you go to school there? What was the last grade you finished in school? c. How did you first become involved in resolving local disputes? i. When was that? [approximate year] d. What is your tribe? e. What is your gender? (Enumerator observation) f. What is your position with the town/clan? 2. Have you heard of the LCRP? a. If yes, can you please describe what you know about the program? Effectiveness: 3. Did you attend ADR training in your district provided by the Land Commission and the LCRP? a. If yes: i. When and where was the training held? ii. Can you remember what you were taught during the training? 1. What do you remember? 2. What were the different ADR strategies you learned about? Please name as many as you can. iii. Did you feel the training was long/comprehensive enough to provide you with the skills you need to resolve disputes in your community? Why or why not? 1. Were the materials and the presentations easy to understand and useful? 2. Were the techniques you learned applicable to your community/tribe? 3. Have you referred to the training materials that were provided since the training ended? Why or why not? Which elements did you refer to? iv. Were you trained to fill out the Case Intake and Case Management Forms from the Land Commission? 1. If yes, have you actually done this and turned in the forms to LCC staff for any recent land disputes? 2. If no, what obstacles prevented you from giving the forms to LCC staff? v. If no: Were you offered training from the LCC and the LCRP? If yes, why didn’t you attend? 4. Have you attended any other land dispute training? a. If yes: i. When was it held and with which organization? ii. If you attended an LCC/LCRP training, how did that training compare to this one? 5. Do you engage in land disputes with residents of your town/clan? a. If yes: i. What are the land disputes most often about in your community? ii. Have you noticed any changes in the nature or quantity of land disputes in your community in the last two years? If yes, please describe. iii. Did you participate in resolving land disputes prior to receiving training? iv. If you attended LCC/LCRP ADR training, have you applied any of the techniques you learned to land disputes in your community? 1. If yes, which techniques did you use and do you feel that they helped to resolve the dispute? Why or why not? 2. If no, why not? Potential Modifications: 6. If you participated in training, what are your recommendations for future training? a. Were there any components missing from the training that you would like to add? b. Do you suggest any alterations to the materials you received? c. Do you feel the need for follow-up training? 57 d. Do you feel that all kinds of people were given a fair chance to participate in training (tribes, gender, socioeconomic group)? 7. If you did not participate in training, are you interested in attending ADR training in the future? Why or why not? a. If yes, what issues would you most like to learn about in ADR training? Perceptions: 8. Are you familiar with the Land Commission, LCCs, LCRP, NRC, or SDI? a. Have members of any of these organizations ever contacted you regarding training? If yes, please describe. b. What are your feelings about these organizations? Are they effective? Do most local people trust them? Do you feel they are working to improve conditions in your community? Do you feel empowered to advocate for you interests with these organizations? i. Land Commission￾ii. LCC￾iii. LCRP￾iv. NRC￾v. SDI- 58 Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) Baseline reports and impact assessment/design protocol (Est. Time ~45 min) Introduction: 1. Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. a. How long have you worked for NRC? b. What are your primary responsibilities at NRC? 2. Except for the IA design report and/or the Baselines, have you personally collaborated directly with the LCRP? a. If yes, can you please describe the activities that you have collaborated on? b. What were some of the most positive aspects of those collaborative activities? c. Where there any challenges involved? NRC Baseline Reports: 3. The project baseline reports were completed later than originally planned. Did this make a difference to the methodology or results? a. [if prompting needed] for example in terms of the level of knowledge, or expectations of the informants? 4. Were there any major complications or obstacles to data collection for the project baseline reports? If yes, what were they? 5. Were there any elements of the project baseline reports perceived as particularly sensitive by key actors (e.g. Land Commission members, local administrators?). If yes: a. Which issues were sensitive? b. What were the implications of this for the contents of the final report? 6. In the project baseline report, about 31% of informants were women, which was in line with expectations as ‘heads of households’ were to be targeted. Is it possible that the relatively low proportion of women informants influenced the outcome of the report? 7. The baseline report mentions that further qualitative data should be collected on ‘sensitive’ issues such as women’s land rights. Was it difficult to collect such data for the baseline? a. [if needed] If it was difficult, why was this, and what was done to counteract those problems? b. Could more have been done to collect gender-disaggregated data? c. What could the LCCs or other actors do to collect more gender-disaggregated data? 8. The baseline report mentions that 60% of respondents said that “being a good citizen” was the single most important factor in gaining access to land. Could you explain this? a. [if needed] what are the implications for this, in terms of land rights registration and dispute resolution? b. [if needed] are there, for example, political, ethnic or gender implications? c. Do you think other actors in the land sector understand the implications of this? d. How do you think this could be addressed in programming in the land sector? 9. The baseline report includes ‘encroachment’ as a common category of land dispute, as well as ‘boundary disputes’ as a different category. How do these categories differ? Other LCRP Activities: 10. Did you help to design, or contribute to, any LCRP-funded land dispute training sessions? a. If yes i. When and where was the training held? ii. What was the overall purpose of the training? iii. What was your role, before or during the training? iv. Did the training approach, including selection of participants, address the key issues in the NRC baseline? v. What was your overall feeling about the training? 11. Are you familiar with the LCCCMIS database? a. If yes: i. Do you think its design is appropriate to the context described in the Baseline studies? ii. If not, how do you think it could be approved? 59 Potential Modifications/Sustainability: 12. What do you think are the implications of the baseline studies for the implementation of the Land Policy? Perceptions: 13. Overall, how would you describe the interaction between LCRP and NRC? 14. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for us? 60 SDI Community Mapping Interview Protocol (Est. Time ~45 mins) Introduction: 1. Warm Up: Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. a. How long have you been a member of your organization? b. What are your primary responsibilities for the organization? 2. Have you collaborated directly with the LCRP? a. How was this collaboration defined, or formalized? b. What were some of the most positive aspects of those collaborative activities? c. Where there any challenges involved? d. Did you discuss your relationship with USAID to mapping participants? 3. How are participants in the mapping activities selected? 4. Can you talk us through the mapping process, from start to finish? 5. What are the tangible outcomes (i.e. maps, documents) and what is done with them? In particular, a. Who stores them, and where? b. How, by whom, and for what will the mapping mostly be used? 6. What legal ‘weight’ will the tangible outcomes of mapping have? 7. What laws, regulations or institutions do you think need to be put in place for the results of the mapping to have more legal weight? a. [if needed] are these laws, regulations or institutions being put in place at the moment? b. Is LCRP or your organization contributing to these processes? c. Are there any challenges involved in implementing these activities? 8. What do you think are the biggest challenges for the resolution of land disputes in Liberia? a. [if needed – prompt gently and respectfully] b. What are the main financial challenges? c. What are the main technical challenges? d. What are the main legal challenges? e. What are the main capacity challenges? f. What are the main political challenges? 9. What do you think are the biggest challenges for the registration of individual and community rights to land in Liberia? a. [if needed – prompt gently and respectfully] b. What are the main financial challenges? c. What are the main technical challenges? d. What are the main legal challenges? e. What are the main capacity challenges? f. What are the main political challenges? Sustainability: 10. Do you have recommendations for future collaboration between USAID and your organization? 11. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for us? 61 Tetra Tech ARD personnel Protocol (Est. Time 60 min) Introduction: 1. Warm Up: Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. a. What are your primary responsibilities at LCRP? 2. How long have you worked on the LCRP? Context: 3. What laws, regulations or institutions do you think need to be put in place for the Land Policy to be most effectively implemented? a. [If needed] are these laws, regulations or institutions being put in place at the moment? b. Is LCRP contributing to these processes, and if so, how? c. Are there any challenges involved in implementing these activities? 4. Aside from the Land Commission, what institutional mechanisms exist for coordination of key actors in the land sector, including the Ministry of Lands and Mines; and has LCRP worked with these mechanisms? 5. What is the role of the Land Commission? Is it perceived as effective in managing Liberian Land issues? 6. What do you think is the future of the land commission, or the agency that might follow it? 7. What were the root causes of the obstacles that delayed implementation of some LCRP activities? a. Were these recognized early on in the program? b. Can these root causes be influenced by USAID? LCRP Activities: 8. What was the biggest challenge with the implementation of the LCRP? What was done to overcome this issue? 9. How did LCRP use the project baseline reports, which were completed later than originally planned? 10. What implications do the findings of the baseline reports have for program sustainability? 11. LCRP implemented a public information campaign around the land policy. According to the initial contract with USAID, such a campaign was intended to “reinforce the use of ADR mechanisms”. To what extent was it possible to increase support for ADR through the information campaigns? 12. What was the main justification for extending LCRP to five Counties, and did this expansion make it more difficult to conduct advocacy or other activities in Monrovia (e.g. to influence the Land Commission)? 13. In many cases, less than half of program participants or informants (in research activities) were female – for example, in the project baseline report, about 31% of informants were women, which was in line with expectations as ‘heads of households’ were to be targeted. Was it difficult to include women in program activities and what did LCRP do to manage this difficulty? 14. How were gender issues incorporated into training materials and other LCRP activities (including promotional materials, conferences, etc)? 15. I noticed that there was lots of turnover of M & E personnel; is there any particular reason for this? a. [if needed] was the M & E for the program inherently difficult (e.g. aside from the staff turnover)? 16. Can you provide us some examples of how the M & E system allowed LCRP to make informed decisions, especially regarding major program modifications? 17. Why did LCRP change from a training-of-trainers approach to training LCC personnel and local land dispute resolution providers? 18. How were participants for the trainings selected? What was the rationale for employing this method of selection versus others? 19. Did the design (methods and content) of the LCRP-funded land dispute training sessions differ significantly depending on which County it was being offered in? a. If yes: i. Can you provide examples? ii. Were some training sessions more successful than others, and if so, why? 20. In general, do you believe the trainings were successful in terms of participant comprehension and retention of ADR strategies? Why or why not? 21. Have any plans been made to assess participants in comprehension of training materials? If so, please describe. 62 22. In general, how did LCRP address socio-cultural variations across the program areas, in the design or implementation of activities? 23. Do the LCCs have the capacity to manage the LCCCMIS database? a. If yes: i. Do you think its design is appropriate to the context described in the Baseline studies? ii. If not, how do you think it could be improved? 24. Can you please explain LCRP’s relationship, and any activities conducted with, the PROSPER project? 25. Can you please describe any LCRP support to SDI’s mapping activities in Lofa? How was the decision made to fund an NGO’s mapping activities rather than to conduct mapping exercises directly? 26. Has LCRP collaborated with the Managing Land Disputes in Liberia (MLDL) project? If so, what for did collaboration take? Potential Sustainability: 27. What do you think are the implications of LCRP’s work for the implementation of the Land Policy, e.g. through the Land Rights Act? 28. Do you think the activities conducted by the LCRP are sustainable without continued multi-million $ investment in this sector? 29. How do you think USAID should best engage with the land sector in Liberia, particularly in order to achieve goals similar to those of LCRP? Logistics: 30. You already provided us with a list of key contacts for this evaluation. Is there anyone else you think would be valuable to talk to? (Probe for names and contact information). 31. (This question is most likely only to be asked to one person). Is it possible to rent a car from TetraTech for our fieldwork? 32. Can we get a list of training participants in all five counties so that we can conduct targeted interviews? 33. What do we need to prepare for the land dispute resolution conference? Do we need invitations, etc? 34. How can we access the LCCMIS? Do you think this is a viable way to choose communities for site visits? 35. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for us, regarding logistics or other issues? 63 Traditional Landlords Protocol (Est. Time ~1 hour) Introduction: 1. Warm Up: Before we begin, please tell us a bit about yourself. 2. What town/clan do you represent? Were you born there? 3. Did you go to school there? What was the last grade you finished in school? 4. What is your tribe? 5. What is your gender? (Enumerator observation) 6. What is your position with the town/clan? 7. How did you first become involved in resolving local disputes? a. When was that? [approximate year] Effectiveness: 8. Have you heard of the LCRP? a. If yes: i. How did you learn about it? Please describe. (Enumerator probes: if people came to talk about it, who were they, who did they speak with, were women invited to the meetings, were minorities invited, what kinds of materials were received, etc) 1. Radio program 2. Saw signs in town or while traveling 3. Received posters or stickers about the program 4. LCC staff came to town to explain it 5. NGO staff came to town to explain it 6. Town crier/Word of mouth ii. What do you know about the LCRP program? Can you explain its main purpose? iii. If you heard about LCRP from the radio or newspaper, do you feel that what you heard/saw was: 1. Very easy to understand Somewhat easy to understand Not sure Somewhat hard to understand Very hard to understand 2. Relevant to your town/clan? Why or why not? iv. Did you or anyone from your community use the materials/knowledge you gained from the LCRP campaign to discuss land issues in your community? 9. Did you attend ADR training in your district provided by the Land Commission and the LCRP? a. If yes: i. When and where was the training held? ii. Can you remember what you were taught during the training? 1. What were the different ADR strategies you learned about? Please name as many as you can. a. Negotiation b. Mediation c. Arbitration d. Customary Authority or Process e. Government Official f. Government Court with a Judge or Jury g. Other, please explain _______________________ 2. Did you learn about the land rights of women/minorities, or other groups of people? Please describe. a. Women b. Minorities c. The poor d. Other (please describe) iii. Did you feel the training provided you with the skills you need to resolve disputes in your community? Why or why not? (Probe: length of training, comprehensive review of material) 1. Were the materials and the presentations easy to understand? 64 Very easy to understand Somewhat easy to understand Not sure Somewhat hard to understand Very hard to understand 2. Were they useful? Please explain. Very useful Somewhat useful Not sure Somewhat useless Very useless 3. Were the techniques you learned applicable to your community/tribe? Please explain. Very relevant Somewhat relevant Not sure Somewhat irrelevant Very irrelevant 4. Have you referred to the training materials that were provided since the training ended? a. If yes, can you please describe? iv. Were you trained to fill out the Case Intake and Case Management Forms from the Land Commission? 1. If yes, have you actually done this and turned in the forms to LCC staff for any recent land disputes? 2. If no, what prevented you from giving the forms to LCC staff? b. If no: i. Were you offered training from the LCC and the LCRP? If yes, why didn’t you attend? ii. Did someone else in your town/clan attend one of these trainings? 10. Do you engage in land disputes with residents of your town/clan? a. If yes: i. How many land disputes have you been involved with in the past year? ii. What are the land disputes most often about in your community? Can you describe any recent disputes? 1. Boundaries 2. Resources 3. Inheritance 4. Use of land 5. Other iii. The disputes are most often between: 1. Individuals in the community 2. Outside investors and the community 3. Elites from Monrovia/abroad and the community 4. Other communities and the community 5. The national/district level government and the community 6. Other iv. Are the disputes generally resolved peacefully? Please explain. v. Who is most respected in the community in terms of dispute resolution? 1. Town chief 2. Landlord 3. Elders 4. County government 5. Central government 6. Other, please describe: ______________________________ vi. Have you noticed any changes in the nature or quantity of land disputes in your community in the last two years (actors, type of dispute, intensity, how quickly they are resolved, the type of agreement)? If yes, please describe. vii. Did you participate in resolving land disputes prior to receiving training? viii. If you attended LCC/LCRP ADR training, have you applied any of the techniques you learned to land disputes in your community? Please describe. 65 1. If yes, which ones did you apply, and do you feel that they helped to resolve the dispute? Why or why not? 2. If no, why not? ix. Do you feel that the activities of the LCRP have contributed to the resolution of land disputes in your town/clan? b. If no, does someone who attended LCRP training engage in land disputes in your community? i. If yes: 1. Who is this person? 2. Can you describe any recent disputes he/she mediated? 3. Did he/she participate in dispute resolution prior to attending training? a. If yes: How have the disputes resolutions changed since he/she attended training? Please explain in detail. 4. Do you think that your community has benefited from having this person participate in dispute resolution in your community? Why or why not? Potential Modifications: 11. Do you believe that the activities of the LCRP have been beneficial for your community? Why or why not? Please explain in detail. a. If yes, which activities are most valuable? Which ones should be continued or expanded? b. If not, what are some actions the LCRP can take to improve land dispute resolution in your town/clan? 12. Has the involvement of women/minorities/the poor/other groups of people in land disputes changed as a result of the LCRP? Please describe in detail: a. Women: b. Minorities: c. The poor: d. Other: 13. Do you have any suggestions for the LCRP? What would you like to see added/changed/removed from the program? 14. If you participated in LCRP training, what are your recommendations for future trainings? a. Were there any components missing from the training that you would like to add/change? i. Materials ii. Timeline iii. Topics covered iv. Personnel v. Participants vi. Other, please explain:___________________________ b. Do you feel the need for follow-up training? c. Do you feel that all people and groups were given a fair chance to participate in training (tribes, gender, age, and socioeconomic groups)? i. If not, who was left out? Perceptions: 15. Are you familiar with the Land Commission, LCCs, LCRP, NRC, or SDI? a. Have members of any of these organizations ever contacted you, or have you worked with them? If yes, please describe. b. What are your feelings about these organizations? Are they effective? Do most local people trust them? Do you feel they are working to improve conditions in your community? Do you feel empowered to advocate for your interests with these organizations? i. Land Commission￾ii. LCC￾iii. LCRP￾iv. NRC￾v. SDI￾c. Do you have plans to work with any of these organizations in the future? i. If yes, what projects/programs to you plan to implement with them? 66 Annex IV: Documents Consulted Project Reporting Documents Tetra Tech ARD. (Dec. 2011). Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP): Year 1 Work Plan. _____. (Jan. 2012). Land Conflict Resolution Project: First Quarterly Report. _____. (Apr. 2012). Land Conflict Resolution Project: [Second] Quarterly Report. _____. (July 2012). Land Conflict Resolution Project: Third Quarterly Report. _____. (Aug. 2012). Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP): Year 2 Work Plan. _____. (Oct. 2012). Land Conflict Resolution Project: Year 1 Annual Report. _____. (Jan. 2013). Land Conflict Resolution Project: [Fourth] Quarterly Report. _____. (May 2013). Land Conflict Resolution Project: Fifth Quarterly Report. _____. (Aug. 2013). Land Conflict Resolution Project: Seventh Quarterly Report. _____. (Aug. 2013). Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP): Year 3 Work Plan. _____. (Oct. 2013). Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP): Year 2 Annual Report. _____. (Jan. 2014). Land Conflict Resolution Project: Ninth Quarterly Report. _____. (Apr. 2014). Land Conflict Resolution Project: Tenth Quarterly Report. Project Documents Tetra Tech ARD. (July. 2012). Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP): Performance Management Plan. _____. (Mar. 2013). Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP): Project Impact Assessment: Baseline Report. _____. (Mar. 2013). Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP): Project Impact Assessment Methodology _____. (April 2013). Participatory Mapping Approaches for Land Rights Inventory. _____. (Aug. 2013). Land Conflict Resolution Project (LCRP) PMP. _____. (Oct. 2013). Guide to Conducting Baseline Studies on Land Disputes in Liberia. _____. (Oct. 2013). Land Dispute Resolution Procedural Guide. _____. (Oct. 2013). Collaborative Dispute Resolution Training and Certification Program. _____. (Dec. 2013). Public Information Campaign: Land Rights Policy. _____. (June 2014). Public Policy Framework for Collaborative Land Dispute Resolution in Liberia. _____. (June 2014). Technical Recommendations and Justifications for Local Land Dispute Resolution Entities. Other LCRP Related Documents LCRP. (2014). LCRP Program Subcontracts: Compilation 2012-2014. _____. (Dec. 2013). LCRP Deliverable Status. _____. (June 2014). Annual Indicator Tracking Table _____. (n/d ). DRAFT Customary Land Recognition under the Land Policy. _____. (n/d). Land Commission, Customary Land Rights, and LCRP. USAID. (April 2014). Data Quality Assessment Report: Land Conflict Resolution Project. _____. (Aug. 2011). Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract. Contract between Tetra Tech ARD, Inc. and USAID/Liberia: Task Order No. AID-669-TO-11-00001. _____. (July. 2012). Contract between Tetra Tech ARD, Inc. and USAID/Liberia: Task Order No. AID￾669-TO-11-00001. 67 Other Non-LCRP Related Liberia Land Conflict Documentation Knight, Rachael et al. (2012). Protecting Community Lands and Resources: Evidence from Liberia, Mozambique, and Uganda: Namati and International Development Law Organization. Knight, Rachael. (n/d). Leveraging Community Land Titling Processes to Strengthen Local Land and Natural Resources Governance: Namati. Land Commission of Liberia, USAID, UN Habitat. (Apr. 2013). Memorandum of Cooperation between Land Commission of Liberia and United States Agency for International Development and United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Ministry of Internal Affairs et al. (2012). Towards a Reconciled, Peaceful, and Prosperous Liberia: Strategic Roadmap for National Healing, Peacebuilding, and Reconciliation – DRAFT 3. Norwegian Refugee Council. (n/d). Searching for Soap Trees: Norwegian Refugee Council’s Land Dispute Resolution Process in Liberia. Republic of Liberia. (n/d). Agenda for Transformation: Steps toward Liberia RISING 2030. SDI and IDLO. (n/d). Community Land Titling and Natural Resources. Tetra Tech ARD (Feb. 2012). Liberia Land Policy and Institutional Support (LPIS) Project: Customary Land Tenure in Liberia. Tetra Tech DPK. (n/d). Liberia: Mitigating Land Disputes in Liberia (MLDL) USAID/Liberia. (Oct. 2011). Final Evaluation of the Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LRCFP). Related Academic Articles and Additional Works Consulted Baldwin, Katelyn, Michael Gertson, and Ali Kaba. 2014. Liberia at a Crossroads: The Political Economy of Key Policy and Institutional Reforms in the Land Sector. Presented at the 2014 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington D.C. Blattman, Christopher, Alexandra C. Hartman, Robert A. Blair. (2014). How to Promote Order and Property Rights under Weak Rule of Law? An Experiment in Changing Dispute Resolution Behavior through Community Education. American Political Science Review: 1-21. Kurz, Cristof P. (2010). The Cumulative Impacts of Peacebuilding in Liberia. CDA. Syn, Juliette. (n/d) Mediating Land Disputes in Liberia. Accord. 23: 48-50. Bruce, John W. (1998). Country Profiles of Land Tenure: Africa, 1996. Research Paper No. 130. Land Tenure Center. De Wit, Paul and Caleb Stevens. (2014). 100 Years of Community Land Rights in Liberia: Lessons Learned for the Future. Presented at the 2014 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington D.C. Munive Rincon, Jairo. (2010). Ex-combatants, Returnees, Land and Conflict in Liberia. DIIS Working Paper 2010:05. Danish Institute for International Studies. Hannay, Leslie and Elisa Scalise. (2014). Securing Women’s Land Tenure in Northern Uganda: An Empowerment Approach. Presented at the 2014 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington D.C. Isser, Deborah H. et al. (n/d). Looking for Justice: Liberian Experiences with and Perceptions of Local Justice Options. United States Institute of Peace. 68 Annex V: Evaluation Fieldwork Key Informants Interviewed and/or Consulted in Monrovia Type Organization Name Position USAID USAID Names provided in draft evaluation report. Deputy Mission Director USAID USAID Senior Democracy, Rights and Governance Officer; LCRP COR USAID USAID Monitoring and Evaluation Officer USAID USAID Land Rights and Tenure Officer USAID USAID Rule of Law Advisor USAID USFS Forestry Advisor, PROSPER COR Contractor TetraTech Chief of Party Contractor TetraTech Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Contractor TetraTech Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisor Contractor TetraTech Information Technology Specialist/Acting GIS Specialist Contractor TetraTech Public Communications Specialist Contractor TetraTech Office Manager/Procurement and Contracts Manager Subcontractor The Carter Center Program Director- Building Capacity for Local Leaders in Dispute Resolution GoL Ministry of Internal Affairs Assistant Minister for Urban Affairs GoL Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy Assistant Minister for Lands, Surveys and Cartography GoL Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy Acting Director- Liberian Cartographic Service Donor World Bank World Bank Justice for the Poor Program Donor World Bank World Bank Justice for the Poor Program Donor UN-Habitat Chief Technical Advisor- UN-Habitat Liberia Donor UN-Habitat Intern, UN-Habitat Liberia GoL Ministry of Justice National Consultant- Alternative Dispute Resolution Program GoL Ministry of Justice National Consultant- Alternative Dispute Resolution Program GoL Land Commission Program Officer, Dispute Resolution GoL Land Commission Information and Communication Officer GoL Land Commission Senior Program Officer- Policy GoL Land National Coordinator- Land Coordination 69 Commission Centers GoL Land Commission Director- Land Commission Secretariat Subcontractor Norwegian Refugee Council Program Manager- Information, Counseling and Legal Assistance GoL Land Commission Chairman- Land Commission Subcontractor Liberia Crusaders for Peace Cultural Ambassador of Liberia, Chairwomen for LCP Local NGO Search for Common Ground Drama Coordinator- Liberia GoL Land Commission Land Coordinator- Maryland Land Coordination Center GoL Land Commission Case Intake Monitor- Maryland Land Coordination Center GoL Land Commission Case Intake Monitor- Maryland Land Coordination Center Subcontractor Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) Program Manager Subcontractor Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) Director Key Informant interviewed in Washington DC (phone interview) Type Organization Name Position USAID USAID-LTPR Name provided in draft evaluation report. Land Tenure and Conflict Advisor Local Key Informants interviewed in Land Coordination Center Pilot Districts Town and County Organization Name Position Voinjama, Lofa County Ministry of Internal Affairs Names provided in draft evaluation report. County Commissioner Voinjama, Lofa County Ministry of Internal Affairs County Superintendent Voinjama, Lofa County Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy Assistant County Surveyor Zozor, Lofa County Land Commission LCC Coordinator Zozor, Lofa County Land Commission LCC Case Intake Monitor Zozor, Lofa County Land Commission LCC Case Intake Monitor 70 Zozor, Lofa County Land Commission LCC Database Officer Borkeza, Lofa County Ministry of Internal Affairs Town Chief Salayea, Lofa County None Customary Landlord Salayea, Lofa County None Disputant in LCC - resolved land dispute Salayea, Lofa County None Disputant in LCC - resolved land dispute Gbarnga, Bong County Ministry of Internal Affairs Acting County Superintendent Gbarnga, Bong County Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy County Land Commissioner Gbarnga, Bong County Land Commission LCC Coordinator Gbarnga, Bong County Land Commission LCC Database Officer Gbarnga, Bong County Land Commission LCC Public Outreach Officer Gbarnga, Bong County Land Commission LCC Case Intake Monitor Gbarnga, Bong County Land Commission LCC Case Intake Monitor Gbarnga, Bong County Judiciary Magistrate, 9th Circuit Court Gbarnga, Bong County Judiciary Stipendiary Magistrate Gbarnga, Bong County Gbarnga Peace Hub Manager of Gbarnga Peace Hub Gbarnga, Bong County Independent citizen Disputant in LCC - resolved land dispute Gbarnga, Bong County Independent citizen Disputant in LCC - resolved land dispute Gbarnga, Bong County National Teachers Association of Liberia Secretary General of NTAL and Disputant in LCC -resolved land dispute Jinniepeleta, Bong County Independent citizen LCRP -trained mediation practitioner Sanniquolleh, Nimba County Ministry of Internal Affairs County Inspector Sanniquolleh, Nimba County Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy County Land Commissioner Ganta, Nimba County Land Commission LCC Coordinator Ganta, Nimba County Land Commission LCC Database Officer Ganta, Nimba County Land Commission LCC Public Outreach Officer Ganta, Nimba County Land Commission LCC Case Intake Officer Ganta, Nimba County Land Commission LCC Case Intake Officer Ganta, Nimba County Independent citizen Disputant in LCC - resolved land dispute 71 Ganta, Nimba County Independent citizen Disputant in LCC￾resolved land dispute Kakata, Margibi County Land Commission LCC Case intake officer Kakata, Margibi County Land Commission LCC Public Outreach Officer Focus Group Discussions in Land Coordination Center Pilot Districts District/County Town LCRP intervention area? (Yes/No) Number of Participants Roles of Participants Zorzor, Lofa County Borkeza Yes 21 LCRP-trained land dispute resolution practitioners (men and women) Salayea, Lofa County Masaou No 3 Landlord, town Chief, elder Salayea, Lofa County Salayea Town Yes 5 LCRP-trained land dispute resolution practitioners (men) Salayea, Lofa County Salayea Town Yes 3 LCRP-trained land dispute resolution practitioners (women) Salayea, Lofa County Kpanaquellah Town Yes (Gbarlin community boundary demarcation area) 16 Interim Coordinating Committee members and Animators (men and women) Salayea, Lofa County Ganglota Yes (community adjacent to Gbarlin community boundary demarcation area) 4 Town Chief, landlord, opinion leader (pastor), girl’s Leader (men and women) Salayea, Lofa County Ganglota Yes (community adjacent to Gbarlin community boundary demarcation area) 4 Landlord, general quarter Chief, youth Leaders (men) Salayea, Lofa County Ganglota Yes (community adjacent to Gbarlin community boundary demarcation 4 Women’s leader, Land Tenure Chairman, Elder Teacher 72 area) Salala, Bong County Totota Yes 3 LCRP -trained land dispute resolution practitioners (women) Salala, Bong County Totota Yes 4 LCRP -trained land dispute resolution practitioners (men) Salala, Bong County Benkorma No 9 Town Chief, elders, opinion leader (pastor), development chairman, landlord, caretaker of the Land, elders. (men) Salala, Bong County Benkorma No 9 Women’s leader, midwife, elder, other respected females in community Jorquelleh, Bong County Jinniepeleta Yes 7 Landlord, elders, town Chief, opinion -leaders (nurse, treasurer for Parent -Teacher Association). (Men and Women) Bain -Garr, Nimba County Ganta Yes 8 Mitigating Local Disputes in Liberia (MLDL) staff Bain -Garr, Nimba County Dingamon Yes 5 LCRP -Trained mediation practitioners (men) Saclapea, Nimba County Sanquoi Yes 4 LCRP -Trained mediation practitioners (men) Saclapea, Nimba County Sanquoi Yes 4 Women leaders, youth chairman, elder (men and women) Saclapea, Nimba County Kpatuo No 8 Township Commissioner, youth leaders, Acting town Chief, elders, opinion - leaders (school principle and vice - principle, mid -wife) (men and women) Saclapea, Nimba County Kpatuo No 8 Chief elder, Chairman of Traditional Council, Pastor, Teacher, Land Disputant, Chairlady, Elder, other opinion - leaders in community 73 Randomly-Selected Household interviews County District Town Number of Respondents Number of men Number of women Lofa Zorzor Borkeza 14 5 9 Lofa Salayea Salayea 11 3 8 Lofa Salayea Masaou 12 4 8 Bong Salala Totota 12 4 8 Bong Salala Benkorma 12 4 8 Bong Jorquelleh Jinniepeleta 12 7 5 Nimba Bain-Garr Dingamon 11 6 5 Nimba Saclapea Sanquoi 12 7 5 Nimba Saclapea Kpatuo 12 5 7 Totals 108 45 63 74 Annex VI: Evaluation Team Dr. Christopher Huggins, Lead Evaluator and Land Conflict Expert: Dr. Huggins is a land tenure, natural resource management, and post-conflict specialist with over 20 years of experience. He has consulted for many major U.N. and donor agencies and international non-governmental organizations. Dr. Huggins has led and conducted field research on land and agricultural reform in Rwanda; universal post-conflict housing rights in Timor-Leste, and land, power and identity in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. He is the author of 57 publications, (37 single-authored) a number of which are focused on land policy and conflict. Dr. Huggins has designed and facilitated multiple training courses on land tenure, natural resources and conflict, specifically through Development Alternatives International (DAI) for USAID in 2012 and 2013. Dr. Huggins holds a PhD in Geography from Carleton University where he completed his dissertation on agricultural reform in Rwanda. Karen Azeez, Evaluator and Evaluation Field Manager: Ms. Azeez recently coordinated a large scale impact evaluation study focused on land use in Liberia. In this capacity she is participating in and managing a field team of 25 Liberian staff in quantitative and qualitative data collection activities in the counties of Bong, Lofa, Maryland, and Nimba with three outcomes of interest: increased land tenure; reduced gender disparity; and reduced inter/intra-community conflict. In her work with the University of Michigan, Ms. Azeez has conducted quantitative and qualitative desk research of customary land rights law and land policy. She is fluent in English, Spanish and French and has basic Swahili skills. Ms. Azeez holds a Masters in Natural Resources and Environment: Policy and Planning from the University of Michigan. Kou Gbaintor-Johnson, Local Evaluator: Ms. Gbaintor-Johnson has research and evaluation experience in Liberia both as a project coordinator with the Center for Applied Research and Training (CART) and a consultant. She has managed field research and conducted qualitative data collection throughout Liberia on various subject matters, including land issues, community concessions management, labor issues, and gender and security. Ms. Gbaintor served as a research assistant on a justice sector project, conducting focus groups discussions and interviews with stakeholders involved in informal community justice administration. She also conducted qualitative data collection with citizens and local officials, and contributed to data analysis on a recent World Bank project regarding community engagement in land concessions. She is fluent in English and Mano. Ms. Gbaintor holds a B.A. in Demography, with an emphasis in Sociology, from the University of Liberia. Mr. Richmond McIntosh, Local Evaluator: Mr. McIntosh is a qualified social science researcher with experience collecting and analyzing large sets of quantitative and qualitative data in the health, land reform, and social welfare sectors. In the past six years, Mr. McIntosh has trained survey enumerators and conducted extensive qualitative research including organizing and facilitating key informant interviews and focus group discussions in over 90 communities across Liberia. Through these experiences, Mr. McIntosh has developed tools for monitoring data collection and organizing field notes for proper transcription and analysis. In addition to English, Mr. McIntosh speaks Bassa and Kru, and understands Krahn and Grebo. Mr. Terry Reeves, Logistics Coordinator: Mr. Reeves is a seasoned logistician and research assistant with five years of experience supporting the implementation of programs and field research activities. Mr. Reeves has coordinated trainings, and conducted consultative meetings and interviews to monitor project implementation. In addition to Mr. Reeves’ coordination experience, he has also supported major data collection exercises throughout Liberia, including policy assessments through the National Vision Initiative under Liberia’s Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs. 75 Annex VII: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest 76 77 78 79 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523