LAND AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (LRDP) Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by The Cloudburst Group. Photo Credit: Ipsos Napoléon Franco y Cía. S.A.S. Written and prepared by Nicole Walter, David F. Varela, Juan Tellez, Ana Montoya, and Dr. Heather Huntington. The authors would like to thank Paula Guerrero, Tania Bonilla, Aleta Starosta, Ben Ewing, and Aidan Schneider for research analysis and logistical support. The evaluation team would also like to thank Dr. Erik Wibbels for guidance and analytical support. Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, for the Mid-term Performance Evaluation of the Land and Rural Development Project (Mid-term PE LRDP) Task Order #AID-514-TO￾17-00003 under the Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights (STARR) IQC #AID-OAA-I-12-00030. Implemented by: The Cloudburst Group 8400 Corporate Drive, Suite 550 Landover, MD 20785-2238 Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report SEPTEMBER 2017 DISCLAIMER The authors' 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 1 1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS ..................................................... 13 EVALUATION QUESTION & HYPOTHESES..................................................................................................13 2.0 LRDP BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 15 BACKGROUND OF LRDP...................................................................................................................................15 OVERVIEW OF LRDP ............................................................................................................................................16 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS....................................................... 17 DATA SOURCES AND EVALUATION METHODS......................................................................................17 LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED................................................................................19 4.0 FINDINGS—RESTITUTION ................................................................................... 20 INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES ...................................................20 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................21 SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................................................................................................................36 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................................37 5.0 FINDINGS—FORMALIZATION............................................................................. 20 INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES ...................................................40 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................41 SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................................................................................................................50 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................................52 6.0 FINDINGS—RURAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 54 INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES ...................................................54 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................55 SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................................................................................................................68 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................................69 7.0 FINDINGS—INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.................................................... 71 INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES ...................................................71 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................72 SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................................................................................................................76 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................................77 8.0 GENDER & ETHNIC MINORITIES......................................................................... 78 INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES ...................................................78 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................79 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................................85 9.0 CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP AND FUTURE PROGRAMMING............................................................................................................. 87 LRDP RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. FUTURE PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................90 ANNEX 1—QUANTITATIVE METHODS .................................................................. 94 BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY.............................................................................................................94 GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA STAKEHOLDER SURVEY....................................................................100 DATA COLLECTION..........................................................................................................................................101 SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................102 ANNEX 2—QUALITATIVE METHODS.................................................................... 104 RESPONDENT SELECTION ..............................................................................................................................104 ANNEX 3—BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY INSTRUMENT.................... 107 ANNEX 4—MUNICIPAL LEVEL DATA FOR MATCHING .................................... 154 ANNEX 5—STAKEHOLDER SURVEY INSTRUMENT ........................................... 156 ANNEX 6—FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL ...................................... 216 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL................................................................................................217 BACKGROUND INFORMATION........................................................................................................................218 RESTITUTION..........................................................................................................................................................218 LAND TITLING AND DOCUMENTATION.......................................................................................................220 RURAL DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................................................................................221 TENURE SECURITY AND CONFLICT.................................................................................................................222 GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIPS AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT...........................................................224 PRODUCER ASSOCIATIONS ...............................................................................................................................224 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................226 ANNEX 7—KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS.................................. 228 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL..............................................................................................229 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT.......................................................................230 SECTION 2: BACKGROUND ON RESPONDENT (FOR ALL INFORMANTS) ............................................230 SECTION 3: LRDP ENGAGEMENT and INFLUENCE (FOR ALL INFORMANTS).........................................230 SECTION 4: PROGRAM COMPONENTS ...........................................................................................................230 SECTION 5: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND STRENGTHENING (FOR ALL INFORMANTS) ....................................................................................................................................................................................235 SECTION 6: PRIVATE SECTOR IN PPPS (PRIVATE SECTOR PPP ONLY)......................................................235 SECTION 7: LRDP INTERNAL EVALUATION (FOR LRDP STAFF ONLY)....................................................236 SECTION 8: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION (FOR ALL INFORMANTS)........................................236 ANNEX 8—LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES .................................................... 238 LACK OF COOPERATION FROM KEY INFORMANTS...........................................................................238 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION LOCATIONS...............................................................................................238 BENEFICIARY IDENTIFICATION & RESPONSIVENESS............................................................................238 LACK OF COOPERATION FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT..................................................................239 DIFFICULT SURVEY CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................239 ANNEX 9—BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY OUTCOME TABLES ......... 241 ANNEX 10—STAKEHOLDER SURVEY OUTCOME TABLES............................... 246 FORMALIZATION...................................................................................................................................................246 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................................................247 RESTITUTION..........................................................................................................................................................249 RURAL DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................................................................................251 ANNEX 11—BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY REGRESSION TABLES... 253 FORMALIZATION................................................................................................................................................254 RESTITUTION........................................................................................................................................................255 RURAL DEVELOPMENT .....................................................................................................................................256 ANNEX 12—LRDP WORK PLAN & EVALUATION DESIGN ............................... 257 ANNEX 13—EVALUATION TEAM ........................................................................... 258 KEY PERSONNEL..................................................................................................................................................258 OTHER TEAM MEMBERS....................................................................................................................................258 ANNEX 14—FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION REPORTS......................................... 260 ANNEX 15—ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................ 288 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 304 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACIP Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution AJP Access to Justice Program ANT National Land Agency COP$ Colombian pesos CSJ Superior Council of the Judiciary of Colombia DDP National Ombudsman's Office DNP National Planning Department FARC Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia FGD Focus Group Discussion GoC Government of Colombia IGAC Agustin Codazzi Geographic Institute INCODER Colombian Rural Development Institute IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract KII Key Informant Interview LRDP Land and Rural Development Program LRU Land Restitution Unit MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization OACP Oficina del Alto Comisionado para la Paz PE Performance Evaluation PPP Public-Private Partnership SIIR Registry Integrated Information System SME Subject Matter Expert SNR Superintendency of Notaries and Registry SNR-PRF Protection, Restitution and Formalization STARR Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights VCCU Victims Integrated Compensation and Care Unit UPRA Unidad de Planificación Rural Agropecuaria USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WWF World Wildlife Foundation LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW This report analyzes the findings of the mid-term performance evaluation (PE) conducted under the Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights (STARR) IQC No. AID-OAA-I-12-00030 for USAID/Colombia’s Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP, 2013–2018). The overall purpose of the PE was to assess whether the program’s institutional strengthening approach was likely to be effective and sustainable, and to provide insights and recommendations about project performance to improve the effectiveness of LRDP through the remaining program period and for potential future programs targeting similar objectives. In accomplishing this purpose, the evaluation assessed to what extent LRDP support contributed to structural changes in Government of Colombia (GoC) institutions across LRDP program objectives for all four structural components, including restitution, formalization, rural development and information management. During early program design, weak state presence, low-levels of public investment in rural areas, and insecure land tenure and property rights of vulnerable groups were identified as key causes of a vicious cycle of armed conflict that devastated the Colombian countryside. Colombia’s traditional legal and policy framework for land was unable to meet the challenges of millions of displaced civilians, as well as the process of formalizing land ownership across the country. To meet this demand, special procedures were developed to deal with land restitution claims for these victims of displacement. Between 2013 and 2016, various agreements were entered into with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which were ultimately compiled into the Final Agreement signed in November 2016 to end the armed conflict and build a stable and lasting peace in Colombia. In line with the objectives of this Final Agreement, LRDP was designed as an institutional strengthening initiative to help the GoC improve its ability to resolve these complex land and rural development issues and to transition Colombia to a post￾conflict society. The PE was structured as a combination of complementary qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methodologies that provide an in-depth view of the achievements to date, as well as the ongoing challenges and potential opportunities for subsequent phases of LRDP or similar future programs. The five sources of data used in this analysis include key informant interviews (KIIs) with 65 regional and national stakeholders; a large-N beneficiary household survey with 1,462 respondents across 100 municipalities; stakeholder surveys with 23 land-restitution judges, 22 mayors and 36 Land Restitution Unit (LRU) officials; 10 focus group discussions (FGDs) with project beneficiaries; and secondary data including program monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data, and quarterly and annual reports. The variety of data sources, robust data collection methods and rigorous analysis allowed the PE to compare trends across LRDP programming and comparison areas following a set of research hypotheses derived from the evaluation objectives and LRDP project theory. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 2 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY LRDP PROGRAM COMPONENT This section summarizes key findings across each of LRDP’s program components and provides a series of recommendations for LRDP’s final programming year, as well as for future programming that may target similar objectives as LRDP. RESTITUTION This section summarizes key findings and recommendations for LRDP’s restitution program component. FINDINGS LRDP restitution programming efforts show solid evidence of LRU institutional strengthening, even though this progress may still fall short of LRDP’s projected targets. Initial restitution targets were overly ambitious given various obstacles LRDP faced related to LRU start up challenges (i.e. complex cases and expanding mandates). Key informants noted that LRDP restitution programming has contributed to LRU strengthening by developing protocols and clinic cases through studies, consultancies, the hiring of professional staff (mostly lawyers and social workers), and identifying the importance of secondary occupants1 in the restitution process. Stakeholders and key informants strongly agreed that this technical assistance and direct resource investment was valuable. While LRU officials also agreed that their capacity has increased over the past three years, they do not feel their overall administrative processing times have decreased. LRDP’s institutional strengthening of LRUs is also evident in the beneficiary household and stakeholder survey findings. For instance, respondents in LRDP programming municipalities who are seeking land restitution are more likely than respondents in comparison municipalities to have their case under judicial review, whereas comparison respondents are more likely to have had an administrative request rejected. Although LRDP did not explicitly work on improving the rejection rate of administrative requests, it is worth noting this difference across comparison and programming regions. Key informants and stakeholders also highlighted the special attention LRDP has drawn to gender and ethnic minorities, although FGDs with indigenous groups noted frustration over lack of communication with the LRU and challenges related to collective restitution. While FGDs highlight that institutional trust still needs improvement, respondents in programming areas are significantly more likely than respondents in comparison areas to report that the restitution process is fair, has been moving at a timely pace, and that the overall process has improved during the past three years. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR Continue Working on the Judicial Phase: Working mostly on the administrative side of the restitution process limited the potential of LRDP to demonstrate more tangible results. While respecting the autonomy of the judges, future programs should enhance collaboration methods for engaging Land Court judges and staff. 1 Cases where the property of the victim of displacement and eviction was occupied by another victim or an innocent third party. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 3 FUTURE PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS Estimate Total Cost and Per-Parcel Cost: Future programming should try to track how much time and how many resources are required to reach a titling target to assess the overall efficiency of the restitution process. This would help ascertain resource-related questions including whether a small target area should be selected with a small number of high-cost parcels or an increased area size with more beneficiaries and an average lower cost per parcel. Without tracking cost, evaluating efficiency with regard to LRDP’s strengthening of the LRU may be of limited use. Future programming should revisit this issue in conjunction with LRU and other partner institutions. Increase Resources and GOC Support for Field Operations: When LRU officials were asked about what specific issues are causing administrative slowdown, many problems listed were related to field operations, including evidence collection, lack of communication with ethnic communities, and changing staff that impacted community relationships. As mentioned in several FGDs, consistent communication between the LRU and individuals undergoing the restitution process is essential to build stronger relationships and improve institutional trust. More resources or support for field operations would support local relationship building in addition to preventing further administrative slow down. Enhancing Information Sharing and Exchange: LRU and VCCU: The characterization studies for collective restitution cases are time-consuming research endeavors that require intensive fieldwork conducted with communities. Several ethnic communities indicated that they had to participate in two similar characterization studies conducted separately by the LRU and the VCCU. Future programs should further coordinate information sharing between these two entities to ensure that resources and time are not wasted and that communities’ confidence in the process is not negatively impacted. Support Establishment of Ethnic Minority and Gender Legal Specialists: Since activities that target ethnic minorities and women have increased, key informants from the Ombudsman's Office (DDP) indicated that they would like assistance finding ethnic minority or gender legal specialists. Future programming could foster programs for these specialists at local universities or work with groups to develop a training curriculum, workshop or network to help public defenders better understand issues related to ethnic minorities or women undergoing the restitution process. Focus on LRU Capacity Building as well as Processing Times: As the LRU was building its capacity, it took time for the LRU and LRDP to develop a thorough understanding of restitution guidelines while considering the unique needs of communities and new restitution developments such as secondary occupants. Future programming should ensure that LRU capacity-building success is not entirely defined as a measurement of internal administrative processes until the LRU has become more stable in developing quality cases and meeting all new restitution demands within reasonable timeframes. Explore Opportunities for Additional Ethnic Minority Work: Future programs that support the specialized needs of ethnic minorities could explore other opportunities with the LRU such as providing (a) characterization of displaced communities seeking restitution within a municipality; (b) dialogue with ethnic communities to standardize restitution rulings on collective lands; and (c) training of the agency’s staff on ethnic issues. Clarify Information Confidentiality Policies: During the PE, some LRU officials were concerned about the confidentiality of sensitive information gathered by LRDP consultants and the risk of misuse after the contract ended. Future programs should clarify and share confidentiality procedures (and being LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 4 amenable to adjustments) with the LRU to ensure that its officials are able to securely share information. FORMALIZATION This section summarizes key findings and recommendations for LRDP’s formalization program component. FINDINGS While LRDP has made progress on inter-institutional dialogue about formalization processes, evidence is limited and overall institutional strengthening is not consistent. LRDP formalization efforts have largely focused on facilitating inter-institutional dialogue to increase coordination among the National Land Agency (ANT) and municipalities. LRDP has also helped regional Agustin Codazzi Geographic Institute (IGAC) offices by hiring professional staff, such as lawyers and surveyors (reconocedores), who visit the field to assist in the formalization process. According to key informants and the LRDP team, formalization has been the most challenging program component to implement because of several setbacks from the transition from Colombian Rural Development Institute (INCODER) to ANT. However, there are some projects worth noting. These include the establishment of the Land Offices in the municipalities of Ovejas, Santander de Quilichao and Fuente de Oro, and individual titling in other regions. LRDP also played a central role in piloting a massive formalization methodology (which will also serve as a multi-purpose cadaster [MPC] pilot) in the municipality of Ovejas, but its success cannot be evaluated yet since it is not full-fledged and has not moved into the mainstreaming phase. The Tolima formalization program in Chaparral was noted as being highly successful and meaningful in supporting women in the formalization process. Overall, there is some evidence of increased citizens’ awareness of individual land rights across programming areas. Households in LRDP programming municipalities are also much more likely than comparison households to report that they are more knowledgeable about their property rights compared to three years ago. However, FGDs indicate that there is still institutional distrust and lack of communication about land titling efforts, particularly related to collective tenure. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR Evaluate the Results of Formalization Pilots: The establishment of the Land Office in Santander de Quilichao and Ovejas (and the office under development in Fuente de Oro) should be tracked and evaluated during the remaining program implementation period. Furthermore, the two offices should be compared in terms of obstacles and achievements in order to better understand how challenges faced by Land Offices may vary by region and identify lessons learned for future potential Land Offices. For LRDP and future programming, results of the formalization pilot methodology in Ovejas should also be analyzed. Additionally, these efforts should be compared with other formalization activities supported by institutions such as the World Bank, in terms of effectiveness. FUTURE PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS Support Institutions to Engage in Trust Building Activities: Formalization will only be sustainable if people believe the process is trustworthy and if the costs of formalization are reasonable. These institutions need to collect the revenue that the formalization process generates, and revenue will not be generated without citizen participation. Similar to the cross-cutting recommendation, the LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 5 evaluation findings show that additional work is required to build trust in the key land institutions and in the overall formalization process. Explore the Potential of Alternative Dispute Resolution: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) was briefly assessed as a dispute methodology previously and is currently being explored again in the municipality of Ovejas. This method has a significant potential to support building more institutional trust since individuals would most likely not feel as intimidated and confused by the complexities of the formal legal/judicial systems. Improve Donor Coordination: To promote more effective coordination and generate new partnerships, a USAID-financed initiative, such as LRDP, should report regularly on the dialogue conducted with parallel formalization/land information initiatives of other donors (Switzerland, the Netherlands). Identify Potential New Partners and Roles: Future programs should explore better ways to engage notaries or better define notaries’ role, in conjunction with Registry and Notaries Superintendency (SNR). RURAL DEVELOPMENT This section summarizes key findings and recommendations for LRDP’s rural development program component. FINDINGS LRDP’s rural development programming efforts show the most visible progress in facilitating the creation of PPPs, assisting municipal governments in drafting and implementing development plans, and mobilizing private and public funds for rural development activities. Although several efforts were implemented as recently as May 2016, there is evidence from stakeholders and key informants of institutional strengthening on the part of producer associations, who report improvement in organizational skills and greater access to financial institutions. There is also some evidence that communities in LRDP programming areas have greater rates of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) participation than comparison areas. LRDP’s role as the initial coordinator, but not as a partner in PPPs, renders these partnerships highly sustainable, although some challenges remain. Private sector partners noted concern about the various producer association operational models and what rules, if any, should guide their interactions with producer associations. Although there is still some concern about the sustained commitment of local authorities to the PPPs, key informants conveyed that LRDP was a source of continuity for rural development efforts throughout the electoral cycles. Moreover, informants acknowledged that LRDP built bridges between the GoC and communities that previously had not been engaged in activities with GoC authorities. One reason for this increased engagement reported by key informants is their perception of LRDP as a non-political program, designed for the specific purpose of fostering rural development synergies. However, FGDs still indicate that there is continued fear and distrust of rural development activities, which is rooted in farmers’ past experiences with inconsistent technical assistance and lack of communication. Technical assistance in drafting rural development plans also appears to be well-received by municipal governments, though impacts on the household level will only be evident in the long-term. Some mayors also acknowledge LRDP’s support has increased their capacity to mobilize resources from regional and lead rural development projects. According to LRDP M&E and USAID/Colombia data, LRDP has also LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 6 mobilized substantial funds from the public and private sector for rural development activities. Many mayors also indicated that the number of rural project submissions funded by the departmental or national government in the past three years has increased. One less positive finding is that the rural development component has not followed LRDP’s “integrated approach”, i.e. ensuring (if needed) that beneficiary farmers also have access to assistance across other components, such as restitution or formalization. Although the larger geographical areas of LRDP are the same, the PE team did not find evidence that the members of the producer associations involved in rural development were beneficiaries of restitution and formalization. Overall, the weak state of rural infrastructure and the GoC’s disjointed approach to rural development remain challenges to the future of LRDP rural development interventions in Colombia. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR Determine Producer Association Role in PPP: LRDP should determine what, if any, operational model or guidelines would be the most beneficial for a private sector partner to support. This will promote a more consistent business model with private sector partners and ensure that the rural communities involved in PPPs are benefiting as intended. Continue Developing and Driving Local Government Commitment: LRDP’s assistance to numerous development plans commits the regional and local governments to LRDP’s approach of building capacities and removing bottlenecks in rural areas. For future success, it is critical that LRDP continues nurturing and developing their relationships with local governments and driving the commitment to development plans and PPP activities. To help ensure this commitment, LRDP may also consider mechanisms for citizens to hold local government accountable for implementation of these activities. FUTURE PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS Require Effective Overlapping of Beneficiaries: Currently, LRDP works with producer associations that are already established, which limits their ability to provide well-rounded economic support via LRDP’s goal of using an “integrated approach.” While it is possible that integration can be achieved going forward with PPPs (including restituted and formalization families), future programming should consider which options will most greatly benefit these rural families. Some options to explore include (1) the possibility of establishing as a producer association pre-requisite of at least some association members’ engagement in restitution or formalization, (2) finding producer associations with significant interest and need for restitution or formalization, or (3) providing restitution or formalization beneficiaries with the opportunity to participate in or form producer associations. Although option three would require more resources, it could be achieved through determining areas where restitution or formalization needs are particularly high and engaging with those communities. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT This section summarizes key findings and recommendations for LRDP’s information management program component. FINDINGS LRDP has made improvements in land-related information management systems and procedures through design of the Land Node, promotion of cooperation across institutions, and support of LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 7 digitization and organization of land-related information. The clearest effect to date is increasing internal and inter-institutional coordination surrounding land records and other information between different land entities. These efforts are critical to improving the efficiency of land restitution and the land formalization processes. This component of LRDP programming is aimed strictly at institutions; household level trends were not evaluated. Various information systems supported by LRDP addressed the needs of beneficiary agencies. However, the dispersion of systems including project banks, land use planning systems and monitoring systems may prove unsustainable without the development of a common interface such as the Land Node. While the Land Node could potentially be the most impactful idea and product from LRDP information management efforts, there is concern over the lack of full commitment and financial resources from all involved land entities. Overall, retaining qualified staff, gaining full commitment, and coordinating financial resources between institutions are challenges to the future development and sustainability of the Land Node. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR Promote Land Node’s Capabilities Specific to Each Agency: The lack of commitment and financial resources from all involved land entities in addition to informant interviews suggests that agencies are not fully convinced of the benefits of the Land Node. If the Land Node’s success depends on GoC buy-in and investment, then LRDP should work to better promote awareness of the Land Node’s potential benefits to the relevant agencies. Alignment of IT Investments and Alternative Financing Methods: It is critical to quickly align the investment plans of the major land entities in a way that prevents duplication or overlapping of IT systems. Additionally, exploring alternative financing methods (such as LRDP’s support towards the recent award to the LRU from the Colombian innovation agency iNNpulsa) will be essential to support future costs. FUTURE PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS Define Process for Land Node’s Role in Formalization: To ensure that the Land Node supports the massive formalization methodology, a specific process must be agreed upon in advance by the relevant national, regional and local institutions. This process should include reviewing legal/cadaster information, and conducting field visits and technical studies. Ensure Permanent Availability of Technical Expertise: Resource constraints to hire qualified staff may imperil some changes that require continuous expert input. While SNR has welcomed the support of LRDP technical staff on land information systems, SNR requires strengthening its own staff with appropriate expertise (i.e. engineers) for LRDP investments to be sustainable and long-term. CROSSCUTTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section provides crosscutting findings that summarize the overall results across components, including for gender and ethnic minority issues. This section also provides a series of recommendations for LRDP’s final programming year, as well as for future programming that may target similar objectives as LRDP. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS LRDP is a complex and novel GoC capacity building program that posed significant challenges for USAID, Tetra Tech and GoC partners in dealing with Colombia’s critical land issues. Difficulty in coordinating partners across Colombia’s fragmented institutional structures, covering a large geographical area with varying social and economic conditions (topography, ethnicity, etc.), and the multifaceted needs of vulnerable communities added intricacy to program planning and implementation, and ultimately led to somewhat dispersed programming efforts. Various program activities also took years to plan, leaving little time for implementation. Programs that involve institutional change, such as LRDP, take time to develop, particularly when working with numerous institutions and changing legal and institutional frameworks. Despite these challenges, LRDP established effective working relationships with key GoC partner institutions at the national and regional levels. National agencies, such as Land Restitution Unit (LRU), INCODER/ANT, National Planning Department (DNP) (for formalization), IGAC, SNR (for land information, restitution and formalization), and other partners, have actively participated in the implementation of LRDP activities. For rural development, LRDP has worked closely with Departmental and Municipal authorities, such as mayors, to build bridges between the GoC and communities that previously had never been engaged in activities with GoC authorities. LRDP also worked on the modernization of internal operating processes of partner GoC entities including technical assistance for new policies, procedures, protocols and some information technology (IT) improvements. Partners indicated that LRDP implementation has also proceeded smoothly despite electoral cycles that threatened to derail some local initiatives. Findings also indicate that mayors are a critical link between community members, municipal governments, and departmental/national processes and procedures, making LRDP’s already established relationship with these regional entities key for future programming. Through working with various national and regional level government entities, LRDP has improved inter-institutional dialogue and cooperation, and made progress towards establishing a common vision around various land-related policies and legal instruments. In these ways, LRDP has contributed towards aligning the efforts of decentralized institutions around a joint strategy that goes beyond traditional silos. LRDP’s design sought to build GoC capacity while avoiding GoC dependence on the program to ensure sustainability. In line with this objective, LRDP provided limited direct in-kind or cash support. Despite intentions, this shift in development approach from the traditional donor-financed program model to the LRDP model has not been fully endorsed by some GoC partners. Although most informants knew that LRDP does not follow the traditional model, a significant number still claimed that providing direct financial resources to bridge the agencies’ urgent resource needs might have been more effective. While GoC partners generally acknowledge that LRDP has made a positive difference through specific high valued-added deliverables, this consistent preference across agencies for direct financial resources suggests that LRDP has not demonstrated sufficient effectiveness to garner support for a transition away from the traditional donor-financed program model. There is little evidence that LRDP’s various GoC capacity-building activities have set up the basis for long-term institutional strengthening, bringing into question the sustainability of such efforts. Most informants did not have strong opinions about large-scale institutional changes when asked specifically about the long-term impacts of LRDP activities. In cases such as the increased capacity of the LRU, evidence cannot always be specifically attributed to LRDP, due to other ongoing external interventions or natural improvements in learned skills and processes that are expected over time. Additionally, there is no indication that the proposed integrated approach among LRDP’s four program components was LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 9 effectively in place across regions and institutions. Even though activities under each component are under implementation in the five geographic program areas, each component has followed its own dynamics, possibly reflective of the various GoC counterparts or internal structure of LRDP. Lastly, almost all FGDs noted communities’ distrust and lack of confidence in, and communication with, GoC institutions. While not specifically under the scope of LRDP, formalization, restitution and rural development activities will only be sustainable if people believe the processes and institutions are trustworthy. Overall, these crosscutting findings indicate that the numerous LRDP activities were not conducive to large-scale institutional change or to effective program component integration within a program timeframe of less than four years (September 2014 through June 2018). RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR Continue GoC Capacity Building with More Focused Approach: LRDP should continue capacity building efforts amongst GoC institutions, but with a more focused approach that is not spread across smaller tangential activities or such a large geographic area. The ongoing transition to a new (and for the most part still uncertain) legal and institutional framework will put strong pressures on LRDP during the last year of implementation. LRDP must be more selective about the program activities to ensure maximum impact during a post-conflict period marked by presidential elections in 2018. Continue GoC Engagement Through Electoral Cycles: LRDP’s high-level of engagement should be retained during the remaining implementation period to ensure that projects are not derailed after another electoral cycle. Retain a Facilitating Role: Most informants highlighted the benefits of LRDP upcoming technical assistance activities in terms of increased cooperation among land sector institutions. LRDP should continue to act as a facilitator of dialogue, cooperation and policy development. Maintain an Opportunistic Approach: LRDP should maintain its ability to be flexible and adaptable to changing GoC priorities, and to identify and target resources to geographical areas or partner agencies that are more certain to deliver results. Keep a Regional Focus: Each regional office developed its own strategy on how to meet the land and rural development sector needs and priorities. LRDP’s regional focus is highly commendable given the challenges of the institutional transitions at the central level resulting from the disestablishment of INCODER and the slow start-up process of ANT while ensuring the cohesion and cross-fertilization of various regional interventions at the central level. While this aspect should be retained, focusing on a fewer number of regions may be helpful to ensure that resources are not spread too thin. Retain a Multidisciplinary Team: Retaining a multidisciplinary LRDP team is important to fulfill the activities under all program components, avoid strong regional imbalances in program implementation, and to more effectively integrate program components. Continue Keeping a Low Profile: LRDP’s low profile means that results may be attributed to the GoC partners they support, which can improve the perception about these institutions (the core focus of LRDP design). While internal institutional changes have minimal visibility, citizens’ perceptions may change if expectations are properly managed and results are delivered on time Clarify Program Purpose and Scope to Stakeholders: While LRDP is flexible in its ability to adapt programming needs to changing priorities, shifting priorities and scope can impact GoC LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 10 expectations, plans, and budgets, and LRDP should ensure that the scope of its support is consistent and communicated effectively to stakeholders. Improve LRDP’s Planning Practices and Client Responsiveness: While some informants noted LRDP’s agility to fixing problems, others reported that LRDP was slow to address their needs and did not pay attention to their preferences, forcing them to carry out the activities that were supposed to be supported by LRDP. While this contradicts LRDP’s model that the GoC should ultimately use its own resources to implement activities, it is important to note that this impacts GoC perceptions of LRDP. In addition to clarifying program purpose and scope, establishing more effective decision-making processes with the GoC will help ensure stakeholder needs are met and improve stakeholders’ perception of the LRDP model of providing capacity building assistance. FUTURE PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS Revise Program Scope and Timeframe: LRDP was too ambitious an undertaking in terms of partners, issues and geographical coverage. Future programming in the land sector should take into account GoC constraints, start-up times, community hurdles and the complexities of any institutional strengthening program in the land and rural development sector. Suggestions include selecting a smaller number of components, land-related issues, partner agencies or geographic areas. While this may undermine the original intent of LRDP, an expansive program cannot lead to sustainable results across all activities within a five-year timeframe. Support Local Institutions to Engage Citizens and Build Trust: Distrust and lack of confidence in, and communication with, GoC institutions was noted in almost every focus group discussion (FGD). Future programs should support institutions to sustain more meaningful interaction and communication with citizens, to build community trust and improve perceptions of the institutions themselves. Creating more opportunities for citizens to engage with these institutions, such as facilitating collaborative public meetings or building stronger connections (i.e. social worker visits to communities), is key to building this trust, and demonstrating that the institutions themselves are leaders in reinforcing peace and post conflict activities. Working with local authorities that citizens have more exposure to, such as mayors or local Land Offices, could be an avenue to build such trust and establish stronger community relationships. Integrate Program Components: This PE did not find evidence that the proposed integrated approach among the four components of LRDP was effectively in place across regions and institutions. Future programs should develop a specific mechanism so that individual or community beneficiaries have access (if needed) to multiple assistance opportunities across components. Improve M&E Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts: Future programming should include resources for baseline data collection that is specific to the goal and outcomes set by the program. Despite the various challenges in attempting to monitor and evaluate the complexity of a program such as LRDP, it is critical for future programming to improve M&E efforts. Specifically, tracking program beneficiaries across components will better enable the program to achieve and evaluate the goal of an integrated approach where a single beneficiary has access to multiple component efforts. In the case of producer associations, producer association leaders could be required to submit their producer association member lists in a standardized format. Lastly, future evaluation work must allow sufficient time to evaluate a program as complex as LRDP. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 11 GENDER AND ETHNIC MINORITIES This section summarizes key findings and recommendations for LRDP’s cross cutting gender and ethnic minority work. FINDINGS LRDP has been able to engage some vulnerable populations such as women and ethnic minorities in conflict-afflicted areas through a series of awareness raising activities structured around three components (restitution, formalization, rural development). Some positive effects are noticeable in terms of advancing the property rights of women during the restitution and formalization processes, and supporting indigenous communities’ claims to collective title of ancestral land. The Tolima formalization program in Chaparral was noted as being highly successful and meaningful in supporting women in the formalization process. Evidence also shows that women continue to be more distrustful than men of various GoC institutions across all program components. For rural development, there is little evidence that women in programming areas are benefiting more than women in comparison areas, and no improvements for women compared to men. Overall, the PE found some dissatisfaction during FGDs by ethnic minority groups, who expressed concern about the lack of communication regarding their collective restitution cases, and overall fear and mistrust of government institutions. Irrespective of differences between programming and comparison areas, results still indicate that men show more positive results compared to women across all program components. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR Emphasize Rural Development for Women: LRDP could focus efforts on rural development objectives specifically for women over the last year of the program. For example, an analysis of barriers for women entering PPPs or an examination of the roles women occupy in mixed gender associations around decision making and influence would be useful. Continue Gender-Focused Formalization Efforts: Formalization initiatives, such as those in Fuente de Oro and Chaparral, are attempting to establish a new government-citizen relationship with an emphasis on formalization efforts that target women. These efforts should be mainstreamed. FUTURE PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS Support Institutions to Conduct Trust Building Activities Targeting Women: Future programs should continue to support the GoC in designing and implementing activities that will specifically reach and build trust amongst women of GoC institutions. This support could entail ensuring that more social workers and other individuals that work in communities are women themselves, supporting all-women PPPs or helping women have more exposure to government activities. Strengthen Outcomes for Women: While the need to strengthen outcomes for women is widely understood, it must continue to be emphasized as there is still room for improvement in supporting women across all activities. Strengthen Capacity to Communicate and Work Extensively with Ethnic Minorities: Findings confirm that communities need direct and consistent communication with the programs they are working with to improve trust and develop a more productive relationship. Future programs should determine prior to implementation whether they can be effective and conducive to fitting the profile of LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 12 a “community operator.” If not, this may entail creating an entirely new program to target and support ethnic minorities. The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Sections 1–3 covers background information and evaluation methods, Sections 4–7 present the detailed results and recommendations for each LRDP component, Section 8 provides findings and recommendations for gender and ethnic minority programming, followed by cross-cutting findings, conclusions, and recommendations in Section 9. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 13 1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS EVALUATION QUESTION & HYPOTHESES This PE was designed to address the following six key evaluation questions. 1. What effect has LRDP had on beneficiaries, especially on women, youth and ethnic minorities in conflict￾affected areas receiving technical support from LRDP? 2. Is LRDP using a coordinated and integrated approach among its four components in responding to multi￾faceted problems and diverse regional and institutional requirements? 3. What were the LRDP start-up challenges, and what are the accomplishments and progress to date, in establishing the necessary relationships with, and operational mechanisms within, GoC partner institutions at the national and local levels to achieve the full set of LRDP activities and objectives by July 2018? 4. What are the achievements and challenges of the institutional strengthening activity/objective given the political and institutional dynamics of GoC entities technically supported by LRDP? 5. To what extent the institutional strengthening activity/objective of the program has been able to address structural land and rural development constraints for effective implementation of land and rural development policy? 6. Does the progress to date prepare GoC partner institutions well to address upcoming institutional changes? To provide a comprehensive assessment of the research questions across each of LRDP’s four structural components, the PE tested a number of research hypotheses in line with the evaluation questions and program theory guiding the program. Depending on the scope and level of intervention (municipal, regional, national, etc.), the evaluation examined LRDP performance across a range of hypotheses and, when data allowed, assessed improvements relative to comparison areas. Below, are the core hypotheses that serve as a focus of the PE. Municipalities, regions, or departments receiving LRDP interventions will: Restitution • H-1. Display greater rates of resolved land restitution cases • H-2. Have faster processing times for administrative portion of land restitution cases • H-3. Have increased number of women and ethnic minority groups involved in the restitution process • H-4. Have improved perception of the quality of LRU restitution cases Formalization • H-5. Display stronger administrative capacity and understanding of property formalization processes for rural populations • H-6. Have improved accounting and recovery of public lands • H-7. Display stronger access rates of women and key ethnic minority groups to property formalization services LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 14 Rural Development • H-8. Have increased mobilization of funds for rural development • H-9. Have increased number of Departmental and Municipal Development Plans that include reference to rural development • H-10. Have increased rates of submissions of rural projects to be funded by departmental and municipal governments • H-11. Have increased rates of new LRDP-supported public-private partnerships (PPPs) • H-12. Display stronger access rates of women and ethnic minorities in PPPs • H-13. Display improved livelihood and welfare outcomes in target regions Information Management • H-14. Have reduction in processing time for restitution ruling monitoring system • H-15. Have improved perception among administrators of information-sharing capacity and efficacy Beneficiaries in regions receiving LRDP’s interventions will: Restitution • H-1. Have improved access to legal representation in restitution-related disputes • H-2. Have improved perception of efficiency and fairness in the restitution legal process • H-3. Have improved perception of efficiency and fairness related to the specific Colombian institutions governing land restitution cases • H-4. Have increased knowledge of LRU related services Formalization • H-6. Perceive greater tenure security and protection of household land • H-7. Have increased sense of security that land will not be subject to future legal dispute • H-8. Perceive greater efficacy and capacity of departmental land-related institutions • H-9. Have improved awareness of the value of being a land title holder Rural Development • H-10. Have improved livelihood and welfare outcomes • H-11. Have improved opinion of the government’s efforts to promote rural development • H-12. Have increased awareness of Private-Public-Partnerships LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 15 2.0 LRDP BACKGROUND BACKGROUND OF LRDP USAID’s program to improve land tenure in Colombia addressed two key development issues: (I) the displacement of millions of Colombians, particularly in rural areas, because of armed conflict between the GoC and various guerilla/paramilitary groups; and (ii) the high level of poverty and inequality in the same rural areas. Early in program design, weak state presence and low-levels of public investment in rural areas and informal and insecure land tenure and property rights of vulnerable groups were identified as key causes of a vicious cycle of armed conflict that devastated the Colombian countryside for over 50 years. For example, land conflicts reaching back to the start of the 20th century produced a long legacy of insecurity and squatting that have implications for landholding patterns today (LeGrande 1986, Roldan 2002). Migration of landless peasants to frontier regions throughout that century resulted also in high levels of land ownership informality throughout the country (LeGrande 1989, Ibanez and Querubin 2004). Combined with high levels of inequality of ownership, these dynamics have produced fertile ground for unrest and insurgency exacerbated by the growth of illicit crops. This extremely profitable venture was originally fostered by organized crime but ended up associated with the financing of insurgent groups. Drug trafficking also fueled a vicious circle of impunity and violence in large portions of the countryside that featured illicit enrichment, capture of local authorities and massive land grabs. As state authorities were less able to provide law-enforcement services in large tracts of rural areas, such groups took comparison over more land and co-opted more smallholders into growing illicit crops. The failed land reform efforts in the 1960s may have been behind the formation of insurgent armed groups in the country’s periphery (Marulanda 1973, Albertus and Kaplan 2012) and land issues were in turn exacerbated by the armed conflict. Conflict pushed millions of people out of their homes and produced one of the largest internally displaced populations in the world (IMDC 2016). The implications for land tenure were enormous: an estimated 6.6 million hectares of land were forcibly abandoned between 1980 and 2010 (Garay et al., 2010). These dynamics resulted in the traditional legal and policy framework for land being unable to face the challenges of restitution of land to millions of displaced civilians as well as greater formalization of land ownership more broadly. The GoC, supposedly one of the major landholders in the country, is equally affected by the lack of clean and marketable titles. As a consequence, special procedures had to be developed to deal with land restitution claims and land claims from secondary occupants who may have settled on or bought forcibly abandoned land, as well as the restitution claims of vulnerable ethnic communities. The main legal instrument to this end is Law 1448 of 2011, the Victims and Land Restitution Law. After decades of failed negotiations and attempts to militarily defeat the guerrilla groups active in the country, since the beginning of his first term in 2010 President Santos adopted a new strategy to end the LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 16 Colombian internal armed conflict through a political solution. In 2012, he formally began negotiations with the guerrillas of the FARC. By May 2013, the GoC had reached consensus on a first agreement with FARC precisely on comprehensive rural development dealing with issues of access and use of land, unproductive lands, property formalization, agricultural productivity and protected areas. Subsequent negotiations during 2014 and 2015 reached additional consensus on other complex issues such as illegal drugs, political participation and transitional justice. The Final Agreement to End the Conflict and Ensure a Stable and Lasting Peace (featuring a cease-fire, handover of weapons and guerrilla members’ reintegration into civilian life) was signed on November 24, 2016 in includes revised versions of the previous agreements. OVERVIEW OF LRDP Considering the ongoing transition to a post-conflict society, LRDP was designed as an institutional strengthening initiative to help the GoC improve its ability to resolve the complex land and rural development issues. LRDP is a five-year task order, initiated at the end of July 2013, under the STARR IQC. The program is currently in Year 4 of its five-year duration. LRDP works in five regions, encompassing six departments and 57 municipalities. The six departments include Cesar, Sucre, Bolivar, Tolima, Meta and Cauca. LRDP has four objectives, which are also the project’s structural components. These components take place at the municipal, departmental and national levels and are outlined below. 1. Restitution Component: Increase the capacity of the LRU and relevant agencies to restitute lands to victims of conflict; 2. Formalization Component: Strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and relevant GoC agencies to formalize rural property; 3. Rural Development Component: Increase the opportunities for sustainable licit rural livelihoods in conflict-affected areas; and 4. Information and Knowledge Management Component: Improve availability and efficient use of information to deliver land rights services. LRDP’s capacity building and institutional strengthening project components aim to establish a new methodology for the way that USAID provides assistance to the land sector. LRDP and USAID worked closely to develop the “LRDP approach.” Rather than USAID implementing a project to fill a “service delivery gap,” LRDP launched the program with the intent of providing tools and support to strengthen the GoC agencies and remove internal bottlenecks. By supporting the GoC’s own initiatives, LRDP focused on developing a package of assistance instruments that would enable the GoC entities to be fully responsible for accomplishing their institutional mandates. LRDP also aims to achieve an “integrated” approach across all program components. This involves assisting departments and municipalities to mobilize resources to improve the quality of life in rural areas. At the time of this PE, LRDP’s PPP strategy represents the main cross-cutting activity, which integrates land and rural development interventions at the regional level. LRDP is currently working with the GoC at the national and regional levels to work towards mainstreaming this integrated approach. For more detailed information on LRDP’s activities and theoretical framework, refer to LRDP’s Year 4 Work Plan or Annual report. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 17 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS The PE used a mix of primary and secondary data sources to investigate and track the progress to date in the achievement of LRDP’s goals and activities throughout various geographical areas and target groups. Although this is a PE (as opposed to an impact evaluation), the study compares trends across programing and comparison areas on key outcomes of interest through rigorous data collection and analysis at the municipal and household levels. DATA SOURCES AND EVALUATION METHODS The PE relied on a mixed method approach, employing both quantitative and qualitative data collection. The quantitative instruments include: 1) a beneficiary household survey; 2) a stakeholder survey; and 3) secondary M&E data analysis. The qualitative instruments include: 1) KIIs; and 2) FGDs. The instruments and respondents were deliberately selected to provide an assessment of the range of LRDP interventions, which were not applied evenly across regions or municipalities. For more detailed information on the quantitative and qualitative matching and sampling procedures, respondent selection and sampling characteristics, please refer to Annex 1—Quantitative Methods and Annex 2—Qualitative Methods. All original survey instruments received Institutional Review Board approval from Duke University, and were pre-tested and piloted prior to the baseline data collection. Cloudburst also partnered with a local Colombian data collection firm (IPSOS) to collect the required quantitative data for the study, including the beneficiary household survey and with GoC stakeholder survey. BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY A large-N beneficiary household survey (N=1462) was conducted in 50 municipalities across the five LRDP programmed regions—25 LRDP programmed municipalities that were matched to 25 comparison municipalities. The beneficiary survey involved a 45 to 60-minute structured survey with modules on restitution, tenure security, formalization, knowledge/awareness of restitution and formalization processes, and rural development. The instrument (Annex 3) also included traditional context and demographic questions, as well as those bearing on attitudes toward Colombia’s conflict, land insecurity, and the Colombian institutions that govern land. MATCHING & SAMPLING LRDP selected municipalities for programming based on how well they overlapped with regions with recent histories of armed conflict and regions proposed by a number of governmental and non￾governmental development organizations in the country. To produce a rigorous PE report, the PE team generated a comparison set of municipalities to compare to LRDP municipalities for the quantitative analysis. As such, the PE team pursued a matching strategy using sub-municipal data (see Annex 4). LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 18 The matching algorithm generated 50 high quality matched pairs (i.e., 100 municipalities), which was ultimately reduced to 50 municipalities (25 matched pairs). These were shared with USAID and LRDP. LRDP provided feedback that approximately half of the matched LRDP programmed municipalities had not received a large amount of programming—and therefore suggested 12 replacement municipalities where a larger number of activities have been implemented. The PE team accepted these 12 replacements—while noting that this reflects the selection of 25 non-representative LRDP programmed municipalities—and subsequently generated 12 new matched comparison municipalities. After determining an optimal matched set of programming and comparison municipalities, the PE team worked closely with LRDP, USAID and LRU Regional Directors while in country to collect sufficiently detailed data about beneficiary veredas, or communities2, at the municipal level. The sampling frame for the beneficiary household survey was structured using sub-municipal data from three sources: programming interventions from LRDP, producer association community lists, and names of communities from LRU Regional Directors where restitution beneficiaries live.3 Depending on the availability of beneficiary lists, a sampling framework that emphasized direct beneficiaries was devised; otherwise, in municipalities where the lists could not be generated, the sampling frame targeted communities with a significant number of direct LRDP beneficiaries. For the comparison municipalities, the names of communities were also collected to have a comparison group of communities with a high number of restitution requests or where there was demand. In comparison municipalities with no restitution data, communities were selected that have similar qualities to other rural communities in the region. Outcomes in the findings sections are analyzed per the types of LRDP interventions implemented across the programmed municipalities. GOC STAKEHOLDER SURVEY A 45-60 minute closed-ended survey interview was conducted with representatives of key GoC institutions (N=81) involved in LRDP programmed municipalities and comparison municipalities. The stakeholder groups include mayors (22), land-restitution judges4 (23) and key administrators within the land restitution offices (36).5 The GoC Stakeholder survey instrument is detailed in Annex 5. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS The PE team conducted ten small FGDs with project beneficiaries in eight programming municipalities. The FGDs were 90-120 minutes in length, can be found in Annex 6. The FGDs were designed to capture information on LRDP’s four structural components across the following key beneficiary sub groups: women, youth, producer association members, and Afro-Colombian and Indigenous. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 65 LRDP implementing partners, GoC representatives at the national and regional level, and other key stakeholders, each identified based on their specialized knowledge of LRDP implementation and program activities and specific topics of 2 Vereda is a subdivisional administrative part of a municipality in Colombia. In this report, it’s referred to as a “village” or “community.” 3 The specific concerns of LRU about the structure of the sample and the protocol to approach respondents were taken into account throughout the process. 4 While LRDP does not directly support the judiciary, land restitution judges are key stakeholders in assessing the quality of cases coming from the LRU. They also have access to land related information systems and a deep understanding of restitution. LRDP was not assessed directly on judicial processing times. 5 Due to some rejections by intended stakeholders, the total number of stakeholder respondents is below the expected sample size of 100 respondents. All stakeholder groups were agreed upon with LRDP and USAID as part of the evaluation design process. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 19 relevance to the PE questions. Interviews were conducted across each of the five programming regions asking about implementation and program activities, as well as other specific topics of relevance. The key informant interview (KII) protocol is listed in Annex 7. SECONDARY DATA SOURCES Project M&E data, annual reports, and quarterly reports were used to provide context for primary outcome indicators and to understand LRDP’s target goals versus actual results achieved. Annex 1— Quantitative Methods includes a description of the M&E data that was analyzed. LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED Limitations and challenges encountered in the field are summarized below and described in detail in Annex 8. Beneficiary identification & responsiveness: The sampling frame for the beneficiary household survey relied heavily on the quality of sub-municipal data for restitution, producer associations and formalization. The availability and quality of data varied by the individual in charge of the data or whether that individual was responsive to the request or not. Producer association lists consisted of photos of documents or a combination of handwritten names of individuals and communities. For formalization contacts, most individuals did not have a list of beneficiaries. To overcome this challenge, IPSOS was given the contact information of leaders to request their support in gathering a group of beneficiaries. Lack of cooperation from local government: In some cases, local governments were uncooperative with data collection. Some municipalities informed the survey team upon arrival that special permissions would have to be acquired, which in some cases slowed down the data collection process and in others made data collection impossible. In contexts where indigenous communities governed a village, the team often met resistance from these groups in carrying out surveys and alternate locations had to be chosen. Difficult survey conditions: Climate and distance often conspired to make data collection more difficult. In a few cases, recent rains made road access to certain communities impossible or too costly. In a broader set of cases, communities selected by the LRDP, LRU, or identified by the PE team as ideal sample locations were very far from the municipal head, in some cases as much as seven hours away. Surveying these communities would be too costly, and closer alternatives had to be found. Safety & threats: In a few cases, the survey team encountered safety concerns that required altering the sampling strategy. Once in the field, the team also encountered several communities where either armed groups were present or coca cultivation was underway; these areas were resampled. Lack of cooperation from key informants: The final lists of key informants presented difficulties in scheduling interviews with the intended key informant, canceled or rescheduled interviews, or stakeholders insisting on being replaced by subordinates. FGD locations: While the PE team worked with LRDP and USAID to select relevant FGD areas, adjustments were made in cases where communities were inaccessible. Communities that were more than four hours away from an urban location were ultimately not considered for a FGD. For indigenous territories where the PE team was not allowed to enter, the discussion participants were given a travel allowance to come to an urban location and provided with food upon arrival. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 20 4.0 FINDINGS—RESTITUTION INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES Under Law No. 1448 of 2011, the LRU received a fixed-term (10 year) statutory mandate to provide administrative services to victims of involuntary displacement and eviction as a result of the internal conflict after January 1st, 1985. The law provides for a mixed administrative-judicial restitution process. The LRU assists the victims in the preparation of an administrative file that is submitted to Special Restitution Land Courts for review. The LRU may also issue some protective measures to avoid the land being sold or otherwise transferred to third parties while the restitution process is underway. The Land Courts (a group of civil courts temporarily assigned to the resolution of restitution claims) make their final decisions based on the information provided by the LRU.6 One initial challenge for LRDP to work with the LRU was the difficulty in moving from a legal approach to trying to understand the unique social and economic issues involved in each restitution case. Restitution is a complex process that implies the reconstruction of facts that happened up to more than 30 years ago with the help of scarce surviving evidence. While the law has shifted the burden of proof from the claimants, and limited the defenses available to current occupants, the LRU still must verify the information provided by the claimants in order to build a strong case that has a chance of passing the test of judicial scrutiny. Each case is complex with varying outcomes between monetary compensation or restituted land or the realization that the land is currently occupied. Secondary occupants were an unexpected start-up challenge for LRDP, which may have impacted LRDP’s achievement targets related to processing times. Restitution is the component that shows the most visible quantitative progress, even though this progress may still fall short of the LRDP’s projected goals. Initial restitution targets were ambitious given various obstacles LRDP faced related to the LRU start up challenges including complex and unique cases and expanding mandates to include verification if judicial relief measures (access to basic services, formalization) have occurred. According to LRDP’s Year 4 Work Plan, the LRU received 91,537 restitution requests, with almost half ready to move to the next step in the restitution process. Of these requests, more than 60% have completed the administrative phase and 45% of these have been recorded in the GoC’s Registry of Dispossessed and Forcibly Abandoned Lands. Of the recorded requests, more than 75% have been presented to judges and 30% have received a ruling (3,670). 6 These courts are managed by the Superior Council of the Judiciary of Colombia (CSJ) and are currently operating under a standardized model developed in 2013 on the basis of a pilot carried out with the CSJ’s own resources in Carmen de Bolívar, Montes de María. “Land tenure issues have been one of the major causes of the Colombian internal conflict. The LRDP program is currently one of the most important contributions of the international community for the post-conflict period.” George Zabaleta, Registrar of Public Instruments, Villavicencio (Meta) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 21 It is important to note that not all the regions that LRDP currently works in were micro-focalized (i.e. those areas deemed safe for land restitution) at the start of the program, which is another start-up challenge for LRDP in terms of consistent program implementation across all regions. While LRDP is continuing to facilitate the process of supporting restitution requests, the number of requests are about half of the expected amount. FINDINGS The restitution findings covered in this section include an overview of the conflict and restitution status of respondents, perceptions of Colombian land institutions, perceptions of the restitution process, knowledge about land rights and LRU related resources, LRU capacity building and processing times, and land restitution for women and ethnic minorities. Some context related information is also provided below, which was used to help inform recommendations and provide a deeper understanding of the issues LRDP is facing in program implementation. As LRDP interventions have been unequally applied across target municipalities, beneficiary household outcomes were only assessed in the geographic area where formalization interventions have been implemented. For each hypothesis, the “+” indicates positive results, a “-” indicates null results, and a “+/-” indicates a mix of both positive and null results. The specific outcome variables that were used to evaluate LRDP for restitution are detailed in Annex 9—Beneficiary Household Survey Outcome Tables and Annex 10—Stakeholder Survey Outcome Tables. CONFLICT AND RESTITUTION STATUS Forty-three percent of respondents (N=536) and their families have suffered harm as a result of conflicts in Colombia, similar across programming and comparison areas. Nearly half the respondents have either been forced to leave their land (27%, N=335) or had to abandon their land (20%, N=246) as a result of armed conflict. Given LRDP’s focus on restitution and conflict-afflicted areas these proportions are not surprising. Of those who were forced to leave their land, about half have since returned (53%, N=305), though this percentage is significantly larger in programming areas than comparison areas. Of program respondents who were forced to leave their land, 73% (N=205) are registered in the National Registry of Victims compared to only 56% (160) of comparison respondents, detailed in Figure 4-1. This is a statistically and substantively different finding between programming and comparison municipalities. Fourteen percent (N=180) of respondents in the overall sample have sought or are currently seeking restitution for their land. Of these, 27% (N=39) have had their land restituted. The remaining households are in various stages of the process, detailed in Figure 4-2 The findings show that LRDP respondents in programming areas are more likely than respondents in comparison areas to have their case under review (26% versus 12%), whereas comparison respondents are more likely to have had an administrative request submitted and rejected (24% versus 10%). LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 22 FIGURE 4-2 CURRENT STAGE IN LAND RESTITUTION PROCESS FIGURE 4-1 RESPONDENT IS REGISTERED WITH THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF VICTIMS LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 23 PERCEPTION OF COLOMBIAN LAND INSTITUTIONS This section examines household and FGD respondents’ perception of Colombian land entities and their perception of the efficiency and effectiveness of these land entities governing land restitution cases. Below is the hypothesis explored in this section. The “+” indicates positive results, a “-“ indicates null results and a “+/-“ indicates a mix of both positive and null results. H. LRDP beneficiaries have improved perceptions of efficiency and fairness related to the specific Colombian institutions governing land restitution cases (+) Indicators Perceptions of efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of local and regional land-related government entities (+) Perceptions of the regional and national government (+) Administrative Level Household (+) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs Eighty-four percent (N=47) of respondents in programming areas who have sought restitutions agree with the statement “I trust my legal counsel (provided via LRU, NGO, private lawyer etc.) and feel they have my best interest in mind”, in contrast to 63% (15) of comparison respondents, though these response rates are too low to test statistically. Fifty-eight percent (N=242) of respondents in programming areas trust the LRU versus fifty-three percent (N=284) of comparison respondents. Sixty￾five percent (N=295) of respondents in programming areas believe the local government is committed to enforcing land restitution orders, in comparison to 59% (N=406) of respondents in comparison municipalities. In the past three years, a quarter of households directly engaged with a government agency or with government officials for services or support. Such a low proportion is not surprising given historically weak access to state services in Colombia. Households in LRDP programming municipalities were slightly more likely to have engaged with a government agency, though this difference is not statistically significant. The most common public official that households engaged with is the mayor (58%, N=208), followed by the Municipal Ombudsman (33%, N=120) and the LRU (32%, N=114). Overall, local government appears to have the most direct engagement with the rural households in the sample. A full breakdown of agencies consulted is presented in Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1 AGENCIES CONSULTED FOR SERVICES OR SUPPORT IN THE PAST 3 YEARS. Agency Overall Programming Comparison LRU 32% (114) 22% (80) 9% (34) INCODER/ANT 22% (80) 16% (56) 7% (24) MARD 24% (87) 16% (57) 8% (30) Mayor 58% (208) 34% (121) 24% (87) Governor 19% (69) 12% (43) 7% (26) Municipal Ombudsman 33% (120) 18% (65) 15% (55) Public Defender (Defensor) 13% (47) 9% (34) 4% (13) Registry Office 17% (62) 11% (41) 6% (21) IGAC 6% (20) 4% (15) 1% (5) Land restitution courts 12% (45) 9% (33) 3% (12) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 24 Nearly two-thirds of households that have engaged with government officials in programming areas (69%, N=75) believe they have been treated respectfully by government officials throughout the restitution process, in comparison to 61% (N=37) of comparison respondents, as shown in Figure 4-3. Seventy-one percent (N=91) believe they have been treated equally; this is a slightly better assessment than the 66% (99) reported by comparison respondents. FIGURE 4-3 PERCEPTION OF GOVERNEMENT TREATMENT DURING RESTITUTION PROCESS LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 25 PERCEPTION OF THE LRU AND THE RESTITUTION PROCESS This section analyzes household and FGD respondents’ understanding and perception of the restitution process. It presents results on the perception of access to legal representation and perception of the efficiency and effectiveness of the restitution process. Below are the hypotheses explored in this section. H. LRDP beneficiaries have improved perception of efficiency and fairness in the restitution legal process (+/-) Indicators Perceptions of efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of local and regional land-related government entities (+) Perceptions of improved access and quality of legal representation for restitution beneficiaries (+/-) Administrative Level Household (+/-) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs H. LRDP beneficiaries have improved access to legal representation in restitution-related disputes (+/-) Indicators Perceptions of improved access and quality of legal representation for restitution beneficiaries (+/-) Administrative Level Household (+/-) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs RESTITUTION PROCESS FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY Approximately 54% of both respondents in programming areas and comparison areas believe the administrative and judicial procedures of the land restitution process have been clear and easy to understand. However, 25% (N=28) of respondents in programming areas disagree that the process has been clear and easy to understand in contrast to 36% (N=22) of comparison respondents. Fifty-three percent (N=58) of respondents in programming areas versus 44% (N=26) of comparison respondents believe the land restitution process has been easy to participate in, as detailed in Figure 4-4. A composite index combining attitudes towards the clarity of the restitution process, attitudes towards ease of participation in restitution, and trust in the LRU provides evidence that LRDP programming regions have overall more favorable views of the restitution process and its main agency than comparison households. As shown in Figure 4-5, respondents in programming areas are significantly more likely than comparison respondents to report that the restitution process is fair, has been moving at a timely pace, and that the overall process has improved during the past three years. Sixty-two percent (N=286) of respondents in programming areas believe the restitution process is fair, 59% (N=66) believe the process is timely and moves at a reasonable pace, and 63%(N=69) believe their overall perception of the land restitution process has improved during the last three years. This last statistic provides evidence that citizens are seeing some improvement in the restitution process. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 26 FIGURE 4-4 RESPONDENT PERCEPTION OF RESTITUTION PROCESS FIGURE 4-5 RESPONDENT RATING OR LAND RESTITUTION PROCESS LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 27 Seventy-five percent (N=85) of respondents in programming areas feel comfortable speaking about the restitution process in public, and 15% (N=17) disagree. These are slightly better findings than those seen in comparison municipalities with 72% in agreement and 22% in disagreement. Despite progress made in the perception of the restitution process, the FGD results demonstrate mixed sentiments about restitution-related work. As a way to decrease the length of the processing times, LRDP helped the LRU by preparing “characterization studies” for two indigenous communities, Yukpa and Eladio Ariza. These documents are a key piece of evidentiary material that must be completed before an ethnic restitution case can proceed to a judge. LRDP’s support for characterization studies is important for both the LRU and the involved communities since LRU lacks resources to conduct such studies. As part of the evaluation, the PE team conducted two FGDs with these communities to assess the impact of this support in getting their land rights restored. With regards to the Eladio Ariza case, the restitution claim of an Afro-descendant community in Montes de María, complications arose late in 2016. After considerable effort by the community, the LRU, and LRDP, the community’s claim was admitted by restitution judges. However, the case did not meet all legal and methodological requirements. In June 2016, the LRU decided to withdraw the case in order to carry out further fieldwork. As a result, members from the Eladio Ariza community were discouraged by the lack of communication and explanation about why the case was withdrawn. During the FGD, they noted that they did not understand why the case was withdrawn instead of adding the clarifications requested by the judge to the already existing case file. Although LRDP took strides to address the situation by writing a letter to the LRU about their concerns, the LRU elected to withdraw the case anyway. In the Yukpa indigenous community FGD, members indicated that the characterization study professionals were more organized and communicated more effectively with the community (they visited three times over a four-month period). The Yukpas noted that the team (an anthropologist, a lawyer, a surveyor, a cadastral engineer, an environmental engineer and a social worker) met with the traditional authorities, women, and youth in order to inform their study and spent time trying to understand their culture and relationship to the land; “In that characterization, we walked and talked with the professionals who were performing it. We visited rivers and mountains and also the ancestral sites where we practice our culture, since these were impacted by the paramilitary, guerrilla groups, as well as by the army.” One difficulty encountered, which is reflective of the security issues in the regions where the LRU and LRDP work, is that the characterization team was unable to reach all of the areas of the territory due to paramilitary groups that still exist. The Yukpas stated, “The areas that were not visited were those where paramilitary groups still exist and do not allow access; also some estates where the landowners did not allow us to enter those territories just because they own them, although they are in Yukpa territory.” Despite the uncertainty about their land and challenges in entering all territorial areas, the Yukpas are still hopeful that they will get their ancestral territory land back as a result of the restitution process. “The two Units [VCCU/LRU] are supposed to work together to support the victims, so why are they eager to work separately? This takes time away from communities…These two processes practically use the same information, so they must agree to work together.” FGD Yukpa Participant LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 28 Both Eladio Ariza and Yukpa ethnic communities also stated that their characterization study was frustrating because they needed to participate in two similar characterization studies conducted separately by the LRU and the Victims Integrated Compensation and Care Unit (VCCU). As noted by a respondent in Yupka community: “The two Units [VCCU/LRU] are supposed to work together to support the victims, so why are they eager to work separately? This takes time away from communities…These two processes practically use the same information, so they must agree to work together.” This is a good example of where the inter-institutional coordination could be enhanced. Eladio Ariza community also noted discontent over internal changes at the LRU such as personnel turnover that led to delays in the restitution process, “The LRU has changed a large part of the team and this has affected us a lot…the social worker who came before changed, and although the new one continues working, those changes impact us. They also changed the regional manager and we haven’t sat down with nor developed a relationship with the new manager.” This FGD as well as KIIs noted that relationship building seems like a critical missing link for communities such as Eladio Ariza. Another important issue to Eladio Ariza community members was that the LRU had no clear process to deal with collective restitution. The main problem revolved around the pursuit of private titling versus communal titling in the indigenous context. As noted by a respondent in Eladio Ariza, “The main objective of the collective restitution is that we get collective titling of the ancestral territory. The institutions insist on individual titling, perhaps for having access to individual lands in the future so that any third party [can] do what they want: to buy the land, to set up a company, to do exploitation… We need the restitution and reparation to be collective so that they cannot do what they want in our territory.” The respondent clearly demonstrates institutional distrust and confusion over the efficiency and effectiveness of the collective restitution process. While these are the experiences of the Eladio Ariza and Yukpas communities, it will be important to further evaluate the effectiveness of other ongoing characterization studies such as that of the Sikuani in the Department of Meta. LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN RESTITUTION Access to legal representation also plays a role in citizen’s perception of the restitution process. It is important to highlight that LRDP only supports the LRU (and the Ombudsman in the case of secondary occupants) and does not directly hire lawyers. According to the survey respondents pursuing restitution, the most common form of legal representation was obtained through the LRU in both programming and comparison areas, though noticeably higher in programming (51%) than comparison (33%) municipalities. The second most common answer to this question, however, was having no legal representation. For those without legal representation the most common reason offered was lack of economic resources. “The LRU changed a large part of the team and this has affected us a lot…the social worker who came before changed, and although the new one continues working, those changes impact us. They also changed the regional manager and we haven’t sat down with nor developed a relationship with the new manager. FGD Eladio Ariza Participant LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 29 The FGDs with the Yukpa and Eladio Ariza communities indicated that access to legal representation for restitution has been a confusing and challenging process. One such challenge noted by the community was the absence of a lawyer in the LRU regional office, which delayed the characterization process. The community noted, “In the regional office [LRU] there was no ethnic lawyer, so they took some time to find him.” The community further elaborated that lack of communication between the LRU and the community led to confusion about why they were requested to withdraw their case. As the following words highlight: “Without any other advice, we accepted [what the LRU told us] and withdrew the lawsuit in June 2016. However, now we do not understand why the regional [LRU] told us to do so… We do not understand why this [withdrawing the case] was the regional office’s solution. Now we have to start from nothing.” This setback deeply affects the trust in institutions and forces community to seek legal representation from organizations outside the state institutions: “Lately we have taken advice from different people and organizations that have told us that it was not necessary to withdraw the lawsuit, but rather to attach the additional information requested by the judge.” It’s clear that lack of communication and strong legal representation led to much confusion and frustration for the Eladio Ariza community. KNOWLEDGE OF LAND RIGHTS AND LRU RELATED RESOURCES This section analyzes household beneficiaries understanding of land rights related to restitution and LRU-related services and their perception of their own efficacy related to land-related sources. The “Formalization Findings” section of this report will further delve into the broader topic of land rights knowledge and personal efficacy. Below is the hypothesis related to this area of interest H. LRDP beneficiaries have increased knowledge of LRU related services (+) Indicators Perceptions of personal efficacy with respect to awareness about land-related resources (+) Administrative Level Household (+) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey Stakeholder survey FGDs As show in Figure 4-6, 46% of respondents in programming areas (N=208) believe that citizen's land rights are clear and easy to understand for most citizens in Colombia, and 50% (N=242) believe that citizen’s land rights are well protected by authorities.7 This is not, however, statistically or substantively different from the results in comparison municipalities. This suggests citizens have low confidence in their land rights being clearly defined and enforced by the government. This is confirmed by the stakeholder survey with about 50% of LRU officials indicating that the biggest obstacle for victims seeking restitution is fear of retribution or persecution followed by lacking personal knowledge about rights. 7 In contrast, 37% (N=172) of respondents in programming areas disagree that citizen’s land rights are clear and easy to understand and 36% (N=174) disagree that citizen’s land rights are well protected by authorities. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 30 Overall, about 80% mayors and LRU officials believe that there has been an increase in the extent that citizens are seeking restitution in the past three years, which is similar across programming and comparison areas. Almost three quarters of mayors and LRU officials across programming and comparison municipalities also indicate that there have been new outreach programs in their regions to encourage citizens to seek restitution. This spread of knowledge regarding restitution is also evident across the beneficiary household survey respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (67%, N=979) have heard of the Law of Victims and Land Restitution, and this difference is significantly higher in programming municipalities. Only 20%, however, report knowing at least a little about the law. Eighty-six percent (N=429) of respondents in programming areas have heard of the LRU, and 42% (N=175) know where the closest LRU office is. These findings are compared to 77% (N=580) and 23% (N=132) for comparison respondents, respectively. In both cases the difference is statistically significant. Collectively, the evidence suggests LRPD programming areas have increased awareness of the LRU, but perhaps do not have sufficient knowledge of restitution law to know how to move forward with the process or have another obstacle stopping them (such as fear of retribution as noted in a previous section) from moving forward with a restitution application. FIGURE 4-6 RESPONDENT PERCEPTION OF RIGHTS LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 31 Another important LRDP supported program in the Cauca Department was “Your Land, My Land, Our Territory.” This was a rap album created by a joint effort between LRDP and the Colombian youth￾empowerment NGO, Familia Ayara Foundation. The rap album songs aimed to raise awareness about the ongoing land restitution process. According to youth focus group participants, they expected 40 youth to participate though ultimately only 12 youth completed the two-month program. Despite the lower-than￾expected turnout, the youth indicated that they benefited from the program and that it generated a lot of enthusiasm, “It was a very cool process, quite motivating, it was something new to convey a message with different rhythms, which is what worked better [for us].” One mother of a youth participant noted, “As a mother, I saw the project closely, and felt joy that my daughter and other children had this opportunity. I got goosebumps after hearing so much talent in our community [where] young people are having problems because they lack opportunities.” Currently, seven youth participants are the only ones who remain in the group, but they meet regularly to compose music and sing together. However, these participants reported that there has been no follow-up, which has caused frustration since the program was short-lived and they were left with high expectations and no support to continue their work. “They [institutions] always come promising wonders, that we will do this, that we will do that, that this will be improved…and at the end they leave without finishing the project...” Although this youth program made a short-term impact on fostering excitement among youth and bringing them together for a common purpose, the program appears to be ad-hoc with few sustainable or long-lasting benefits. While the spread of knowledge about LRU related resources is evident from the household respondents, there was little evidence of knowledge gain (and ability to share that knowledge) in regards to restitution developed as a result of the youth-program. LRU CAPACITY BUILDING AND PROCESSING TIMES This section discusses LRDP’s capacity building support for the LRU and the impact of this support on administrative times. Below are the hypotheses pertaining to these aspects. H: LRDP programming areas display greater rates of resolved land restitution cases (+/-) Indicators Number of resolved land restitution cases (+/-) Administrative Level National (-) Departmental (+/-) Municipal (+/-) Data Sources Stakeholder Survey KIIs M&E Data “They [institutions] always come promising wonders, that we will do this, that we will do that, that this will be improved…and at the end they leave without finishing the project...” FGD “Your Land, My Land, Our Territory” Youth Participant LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 32 H: LRDP programming areas display faster processing times for administrative portion of land restitution cases (+/-) Indicators Average length of time for the administrative processes of restitution case (+/-) Administrative Level Departmental (+/-) Data Sources Stakeholder Survey KIIs M&E Data STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PROCESS REENGINEERING LRDP identified assisting the LRU in developing and delivering the restitution file8 required for the judicial phase as priority objective. In order to increase the rates of resolved land restitution cases (in addition to other identified needs), LRDP assisted the LRU with the preparation of its strategic plan using a more realistic forecast of restitution requests and developed guidelines and protocols to improve internal processing performance. LRDP also focused on the development of a suitable strategy to design an overarching information system, called Land Node. According to LRDP’s M&E data, LRDP has supported 348 restitution cases across Colombia at the end of 2016. In looking at the distribution of these 348 cases, Valledupar has the most number of restitution cases supported by LRDP (103), followed by Ovejas (91), and then Puerto Gaitan (61). While LRDP exceeded their target number of restitution cases in Puerto Gaitan (61of 25), in other municipalities, they reached 25% or less of their goal (Chalan, El Carmen de Bolivar, Cartagena and San Jacinto). LRDP set their highest target number for restitution cases in Cartagena (300), yet was only able to support 22 cases. These regional differences could reflect operational issues within the LRU and/or the specific challenges of those regions. Given that LRDP’s goal was to support 2,700 cases, it is important to identify the reasons why these goals were not met. One reason is that the overall number of restitution cases with a substantive administrative decision (9,303) is very low compared to the original target amount (82,500). Various other reasons include overly ambitious goals given the program complexity and start-up challenges that LRDP faced. These included: the time needed to plan and change LRU operational processes; the identification of the needs of secondary occupants; the varying progress of microfocalization; unique land issues varying across the regions; as well as the expanding mandate of the LRU. LRU ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING TIMES Almost three quarters of LRU officials report that the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases has either increased or significantly increased over the past three years. Most LRU officials that received LRDP assistance also agree that LRDP specifically helped reduce their office’s processing times for restitution claims. Beneficiary household survey respondents indicated that the restitution process has been moving in a timely manner, and LRU officials indicated that LRDP specifically helped reduce their office’s processing times for restitution claims. However, more than half of the LRU officials also reported that the average length of time for the administrative portions of restitution cases has increased or significantly increased 8 “Delivering the restitution file” is the completion of LRU work in the administrative phase of each restitution case. Under the Victims and Land Restitution Law, LRU should assembly that file from the evidence provided by the victim-claimant, and any other available evidence from public records. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 33 in the past three years. Of the remaining half, two-thirds noted no change, while the remaining respondents reported a decrease in time. LRU officials gave various reasons as to why they feel that the length of time has increased, including: lack of sufficient LRU staff; issues in the field related to data collection or lack of equipment; judicial backlog; security in the areas where land is to be restituted; secondary occupants; increasing number of restitution requests; and citizens lack of confidence of the restitution process proving beneficial. While the PE team cannot compare current administrative processing times to a baseline, LRU officials reported approximately eight months as the average processing time for a restitution case from the point when the case is initiated by the LRU to the point the administrative file is finalized. Conversely, about half of judges indicated that they believe the average length of the administration phase of restitution cases has decreased in the past three years. This difference in perception of increased LRU capacity building, yet also increased administrative processing times, is important to note. Given the complexities of the implementation of restitution and the time it takes for the LRU to start-up and build a process to deal with these complexities, it makes sense that increased capacity building has not yet translated into decreased administrative times. More importantly, increased administrative processing times is not necessarily indicative of a quality process and should not be pinpointed as poor performance. LRDP was able to support the LRU in understanding and identifying new issues such as that of secondary occupants discussed below or how to conduct thorough characterization studies mentioned previously. However, increased LRU capacity might not have translated into decreased LRU administrative processing times. SECONDARY OCCUPANTS SUPPORT An unexpected issue LRDP effectively dealt with was that of “secondary occupants”, i.e. cases where the property of the victim of displacement and eviction was occupied by other victim or an innocent third party (neither related to illegal groups) that under a rigid interpretation of Law No. 1448 would not be entitled to compensation. Several key informants pointed towards LRDP as the key entity that brought this serious human rights issue to the attention of LRU and the Ombudsman’s Office, and helped to develop a more flexible interpretation of the applicable provisions allowing the LRU to provide some form of indemnification to the secondary occupants under the GoC’s general policies for victims. According to household respondents, about 25% of restitution cases have an opponent (secondary occupants). Where there is an opponent, it is most frequently an individual or family, though in comparison areas findings indicate that the state can be a frequent "opponent" (i.e., the land being claimed is a baldio owned by the state; about 31% of responses). It is also known that in some restitution cases the current occupant may also have been victimized or displaced from elsewhere. This is confirmed as about 42% of respondents undergoing restitution agree that the opposing claimant is also a victim of the conflict. Given the percentage of cases that have an opponent, LRDP’s support around secondary occupants is critical to decreasing administrative processing times. Secondary occupants are also an important factor in the LRU not processing as many cases as originally envisioned, further impacting LRDP’s achievement of targets. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 34 INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE BUILDING ON RESTITUTION This section discusses LRDP’s interdisciplinary support to the LRU and all involved restitution stakeholders in addition to stakeholders’ perception of the restitution process and LRU cases. Below is the hypothesis in line with this support. ENGAGEMENT WITH LAND ENTITIES INVOLVED IN RESTITUTION PROCESSES Supporting coordination and communication between all relevant land entities represents another critical component to building LRU capacity. Key informants reported improvements in the overall processing of restitution requests due to LRDP efforts and engendering cooperation. In particular, key informants highlighted strengthened coordination between the LRU and Personerias and Family Units (at the municipal level) and Ombudsman’s Office staff (at the national and local level). Of the LRU officials that received LRDP support, more than half agreed or strongly agreed that LRDP assistance improved their connection to local government actors. Many LRU officials also agreed that LRDP assistance improved their connection to other national and regional agencies. About a third of LRU officials also agreed that LRDP improved their offices’ capacity to comply with restitution. Very few LRU officials disagree that LRDP did not assist LRU in some manner. Overall, LRU officials agree that LRDP specifically increased their connectedness to national, regional and local government actors. Similarly, key informants noted that the development of joint training programs for agencies such as the CSJ, the LRU and IGAC have been very useful in developing concerted approaches for typical land information issues in restitution cases (both in the administrative and judicial phases and up to restitution enforcement). PERCEPTION OF THE QUALITY OF LRU RESTITUTION CASES Key informants noted the importance of LRDP’s work on building interdisciplinary approaches, such as restitution workshops and clinic-cases to facilitate the desired cultural shift. Engaging judges in this activity was an additional challenge that LRDP addressed by organizing a dialogue to encourage inter￾agency constraints. Standardized protocols and a compilation of case law was produced to promote more consistent rulings. For instance, the program worked with the judges to develop 10 guides that unified the criteria for restitution judgments, such as how to deal with gender issues, ethnic groups, collective ownership and secondary occupants. LRDP also organized technical discussions among judges and LRU staff to identify bottlenecks in restitution processes and propose practical solutions. As the enforcement of restitution rulings was not standardized, LRDP worked on developing a guide to that end with the active involvement of the judges. This “enforcement of restitution judgments guide” (rutas de cumplimiento de sentencias) was welcomed by the judges as this was a critical issue for them and no clear mandates had been previously assigned to local authorities on ruling enforcement. This cultural change is a significant achievement of LRDP as there are very few precedents of a similar effort. H. LRDP stakeholders have improved perception of the quality of LRU restitution cases (+) Indicators Perceptions of quality of restitution cases coming from LRU (+) Administrative Level National (+) Departmental (+) Municipal (+) Data Sources Stakeholder Survey KIIs LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 35 These discussions and inter-disciplinary approaches also potentially contributed to a perception change around the quality of restitution cases. When various entities involved in the restitution process can more fully comprehend what other organizations are challenged with, it helps improve the overall understanding of the restitution process and identify bottlenecks. This is evident from the stakeholders—almost every judge agreed that the restitution process has greatly improved or somewhat improved over the past three years. Almost three quarters of LRU officials report that the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases has either increased or significantly increased over the past three years. When asked why their capacity increased, most LRU officials said they gained experience over time leading to faster processing, while others noted that the LRU hired more staff to process cases faster, others noted it was due to LRDP assistance and some indicated that the cases are better quality with more evidence. LAND RESTITUTION FOR WOMEN AND ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS Prioritizing the needs of vulnerable groups such as women and ethnic minorities is a key objective of LRDP. Below is the hypothesis regarding women and ethnic minority groups involvement in restitution and the PE team’s analysis of results. Section 8 presents additional analysis of women and ethnic minorities. H: LRDP programming areas have increased number of women and ethnic minority groups involved in the restitution process (+) Indicators Number of restitution cases where plaintiff is woman or key ethnic group (+) Number of activities targeted to women and key ethnic minority groups (+) Administrative Level National (+) Departmental (+) Data Sources Stakeholder Survey KIIs M&E Data Annual Reports LRDP’s approach to supporting women and ethnic minorities involved in the restitution process includes training GoC officials to ensure they understand the community’s relationship to land, hiring a social inclusion specialist for each regional office and a Gender and Minorities Component Leader in Bogotá, and implementing various individual programs such as the Afro-Colombian youth program. Most mayors and LRU officials indicate that they have seen an increase in the extent that ethnic minorities are engaged in the restitution process in the areas they oversee/administrate. About half of LRU officials also report that the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases for collective territories and ethnic communities has either increased or significantly increased over the past three years (one third indicate no change). Additionally, of the LRU officials that received LRDP support, 12 agreed or strongly agreed that LRDP improved their office’s capacity to give ethnic minorities stronger access to restitution services. While there is solid evidence of an increase in the ethnic minorities involved in the restitution process, LRDP’s M&E data was only able to support 41 cases out of a total target 117 ethnic minority restitution cases. As mentioned previously, this is most likely due to the complexities of each case, unexpected challenges related to secondary occupants and the time needed to conduct characterization studies. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 36 In terms of women involved in the restitution process, LRU officials overwhelming agree or strongly agree that LRDP improved their office’s capacity to give women stronger access to restitution services. LRU officials indicated much satisfaction with USAID gender-related trainings. Of the seven LRU officials that indicated having gender-related training, 100% reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the training. Five mayors also agree that LRDP improved their municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to restitution services. Several key informants also noted various activities for women regarding the restitution process. One LRU official noted that, "Definitively, USAID has been the one who insisted that we introduce gender issues and the differential treatment for women in the LRU's institutional agenda. They helped us to create a protocol and a road map for incorporating gender issues.” While activities have increased for both ethnic minorities and women, key informants from the Ombudsman's office indicated that they would like to have assistance from LRDP related to ethnic and gender legal issues, but have yet to receive any training. Given that they are in charge of training/providing public defenders in land-related legal cases, they reported that they need personnel who know legal issues around ethnic groups since they don’t have any specialists; “We need personnel specifically trained to deal with challenges specific to gender and ethnic groups.” SUSTAINABILITY LRDP SUPPORT VERSUS LRU INCREASED EXPERIENCE OVER TIME Some LRU key informant noted the very limited scope of LRDP interventions vis-à-vis a large GoC restitution program, and questioned to what extent LRDP could really take credit for significant outcomes/impacts that have to be sustained beyond the specific activities conducted in partnership with LRU. For them, the concept of sustainability can only be applied to the final deliverables of the LRU not to the limited inputs of LRDP. Other respondents distinguished the solid technical quality of LRDP inputs for LRU, but refrained from giving an opinion about their sustainability because the number of variables that impact the restitution process make it difficult or impossible to predict the final results. This inability to pinpoint outcomes to LRDP is confirmed by the stakeholder survey results. While almost three quarters of LRU officials reported that the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases has either increased or significantly increased over the past three years, they indicate mixed results as to why their capacity increased. Fourteen LRU officials said they gained experience over time leading to faster processing, eight said the LRU hired more staff to process cases faster, six said it was due to LRDP assistance and another six said the cases are better quality with more evidence. RESTITUTION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT The key informants and stakeholders also indicated that there is enormous potential for mayors as part of the restitution process. With this in mind, the PE explored mayor’s potential involvement in restitution in order to understand and identify potential recommendations at the local level in support of departmental and national-level implementation. While LRDP made progress in supporting the LRU, more than 70% of LRU officials indicated that trying to implement a restitution decision once it is made is either difficult or very difficult. Furthermore, about half of LRU officials report local government being uncooperative or unable to enforce rulings as the primary reason why implementation of restitution decisions is challenging. Findings from the stakeholder survey, KIIs, and discussions with LRDP all indicate that mayors are a critical link between community members, municipal government, and departmental and national LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 37 processes and programming. When LRU officials were asked about the importance of various criteria that they use to make decisions about which victims’ cases to pursue, the current security situation in the region where the victim is seeking restitution is ranked the highest, followed by the strength of evidence favoring the victim. This indicates that the local environment where a victim lives is very important to the success of a restitution case. In the case of restitution, all mayors except one (N=21) indicate that they feel that they should play a role in the restitution process in their municipality. This finding is consistent across stakeholders with almost all judges and three quarters of LRU officials believing that mayors are critically important to success of restitution compliance. The tools mayors see available to engage in the restitution process include contacts at the regional and national levels to advocate in victim’s favor (N=13), technical assistance from departmental and national government (N=12) and local community organizations (N=10). In terms of how mayors perceive themselves actually supporting the restitution process, most believe they should support victims in the application process (N=16), followed by them informing victims about how to seek restitution since being displaced by conflict (N=15) and providing information and boosting knowledge of restitution process across municipality (N=15), and lastly, providing information to the LRU to support their work (N=12). These potential ways that mayors could assist with the restitution process and spreading awareness of restitution resources could be an avenue for LRDP or future programming that might help ensure that there is more municipal-level support for restitution. RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this section is to provide recommendations for LRDP as well as future programs that will continue LRDP’s work. All recommendations are based on a culmination of findings from this section, although some recommendations are cross-cutting with other components. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR CONTINUE WORKING ON THE JUDICIAL PHASE Working mostly on the administrative side of the restitution process has limited the potential of the LRDP program to show even more tangible results. The administrative file of LRU is subject to the review of the Special Restitution Land Courts, which may find weaknesses in the legal or factual grounds of LRU decisions. Developing consistent approaches would lessen the possibility that the LRU and the Courts develop different interpretations leading to inconsistent decisions. While respecting the autonomy of the judges, future programming should consider enhancing collaboration methods for engaging the judges and staff of these Land Courts. The upcoming operation of the Land Node may serve as the basis for that engagement but should be complemented by activities such as an on-going joint training or information exchange programs that facilitate dialogue and understanding around some legal and technical issues of common interest. FUTURE PROGRAMMING ESTIMATE TOTAL COST AND PER-PARCEL COST As the restitution component helped LRU to deliver titles to victims, future programming should try to track how much time and how many other resources are required to reach a particular titling target in order to assess the overall efficiency of the restitution process. While the size of the LRDP restitution component vis-à-vis the whole GoC program is small, it would be useful to determine the per-parcel LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 38 cost of the restitution cases handled with LRDP support to determine the sustainability of this component. A higher average cost per parcel would lead to a lower number of parcels titles and thus a lower number of beneficiaries supported. This would help ascertain resource-related questions such as if a small target area should be selected with a small number of high-cost parcels or an increased area size with more beneficiaries and an average lower cost per parcel. A high-cost parcel might entail an area that is high risk with a low success rate given the complexity of the area or potential for conflicting claims. Without tracking cost, evaluating efficiency in regards to LRDP’s strengthening of the LRU will be limited. As no sufficient or relevant data was provided to the PE team in this regard, this evaluation recommends that future programming should revisit this issue in conjunction with LRU and other partner institutions. FOCUS ON LRU CAPACITY BUILDING AS WELL AS PROCESSING TIMES As the LRU was building its capacity, it took time to develop a thorough understanding of restitution guidelines while taking into account the unique needs of communities and new restitution developments. This is most evident in the provisions developed around secondary occupants and developing new models of how to deal with each characterization study. Given the complexity of restitution, it is important to focus on identifying these issues and building LRU’s capacity to deal with and understand each unique situation that arises. In doing so, the ultimate goal can be to decrease administrative processing times as the LRU becomes more experienced and has less unique challenges to deal with in every restitution application. Future programming should ensure that LRU capacity building success is not entirely defined as a measurement of administrative times until the LRU has become more stable in developing quality cases and meeting all new restitution demands. As is confirmed in this evaluation, increased LRU capacity is not equivalent to decreased administrative processing times. INCREASE RESOURCES AND GOC SUPPORT FOR FIELD OPERATIONS Various stakeholders reported that that one of the key challenges for restitution is that resources need to be increased for field operations. When LRU officials were asked about what specific issues are causing administrative slowdown, many issues listed were related to field operations such as evidence collection, lack of communication with ethnic communities, and changing staff that impacted community relationships. As mentioned in several FGDs, consistent communication between the LRU and individuals undergoing the restitution process is essential to build stronger relationships and improve institutional trust. More resources or support for field operations would support such relationship building. CLARIFY INFORMATION CONFIDENTIALITY POLICIES During the PE some LRU key informants were concerned about the confidentiality of potentially sensitive information gathered by LRDP consultants and the risk of misuse by individuals after the contract ended. These concerns probably reflect the fact that LRU was not fully aware of the information security policies of LRDP and USAID (including details on security profiles to access hardware and email software). LRDP or future programs should ensure that the LRU is made fully aware that any information gathered would remain confidential and secure. Clarifying and sharing confidentiality procedures (and being amenable to adjustments) would help ensure that the LRU is able to securely share information. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 39 ENHANCING INFORMATION SHARING AND EXCHANGE: LRU AND VCCU As mentioned above, the characterization studies for collective restitution cases are generally time￾consuming research endeavors that require intensive fieldwork conducted with communities. LRDP’s support to these studies is important for both the LRU and the communities. However, as expressed by both Eladio Ariza and Yukpa ethnic communities, they found this to be an exhausting process as they needed to participate in two similar characterization studies conducted separately by the LRU and the VCCU. This is a good example where the inter-institutional coordination could be enhanced to ensure that resources are not wasted and that communities time and confidence in the process is not negatively impacted. SUPPORT ESTABLISHMENT OF ETHNIC MINORITY & GENDER LEGAL SPECIALISTS While activities have increased for both ethnic minorities and women, key informants from the Ombudsman's office indicated that they would like to have assistance from LRDP related to ethnic and gender legal issues. Given that they are in charge of training/providing public defenders in many land￾related legal cases, they reported that they need personnel who know legal issues around ethnic groups since they do not have any specialists. LRDP or future programs could focus on fostering programs for this specific type of legal specialist at local universities or work with groups to develop a training curriculum, workshop or network to help public defenders better understand issues specific to ethnic minorities or women undergoing the restitution process. EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL ETHNIC MINORITY WORK While LRDP has programmed all of its remaining resources to activities that are currently underway, there are opportunities worth exploring during the remaining implementation period or for future programming. Some key informants mentioned that other opportunities for LRDP support to LRU had been detected during implementation, such as: (a) characterization of displaced communities seeking restitution within a municipality; (b) dialogue with ethnic communities to standardize restitution rulings on collective lands; and (c) training of the agency’s staff on ethnic issues. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 40 5.0 FINDINGS— FORMALIZATION INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES The issue of informal tenure may affect up to 60% of the Colombian countryside and the high priority of formalization is evident by the negative effects of informality in the rural sector, which deprives farmers from access to the GoC’s rural assistance programs. Formalization of rural land is the main responsibility of ANT, the successor of INCODER and MARD after the legal reform of December 2015. In urban areas, social housing programs supported by the Ministry of Housing and the municipalities retain formalization powers that have seldom been exercised. While IGAC still retains the role of policy-making agency on cadasters, CONPES document No. 3859 of 2016 shares that role with the National Planning Department (DNP) and SNR and empowers municipalities to develop multipurpose cadasters that may facilitate the effective use of these entities’ powers to promote formalization. So far no particular formalization powers have been granted to this group of municipalities, other than the powers envisaged under the CONPES document that allows them to develop their own MPCs with their own resources or through PPPs according to the guidelines issued by IGAC/DNP. Moreover, formalization efforts require overcoming legal and institutional bottlenecks including complex regulations and administrative procedures, conflicting jurisprudence, and the high degree of inter-institutional coordination required for rural formalization. As a consequence, formalization is probably the most challenging component of LRDP to implement because it requires gathering enough political will and resources to push forward an agenda through various national GoC agencies. The GoC’s top priority as Colombia enters the post-conflict phase will be compliance with the Final Peace Agreement. The Comprehensive Rural Reform section of the agreement includes land formalization, access to land and distribution of land, all of which are imperative in achieving rural development and improving the livelihood of rural populations. Formalization has traditionally taken the form of landholders requesting formal land titles, which can easily exclude poor or vulnerable populations who do not have time or access to resources to be able to initiate and follow through with such a lengthy and expensive process. As part of the Peace Agreement, the GoC agreed to adopt a new model of formalization that will be government-driven rather than demand-driven. Though not directly caused by the peace process or new model of government-driven formalization, the dissolution of INCODER and the establishment of ANT were envisaged in the 2015 law approving the National Development Plan that was already aligned to the post-conflict process. The ANT was established with the intent of operating under this new vision and allowing thousands of rural citizens who lack legal rights to obtain titles for the land where they live and work. Given the complex environment of formalization, LRDP faced various start-up challenges such as numerous and challenging procedures for demand-led restitution, political resistance to legal reforms for formalization prior to peace accords, institutional weaknesses in INCODER, institutional transitions LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 41 from INCODER to ANT, and resource capacity to implement more than one pilot program during the program time horizon. FINDINGS The formalization findings covered in this section include an overview of the land tenure security status of household respondents, perception of tenure security and future conflict, efficacy and trust in land￾related institutions, formalization administrative capacity, and formalization for women and ethnic minorities. Some context related information is also provided below, which was used to help inform recommendations and provide a deeper understanding of the issues LRDP is facing in program implementation. As LRDP interventions have been unequally applied across target municipalities, beneficiary household outcomes were only assessed in the geographic area where formalization interventions have been implemented. For each hypothesis, the “+” indicates positive results, a “-“ indicates null results, and a “+/-“ indicates a mix of both positive and null results. The specific outcome variables that were used to evaluate LRDP for formalization are detailed in Annex 9—Beneficiary Household Survey Outcome Tables and Annex 10—Stakeholder Survey Outcome Tables. TENURE SECURITY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS This section analyzes household and FGD respondents current land tenure security status and perception of secure tenure, knowledge and awareness of land rights and land-related resources, and perception of future conflict. H. LRDP beneficiaries perceive greater tenure security and protection of household land (+) Indicators Perceptions of land tenure security (+) Administrative Level Households (+) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs H. LRDP beneficiaries have improved awareness of the value of being a land title holder (+) Indicators Perceptions of personal efficacy with respect to awareness about land-related resources (+) Administrative Level Households (+) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs H. LRDP beneficiaries have increased sense of security that land will not be subject to future legal dispute (-) Indicators Perceptions of personal efficacy with respect to awareness about land-related resources (-) Administrative Level Households (-) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 42 TENURE SECURITY STATUS This PE analyzes data on tenure security status to assess the perceptions of tenure security and land and property rights. The majority of households surveyed own less than .5 hectares of land (57%, N=827). An additional 17% of all household respondents (N=238) own between .6 and 2.5 hectares of land. No respondents own more than 50 hectares. These figures are commensurate with expectations based on smallholding patterns in the Colombian countryside. Only 7% (N=19) of respondents in programming areas have rented out their land for income in the past three years, compared to 3% (N=22) of comparison respondents. Property Ownership Home ownership is common in both the programming and comparison population. About fifty-one percent (N=516) of respondents report owning their home. Forty-five percent of homeowners have a recorded deed for their property, but almost one in three respondents have no type of documentation at all. These figures are similar for both programming and comparison areas. Roughly one third (34%, N=121) of households with documentation either received a recorded deed, unrecorded deed, or other official document within the past three years. The proportion of respondents reporting recent property documentation in programming areas (45%) is significantly and substantively higher than the proportion in comparison areas (30%). More than half of respondents in programming areas (59%, N=164) report investing more time or money into their home and land in the past three years than in prior years, and comparison households appear to invest at similar rate 53% (N=389). Households investing in their property is often an indication of increased perception of tenure security. Land Separate from Household Nearly three in ten respondents own land that is separate from the property where their primary dwelling is located (28%, N=289). This is higher in programming areas (35%) than comparison areas (26%). Of those households, 60% (N=156) own their land, and 10% (N=26) are the spouse of the landowner. About half the households who own their land have a recorded deed (49%, N=87). Thirteen percent have no documentation for their land (N=23). Forty-one percent of households with any documentation received their documentation in the past three years. Contrary to home ownership, recent documentation proportions are not significantly different across programming and comparison areas. Regardless of whether or not they hold documentation, an overwhelming majority of households (92%, N=906) believe there are advantages to having paper documentation. This is an important figure, given findings in KIIs that suggest citizens may be reluctant or see little value in formalizing their land ownership. Furthermore, some KIIs and beneficiary household survey results suggest that families still do not trust the land institutions that would support formalization processes, as detailed later in this section. LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS Households in programming areas are much more likely (75% (N=201) than comparison households (62% (N=428) to report that they are more knowledgeable about their land and property rights now compared to three years ago. This difference is statistically significant. The FGD with women coffee producers from APROVOCAL and ASPOPROMIX in the municipality of Chaparral in the Department of Tolima tells a success story regarding secure land tenure and empowering women through their land rights. LRDP supported the training of these women on the value and role of women in rural society and provided technical and legal assistance for titling of small estates acquired by inheritance or by LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 43 purchasing it without any documentation. One focus group participant noted “what happened was that if our husbands bought some land, the one who was on the title was the man…the woman was always in the kitchen.” Since 2016 they indicated that now women appear in the titles as owners or co-owners with their husbands. Participants perceived greater tenure security and protection of household land: “For me the formalization of land has been a very beautiful [process] that has changed many things and that has been very nice. It has changed the way of working in union with the husband, in society. In many homes I think it must have changed a lot too.” As the previous quote highlights, LRDP not only supported the ANT’s goal to formalize 300 private land parcels in the village of Calarma, they also collaborated with USAID’s Access to Justice Program (AJP) program to formally marry consensual union couples, thus helping them to secure a jointly held land title. Another participant highlighted the benefits regarding investment, access to credit and livelihood benefits from titling and tenure security: “One is more confident. You work with more enthusiasm because you own the land. You can take a credit and you can do what you want. Before, it was very difficult as banks always ask for the property certificate.” Overall, FGD participants have a very positive outlook of the Tolima formalization program. The women of APROVOCAL also participated in a contest supported by LRDP to tell their life stories related to land as part of a radio program/soap opera. The radio program described the process women went through to organize themselves in Calarma to acquire their rights over property. While this PE cannot directly assess the spread or impact of this radio program, some beneficiary household survey questions asked how respondents learned about various land-related resources. Fifteen percent of household respondents across programming and comparison reasons report learning about the Law of Victims through a radio program. Of respondents who indicated having heard of the LRU, 30% said they heard about the LRU through the radio, with the proportion actually slightly higher in comparison areas than programming areas. Of respondents who report having improved knowledge of their land and property rights as compared to three years ago, only 11% claim that this improvement is a result of listening to radio programs. This percentage a bit higher in comparison (13%) than in programming (8%) areas. PERCEPTION OF TENURE SECURITY AND FUTURE CONFLICT About three quarters of respondents in programming areas report knowing where to go if they have a conflict or dispute about their land (76%, N=191), and 60% report having access to legal representation if they have a land-related dispute, detailed in Figure 5-1. However, in contrast to the knowledge measure, these figures are substantively similar across programming and comparison groups. This indicates that programming communities know more about their land and property rights than the exact tools or resources that are available to them. “For me the formalization of land has been a very beautiful [process] that has changed many things and that has been very nice. It has changed the way of working in union with the husband, in society. In many homes I think it must have changed a lot too.” FGD Formalization Participant LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 44 Significantly, 90% percent of respondents in programming areas (N=251) believe that the boundaries of their land are clear and respected by individuals in their community, in comparison to 83% (N=617) of comparison respondents, detailed in Figure 5-2. Almost eighty percent of respondents in programming areas (78%, N=207) believe that the government cannot encroach on their land, in comparison to 68% (N=494) of comparison respondents. A similarly high number of respondents in programming areas, (69%, N=184), believe that outsiders will not encroach on their land (versus 62% (N=448) for comparison respondents). While a solid majority of respondents seem secure in their land tenure, a sizeable minority believe their land could be taken, particularly by outsiders. These concerns are more pronounced in comparison areas, where 21% (N=155) of respondents believe their land could be at risk of being seized by the government and 29% (N=155) by outsiders. These statistics are 14% (36) and 21% (57) for programming households, respectively. FIGURE 5-1 RESPONDENT KNOWLEDGE LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 45 Overall, the perceived risk of conflict is low. Almost eighty percent (79%) of respondents in programming areas (N=218) are confident that conflict will not arise over their land in the future. This contrasts with 67% (N=493) respondents in comparison areas. An increased sense of security that land will not be subject to future disputes could be a culmination of formalization and restitution activities. Despite the relatively high levels of perceived tenure security, threats of eviction still occur. Seven percent (N=21) of households have been threatened with eviction in the past 12 months who have land separate from their primary residence. Four percent (N=46) of households have been threatened with eviction from their primary residence. EFFICACY AND TRUST IN LAND-RELATED INSTITUTIONS This section examines household and FGD respondents trust in land-related institutions such as MARD and INCODER/ANT, as well as their perception of fairness and effectiveness of land-related government entities. The hypothesis related to these topics is below. H. LRDP beneficiaries perceive greater efficacy and capacity of departmental land-related institutions (+/-) Indicators Perceptions of efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of local and regional land-related government entities (-) Awareness of land-related resources related to formalization processes (+) Administrative Level Departmental (+/-) Household (+/-) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs FIGURE 5-2 RESPONDENT CONFIDENCE LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 46 In the areas where vulnerable individuals and their families will become beneficiaries of formalization, the recognition of property rights is expected to generate a new government-citizen relationship in which individuals are expected to pay fair taxes and the authorities will in return use these financial resources to serve the needs of the communities. In order to build this new relationship, citizens must trust that the government will deliver results once communities pay their taxes and share pertinent land information about their communities. TRUST IN MARD AND INCODER/ANT While there is awareness from household respondents about tilting programs, these programs are still struggling to gain the full trust and confidence of communities. The Eladio Ariza community leader explained the contentious process with their collective territories before and after the 1991 Constitution, “year after year there are promises and more promises, and not concrete results. The State is not interested in complying. We have been working on the territorial issue for several years, we have talked about the need to put limits on our territory and the results are yet to be seen." While the focus group participants from the Tolima formalization program in Chaparral found it to be highly beneficial, they also indicated some potential beneficiaries still doubt the program’s effectiveness because INCODER previously promised to title their properties and failed to deliver. These are examples of institutional distrust based on past experiences, which LRDP or future programming should continue to try to address. While key informants indicated that LRDP has made some improvements in building institutional capacity (though not consistently), which may improve citizen trust of institutions, survey respondents still indicate that they lack trust across government institutions that manage land. While perceptions about these institutions may relate to other functions such as providing agricultural subsidies, respondents were clearly asked about land-related functions. Forty-four percent (N=444) of respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “The MARD works in the benefit of both small and large landholders” The ANT is similarly distrusted. Half of respondents (50%, N=486) disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “I trust the National Land Agency (ANT) formally known as the Colombian Rural Development Institute (INCODER) distributes public land fairly.” There is some evidence that levels of trust in the MARD and the INCODER are higher in comparison (MARD: 37%, N=112; INCODER: 35%, N=129) areas compared to programming (MARD: 42%, N=303; INCODER 34%, N=238) areas, detailed in Figure 5-3. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 47 FORMALIZATION ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY AND PROCESSES This section examines various land-sector entities’ administrative capacity and processes related to formalization for rural populations and the accounting and recovery of public lands. The hypotheses related to these topics are below. H. LRDP programming areas display stronger administrative capacity and understanding of property formalization processes for rural populations (+/-) Indicators Perception of increased administrative capacity with respect to formalization efforts (+/-) Funds mobilized to support rural development, restitution and formalization in the regions (+) Administrative Level National (-) Municipal (+) Data Sources Stakeholder Survey KIIs M&E Data H. LRDP programming areas have improved accounting and recovery of public lands (+) Indicators Number of hectares of recovered public lands inventoried to feed into the Land Fund (+) Administrative Level National (+) Data Sources M&E Data FIGURE 5-3 RESPONDENT TRUST LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 48 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR LAND SECTOR ENTITIES According to LRDP and key informants, capacity building for formalization has been reported as the most challenging program component to implement. LRDP’s M&E data indicates that they had high expectations for the number of formalization cases processed— (136,872) by the end of 2016. However, the total number of actual cases processed was 5,178. Similarly, the number of target municipalities in which the formalization program is operating as a result of program assistance is five, while the target number was 37. Despite the challenges, mayors across ten municipalities report increases in citizens’ capacity for land formalization over the past three years. Additionally, most mayors that received training or technical assistance from LRDP related to formalization of land rights indicated they were either very satisfied or satisfied with the training. Restitution processes have increased IGAC9 workloads beyond capacity, concurrently with substantial budget cutoffs. As a result, LRDP has helped regional IGAC offices by hiring professional staff such as lawyers and surveyors (reconocedores) that visit the field to assist in the formalization process, and conducting inter-institutional dialogues to increase coordination among IGAC and other land institutions. As in the restitution component, the workshops with staff of IGAC, ORIP, LRU, and the CSJ, aim to develop appropriate protocols to facilitate inter-institutional dialogue and consensus￾building. LRDP also supported ANT in improving their accountability of land parcels through supporting legal studies of public lands. According to LRDP’s M&E data, the target number of hectares of recoverable public lands inventoried to potentially feed into the Land Fund is 47,000 and they exceeded this number with a total of 48,840. Accounting of public lands is critical to ensure that rural citizens can actually have access to the land. THE LAND OFFICES LRDP co-financed the establishment of a provisional land office in Ovejas which was able to meet the original goal of having 100 individual land titles formalized. LRDP also helped to hire the professional staff for the permanent land office. The Land Office also engaged in work to formalize IDP land, though KIIs yielded less information on this front. In 2017, LRDP was able to help establish a similar Land Office in Santander de Quilichao, which is a notable achievement since the land office was funded by the mayor, which is a high level of investment for local government. This Santander de Quilichao Land Office will have different targets compared to the Ovejas Land Office. In Santander de Quilichao, the office will focus on formalizing land meant to house public services and infrastructure, rather than individuals or families. The team in the Santander de Quilichao Local Office noted that this difference in priorities would mean that the municipality cannot afford to also register individual owners. The team in the Santander Land Office also noted that such targets will take into account the different conditions of each municipality. While the Ovejas Land Office was able to provide resources to formalize individual titles, the one in Santander de Quilichao is focused on formalizing municipal property claiming that the municipality cannot afford the high registry costs for individual owners. While these initiatives could prove useful in its approach, there is limited evidence to-date and capacity building around these initiatives is specific to the local government that supported them. ALTERNATIVE FORMALIZATION APPROACHES 9 IGAC is responsible for providing geographic information to determine the boundaries in property records. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 49 LRDP also worked closely with various levels of government and agencies in addition to beneficiary communities in the development and implementation of formalization pilots. Regional emphasis has varied according to local preferences. For instance, LRDP has supported large-scale pilot formalization initiatives (barrido predial integral) in Ovejas (Sucre Department) and is working to formalize public-use land in Santander de Quilichao (Cauca). 10 The presence of a USAID-financed projects were seen as beneficial in these communities and, according to key informants, reinforced some level of trust in the formalization process and the GoC institutions involved. Similarly, officials participating in these projects were supportive of LRDP’s work and felt that their support was very useful to pursue their institutional mandate at the national or regional level. FORMALIZATION FOR WOMEN AND ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS This section examines the women and ethnic minority group’s access to formalization services. The hypothesis related to these topics is below. Section 8 presents additional analysis of women and ethnic minorities. H. LRDP programming areas display stronger access rates of women and key ethnic minority groups to property formalization services (+) Indicators Municipal, regional and departmental rural development plans targeting women and ethnic minorities (+) Number of activities targeted to women and key ethnic minority groups (+) Administrative Level National (+) Data Sources KIIs Stakeholder Survey Success Stories FGDs WOMEN Twenty mayors indicated that their municipal rural development plans include assistance to women, minorities, and youth. About half of mayors across programming and comparison areas indicated that women in their municipality are very aware or somewhat aware of their land rights and the land titling process. Twelve mayors reported an increase in the extent women are aware and involved in the formalization process. Among mayors that have received assistance from LRDP, half agree LRDP has improved their municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to formalization services. Of the remaining mayors, two disagree that LRDP improved their capacity. As noted previously, the formalization program in Chaparral with APROVOCAL and ASOPROMIX is successful in its efforts to target women and improve their quality of life. As discussed earlier, these women underwent a training on the value and role of women in society and were provided technical and legal assistance for titling of small estates acquired by inheritance or by purchasing it without any documentation. They clearly benefited from the program and note the change in their self-worth. One respondent noted, “The gender approach regarding land seems fabulous. We feel valued and it makes us 10 In Ovejas, the initiative has started with schools and health centers that belong to the local government, but it is expected to expand to some peri-urban communities. In Cesar, LRDP is supporting formalization of public properties (for instance, rural schools for the Departmental Secretariats of Education), in addition to formalizing private properties of producers linked to value chains and irrigation districts. In Meta, besides supporting the formalization of public property, the program is developing and piloting a method for parcelization of properties allocated to farmers under collective titles. In Tolima, the program is not only supporting formalization of EDPs, but also facilitating the formalization of private properties left in limbo under the on-demand process. The LRDP has also worked with the Regional Directorates of the SNR alongside municipal governments in formalization efforts in urban areas. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 50 value ourselves more and more. Before, only the husband appeared [on the title], but I find it wonderful that after this process I have the opportunity to say 'This is ours’.” Women from the FGD also indicated that the formalization process was previously very expensive and difficult. However, they now feel that the program completely changed their perception of the process as noted “this formalization process is very cheap, it favors us at 100%. The topographer comes to our place and we do not have to pay. We’ve seen the change with the [LRDP] program and we have not had to pay anything.” It is important to note, that while women were supportive of not having to investment their money, this model may not be sustainable. ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS The PE team organized a FGD with Afro Colombian community leaders (Consejos Comunitarios de Comunidades Negras) intended to explore ethnic minority involvement in formalization in Cauca. While this group did not know of LRDP specifically, they did know of and respect USAID. In regards to formalization, this group again indicated some dissatisfaction over the protection of their territory and collective land titling. These communities consider collective titling as one of the only ways to protect their territories from external threats such as illegal mining. They indicated that the private formalization efforts the government has been carrying out since 2012 is not in their best interest, “We understand that people are deeply rooted in the desire to have the land individually…but that harms our community councils… It is true that people need to know what they have, but we want and need to formalize collective lands to protect our territory from the people and multinational companies lurking on our lands.” They also mentioned that the institutions conducting the topographical studies did not inform the community councils of what they were doing and did not ask permission. “We know that USAID has good intentions but the solution is not to reach the mayor’s or governor’s office, but straight to the communities that require so much work and support.” While this particular community has access to formalization services and they are aware of the institutions involved, they are not satisfied with the intent of the formalization work. SUSTAINABILITY PHYSICAL OUTPUTS AND INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES GoC partners strongly believe that LRDP investments in the formalization component are likely to be sustainable due to improved cooperation among agencies such as DNP, ANT, SNR and IGAC11, as well as advancements in digital records and databases. For example, in addition to regular follow-up with other agencies, SNR has considered engaging the support of independent third-parties that provide feedback on the compliance with the agreed protocols and timetables within the framework of the inter-institutional agreements and understandings entered into with such agencies. Moreover, to 11 According to some informants, scanning of digital records was previously attempted with the support of other international cooperation programs but was not fully effective because most scanned records do not allow updating/editing. This PE could not determine the accuracy of this statement. PARTICPANTS IN A FEMALE FGD PHOTO CREDIT: TANIA BONILLA LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 51 consolidate records and databases, a special purpose unit in charge of protection, restitution and formalization, called the SNR-PRF, has established a Document Management Unit that adopted the guidelines developed under LRDP. However, formalization will only be sustainable if people believe the process is trustworthy and if the costs of formalization are reasonable. These institutions need the revenue that the formalization process generates, and revenue will not be generated unless people trust the process and use it. The evaluation findings show that additional work is required to build trust in the key land institutions and in the formalization process overall. NO COSTS FOR TITLING PROCESS While women from the FGD in Tolima indicated their happiness with the formalization program, they also indicated that they have not had to pay anything to-date, which brings the process’ sustainability to question. If participants are not expected to contribute any funding, this could lead to high costs for the implementing organization with few long-lasting tangible results, since the GoC will most likely not be able to provide equivalent no-cost services nationwide. MAINSTREAMING OF FORMALIZATION PILOTS The small formalization pilots supported by LRDP face major challenges for the mid-to-long term formalization process. The country still needs a massive formalization program that fully integrates the registry and cadaster across the nation. The pilot may provide the building blocks for such a program, but its effectiveness, once complete, needs to be carefully evaluated. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND FORMALIZATION Findings from the stakeholder survey, KIIs, and discussions with LRDP all indicate that mayors are a critical link between community members, municipal government, and departmental and national processes and procedures. When mayors were asked about their potential role in formalization (irrespective of their current role in urban titling), 75% felt that they should play a role in rural land titling and formalizing land rights in their municipality. Similarly, almost three quarters of judges and LRU officials feel that mayors and the mayors’ office are very important or important to the success of formalization and rural titling processes. When mayors were asked what tools and resources they see available to them to support rural titling processes in their municipality, they primarily noted the ANT and the MARD Formalization Program, followed by the SNR Notaries and IGAC. Of the ten mayors that indicated having received assistance from LRDP, half feel that LRDP improved their municipality’s capacity to engage with citizens on land rights services. The other half neither agree nor disagree. Mayors were also the targets of formalization-related trainings or technical assistance. Four mayors indicated they had received training or TA assistance from LRDP related to formalization of land rights, of which three indicated they were either very satisfied or satisfied with the training. Since citizens also have more exposure to mayors than to many land-related institutions, building relationships and trust between citizens and the mayor’s office may be beneficial in ensuring that citizens believe in and are eager to participate in the formalization process. The Land Offices could potentially be an avenue to build such trust and establish stronger community relationships. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 52 RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this section is to provide recommendations for LRDP as well as future programs that will continue LRDP’s work. All recommendations are based on a culmination of findings from this section, although some recommendations are cross-cutting with other components. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR EVALUATE THE RESULTS OF FORMALIZATION PILOTS For reasons listed previously, it was challenging to assess the formalization component at the time of this PE. The establishment of the Land Office in Santander de Quilichao and Ovejas (and the office under development in Fuente de Oro) should be tracked during the remaining program implementation period. Furthermore, the two offices should be compared in terms of obstacles and achievements in order to better understand how challenges faced by Land Offices may vary by region and establish lessons learned for future potential Land Offices. For future programming, the results of the formalization pilot methodology in Ovejas should be analyzed. At the time of writing this PE, the expectations were also high in terms of reducing the titling process time (from 7 years to 18 months) and the cost (from USD 750 to USD 350). Additionally, these efforts should be compared to other formalization activities with institutions such as the World Bank in terms of effectiveness. FUTURE PROGRAMMING SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS TO ENGAGE CITIZENS AND BUILD INSTITUTIONAL TRUST Several key informants made a distinction between an “administrative” strengthening (i.e. internal processes improved through IT or technical assistance) and the real “institutional” strengthening in which the legitimacy of the institution vis-à-vis the society at large is strengthened. In order to achieve this, future programming could help institutions such as ANT, SNR and IGAC to engage in higher risk activities such as public meetings where the institution opens up to citizens, and establishes themselves as leaders in realizing peace/post-conflict activities within their jurisdiction. As noted by focus group participants, distrust of the institutions involved with formalization still pervades. Through creating more opportunities for community members to engage in the process and with these institutions, it may help establish trust and provide the needed foundation for sustainable formalization. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL NEW PARTNERS AND ROLES One of the weaknesses noted by SNR key informants in connection with formalization, with a potential impact on sustainability, is that the notaries (key players in the standard formalization process) have not been involved in LRDP. Similarly, SNR underlined that the unclear role of MARD and the successor agencies of INCODER in the implementation of the Peace Accords. Future programming in this field may consider alternatives to engage these players or further define their roles in the formalization process. EXPLORE THE POTENTIAL OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Involving more stakeholders could also help explore options such as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which was briefly explored (but not followed up on) as an assessment conducted by a specialized company for the central offices with input from the regional offices. In the case of formalization, ADR has the potential to provide external legitimate mediation or conciliation techniques as an option to court rulings or administrative agencies’ decisions. The complexities of formalization issues may be more LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 53 rapidly and amicably dealt with by ADR than through an adversarial judicial process that generally ends with winning/losing parties. Also, the social realities on the ground may be better captured by an ADR process than through the traditional court debate where legal formalities usually take precedence. This process could potentially support building more institutional trust since individuals would most likely not feel as threatened by the uncertainties and complexities of the legal system. IMPROVE DONOR COORDINATION Some GoC partners also observed that it would be desirable that a USAID-financed initiative such as LRDP reported regularly on the dialogue conducted with parallel formalization/land information initiatives of other donors (Switzerland, the Netherlands). While the partners are highly appreciative of LRDP support and have praised the outcomes of LRDP, some also believe that a more effective coordination among project operators would be highly beneficial to all the participating institutions, as a sign of the joint support of the international community and for the purposes of generating new synergies. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 54 6.0 FINDINGS—RURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES LRDP supports the GoC to assist their departments and municipalities in mobilizing resources to improve the quality of life in rural areas, with the end goal of giving priority attention to restitution and land titling beneficiaries. This includes supporting the three new land and rural development-related agencies including the ANT, the Rural Development Agency, and the Agency for Territorial Renovation. Supporting these agencies at the regional level to develop their management models and strategic plans is critical to the sustainability of regionally-focused interventions and to the ability to implement land and rural development policies across the country. A key start-up challenge for LRDP in advancing rural development efforts relates to electoral cycles. Resources, particularly at the regional and local level, have been vulnerable to shifting priorities brought about by new elections and administrative turn-over. Maintaining a consistent commitment of resources from the center across electoral cycles is critical to ensuring that rural development programs and efforts are not cut short. LRDP worked with local governments, producer associations, and community leaders to drive these rural development efforts forward in partnership with departmental secretaries of agriculture. One of LRDP’s key rural development activities has been facilitating strategic alliances between regional/local governments, commercial partners (such as large agribusinesses) and associations of local producers of a variety of crops/products (i.e., cacao, plantain, milk, etc.) for the design and implementation of productive projects. The focus of these partnerships has been the transfer of experience from the private sector (as well as from such actors as CORPOICA and SENA) to the local farmers that will build farmer capacity (in Meta Department some activities have been grouped under the label of “Escuelas del Campo”).12 An important start-up challenge in the establishment of successful PPPs is uneven organizational quality and professional experience among the producer associations. Some associations struggle to coordinate production efforts, while others lack the organizational 12 Regional differences were noted in the interaction between beneficiary communities and LRDP regarding the technical assistance provided to producer associations around PPPs. For example, in Montes de María, a community leader noted that although LRDP proposed to grow cacao the association was able to agree with the program that avocado was a crop closer to their cultural traditions while it was also profitable in the short term. In Tolima, by contrast, producer associations seemed to have follow more closely LRDP’s recommendations regarding crops. “The LRDP program built brand new capacities among producer association members in areas that had been seriously affected by the internal conflict. Now they have taken their future into their own hands.” Carlos F. Fuentes, Development Director, Alqueria LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 55 capacity to meet the quality control expectations of the private sector companies. Improving the capacity of producers is thus a key part of generating successful PPPs. It’s important to note that at the time of writing this PE, many PPP activities were just moving from the planning to implementation phases. FINDINGS The PE examined outcome indicators related to the rural development structural component across various data sources. As LRDP interventions have been unequally applied across target municipalities, beneficiary household outcomes were only assessed in the geographic area where rural development interventions have been implemented. Some context related information is also provided below, which was used to help inform recommendations and provide a deeper understanding of the issues LRDP is facing in program implementation. For each hypothesis, the “+” indicates positive results, a “-“ indicates null results, and a “+/-“ indicates a mix of both positive and null results. The specific outcome variables that were used to evaluate LRDP for rural development are detailed in Annex 9—Beneficiary Household Survey Outcome Tables and Annex 10—Stakeholder Survey Outcome Tables. AWARENESS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS This section examines respondents’ awareness and satisfaction with PPPs as well as ethnic minorities and women’s access to PPPs. The hypotheses related to these topics are below. H. LRDP beneficiaries have increased awareness of the presence of PPPs (+) Indicators Awareness of presence and work of PPPs (+) Administrative Level National (+) Municipal (+) Household (+) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs Stakeholder Survey H. LRDP programming areas have increased rates of new LRDP-supported PPPs (+) Indicators Number of PPPs (+) Administrative Level National (+) Municipal (+) Data Sources Stakeholder Survey H. LRDP programming areas display stronger access rates of women and ethnic minorities in PPPs (+) Indicators Number of activities targeted to women and key ethnic minority groups (+) Administrative Level National (+) Data Sources Stakeholder Survey KIIs LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 56 ESTABLISHING PULIC-PRIVATE PARTNERHIPS The PPP model designed by LRDP has helped members of beneficiary producer associations to become more competitive by improving quality, increasing production, and meeting industry standards. Traditionally, producer associations suffered from low technical capacity, weak organizational skills, and high leadership turnover. By contrast, private firms have established high quality standards that the associations seldom meet, thereby forcing the firms to invest in oversight and quality assurances. In the absence of PPPs, producers would have limited access to national markets, and weak productive practices. Some LRDP projects with producer associations have included innovative technical assistance activities structured around farmers’ capacity-building (Plan Finca), strategic planning, investment decisions, etc. According to several key informants, LRDP helped some associations to conduct initial contact with financial institutions. By working with a number of producer associations in the same regions, LRDP has helped to restore the social fabric of those geographical areas that had been previously broken by the activities of illegal armed groups and the weak security conditions of the conflict period. This is particularly the case in areas that for some time were under the influence by guerilla groups, such as the municipalities of Vista Hermosa, Puerto Lleras and Puerto Rico in Meta Department. Program start-up in these regions coincided with a period of reduced violence, and is now associated with the advent of a promising peace and reconciliation process. LRDP AS A FACILITATOR As with other programs financed by international cooperation in the rural sector, LRDP is seen as a facilitator that helps governments and communities work together around a specific set of short, medium and long-term objectives. As several key informants indicated, private sector partners feel that LRDP’s approach on rural development is fully consistent with their own standards of corporate social responsibility: to provide in-kind assistance to the communities (not cash) and to operate as facilitators of productive projects (not as technical or financial assistance intermediaries). Working in post-conflict zones posed particular challenges for these private partners, especially in terms of coordination with some local authorities and community leaders. The role of LRDP in bringing together various entities to identify common needs and promote community empowerment was widely praised during the KIIs. By joining efforts with local governments and producer associations, commercial partners (such as large agribusinesses) expect to help develop more efficient practices, and bring local produce to major national markets while generating new sources of income for the association members. While managing expectations of various stakeholders is challenging, several key informants indicated that LRDP has succeeded in this regard. AWARENESS OF AND SATISFACTION WITH PPPS Findings across four separate PPP-focused FDGs indicate mixed results on key objectives to-date. The Cesar APRIARIAN PPP Beekeeping program appears to be a successful intervention thus far, as LRDP involvement has improved performance through targeted technical assistance and beneficiaries have high expectations about future developments. One new participant interested in beekeeping noted the improvement since last year due to USAID’s support, “USAID support has been critical because many things that did not work last year have changed, caused by poor coordination and lack of knowledge. For example, training was not entirely fruitful since everything they taught us was theory and not in the LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 57 field. So when there were problems with the hives and weather issues we did not know how to react. Fortunately, USAID showed up to support us with proper technical training in the field.” Overall, there are very high expectations about the PPPs, although this perception is mixed with some lack of confidence in GoC, fear of wasting resources and time, and uncertainty about the consistency of technical assistance. It is important to note that there are a plethora of GoC institutions working in the some areas, such as Montes de Maria, and disentangling the specific effects of LRDP participation is difficult as respondents often refer to assistance from “USAID.” Focus group participants involved in the ASPROCAM cocoa producer association in Montes de Maria highlighted concerns over past projects, “[the first stage in 2007] was disastrous because they [GoC] did not give us sufficient knowledge about crop management or the periods of sowing, harvesting and pruning.” “They [GoC] established prices and guidelines that had nothing to do with reality. For example, we had been told that we would achieve high production amounts, but we did not. In view of these problems, many people gave up the project.” FGD respondents involved in the ASOPRAN producer association stressed that they were fearful that agricultural projects might not be successful since there were no assurances or safeguards. This fear is driven, in part, by their unfortunate past experiences with failed cocoa support programs. These individuals are investing a lot of time and resources, there is a lot of risk involved if the technical assistance is not sufficient or the program ends unexpectedly. One FGD respondent noted, “It's been decade after decade that the government comes and offers us projects, and as a farmer one gets excited and then they leave us with great losses for ourselves and our families.” Ensuring that technical assistance is consistent over time, and provides capacity building in line with community needs is vital. Despite these past experiences, most producers are hopeful about the PPPs and there is high confidence in USAID. As the ASPROCAM FGD stated, “USAID has trained us, held meetings, and come to the communities to talk to the people. The people they send are trained and we have regained trust. We hope that this will continue and that they will give us support and respect as human beings and as agricultural entrepreneurs.” This noted increased sense of trust is essential to ensure that these rural development efforts are sustainable. Household respondents also indicated that they were aware and involved in PPPs throughout the regions. Seventeen percent of households in programming areas (N=99), compared to 8% (N=63) of comparison households participated in a PPP related to agriculture, livestock, or water management, a difference that is statistically significant. These “USAID has trained us, held meetings, moved to the sidewalks to talk to producers. The people they send are trained and we have regained trust and we hope that this will continue, and they will give us the support and respect as human beings and as agricultural entrepreneurs that we deserve.” FGD ASPROCAM Participant APRIARIAN PPP BEEKEEPING PROGRAM MEMBERS DURING FGD PHOTO CREDIT: TANIA BONILLA LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 58 partnerships are reported to be beneficial to participants. Among those who participated, 69% (N=67) of respondents in programming areas and 85% (N=52) of comparison respondents expressed satisfaction with the results of the project. Over half of these households (67%, N=93) were satisfied with their experience working with the private company partner, shown in Figure 6-1. Additionally, 62% (N=100) report their household income has increased as a result of the project. Perceptions that PPP participation boosted incomes is significantly higher in programming areas than in comparison areas, detailed in Figure 6-2. Many mayors also noted that the number of PPPs in their municipality has been increasing. Almost all mayors were familiar with PPPs and indicated that PPPs are very important for increasing incomes and improving the livelihoods for producers and their families. Six mayors specifically noted that there have been new PPPs initiated in their municipality in the past three years. According to LRDP’s M&E data, LRDP had a target of forming 13 PPPs, but only five have been reported to date. According to LRDP staff, more PPPs are in the process of being formed. While household respondents and stakeholders were familiar with PPPs, household respondents may have been referring to PPPs that were not specifically new LRDP PPPs. FIGURE 6-1 RESPONDENT SATISIFACTION LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 59 WOMEN AND ETHNIC MINORITIES ACCESS TO PPPS LRDP helped organize pro-PPP meetings with indigenous cabildos in Cauca Department that would have otherwise been very difficult or impossible to organize. 13 LRDP has also specifically worked with women in producer associations such as the “Rural Woman” sub-program, which provided women with support to access credit and learn how to better manage agri-businesses. Many other producer associations involved in PPPs are also made up of ethnic minorities and women. Of the mayors that indicated having received support from LRDP, many agreed that LRDP improved their office’s capacity to give women and ethnic minorities stronger access to rural development services. About half of mayors also indicated that they have seen a change in the extent that women are 13 To address traditional weaknesses of the producer association, LRDP not only facilitates PPPs with large private sector companies but also supports the associations with a modern management information system for productive projects (Sistema de Gestión de Proyectos Agropecuarios—SIGPA) designed to improve the project design process and align the projects with a larger GoC or international framework (Paris Agreement on Climate Change, Pacto Agrario, rural-urban migration, aging, inter-generational changes, etc.). Through a downloadable app, in Meta SIGPA facilitates access to general rural sector information, cost templates for various agricultural products, contact information of producer associations, and public sector investments in rural areas. LRDP also requires the associations to adopt full￾fledged consultation/participation mechanisms. FIGURE 6-2 RESPONDENT INCOME CHANGE LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 60 involved in PPPs over the past three years. Overall, there is evidence of women and ethnic minorities involvement in PPPs. Section 8 presents additional analysis of women and ethnic minorities. MUNICIPAL AND DEPARTMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS This section analyzes LRDP’s work on municipal and departmental development plans. The hypothesis related to this topic is below. H. LRDP programming areas have an increased number of Departmental and Municipal Development Plans that include reference to rural development (+) Indicators Municipal, regional and departmental development plans that reference rural development (+) Administrative Level National (+) Data Sources Annual Reports Departmental and Municipal Development Plans KIIs Stakeholder Survey Through the provision of technical assistance, LRDP has supported the drafting and implementation of Departmental and Municipal development plans. These plans define various policy objectives and identify a series of suitable programs and projects to achieve such objectives (for example, in Meta Department four municipalities of the Ariari Region established a Food Production and Water Reserve Zone). During year three, LRDP engaged with new local officials (governors and mayors) to forge relationships to support six departmental and 57 municipal development plans, ensuring that land and rural development initiatives were included. Several key informants noted LRDP’s support in transferring best practices across regions in the implementation of these plans. Almost all mayors indicated that their municipal rural development plans include assistance to women, minorities and youth. For many regions, organizing planning and budgeting exercises using a bottom-up model is a new experience. These plans have also helped local governments to better understand and act on the needs and priorities of rural communities. LRDP’s work with training government officials related to development planning is also evident from the stakeholder survey. Four mayors indicated having training from LRDP related to development planning and three indicated satisfaction with the assistance. Increased visibility of rural communities should facilitate further cooperation and understanding around broad local development strategies. 14 According to project M&E data, beginning in the 4th quarter of 2015, LRDP more than doubled (44 total) their target number (22) of priority projects identified by local citizens that are included in rural development plans or initiatives. By the end of 2016, LRDP also had reached close to 88% of their target (100 of 113) priority projects. Some of the priorities identified by LRDP in the development of these rural plans received additional LRDP support, such as the Land Offices in Santander, Ovejas and Fuente de Oro, as well as support for rural roads in some municipalities. 14 A hybrid methodology for Rural Development Plans with a Territorial Focus was developed with the assistance of Javeriana University for the regional offices of LRDP in Cesar, Cauca, Montes de Maria and Tolima. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 61 MOBILIZING RESOURCES FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT This section analyzes LRDP’s work on bridging levels of government, which supports the mobilization of funds for rural development. The hypotheses related to these topics are below. H. LRDP programming areas have increased rates of submissions of rural projects to be funded by departmental and municipal governments (+) Indicators Number of Rural Project submissions (+) Administrative Level National (+) Municipal (+) Data Sources Annual Reports Stakeholder Survey KIIs H. LRDP programming areas have increased mobilization of funds for rural development (+) Indicators Number of Rural Project submissions (+) Funds mobilized to support rural development in the regions (+) Administrative Level National (+) Municipal (+) Data Sources Annual Reports M&E Data Departmental and Municipal Rural Development Plans Stakeholder Survey KIIs BRIDGING LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT Key informants noted that LRDP built bridges between the GoC and communities that previously had not been engaged in activities with GoC authorities. One reason for this increased engagement reported by key informants is their perception of LRDP as a non-political program, designed for the specific purpose of fostering rural development synergies. This lack of political agenda was also noted as a reason why LRDP was able to sustain various rural development initiatives and maintain institutional relationships throughout the electoral cycles. Several mayors also agreed that LRDP specifically improved their office’s connection to national and regional agencies. Key informants praised LRDP’s ability to deliver a rapid response to community demands and to coordinate with other levels of government. Relatedly, key informants noted that LRDP was highly efficient because they faced less bureaucratic hurdles compared with the internal processes of GoC agencies for rural development. For instance, although LRDP does not directly finance infrastructure investments, it quickly provided the required technical assistance to local governments for the preparation of the design studies of roads (such as that between Lejanias and El Castillo in Meta Department), which will break a major bottleneck in an area with high agricultural potential. LRDP’s ability to bridge levels of government and quickly mobilize support is a crucial program component because it allows increased resource mobilization between the regions, particularly in the case of rural development. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 62 FUNDS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT As of December 2016, LRDP’s M&E data indicated that they reached 3,694 households against a target of 5000 (the target was consequently adjusted to 7500) for the number of rural households in conflict affected regions that would gain access to public goods through expanded funding as a result of LRDP assistance (most projects were irrigation, productive projects or producer associations). LRDP’s M&E data also indicates that that the percentage of projects in implementation financed by LRDP is at 108%, demonstrating that they exceeded their target of 75 with a total of 81 financed projects. Additionally, LRDP M&E and USAID/Colombia data indicate that LRDP mobilized USD $52,607,603 from the public and private sector. Both of these indicators shows that LRDP has made significant progress in mobilizing funds. There is also some indication from mayors that both the number and quality of rural project submissions have been increasing. Ten mayors (seven in programming and three in comparison areas) indicated that there has been an increase in the number of submissions of rural projects to be funded by the departmental or national government in the past three years. Six mayors indicated neither a decrease or increase and only two noted a decrease. About half of mayors surveyed indicated that 50% or more of these submissions have been successful, which is a similar breakdown across comparison and programming areas. Overall, there is evidence at the national level and municipal level that funding and support for rural development is increasing. The next section explores household perceptions of this resource mobilization. PERCEPTION OF LOCAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT This section examines household respondents’ perception of their municipal and national government, the effectiveness of local land-related entities (which is also explored in a previous sections), in addition to rural households’ satisfaction with rural development technical assistance and rural development overall. The hypothesis related to these topics are below. Despite the evidence at the national and municipal level that funds and support for rural development are increasing, household respondents in programming areas are divided over their satisfaction with local government efforts over rural development efforts. Forty-six percent (N=260) of respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “Overall, I am very satisfied with the work of the municipal government in rural development”, and 42% percent (N=240) agree or strongly agree with the statement. Of the remaining respondents, 18% (42) say the neither agree nor disagree. Despite being dissatisfied with the municipal government’s work in rural development, only 11% (N=64) have participated in a meeting to discuss a municipal or regional development plans in the past 12 months. The distributions are similar between respondents in programming areas and comparison respondents. H. LRDP beneficiaries have improved opinion of the government’s efforts to promote rural development (+/-) Indicators Perceptions of the regional and national government (+/-) Perceptions of efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of local and regional land-related government entities (+/-) Administrative Level Household (+/-) Data Sources Beneficiary household survey FGDs LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 63 It’s important to note that party affiliations also play into people’s satisfaction and participation rates, although that information was not assessed as part of this PE. Approximately a quarter of households (N=344) have received technical assistance from the government to help improve agricultural production, though households in the programming area are not more likely to report receiving such assistance than comparison households. Of those households who have received assistance, nearly all believe the assistance was beneficial (79%, N=273). Roughly one in ten households received a government subsidy targeted to agricultural producers in the past three years (12%, N=153). These subsidies are more prevalent in the programming area, although not at a level that is statistically significant. Accordingly, approximately eighty percent (122) of household respondents receiving a subsidy found them to be beneficial or very beneficial. Twenty-two (N=293) percent of respondents report that their households have benefited from a government project in the past three years. Although there is general satisfaction with technical assistance and government subsidies, an overall environment of uncertainty and fear around government programs and companies operating in rural areas still persists. This distrust stems from these communities’ past bad experiences with government institutions. The ASOPRAN producer association in Macayepo understands that PPPs are a joint effort between multiple institutions: “We understand that the budget for this project is organized by the Ministry of Agriculture. This project is new. We know that USAID has been watching and evaluating it.” While FGD participants indicate some assurance since USAID is involved, they still have concerns regarding the collaboration between regional entities: “USAID is coming to Macayepo since last year. We do not know if they have invested with the Ministry. We have “The important thing about the PPP is that each institution fulfills its commitments and that we comply with a good product. But for that, we need the institutions to be responsible because we are already exhausted from the times that they came, visited us, and left. We are tired of them giving us bread, we want to be taught how to make it.” FGD ASPROAGROMAR Participant ASPROAGROMAR FGD PARTICIPANTS DISCUSSING THEIR PERCEPTION OF PPPS PHOTO CREDIT: TANIA BONILLA LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 64 only been given training and cocoa management workshops on how to prune and manage pests.” In Maria la Baja, members of ASPROAGROMAR expressed a similar sentiment over their perception of a recently formed PPP for yams and cocoa, “the important thing about the PPP is that it fulfills its established functions…that each institution fulfill its commitments and that we comply with a good product. But for that, we need the institutions to be responsible because we are already exhausted from the times that they came, visited us, and left. We are tired of them giving us bread, we want to be taught how to make it.” These communities appear to know who is involved in the projects and if all institutions follow through with the project as committed, these communities will most likely have a better perception of the organizations involved. Despite some fear and uncertainty, enthusiasm for PPPs is still widespread. While LRDP has been supporting efforts that are rebuilding trust among government institutions, FGDs and household respondent results to-date are still varied. LIVELIHOOD AND QUALITY OF LIFE This section examines the livelihood and welfare of rural households including assets, income levels and access to infrastructure such as roads and irrigation. The hypothesis related to this topic is below. H. LRDP programming areas have improved livelihood and welfare outcomes (+/-) Indicators Household assets and income (+/-) Access to public infrastructure (roads and irrigation) (-) Administrative Level Household (+/-) Data Sources Stakeholder Survey Beneficiary household survey HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ASSETS Irrespective of perceptions of municipal government and rural development, half of respondents in programming areas believe that their family’s quality of life has improved (51%, 293), though this proportion is not statistically significantly higher than comparison areas, detailed in Figure 6-3. While not something that LRDP specifically supports, 71% (N=406) of respondents in programming areas do not believe it has become easier to find a job in their municipality in the past three years. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 65 Income Half of respondents are currently working (50%, N=729), and another 36% (N=531) identify as homemakers. Seven percent (N=97) are actively looking for work. The percentage of respondents currently working is roughly similar across programming (54%, N=440) and comparison areas (48%, N=373). The most common job by far is smallholder farming, both for subsistence (42%, N=349) and for wages (25%, N=206). Subsistence farming in particular appears more common in programming areas (50%; N=242) than comparison areas (34%; N=147). Seven percent of households (N=101) report having no annual income, and 22% (N=326) earn between COP$225.000 and COP$325.000 per year. Sixty-two percent (N=) earned less than COP$545.000 in the past year. Unsurprisingly, only 10% (N=149) of households report their income is enough for them, and 41% (N=599) report that they are having a hard time financially. Over the past 3 years, only 9% of households (N=138) report that their income has increased. Forty percent of households believe their income has decreased (N=589), and the rest report no change. Across all of these statistics, rates across programming and comparison regions are very similar, though the proportion of households reporting sufficient income is slightly higher in comparison areas (12%) compared to programming areas (7%). Household Assets Roughly half of all households have an indoor bathroom in their house (49%, N=721), and a third of households are connected to the sewage system (33%, N=479). Five percent (N=76) of households have access to the internet. Nearly 90% (88%, N=1283) of households have at least one mobile phone, and 82% (N=1201) have a television. Less common are cars (4%, N=61), motorcycles (40%, N=584), and FIGURE 6-3 RESPONDENT BENEFITS EXPERIENCED LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 66 bicycles (27%, N=393). These patterns are very similar across programming and comparison regions. Table 6-1. shows the percent of households who own at least one of a variety of assets. TABLE 6-1 HOUSEHOLD ASSETS Assets Household owns at least one Motorcycle 40% (N=584) Washing Machine 40% (N=588) Car 4% (N=61) TV 82% (N=1201) Mobile phone 88% (N=1283) Bicycle 27% (N=393) Radio 52% (N=755) Computer 9% (N=136) Refrigerator 68% (N=1006) Stove 64% (N=951) Hoe 64% (649) At this mid-point in the program, the evaluation finds little evidence that these rural development interventions have been translated into significant municipal and household livelihood improvements across programming areas. However, it’s important to note that assessing livelihoods without a baseline is challenging and it may be too soon to assess this level of change. INFRASTRUCTURE Overall, respondents express a high degree of dissatisfaction with the quality of roads (55%, N=857) and the quality of irrigation infrastructure (31%, N=676), and only 27% (N=425) of households describe the condition of infrastructure in their municipality as good or very good. Of the mayors that indicated that there has been an infrastructure project in their municipality in the past three years, almost all indicated that the infrastructure projects have targeted areas of previous conflict and displacement. The results in Figure 6-4 details satisfaction across roads, general infrastructure, and the municipal government. However, given that very few respondents were captured in municipalities that received infrastructure￾related programming specific to LRDP, so it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 67 CROP SUBSTITUTION Another important aspect of improved livelihoods in the case of Colombia is addressing illicit crop cultivation such as coca and finding an alternative replacement. LRDP was not specifically designed to address some regional challenges such as the presence of armed groups (guerrilla/paramilitary/illegal cartels involved in drug trafficking)15 or the growing tensions between indigenous and peasant farmers about coca cultivation. 16 However, workshops were organized with LRDP support to increase coordination between ACP, ANT, the Rural Development Agency, etc., about ACP plans for post￾conflict activities such as crop substitution. Since reducing coca cultivation is a major security concern of the GoC, the PE collected data measuring attitudes towards coca cultivation in rural areas. In the sample, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%, N=1056) disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “In my municipality, there is a perception that the cultivation of coca is a reasonable way to make a living.” A small majority of households (55%, N=802) agree that “the cultivation of coca is a crime, and it should be prosecuted to 15 In the opinion of some respondents the power vacuum FARC has left behind is being filled by other armed actors, making microfocalization particularly difficult. 16 For example, residents that grow coca in the Santander de Quilichao area typically do not allow access to state agencies’ representatives so the ability of institutions such as IGAC to conduct restitution-related work is limited. FIGURE 6-4 RESPONDENT SATISFACTION LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 68 the full extent of the law.” A marginally smaller percentage (47%, N=696) of respondents would go so far as to report a neighbor to the authorities for growing coca. However, given the sensitive nature of these questions, it is plausible that respondents are overstating their disapproval of coca cultivation. The partnerships supported under the LRDP program have developed effective alternatives to illicit crops to the extent that they have brought income generation opportunities to farming families that would not have been otherwise available. Cash has started to flow from markets in the largest cities of the country to previously isolated rural areas affected by the internal conflict. Producer associations have played a major role in the dissemination of the technical knowledge provided by the private partner to the association members, which (as confirmed in KIIs and FGDs) is particularly critical for crop substitution efforts in post-conflict areas. Moreover, the transition has to be as smooth as possible to ensure that members do not become frustrated and start considering other options (reversion to illicit crops or migration). SUSTAINABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE BOTTLENECKS In spite of the progress of recent years (including some investments of LRDP local government partners), infrastructure constraints such as lack of roads and irrigation continue to be identified as the top risk for the sustainability of these rural development initiatives. Access to markets depends on the ability of local, regional and national governments to finally break these infrastructure bottlenecks that are still affecting some LRDP program areas. POLICY COHESION AND TARGETED RESOURCES On the policy side, some key informants questioned the cohesion of the rural development approaches at the various levels of government, and wondered how LRDP and other donor-supported programs could operate given varying rural development policies. KII findings emphasized the need to focus objectives so that resources could be targeted under a single policy or program (as it was the case of LRDP) rather than fund a variety of dispersed initiatives. For example, the micro-finance programs of FINAGRO and Banco Agrario could potentially support producer associations that worked with LRDP. LOCAL SERVICE DELIVERY NEW PARADIGMS Through a series of innovative methodologies, LRDP has been able to change the paradigms about the role of international cooperation in rural development. Traditional programs are limited in providing additional resources to communities or local governments for direct investments in infrastructure. LRDP has, however, been able to increase investment and establish institutional coordination among various stakeholders. This has enabled LRDP to ultimately reduce their own role and investment in rural development initiatives. Through assisting various actors to fulfill their own service delivery gaps, LRDP is supporting a sustainable model of rural development that avoids creating dependencies on international cooperation. BEST PRACTICES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT In terms of environmental sustainability, one private partner highlighted an alliance being developed with an environmental NGO (WWF) to protect biodiversity corridors and undertake the creation of “living fences” as a new activity within the framework of the productive projects with the associations. In other LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 69 cases, the development of “cold chains” is also expected to leave a positive impact in terms of energy efficiency practices of communities. RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this section is to provide recommendations for LRDP as well as future programs that will continue LRDP’s work. All recommendations are based on a culmination of findings from this section, although some recommendations are cross-cutting with other components. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR DETERMINE PRODUCER ASSOCIATION ROLE IN PPP LRDP has helped some producer associations to follow more standardized procedures. However, as one private sector partner noted, the guidelines under which a producer association should operate remains unclear. While some associations purchase agricultural products from association members, others purchase their products from third parties. Through purchasing outward, the association is fulfilling the role of an intermediary organization, which may not be as beneficial or profitable for individual farmers. While some association leaders claim that this intermediary operational model will benefit the members, others see this activity as breaking the intent of working with the producer association, which is supposed to allow them to directly access national markets. Future programming should determine what, if any, operational model would be the most beneficial to support. This will promote a more consistent business model with private sector partners and ensure that the rural communities involved in PPPs are benefiting as intended. CONTINUE DEVELOPING AND DRIVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT LRDP has engaged with local authorities and associations across various municipalities to ensure unconditional commitment. Some key informants noted that the program has built brand new capacities among producer association members in areas seriously affected by the internal conflict and helped them “to take their future into their own hands.” This capacity-building effort is expected to be sustainable if relationships are maintained. LRDP’s assistance to numerous development plans commits the regional and local governments to LRDP’s approach of building capacities and removing bottlenecks in rural areas. For future success, it is also critical that communities hold their local government accountable for the implementation of these plans. FUTURE PROGRAMMING REQUIRE EFFECTIVE OVERLAPPING OF BENEFICIARIES Overall, the rural development component has not fully followed LRDP’s “integrated approach”, i.e. ensuring beneficiary farmers are also participating in other components, such as restitution or formalization. From the evidence collected via the KIIs of this PE, the connection between rural development activities and the two major components of the LRDP program on the ground (restitution, formalization) is weak. Although the larger geographical areas of LRDP are the same, the PE team did not find evidence that the members of the producer associations involved in rural development were mostly beneficiaries of restitution and formalization. The key informants suggested that most members were not participating in any restitution or formalization initiatives, and benefitted only from the technical assistance. While the integrated approach may be challenging to implement under LRDP’s current model of selecting already LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 70 formed producer associations, LRDP is ultimately limiting their ability to provide well-rounded economic support, which was the intent of the “integrated approach." While it is possible that integration can be achieved going forward with PPPs (including restituted and formalization families), future programming should consider which options will most greatly benefit these rural families. Some options to explore include (1) the possibility of establishing as a producer association pre-requisite of at least some association members’ engagement in restitution or formalization, (2) finding producer associations with significant interest and need for restitution or formalization, or (3) providing restitution or formalization beneficiaries with the opportunity to participate in or form producer associations. Although option three would require more resources, it could be achieved through determining areas where restitution or formalization needs are particularly high and engaging with those communities. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 71 7.0 FINDINGS— INFORMATION MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES Many land issues in Colombia (including those of restitution and formalization) depend on the development of a uniform land information system that will facilitate information sharing and accuracy. A 2016 Notaries and Registry Superintendency (SNR) assessment recently identified 66 ways in which victims of Colombia’s armed conflict suffered property rights violations including document forgery, identity theft, alteration of the legal data chain at public registry offices, and inadequate information management by GoC entities. These violations are related to the lack of technological infrastructure and the existence of a largely paper-based registry information system across the land entities, which leaves this information prone to falsification and alteration. In order to achieve land restitution, formalization, and public land recovery, it is crucial that the GoC’s land information systems be digitized, while also putting proper security and data protocols into place. LRDP has been providing information management assistance to ensure that the GoC is able to achieve this across all land-related entities. The information and knowledge management component, therefore, supports the objectives of the other three components by building efficiency, transparency and integrity into the delivery of key land and rural development services. This component also serves information needs and systems for project banks and other applications involved in territorial management of rural development. LRDP’s three key activities in this area include converting paper files to digital formats, building electronic information systems, and launching a network called the Land Node, which aims to make data accessible across all key land sector entities. LRDP’s work on this structural component faces several institutional challenges that are important to highlight. The first pertains to coordinating the efficient exchange of land information between the LRU, ANT, IGAC, SNR, and the CSJ. These institutions work at different stages of the land restitution and formalization process, which can often make coordination challenging. The second challenge is complex workflows, where agencies often have little autonomy and require inputs from other agencies, such as IGAC, before making decisions on deed recordings. Key informants in the SNR noted frustration over “The LRDP program team has been highly responsive to our institutional needs, and particularly helpful at the time of facilitating inter-institutional coordination.” Jairo A. Mesa, Superintendent of Notaries and Registries LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 72 this matter. The third challenge pertains to the dissolution of INCODER and the inheritance by the ANT of outdated and inconsistent INCODER databases. Key informants noted the difficulty of incorporating these databases into their own systems. Finally, there are future challenges related to the implementation of the peace accord, where “fast-track” provisions in the agreement may shift responsibilities of different land-related agencies. FINDINGS The PE examined outcome indicators related to the information and knowledge management component across various data sources. Some context related information is also provided below, which was used to help inform recommendations and provide a deeper understanding of the issues LRDP is facing in program implementation. For each hypothesis, the “+” indicates positive results, a “-” indicates null results, and a “+/-” indicates a mix of both positive and null results. The specific outcome variables that were used to evaluate LRDP for information management are detailed in Annex 10— Stakeholder Survey Outcome Tables. EFFICIENCY AND SPEED OF LAND INFORMATION SYSTEMS This section analyzes stakeholders and key informants’ perception of the effectiveness of information systems and the digitization of land information. The hypothesis related to this area of interest is below. H: LRDP programming areas demonstrate reductions in processing time for the restitution ruling monitoring system (+) Indicators Perceptions of information system speed and efficiency (+) Time to process restitution cases through monitoring system (+) Administration Level National (+) Departmental (+) Data Sources KIIs M&E data Stakeholder surveys EFFECTIVENESS OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS Several LRU officials specifically mentioned that they perceive improvements in information systems as a result of LRDP activities. More than three quarters of LRU officials also indicated that the LRDP￾supported information system used to keep track of land restitution claims is very effective or effective. Similarly, about half of judges agree that this system is either very effective. However, despite reports of efficiency, when LRU officials were asked about the biggest problem they face in regards to information management, an overwhelming number (N=22) indicated that the information is not accurate or updated consistently. The second most important problem is that the systems they use are slow and unreliable (N=9). There is also some indication of reduced time to access information. According to LRDP M&E data, in 2016, the project calculated that they reduced time to access inputs to restitution and formalization processes by about 29 minutes on average based on data provided by the LRU. This calculation process consisted of comparing LRU baseline data from September 2015 to data submitted in 2016. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 73 DIGITALIZATION OF LAND INFORMATION Digitization of land information is critical to ensuring that information can efficiently and quickly be accessed. LRDP addressed such issues by providing direct technical help with the digitization of land information. Because INCODER was a highly decentralized institution, most of the information systems developed by regional offices were not standardized nor compatible with one another. Key informants noted that LRDP’s support to ANT in digitizing 700,000 records was critical to allow records to be transferred immediately between central and field offices and to allow for a more efficient information sharing process. IGAC and SNR also welcomed LRDP support towards the digitalization of land physical/legal information. Though such support is limited to LRDP’s five geographical areas, the operational improvements are still substantial given that information was handled manually prior to LRDP. 17 With LRDP’s assistance, IGAC has been able to convert cadaster information gathered since 1992 from an analog format into a digital one, allowing information to be used for the purposes of restitution and formalization. LRDP assisted with both the technical aspects of conversion in addition to improving management processes at the national and regional levels, including building awareness among staff about the various institutions involved in the process. Key informants from both SNR and IGAC highlighted the benefit of more secure land information due to the digitization of records. SNR has established SNR-PRF, which also has responsibilities on cadaster matters. LRDP provides support to SNR-FRF’s formalization initiatives, in the form of a GoC land inventory to enforce a ruling of the Constitutional Court (No. 488 of 2014) that requires the review of approximately 43,000 files.18 LRPD has financed a pilot for the digitalization and database structuring of these files at the central level; an effort that after substantial time and resources should finish with the allocation of a “land number” (folio the matricula inmobiliaria) to GoC land parcels. Digital records are not only more suitable for safekeeping than the traditional paper records, but for the first time SNR has been able to ensure proper follow up of a judicial ruling. While the progress of digitalization is still limited (only around 10 percent of the intended target), it represents a major breakthrough for SNR’s information systems. In some regional offices, LRDP also provided assistance for the safekeeping of traditional records. 17 Some additional support from the Swiss and Japanese cooperation agencies is being provided to the same agencies in this area. 18 Colombia Responde is a separate USAID-supported program for conflict-affected areas that works in regions other than those of LRDP (except Montes de María). It finances training and convening services (seminars, workshops) that help SNR modernizing internal processes while facilitating the articulation with other agencies such as the Attorney General’s Office whose Special Assets Fund requires up-to-date information about the legal status of land potentially eligible for expropriation. IGAC OFFICE IN IBAGUE PHOTO CREDIT: ANA MONTOYA / DUKE UNIVERSITY LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 74 INTER-INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION SHARING AND COORDINATION This section analyzes stakeholders and key informants’ perception of the effectiveness of information systems and the digitization of land information. The hypothesis related to this area of interest is below. H: LRDP programming areas have improved perception among administrators of information￾sharing capacity and efficacy (+) Indicators Improved inter-institution coordination (+) Improved inter-institutional strengthening (+) Improved land information management processes (+) Administration Level National (+) Departmental (+) Municipal (+) Data Sources KIIs Stakeholder surveys There is a largely positive view of LRDP’s efforts related to information-sharing and capacity. Almost all mayors that received LRDP information-related assistance said that LRDP has improved their municipality’s capacity to use and manage information to support land rights services. Moreover, more than half of LRU officials that received assistance from LRDP feel that their office’s ability to use and manage information to support land rights services has improved. Most key informants also agree that LRDP promoted deeper institutional change rather than providing direct technical assistance. Improvements were also noted in the judiciary. Four judges agreed that their capacity to share information with other agencies to support land rights services was specifically due to LRDP’s support. The LRU and local governments expressed similarly positive outlooks. More than 50% of LRU officials agree or strongly agree that LRDP improved their capacity to share information with other agencies to support land rights services. Eight mayors also said that LRDP improved their capacity to share information with other agencies to support land rights services. Key informants from the ANT did, however, express frustration with the LRDP’s information system efforts, particularly bearing on the incorporation of INCODER databases after the agency’s dissolution. BEYOND INTERNAL SILOS Overall, key informants acknowledged that there have been substantial improvements in internal and inter-institutional coordination across all LRDP land information activities (digitalization, cadaster, node). In particular, LRDP supported the SNR to overcome its regional internal silos due to their operations across the country. To contribute to large formalization/restitution activities under LRDP, SNR regional units had to work together to review the background of typical informal land tenure issues, identify eviction patterns, and record protection measures. For instance, by mainstreaming the coordinated approach pursed by LRDP, it will be possible for SNR to provide non-repetition assurances to restitution beneficiaries. CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS In the opinion of most key informants, LRDP has helped to improve inter-institutional coordination/integration through supporting a change management process. ANT and LRU have worked together with IGAC and SNR in project steering committees and activities, such as the development of the Land Node and common standards for a multi-purpose cadaster. For these initiatives to be fully successful, the traditional silo mentality of some institutions had to be overcome through a change LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 75 management process that emphasized recognition of the institutional roles and responsibilities and periodic contacts among representatives of the interested institutions to resolve differences or develop a common understanding of the issues.19 Similarly, a change in management support may be required to ensure the constructive engagement of rank-and-file employees and prevent fears about job loss in case the automated system becomes operational. For example, it is possible that the Land Node allows for the allocation of current employees to more productive tasks. Document management is also essential to ensure effective data management that is easily accessible; otherwise, weak filing and archiving practices may taint restitution and formalization processes. LRDP provided valuable support to IGAC regional offices in this regard and has engaged key officials for a smooth change management process. Similarly, close coordination between field teams (financed by LRDP) and regional offices of agencies such as IGAC or SNR is required to ensure effective information management by applying data validation methods and quality comparisons. DIRECT SUPPORT TO REGIONAL OFFICES At the regional level, LRDP has supported and facilitated innovative activities with the LRU, SNR, IGAC, and the CSJ. Key informants noted that this effort was important since there were very few precedents of these offices working together. LRDP quickly followed up with technical assistance/advisory services, which were welcomed by regional officials. Key informants indicated that they were not used to this direct support from an international cooperation project since most issues are handled in the national￾level office due to having a highly centralized decision-making process. While LRDP efforts had a tightly defined scope at the regional level, this administrative level of office support is an important effort in increasing inter-institutional coordination. THE LAND NODE The Land Node has the potential to be the most lasting product of LRDP as it will expedite information exchanges among sector institutions through the development of a common interface language and standards. The Land Node includes the design (currently at the early stages) of an application that will run through the institutional webpages of the participating agencies. This working interface among the land institutions should in the end provide better services (lower cost, less time, higher quality) to all users. Substantial synergies are expected from the successful implementation of the Node by integrating the hardware/software platforms of these institutions. The Node will replace the current manual land information exchanges for an automatic system that also generates statistical information about the parties to land transactions (gender, age, socio-economic strata, etc.) and integrates some additional functionalities to ensure efficiency and transparency. This includes the victims and beneficiaries ability to check the status of the file, which is a feature that is already available in the Judiciary-CSJ portal. Ideally, as the integration of registries-cadasters makes parallel progress, the Land Node should allow all the participating institutions to access a single database of physical and legal information about land parcels identified by a single number. Nevertheless, as key informants noted, the Land Node demands close coordination among IT managers and appropriate inter-institutional arrangements involving 11 participating agencies, potentially including the VCCU. Key informants noted that while coordination has been challenging amongst these agencies, 19 For example, the Special Restitution Land Courts started to receive digital files from the LRD but were reluctant to process them digitally, and preferred to continue with a manual system. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 76 LRDP has succeeded in facilitating technical discussions around IT platforms and webpage operational requirements. LRDP’s understanding of the internal complexities of each institution has allowed them to facilitate on-going dialogues across agencies. LRDP was noted as being instrumental in bringing together agencies with varying IT capabilities to actively engage in a conversation about the Land Node’s development. While frequent turnover of key decision-makers in these agencies may have delayed the progress, it is expected that the Land Node will become operational before program completion.20 SUSTAINABILITY PENDING LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Although SNR and IGAC have tried to ensure the sustainability of project outputs at the policy level through their own regulations, uncertainty surrounding “fast track” legislation poses some challenges that LRDP will face during its last year of implementation. As it has done through other legal and policy￾making processes, LRDP must remain active in the dialogue with GoC stakeholders to contribute to the development and implementation of a sound agenda for land and rural development. Given the timing of the current administration, implementation would most likely fall with the new government. CONCERN OVER LAND NODE FEASIBILITY While LRDP initiated the inter-institutional coordination to move the Land Node forward, there is still concern among involved agencies about its feasibility or usefulness. Some of the KIIs captured complaints about its efficiency and results, particularly on the side of the judges. For instance, a few respondents with limited knowledge about the Land Node thought that the initiative would not address their own needs, and would not be sustainable once the program was over. For example, key informants noted their hesitation over pooling resources for the Land Node, since no agency wanted to relinquish their scarce individual IT resources. Another concern noted during KIIs the dispersion of information systems supported by LRDP. 20 The Judiciary-CSJ, in particular, has linked the Land Node to other ongoing special projects financed with its own resources such as a new information management system and a new institutional portal (Justicia XXI Web). For the Special Restitution Land Courts, a sub-portal is being developed that should serve as a permanent interface with the Land Node. As the judicial decisions of courts other than the Special Restitution Land Courts may have impact on land tenure, for the Judiciary-CSJ is critical that these judges have access to the other judges’ rulings so as to prevent conflicting decisions. Also with its own resources, the Judiciary-CSJ has made the required hardware and software investments, and remains quite enthusiastic about the overall potential of the Land Node. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 77 RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this section is to provide recommendations for LRDP as well as future programs that will continue LRDP’s work. All recommendations are based on a culmination of findings from this section, although some recommendations are cross-cutting with other components. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR PROMOTE LAND NODE’S CAPABILITIES SPECIFIC TO EACH AGENCY If the Land Node’s success depends on the willingness of agencies to engage with and invest in it, then LRDP should work to better promote awareness of the Land Node’s potential benefits to the relevant agencies. ALIGNMENT OF IT INVESTMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS The Land Node may provide a powerful instrument for the benefit of all the participating institutions to the extent that it will help them to process and organize data under common standards that should lead in the near future to a fully digitalized system. Nevertheless, it will also be critical to quickly align the investment plans of the major land entities in a way that prevents duplication or overlapping of IT systems. For instance, SNR recently awarded a USD14 million contract for the implementation of a new Registry Integrated Information System (SIIR) designed to improve the quality of the services for the final user while streamlining the internal review processes. It is not clear how SIIR will be connected with the Land Node, and whether funding was included in the contract to that end. Additionally, exploring alternative financing methods (such as LRDP’s support towards the recent award from the Colombian innovation agency iNNpulsa to the LRU) will be critical to support future costs. FUTURE PROGRAMMING DEFINE PROCESS FOR LAND NODE’S ROLE IN FORMALIZATION In order to ensure that the Land Node supports the massive formalization methodology, a specific process must be agreed upon in advance for formalization initiatives that includes reviewing legal/cadaster information, and conducting field visits and technical studies. This effort will continue to require close collaboration among national, regional and local institutions. ENSURE PERMANENT AVAILABILITY OF TECHNICAL EXPERTISE Resource constraints to hire qualified staff may imperil some changes that require continuous expert input. While SNR has welcomed the support of LRDP technical staff on land information systems, it is clear that for the long-term SNR requires strengthening its own staff with appropriate expertise (i.e. engineers) for LRDP investments to be sustainable. The complexity of the land information systems currently active in SNR and other institutions involved will continue to be a challenge for the full integration of cadaster and registry records, a long-term process that cannot be led only by top notch consultants. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 78 8.0 GENDER & ETHNIC MINORITIES INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND LRDP START-UP CHALLENGES Prioritizing the needs of vulnerable groups such as women and ethnic minorities is a key objective of LRDP and all Colombian institutions. For the government to build trust amongst these populations, it is imperative that their historic marginalization be recognized and addressed. This includes removing barriers and increasing access to legal representation, land and property, and public goods and services in rural areas. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre website, 52.3% of those displaced between 1985 and 2014 were women. Women face specific challenges in relation to restitution, formalization, and rural development. Rural women have historically struggled to gain access to land titling services, have lower developmental outcomes than their male counterparts, and have high victimization rates with respect to the armed conflict and are thus more likely to not trust GoC institutions compared to men LRDP’s approach to supporting women and ethnic minorities also includes training GoC officials to ensure they understand the community’s relationship to land, as well as the violence they experienced and the grievances they still have as a result of this violence. This training also included developing methods to have constructive dialogue to address their specific needs. LRDP also hired a social inclusion specialist for each regional office, and a Gender and Minorities Component Leader in Bogotá with the intent of cultivating strong relationships with local entities responsible for programs components, and ensuring that authorities are giving special attention to these groups. The ethnic groups found in the program geographical areas also received special attention as recipients of guidance and support through the restitution and formalization procedures. LRDP supported the LRU to use an existing legal framework to improve the situation of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and provided inputs to MARD and other agencies on the barriers that women face to access land and productive opportunities in rural areas. LRDP has sought to maintain a special focus on women in many of its programming efforts, such as in the issuance of new land titles or in legally represented restitution cases. LRDP has also undertaken some programming focused on rural women, such as aiding women in the parcel definition process, and creating awareness around the land formalization processes, including those who face challenges related to common-law marriage. The current regulatory framework makes it difficult for women to prove that they were or are in a common-law marriage. As a result, determining the effect of LRDP programming on women and ethnic minorities was important given that these were key objectives of the program. To this end, the beneficiary household survey deployed a sampling frame that attempted to include a significant percentage of women and ethnic minorities within the overall sample. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 79 FINDINGS GENDER This section displays the results of the household sample disaggregated by gender in LRDP programming municipalities, as well as women in LRDP programming municipalities versus women in comparison municipalities. The PE team assessed a number of indicators disaggregated by gender for each of the structural components following the legends below: “P” indicates the subgroup programming status while “C” indicates the comparison subgroup. Any programming group less than 50 is considered to be a small sample size. P: Programming Areas C: Comparison Areas <50: Small sample size The color coding indicates the extent of difference between subgroups. Dark blue indicates a substantively large difference (greater than or equal to six percent) and light blue indicates a small but notable difference (less than six percent). Red indicates that results were higher in comparison areas than in programming areas. Substantial difference (≥6%) Small difference (2%-5%) Comparison > Programming RESTITUTION The results for restitution are presented in Table 8-1 below. The findings indicate that the gender results for Knowledge and Awareness are mostly positive with a large enough sample size to warrant confidence in the results. There is very weak evidence of an improvement between programming and comparison areas for Trust in Institutions and Assessments of the Government, although a significantly larger percentage of women in LRDP programming municipalities said that they were treated with respect by the government during the restitution process. Similarly, women in programming areas also indicated that they were treated with respect by the government overall compared to comparison areas. The analysis shows mixed results for assessments of the restitution process overall. Women in programming areas are more likely to say that the process was fair, equal and displayed overall improvements over the past three years. However, the ease of participation and time frame for restitution remain areas for improvement. In terms of women versus men in programming areas, findings indicate that women appear to find land rights to be clearer and easier to understand compared to men. While men in programming areas are more likely to be aware of and trust the LRU than women in programming areas, women are less likely to perceive the restitution process as fair and believe the government is committed to restitution enforcement. These findings indicate that while there have been improvements for women in programming areas compared to comparison areas, women are still less likely to be aware of and trust the LRU in comparison to men. Overall, these results provide some evidence of important positive results for LRDP capacity building and GoC strengthening for women in the restitution process. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 80 TABLE 8-1 GENDER & RESTITUTION Outcomes Restitution Indicators Women (P) Men (P) Women (P–C) Small Sample Knowledge and Awareness Land rights clear and easy to understand 48% (112) 42% (96) -1% Aware of LRU 83% (207) 89% (222) 9% Aware of where to access legal representation 36% (73) 47% (102) 13% NRV registration 73% (96) 72% (109) 4% Administrative & judicial procedures are clear 61% (25) 49% (34) -2% X Trust in institutions Trust legal counsel 89% (16) 82% (31) 22% X Trust LRU 55% (109) 62% (133) 4% Comfortable with public discussions of restitution 81% (33) 72% (52) 13% X Restitution process is fair and effective Treated equally 73% (56) 70% (36) 7% Process is fair and just 60% (138) 63% (148) 7% Process moving at a good pace 64% (27) 56% (39) -1% X Process is easy to participate in 57% (22) 52% (36) -2% X Process has improved 72% (29) 58% (40) 17% X Assessment of government Treated with respect by government 80% (32) 52% (43) 22% X Government committed to restitution compliance 63% (142) 67% (153) 6% FORMALIZATION The results for formalization are presented in Table 8-2 below. The findings indicate mixed results for documentation with greater gains in home ownership documents for LRDP programming areas, but based on a small sample size. Similar to restitution, the findings show improvements in Knowledge and Awareness for key indicators such as understanding of land and property rights and access to legal representation in a dispute. One difference is that woman in comparison areas are more likely to trust MARD than in programming areas. However, given the small sample size, there cannot be full confidence in this result. An important finding to note with a large enough sample size to warrant confidence is that women show negative results in terms of land rights being protected by authorities in programming areas compared to comparison areas. There are also three important Tenure Security indicators to note including greater investments, less concern for land conflict and lower levels of concern that boundaries will be encroached on by others in the community. Once again, the results indicate that women in programming areas are more likely to invest in their home and land as well as believe that their boundaries are respected by the community. When comparing results from women in programming areas to men in programming areas, men across almost all outcomes show more positive results than women, indicating that there is still room for improvement in supporting women in the formalization process. Overall, these findings provide some evidence of positive results for LRDP capacity building and GOC strengthening for women in the formalization process, but building trust and confidence amongst women in regards to authorities is much needed. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 81 TABLE 8-2 GENDER & FORMALIZATION Outcomes Formalization Indicators Women (P) Men (P) Women (P–C) Small Sample Documentation Land ownership documents 44% (7) 42% (15) 4% X Home ownership documents 43% (26) 45% (31) 19% X Knowledge and Awareness Understand land and property rights 72% (92) 80% (109) 12% Know where to find help in dispute 71% (86) 81% (105) 0% Access to legal representation if dispute 69% (86) 64% (87) 8% Trust in Institutions Trust in MARD 34% (47) 38% (130) -11% X Trust in ANT 35% (48) 37% (136) 1% X Tenure Security Investments in home and land 56% (76) 62% (88) 8% Boundaries respected by community 92% (128) 88% (123) 9% Government will not displace 74% (96) 72% (111) 5% Outside group will not displace 65% (85) 73% (99) 2% No concern for land conflict 74% (101) 84% (117) 7% Earned income from rental/lease 6% (8) 8% (11) 4% X Land rights protected by authorities 46% (112) 54% (130) -5% Security from displacement 45% (107) 57% (135) 2% RURAL DEVELOPMENT The results for rural development are presented in Table 8-3 below. Findings indicate that women in programming areas are less satisfied with Service Delivery compared to women in comparison areas. In terms of technical assistance and subsidies, women in programming areas are more likely to have received or benefited from technical assistance or subsidies for agricultural producers compared to women in comparison areas. Findings also indicate a slight positive difference for women in programming areas in terms of benefiting from GoC development projects. Given the small sample size for various indicators, there is very weak evidence of improvement between programming areas and comparison areas for PPPs and participation. Similar to results across all components, men in programming areas still demonstrate more positive results compared to women in programming areas except for benefits of technical assistance. Overall, there is still room for improvement across this component for women compared to men. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 82 TABLE 8-3 GENDER & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Outcomes Rural Development Indicators Women (P) Men (P) Women (P–C) Small Sample Service delivery Satisfaction with quality of roads 32% (90) 36% (106) -3% Satisfaction with infrastructure 23% (66) 30% (89) -9% Satisfied with irrigation 32% (60) 40% (78) -9% Technical assistance and subsidies Received government technical assistance 28% (77) 30% (90) 5% Benefits of technical assistance 84% (64) 75% (67) 7% Subsides for agricultural producers 14% (39) 19% (55) 7% X Satisfaction with subsidies 75% (29) 87% (48) -3% X PPPs Participation in PPP 15% (43) 19% (56) 8% X Satisfied with productive project 67% (29) 69% (38) -15% X Satisfied with private company partner 70% (22) 66% (33) 5% X Livelihoods Changes in household income from project 53% (23) 53% (23) -15% X Benefited from GoC development projects 24% (64) 29% (82) 4% Easier to find a job 22% (60) 30% (86) 1% Quality of life improved 48% (137) 53% (156) -2% Participation Participated in development plan meetings 12% (33) 16% (49) 3% X ETHNIC MINORITIES LRDP’s work with ethnic minorities (indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities) has faced some particular challenges. While the LRU greatly appreciated the support of the technical staff of LRDP, and acknowledged the benefits of a few regional workshops with judges or staff of the VCCU, a few respondents noted methodological and logistical issues in the organization of such events. In their view, the results were marginal because some meetings were only informative and did not help to bring together the various experiences and perspectives of teams from different institutions, such as judges. Similar to the gender section above, this section displays the results of the household sample disaggregated by ethnic minorities in LRDP programming municipalities versus ethnic minorities in comparison municipalities. Results follow the legend below: “P” indicates the subgroup programming status while “C” indicates the comparison subgroup. Any programming group less than 50 is considered to be a small sample size. P: Programming Areas C: Comparison Areas <50: Small sample size The color coding indicates the extent of difference between subgroups. Dark blue indicates a substantively large difference (greater than or equal to six percent) and light blue indicates a small but notable difference (less than six percent). Red indicates that results were higher in comparison areas than in programming areas. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 83 Substantial difference (≥6%) Small difference (2%-5%) Comparison > Programming RESTITUTION The results for restitution are presented in Table 8-4 below. The findings indicate that the Knowledge and Awareness outcome is generally very positive with a large enough sample size to warrant confidence in the results. Ethnic minorities in programming areas are substantially more likely to be aware of the LRU, be registered with NRV, and understand restitution administrative and judicial procedures. Similar to the gender findings, there is very weak evidence of an improvement between programming and comparison areas for Trust in Institutions and Assessments of the Government, although findings do indicate a substantial difference in ethnic minorities in programming areas perceiving that the government is committed to restitution compliance. However, in contrast to the gender results and overall programming results, the findings indicate no difference between ethnic minorities in programming and comparison areas on indicators to assess satisfaction with the restitution process. These results support focus group findings about the difficulties experienced by traditional communities with the restitution process. When comparing ethnic and non-ethnic minorities across indicators with a large enough sample size, most still indicate a more positive result among non-ethnic groups in programming areas. Overall, these findings provide some evidence of important positive results for LRDP capacity building and GoC strengthening in this structural component for ethnic minorities. TABLE 8-4 ETHNIC MINORITIES & RESTITUTION Outcomes Restitution Indicators Ethnic (P) ≠ Ethnic (P) Ethnic (P–C) Small Sample Knowledge and Awareness Land rights clear and easy to understand 45% (59) 46% (124) 2% Aware of LRU 71% (106) 84% (241) 11% Aware of where to access legal representation 41% (49) 43% (103) -11% X NRV registration 74% (66) 71% (106) 17% Administrative & judicial procedures are clear 56% (132) 56% (30) 23% Trust in institutions Trust legal counsel 80% (8) 86% (31) 30% X Trust LRU 60% (72) 56% (132) 4% Comfortable with public discussions of restitution 84% (32) 74% (42) 3% X Restitution process is fair and effective Treated equally 67% (69) 83% (14) 4% Process is fair and just 58% (78) 65% (170) 0% Process is moving at a good pace 64% (24) 54% (31) -1% X Process is easy to participate in 53% (18) 53% (29) -6% X Process has improved 66% (23) 59% (33) 1% X Assessment of government Treated with respect by government 64% (23) 74% (39) 7% X Government committed to restitution compliance 70% (94) 64% (167) 9% LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 84 FORMALIZATION The results for formalization are presented in Table 8-5 below. The findings indicate mixed results for documentation with greater gains in land ownership documents for LRDP programming areas, but based on a small sample size. The findings show minimal gains in Knowledge and Awareness and no difference between programming and comparison areas for Trust in Institutions. Similar to the gender findings, results for Tenure Security are mixed with mostly null results. The three significant Tenure Security indicators to note are less concern for land conflict, lower levels of concern that boundaries will be encroached on by others in the community and that they will be displaced by the government. The results also indicate that the responses for ethnic minorities both in programming areas and non-ethnic minorities in programming areas show similar results. The largest difference is in access to legal representation, where ethnic minorities have more positive results than non-ethnic groups. TABLE 8-5 ETHNIC MINORITIES & FORMALIZATION Outcomes Formalization Indicators Ethnic (P) ≠ Ethnic (P) Ethnic (P–C) Small Sample Documentation Land ownership documents 38% (9) 42% (10) 1% X Home ownership documents 42% (10) 43% (30) 14% X Knowledge and Awareness Understand land and property rights 73% (64) 77% (111) 11% Know where to find help in dispute 77% (65) 74% (100) 4% Access to legal representation if dispute 73% (67) 62% (89) 3% Trust in Institutions Trust in MARD 33% (32) 42% (199) -2% X Trust in ANT 35% (33) 34% (52) -4% X Tenure Security Investments in home and land 57% (54) 58% (89) 2% Boundaries respected by community 89% (86) 90% (134) 14% Government will not displace 70% (63) 81% (117) 13% Outside group will not displace 57% (52) 75% (109) 0% No concern for land conflict 79% (75) 79% (118) 10% Earned income from rental/lease 7% (7) 7% (11) 4% X Land rights protected by authorities 51% (71) 50% (141) 1% Security from displacement 52% (71) 51% (140) 6% RURAL DEVELOPMENT The results for rural development are presented in Table 8-6 below. Overall, in comparison to the gender results, these findings show many more positive results for ethnic minorities across the rural development structural component in programming areas compared to comparison areas. However, an important caveat to highlight is the small sample size that most of these findings are based upon. The findings indicate mixed, weak, positive evidence for improvements across the five outcome families for programming areas including satisfaction with service delivery, livelihood and welfare improvements, benefits received from technical assistance and subsidies, PPP participation and participation in the local development process. The findings also indicate deviation—in a positive direction—between the distribution of responses for ethnic minorities in programming areas and non-ethnic groups across all outcome categories, though again the sample size is relatively small. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 85 TABLE 8-6 ETHNIC MINORITIES & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Outcomes Rural Development Indicators Ethnic (P) ≠ Ethnic (P) Ethnic (P–C) Small Sample Service delivery Satisfaction with quality of roads 35% (61) 33% (114) 6% Satisfaction with infrastructure 28% (49) 24% (84) 9% X Satisfied with irrigation 40% (51) 31% (71) 10% Technical assistance and subsidies Received government technical assistance 25% (43) 32% (108) 5% X Benefits of technical assistance 86% (37) 79% (85) 12% X Subsides for agricultural producers 13% (22) 18% (62) 3% X Satisfaction with subsidies 95% (21) 83% (51) 31% X PPPs Participation in PPP 21% (36) 17% (57) 11% X Satisfied with productive project 69% (25) 70% (40) -11% X Satisfied with private company partner 67% (22) 69% (34) 2% X Livelihoods Changes in household income from project 64% (23) 61% (35) -1% X Benefited from GoC development projects 32% (53) 22% (76) 8% Easier to find a job 30% (49) 24%(80) 8% X Quality of life improved 50% (86) 50% (173) 3% Participation Participated in development plan meetings 22% (36) 11% (36) 13% X RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this section is to provide recommendations for LRDP as well as future programs that will continue LRDP’s work. All recommendations are based on a culmination of findings from this section, although some recommendations are cross-cutting with other components. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR EMPHASIS ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOR WOMEN For rural development, there is little evidence that women in programming areas are benefiting more than women in comparison areas and no improvements for women compared to men. LRDP could focus efforts on rural development objectives specifically for women over the last year of the program. Specifically, an analysis of barriers for women entering PPPs or an examination of the roles women occupy in mixed gender associations around decision making and influence would be useful. CONTINUE GENDER-FOCUSED FORMALIZATION EFFORTS Formalization initiatives such as that in Fuente de Oro and Chaparral are attempting to establish a new government-citizen relationship with an emphasis on formalization efforts that target women. These efforts should continue to be emphasized and mainstreamed. FUTURE PROGRAMMING SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS TO CONDUCT TRUST BUILDING ACTIVITIES TARGETING WOMEN According to the results, women continue to be more distrustful than men of various GoC institutions across all program components. LRDP should continue to support the GoC in designing and implementing activities that will specifically reach and build trust amongst women. This support could entail ensuring that more social workers and other individuals that work in communities are women LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 86 themselves, which may help establish better relationships and trust in these individuals. Supporting PPPs that are all women or helping women have more exposure to any government activities (assuming they are well established activities) may also help increase trust in the GoC and local authorities. LRDP or future programming may also consider promoting the work that LRDP has already done with women by supporting these women to “campaign” for similar results in the municipality where they live. For formalization, the local Land Offices may also consider specific activities or promotional campaigns that target building trust with women in rural areas specifically, where women generally have less exposure to institutions and administrative processes. STRENGTHEN OUTCOMES FOR WOMEN Irrespective of differences between programming and comparison areas, results still indicate that men show more positive results compared to women across all program components. While this issue is already widely already understood, it must continue to emphasized as there is still room for improvement in supporting women across all activities. Such activities are also critical for program sustainability because there must be universal support and engagement across men and women equally. STRENGTHEN CAPACITY TO COMMUNICATE AND WORK DIRECTLY WITH ETHNIC MINORITIES While LRDP’s mandate is to work with the GoC, key informants and FGDs agreed that communities prefer to have direct contact with the programs that they are working with in order to develop a more productive relationship and to improve trust, which is overall very low. While establishing these relationships is not an element of the project design, improving communication and trust would improve results. Also, if the profile of a “community operator” was not conducive to LRDP’s work, this should have been determined prior to beginning work with ethnic communities. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 87 9.0 CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP AND FUTURE PROGRAMMING The intent of this section is to provide crosscutting recommendations for LRDP’s final programming years as well as future programs that will continue LRDP’s work. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LRDP’S FINAL PROGRAMMING YEAR CONTINUE GOC CAPACITY BUILDING WITH MORE FOCUSED APPROACH LRDP’s design sought to build GoC capacity and to avoid GoC dependence on the program in order to ensure sustainability. In line with this objective, LRDP provided limited direct in-kind or cash support. Despite intentions, this shift in development approach from the traditional donor-financed program model to LRDP has not been fully endorsed by some counterparts. Although most informants knew that LRDP does not follow the traditional model, a significant number still claimed that providing direct financial resources to bridge the agencies’ urgent resource needs (including the hiring of personnel) would have been more effective. Except for DNP’s, several informants suggested that the most effective mechanism would have been through the direct provision of financial resources to the partner agencies, particularly taking into account recent budget cutoffs. This traditional approach was particularly preferred by IGAC. Most informants also did not have strong opinions about large-scale institutional changes when asked specifically about the long-term impacts of LRDP activities. This consistent preference across agencies for direct financial resources suggests that LRDP has not garnered enough support in its ability to be more effective than a traditional donor-financed program model. Overall, there is little evidence that LRDP’s various GoC capacity-building activities have set up the basis for long-term institutional strengthening. In some cases, evidence shows marginal improvements, but this evidence cannot always be specifically attributed to LRDP due to other ongoing initiatives or improved outcomes due to learned skills and processes over time. This could be due to the numerous activities and large scope of LRDP that was not conducive to large-scale institutional change. LRDP or future programming should continue capacity building efforts among GoC institutions, but with a more focused approach that is not spread across smaller tangential activities or such a large geographic area. CONTINUE GOC ENGAGEMENT THROUGH ELECTORAL CYCLES LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 88 Overall, LRDP implementation has proceeded smoothly despite electoral cycles that threatened to derail some local initiatives, indicating some level of sustainability. Apart from a few isolated cases, the LRDP team has been able to keep program activities moving through various administrations with no major disruption. The strong positioning of LRDP in most regions, and the recognition received for early victories was critical to retain political/external support. In some regions, LRDP was able to engage the technical teams of the main candidates to public office thereby establishing the basis for a working relationship once elections had passed. This high-level of engagement should be retained during the remaining implementation period to ensure that projects are not derailed after another electoral cycle. RETAIN A MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM While the internal multidisciplinary structure of the LRDP team is important to fulfill the activities under all program components, there is also some effort needed to preserve coherence and prevent compartmentalization. Regional managers must continue to connect and integrate the approach to the various program components across local governments to the extent possible. Differences seen in LRDP implementation to-date could reflect internal organization coordination or the ability of a regional manager to work in certain areas or communicate their priorities to the rest of the team. Maintaining a diverse team will help to offset any regional imbalances and this feature of LRDP should be retained and emphasized in future programming. MAINTAIN AN OPPORTUNISTIC APPROACH LRDP’s ability to be flexible and adaptable to changing GoC priorities during implementation is an important aspect of the program. As LRDP progressed, the program was able to identify particular geographical areas or partner agencies that were more promising than others in terms of ability to deliver results, and consequently targeted resources and efforts towards those areas or agencies. This opportunistic approach was fully consistent with the design of LRDP, and helped to develop some success stories that might not have happened under more rigid structures such as the establishment of the Land Offices in the Municipalities of Santander de Quilichao and Ovejas. 21 Similarly, the restitution component served as the basis for a more comprehensive vision of the Integrated Victims System, and the proactive diagnostic/proposals to address the issues surrounding secondary occupants. A micro-focalization approach was also developed for areas affected by land mines once access to those areas became feasible. It was also possible to advance some work on the judicial phase of restitution, in conjunction with the Special Restitution Land Courts, is spite of the serious challenges found for any coordination with the CSJ22. KEEP A REGIONAL FOCUS LRDP regional staff also played a role in identifying these windows of opportunity as regular liaison persons with GoC authorities, and active participants in various instances of dialogue and networking with other players in the rural sector, such as the Municipal Councils of Rural Development. Not surprisingly, each regional office developed its own strategy on how to meet the particular land and rural development sector needs and priorities. This regional focus of LRDP is highly commendable given 21 These Land Offices required the Municipal Councils to issue a local decision (Acuerdo) on the proposal of the mayor. 22 Only at the level of administrative processes, even some LRDP staff acknowledges that there is still some room for improvement if the program wishes to be fully responsive to client demands and seize additional opportunities for successful engagement. Apart from the constraints posed by donor-established policies/procedures, LRDP may try to simplify and streamline such processes for the benefit of the GoC and community partners. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 89 the challenges of the institutional transitions at the central level resulting from the disestablishment of INCODER and the slow start-up process of ANT, and should be retained in future programming. RETAIN A FACILITATING ROLE Most respondents agreed that coordination among land institutions has improved and were satisfied with the LRDP’s role in this effort. They highlighted the benefits of the LRDP’s technical assistance activities in terms of increased cooperation among land sector institutions. Such activities have mostly focused on: (a) increased knowledge about the mandate of other institutions, especially new agencies as the LRU and the VCCU. Some informants pointed out that these meetings even help identifying the risk of duplicating efforts (i.e. both LRU’s Cadaster Unit and IGAC double-check land information on the ground); and (b) faster processing of information requests, especially between the ORIPs and IGAC that help overcoming previous complaints of IGAC. LRDP-sponsored workshops have also been quite useful in improving coordination among these two agencies and LRU. Prior to LRDP, inter-institutional dialogues were so rare that the program also helped agencies’ staff to share key contact information (names, phone numbers, etc.) to facilitate further cooperation.23 In general, inter-institutional coordination among the various levels of GoC appears to have improved significantly as a result of LRDP and some traditional tensions have been smoothed, particularly among some national agencies and the regional/local authorities that expected to receive more support. LRDP may also have helped developing healthy competition among municipalities eager to participate in program activities. The opening of brand new local offices of national organizations such as ANT is a critical development within a broader decentralization process that future programming should take into account. The project contribution to policy development has also been critical to this end (draft laws and regulations have typically emphasized new inter-institutional arrangements that facilitate decision￾making). Most of the remaining constraints are attributable to GoC institutions, such as the high staff turnover, or weak expertise in some technical areas (not completely surprising in view of the fact that most of the staff of some GoC agencies are short-term contractors). CONTINUE KEEPING A LOW PROFILE While beneficiaries on the ground may know very little about the internal operation of LRDP, most are quite aware about the role of USAID as an international cooperation agency that provides support to a number of programs in the rural sector of Colombia.24 As the initial trust in some agencies of GoC may be limited, a USAID-financed initiative can play the key role of a “honest broker” that facilitates the joint work of the communities with GoC officials at various levels (national, regional, local) around a common goal. In the end, it may be beneficial that the LRDP “brand” has not been remarked, and the final credit of the program results may be attributed to the GoC partners in a way that improves the perceptions about such institutions (the core focus of LRDP design). While the internal institutional changes may not be so visible, communities’ perceptions may change if expectations are properly managed and results delivered on time. CLARIFY PROGRAM PURPOSE AND SCOPE TO STAKEHOLDERS 23 Just a few informants expressed concerns about the impact of the workshops and inter-institutional dialogues sponsored by LRDP; for some it may be quite limited because in the aftermath the conclusions and recommendations of these events (for example, the proposed protocols) were not fully embedded into institutional practices. 24 The only USAID-supported program that works in the same geographical areas of LRDP is _____ . Colombia Responde works in other geographical areas (except Montes de María). LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 90 Although the overall relationship between LRDP and the LRU has been productive, several LRU officials noted that their initial expectations about program support was not consistent with the support ultimately provided. For example, an LRU official noted that they expected more LRDP technical assistance in the Eastern Plains Region towards policy instrument development. The original purpose and scope of the technical support was supposed to be substantial, but the target area was narrowed down from four areas to a single municipality in Meta, limiting the LRU’s ability to reach vulnerable communities. While LRDP is flexible in its ability to adapt programming needs to changing priorities, shifting priorities and scope can impact GoC expectations, plans, and budgets. IMPROVE LRDP’S PLANNING PRACTICES AND CLIENT RESPONSIVENESS A few informants complained that LRDP did not pay enough attention to their proposals or preferences, and recommended improving communications at some program levels. Finally, other respondents complained that even when responsive to institutional demands, the program could be even more bureaucratic than the Colombian agencies.25 It’s important to note that LRDP must comply with USAID rules and regulations, which adds an additional layer of coordination to their work. While some key informants noted LRDP’s agility to fixing problems, others reported that LRDP moved very slowly. Some key informants indicated that due to the slow movement of LRDP, they had to use their own resources to carry out activities that were supposed to supported by LRDP (for instance, LRDP had promised to finance cartography analysts to help ANT build a geographic information system and manage data quality comparison issues, but that never happened). While this contradicts LRDP’s model that the GoC should ultimately be able to use its own resources to implement activities, it is important to note that the key informant perceived LRDP as slow and not able to follow through with a promised activity. Others suggested that the LRDP itself could improve by making its decision-making process more efficient. FUTURE PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS REVISE PROGRAM SCOPE AND TIMEFRAME LRDP is clearly a complex program that since the beginning posed significant challenges for USAID, the Tetra Tech team, and the GoC partners at various levels. LRDP components deal with critical land issues for Colombia but GoC institutional arrangements are not always conducive to effective coordination, and the organizational capacity of vulnerable communities may be weak so the risk of dispersing some efforts and limiting the chances of success was high since program inception. The selection of LRDP geographical areas rightly sought to test land policy implementation in post-conflict zones under very different social and economic conditions (topography, ethnicity, etc.) from the northern Caribbean Region to the Eastern Plains. Such a large geographical coverage added complexity in terms of logistics and M&E efforts. Furthermore, various program activities took years to plan, leaving little time for implementation. Programs that involve institutional change take time to develop, particularly when working with numerous institutions as was LRDP. The underlying theory-of-change of LRDP required interventions at various levels, but considering a LRDP timeframe of less than 4 years (September 2014 through June 2018), and the typical long start-up and closing periods of these programs, LRDP was too ambitious of an undertaking in terms of partners, 25 This PE was not able to validate the accuracy of these statements. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 91 issues and geographical coverage. Future USAID programming in the land sector should take into account GoC constraints, start-up times, community constraints and the complexities of such a program as LRDP. Suggestions include to select a smaller number of components, land-related issues, partner agencies or geographic areas. While this undermines the intent of LRDP, too expansive of a program cannot lead to sustainable results across all activities. SUPPORT LOCAL INSTITUTIONS TO ENGAGE CITIZENS AND BUILD TRUST Several key informants made a distinction between an “administrative” strengthening (i.e. internal processes improved technical assistance) and the real “institutional” strengthening in which the legitimacy of the institution vis-à-vis the society at large is strengthened. As noted by focus group participants, distrust and lack of confidence in and communication with GoC institutions still exists, particularly in areas with collective territories. While not a direct goal of LRDP, future programs should support institutions to sustain more meaningful interaction and communication with citizens at large in order to build community trust and improve perceptions of the institutions themselves. Formalization, restitution and rural development activities will only be sustainable if people believe the process is trustworthy. Creating more opportunities for citizens to engage with institutions such as facilitating collaborative public meetings or building stronger connections (i.e. social worker visits to communities) is key to building this trust and demonstrating that the institutions themselves are leaders in realizing peace and post conflict activities. Since citizens also have more exposure to mayors than to many land￾related institutions, building relationships and trust between citizens and the mayor’s office may be beneficial in ensuring that citizens believe in and are eager to participate in formalization, restitution and rural development activities. The Land Offices could potentially be an avenue to build such trust and establish stronger community relationships. INTEGRATE PROGRAM COMPONENTS This PE has not found evidence that the proposed coordinated/integrated approach among the four components of LRDP was effectively in place across regions and institutions. Even though activities under each component continue under implementation in the five program areas, it appears that each component has followed its own dynamics partly due to the fact that the GoC counterparts are different, and probably also reflecting the internal structure of LRDP. Although regional LRDP managers have made efforts to promote the integrated approach, this PE still noted some dispersion in the activities/beneficiaries of LRDP that suggest limited success in coordinating/integrating the four components. For example, the rural development component was clearly expected to overlap with restitution or formalization. Beneficiaries of PPPs and technical assistance under this component were supposed to be also beneficiaries of restitution or formalization in a way that the new economic opportunities arising from increased productivity would reinforce the benefits associated with property on the land. No statistical or interview data emerged to support that this overlap had happened, which may be due in part to the fact that the rural development component is just starting implementation. Among the household beneficiaries surveyed, the PE found 17 households involved in both the restitution process and a PPP; 15 respondents involved in the restitution process with a recently formalized home; and 16 households in a PPP and with recent formalization. There were no instances of respondents with overlap across all three categories. These results are based on the PE sample of approximately 700 household beneficiaries, although the PE team did not end up gaining access to some LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 92 municipalities for various logistical reasons described in detail in previous sections. Although there are likely people who might have received overlapping treatment that the PE team did not survey, overall there is no overlap of an integrated approach. Recommendations on how to use the PPP activity towards program integration is listed in the Rural Development Recommendations section. IMPROVE M&E DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION EFFORTS The embedded flexibility and dispersion noted above has helped the program to reach a significant number of local governments and communities that have unanimously welcomed the assistance and support received. However, the absence of baseline data limits the ability of this PE to compare the ex￾ante situation with the current status on the ground. Future programming should include resources for baseline data collection. While data from this PE can be used, each data collection must be specific to the goal and outcomes set by the program. Additionally, future programs must allow sufficient time to evaluate a program as complex as LRDP. The type of program that LRDP is implementing is particularly challenging to monitor and evaluate given the variation in geographic coverage, the numerous types of interventions taking place, and the shifts in the program structure over time. Many of the interventions are also at various levels of government from the national, departmental, to municipal level. As implementation progressed, LRDP in collaboration with USAID changed their M&E indicators to align with the reality of the shifting programming, which makes analysis over time challenging due to consistency. Additionally, LRDP and USAID also determined that changes to the metrics (percentages versus total numbers) of certain indicators was needed, further making any analysis over time difficult. Another M&E data challenge for LRDP is having multiple M&E systems that have different structures and requirements. While LRDP has their own project management system (MISSION) and M&E system (e-PORT), they must reorganize this information in a way that feeds into USAID’s M&E system (MONITOR). LRDP carries out analyses on a quarterly basis to ensure the multiple systems are synced correctly. For future programming, it is critical to attempt improving M&E efforts related to tracking program beneficiaries across program components. As the evaluation team vigorously gathered information about project beneficiaries across the program components, it became clear that LRDP did not have internal tracking of the individuals the program is benefiting. The difficulty in tracking these beneficiaries varies across program component and relies heavily on other organizations that may not be amenable to sharing information or that may have limited or fault data. Difficulties in tracking this information was also reflective of LRDP’s focus on government level interventions and processes, the disconnect between the national government and municipal level information and the transition between organizations that house this information such as INCODER to ANT. However, if the goal of future programming is to use an integrated approach where a single beneficiary has access to multiple component efforts, the program must work with various agencies to better track these individuals. For instance, for producer associations, the producer association leaders are the individuals that have more detailed information about program participants. Many of these producer association leaders have lists of participants, though the quality dramatically varies from handwritten notes to detailed excel spreadsheets. Future programs should attempt to gather and record this information in order to have more accurate understanding of their results. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 93 For formalization, the evaluation team encountered similar difficulties. Information about parcelization or titling efforts was either housed with individuals working in these communities or in the case of Ovejas, at the local land office. Future programming should attempt to capture this information to better understand the impact of their titling efforts and to allow for follow-up on how the process is impacting the individuals or communities. Another important issue is to ensure that vulnerable populations such as ethnic minorities and women are not conflated into one group in terms of indicators as each group has very specific and different needs. Due to the highly sensitive nature of restitution, it does not seem possible that any such future program would be able to keep any personal records at the individual level about restitution beneficiaries. However, any future programming should attempt to work with the LRU on this integrated approach so that restitution beneficiaries can also access formalization and rural development services. LRDP indicated that they are already working with the LRU to adopt this integrated approach, but to date has not been evident in terms of results. Without establishing a better beneficiary tracking system and the related total/per parcel costs, it will be impossible to establish an integrated approach. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 94 ANNEX 1—QUANTITATIVE METHODS The evaluation relied on three quantitative methods to address the key evaluation questions and hypotheses described in Section 2. These include: 1) a beneficiary household survey; 2) a stakeholder survey; and 3) secondary data analysis. For primary data collection, the evaluation’s quantitative efforts were two-fold: 1) a beneficiary household survey; and 2) a GoC stakeholder survey. The beneficiary household survey assessed beneficiaries’ attitudes towards rural development, land restitution, land formalization, and the land and legal institutions upon which LRDP has been programming. The GoC stakeholder survey assessed the outcomes related to institutional development and capacity related to restitution, formalization, information management and rural development among LRU officials, mayors and land restitution judges. Though restitution judges were not directly targeted by the LRDP they are key actors in the restitution process, and efforts to improve inter-institutional dialogue often referenced land and restitution judges. BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY MATCHING AND SAMPLING The beneficiary household survey covered a representative sample of beneficiaries in 25 LRDP programming municipalities matched to 25 non-LRDP municipalities for a total sample size of 1462 households in 50 municipalities; GoC stakeholders were also selected from the matched comparison pairs. The sub-sections below describing the municipality matching process and sampling procedures to select beneficiaries within the selected LRDP programming municipalities. MATCHING The municipalities were chosen for LRDP programming based on how well they overlapped with regions with recent histories of armed conflict and regions proposed by a number of governmental and non￾governmental development organizations in the country. The absence of randomization precluded an impact evaluation, however, to produce a rigorous evaluation report, the evaluation team generated a comparison set of municipalities to which one can compare the LRDP municipalities for the quantitative data collection effort. As such, the evaluation team pursued a matching strategy, which is a statistical approach to generate pairs of observations that are as similar as possible.26 To complete the matching process, the evaluation team collected an enormous quantity of municipal￾level data (See Annex 4) for approximately 1,100 of municipalities across Colombia. These data characterized each municipality’s history of conflict experiences, economic development attributes, degree of rurality and land-tenure characteristics, as well as presence of ethnic minority group land holdings. In addition, standard municipal characteristics that are pertinent to the Colombian context such as population size, homicide rate, altitude, and distance to the capital were collected. Finally, vote 26 Matching outperforms the most common methods used in smaller samples for achieving balance on covariates, such as stratification or re￾randomization (Barrett and Carter 2010; Bruhn and McKenzie 2010). LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 95 shares for the president’s party in the 2010 election were also incorporated into the matching framework. In order to ensure that the municipalities are comparable, the evaluation team created pairwise matches of municipalities that are as similar as possible. In conducting the matches, the goal was to produce sets of municipalities that were similar on key characteristics but differed in whether or not they have received LRDP programming. Doing so required that the team identify key characteristics that seemed likely to impact land conflicts, land tenure insecurity, demands for land restitution, and rural development across municipalities (i.e., the outcomes that LRDP aims to improve). The team selected 34 background characteristics for the matching procedure that it expected to be strongly correlated with the outcomes of interest. The matching algorithm27 generated 50 high quality matched pairs (i.e., 100 municipalities). Given budget constraints, the evaluation could only do data collection in a total of 50 municipalities. In order to reduce the sample to 25 matched pairs, the team eliminated pairs on the following basis. First, where the non-LRDP municipality was a place where similar (but non-LRDP) programming was taking place. Second, since the team was not able to achieve least balance on the presence of coca cultivation, it dropped matched pairs where the non-LRDP municipalities had unusually high levels of coca cultivation. Finally, the evaluation team dropped matched pairs that were separated by large geographic distances. The resulting 50 municipalities (25 matched pairs) were shared with USAID and LRDP. LRDP provided feedback that approximately half of the matched LRDP programmed municipalities had not received a large amount of programming—and therefore suggested 12 replacement municipalities where a larger number of activities have been implemented. The evaluation team accepted these 12 replacements— while noting that this reflects the selection of 25 non-representative LRDP programmed municipalities— and subsequently generated 12 new matched comparison municipalities. These programming and comparison municipalities are displayed in Figure A1-1. 27 To create matches an optimal matching algorithm was used. Optimal matching is one of various standard matching algorithms deployed by researchers and has been found to improve on 'greedy' matching methods in terms of reducing distance between programming and comparison pairs. Implementation of the algorithm relied on the 'design match' package in the R statistical software. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 96 FIGURE A1-1 LRDP PROGRAMMING & COMPARISON MUNICIPALITIES LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 97 SAMPLING FRAME After determining an optimal matched set of programming and comparison municipalities, the sampling frame for the beneficiary household survey was structured using sub-municipal data from three sources: programming interventions from the LRDP, producer association community lists, and names of communities from LRU Regional Directors where restitution beneficiaries live.28 These lists were then compiled and compared to see what community-level overlap existed between the various program components. This sub-municipal data was collected and organized by the evaluation team while in￾country. For the comparison municipalities, the names of communities were also collected in order to have a comparison group of communities with a high number of restitution requests or where there was demand. In comparison municipalities with no restitution data, communities were selected that have similar qualities to other rural communities in the region. Given the location of these beneficiaries, the evaluation team’s selection criteria ensure that civilians with characteristics relevant to the program, including being direct beneficiaries, were surveyed at sufficient rates to draw meaningful conclusions about such populations. With such a sampling frame, the PE team is able to speak more confidently about the attitudes and experiences of beneficiaries and non￾beneficiaries (such as displaced people who have not brought cases) who might be impacted by the program. SAMPLING HOUSEHOLDS The evaluation team worked closely with LRDP, USAID and LRU Regional Directors to collect sufficiently detailed beneficiary data to target communities and households that were directly involved in restitution, titling, and rural development programming at the municipal level. Depending on the availability of beneficiary lists, a sampling framework that emphasized direct beneficiaries was devised; otherwise, in municipalities where the lists could not be generated, the sampling frame targeted communities with a significant number of direct LRDP beneficiaries. Outcomes in the findings sections are analyzed according to the types of LRDP interventions implemented across the programmed municipalities. The following secondary data sources were used to identify LRDP beneficiaries and inform the sampling frame. • Data on process of determining site selection for programming, shared with the evaluation team by USAID and LRDP • Matrix of programming by municipality, component, and activity provided by USAID and LRDP • Producer association lists with community names where members are located provided by Producer Association Leaders • LRU Data indicating communities with a high prevalence of restitution cases or applications provided by the LRU Regional Directors • Publicly available data on judicial restitution decisions by municipality or community The general steps for beneficiary respondent selection in LRDP programming municipalities were as follows: 28 The specific concerns of LRU about the structure of the sample and the protocol to approach respondents were duly taken into account LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 98 1. Select restitution communities that overlapped with producer associations or formalization (very few). 2. In municipalities where no overlap between the three components existed, communities with a high number of restitution beneficiaries were selected. In municipalities where no restitution community names were available, producer association or formalization beneficiaries were selected. 3. To balance out the sample, the evaluation team also selected communities that had a high number of producer association members or formalization beneficiaries. The survey firm was then given the contact of the producer association leader to coordinate a group of these beneficiaries. In cases where the producer association leader was not available, lists of producer association names were generated where possible and given to the survey firm in order for them to try to find those individuals in the selected community. For formalization beneficiaries, the Ovejas land office helped identify beneficiaries and LRDP provided contact information for key contacts in charge of formalization pilots several communities. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS The total household sample includes 1462 respondents from 50 total municipalities (25 comparison municipalities and 25 LRDP programming municipalities). The final box of the flow-chart (Figure A1-2.) depicts the percent and total number of responses captured in municipalities receiving restitution, formalization, or rural development programming. The overlap in programming across the 25 LRDP programming municipalities is as follows: • 7 municipalities—Restitution and formalization programming • 14 municipalities—Restitution and rural development programming • 10 municipalities—Formalization and rural development programming • 7 municipalities—Restitution, formalization and rural development programming Demographics The beneficiary household survey respondents are equally divided by gender (male: 49%, N=719; female: 51%, N=743). Respondents are racially diverse. A third of respondents identify as Mestizo (32%, N=465), 29% identify as white (N=420), 13% indigenous (N=197), and 10% black (N=153). The average age is 47 (sd=15). FIGURE A1-2 BREAKDOWN OF HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE Total Respondents: 1462 Comparison Municipalities: 52% (760) LRDP Programming Municipalities: 48% (702) Restitution: 71% (500) Formalization: 41% (288) Rural Development: 83% (582) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 99 Twenty-seven percent of respondents are married (N=400), and an additional 48% (700) are with a self￾described “permanent partner.” The average household has four people (mean=4.25, sd=1.98). Eighty￾seven percent of respondents are literate (N=1276), and the average respondent has 5.8 (sd=4.05) years of formal education. 11% (N=154) have no formal education at all. The average household has lived in the municipality for 40 years (sd=17). Livelihood and Income Half of respondents are currently working (50%, N=729), and another 36% (N=531) identify as homemakers. Seven percent (N=97) are actively looking for work. The most common job by far is smallholder farming, both for subsistence (42%, N=349) and for wages (25%, N=206). Seven percent of households (N=101) report having no monthly income, and 22% (N=326) earn between COP$225.000 and COP$325.000 per month. Sixty-two percent (N=) earned less than COP$545.000 in the past month. Unsurprisingly, only 10% (N=149) of households report their income is enough for them, and 41% (N=599) report that they are having a hard time financially. Over the past 3 years, only 9% of households (N=138) report that their income has increased. Forty percent of households believe their income has decreased (N=589), and the rest report no change. Household Assets Roughly half of all households have an indoor bathroom in their house (49%, N=721), and a third of households are connected to the sewage system (33%, N=479). Five percent (N=76) of households have access to the internet. Nearly 90% (88%, N=1283) of households have at least one mobile phone, and 82% (N=1201) have a television. Less common are cars (4%, N=61), motorcycles (40%, N=584), and bicycles (27%, N=393). Table A1-1. shows the percent of households who own at least one of a variety of assets. FIGURE 4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 100 TABLE A1-1 HOUSEHOLD ASSETS Assets Household owns at least one Motorcycle 40% (N=584) Washing Machine 40% (N=588) Car 4% (N=61) TV 82% (N=1201) Mobile phone 88% (N=1283) Bicycle 27% (N=393) Radio 52% (N=755) Computer 9% (N=136) Refrigerator 68% (N=1006) Stove 64% (N=951) Hoe 64% (649) GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA STAKEHOLDER SURVEY GoC stakeholder survey (N=81)—A closed-ended survey interview was conducted with representatives of key GoC institutions involved in LRDP programmed municipalities and comparison municipalities. The location of the surveys was based on where their particular offices were located. The survey was a 45-60 minute close-ended survey interview. The stakeholder groups include mayors (22), land-restitution judges (23) and key administrators within the land restitution offices (36). Given the relatively limited size of the stakeholder survey, the evaluation team recommended focusing on LRU officials, land restitution judges, and mayors as key actors for the stakeholder survey. LRU officials are key actors for understanding LRDP impact on, and the more general context of, the administrative component of land restitution and other land-related challenges in the country. Specifically, the team choose to focus on the Social, Cadastral, and Judicial Directors of the LRUs. This variety of LRU officials granted the team a varied perspective on LRDP programming, particularly where it comes to inter-institutional cooperation. Land restitution judges comprised the second crucial piece of these processes, namely the judicial component. While LRDP does not directly support the judiciary, land restitution judges are key stakeholders in assessing the quality of cases coming from the LRU. They also have access to land related information systems and have a vast understanding of the challenges throughout the restitution process. LRDP was not assessed directly on judicial processing times. Finally, mayors could speak most clearly about the multi-faceted LRDP rural development programming and provide insight about their perception and involvement in any local restitution and formalization activities. SAMPLING FRAME Each municipality in LRDP programming regions has an active mayor. The survey team aimed to interview 25 mayors, split across LRDP programming areas and their respective comparison areas. In terms of LRU officials, the team focused on the Social Director, Cadaster Director, and Judicial Director across both programming and comparison regions. The LRU offices for the areas receiving LRDP programming are located in the respective departmental capitals (Valledupar, Sincelejo, Popayan, Villavicencio, Ibague), with the exception of the Montes de Maria region which has an office in Carmen del Bolivar. Participants for stakeholder interviews were selected from these regional offices, with the addition of the Bogotá office. The objective was to collect roughly 45 interviews. Land restitution judges LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 101 were similarly pulled across LRDP programmed regions and comparison regions, for a total objective of 30. Due to a number of rejections by intended stakeholders, the final total number is 81. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS The stakeholders interviewed were relatively new in their position but appeared aware of the LRDP's programming activities. Almost all stakeholders (97%) interviewed had held their position for less than five years. Most stakeholders describe having some level of familiarity with the work of the LRDP (91%), though this varied among the different stakeholders. Judges and LRU functionaries were the most of the LRDP's activities, with 96% and 94% respectively reporting some level of familiarity. Overall, about half of stakeholders report receiving some form of assistance from the LRDP. Of these, the most common form of assistance was restitution-related training (~50%). Across the stakeholders, the LRU was most likely to report having received some form of assistance (55%). The relatively higher level of interaction and familiarity between the LRDP, LRU, and the land judges reflects the LRDP's relative emphasis and progress on restitution issues, as compared to the other programming components. Only 32% of mayors report having any restitution experience and most say they received no assistance in drafting municipal development plans (50%). DATA COLLECTION Ipsos, an international survey firm, conducted the data collection in cooperation with the PE team. Enumerator training began with a training of both trainers and enumerators in Bogotá, Colombia, led by Juan Tellez and Ana Montoya of the PE team. Over four days, the project manager, field managers, supervisors, and enumerators were trained on the beneficiary household survey. Separate training for supervisors on the stakeholder survey were also conducted during this time. Training covered ethics of surveys research with human subjects, sampling methodology, and electronic data collection using Survey CTO, the survey platform selected for electronic data collection. Training contained both lectures, role plays, and group exercises and provided three days for enumerators to practice the survey in small groups, share their questions and advice, and practice using Survey CTO. Feedback from the training allowed investigators to improve the survey instrument and further adapt it to the local context prior to piloting and fielding the survey. Twenty pilot surveys were then conducted in sites near Bogotá that most closely mirrored the conditions of the field. Results from the pilot were used to revise and improve the instrument. The field team consisted of two field managers, five coordinators, 19 supervisors, and 52 enumerators. IPSOS CONDUCTING SURVEYS PHOTO CREDIT: IPSOS NAPOLÉON FRANCO Y CÍA. S.A.S. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 102 Enumerator teams were typically composed of three enumerators accompanied by a supervisor. Each team was responsible for surveying one village (15 households) each day. Only supervisors were allowed to field the stakeholder survey. Supervisors were tasked with fielding one stakeholder survey per municipality, where relevant. All enumerators were fluent in Spanish. In line with the requirements for human subjects’ protection, approval was received from the Duke University Institutional Review Board in March 2017. Verbal informed consent was received from each participant after reading a statement about the purpose of the research, the content of the survey, any risks or benefits, and the time commitment. Participants were assured their participation was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any point and their answers would be kept confidential. They were also informed that their responses would be shared through public posting and publication in a way that protected their identities. Participants who agreed to participate in the research gave their consent orally, and consent was recorded in the electronic survey device. Quantitative data collection took place between March 2017 and June 2017. The household and stakeholder surveys were collected through a cloud-based mobile data collection effort. Data was entered directly into Android tablets using a mobile data collection platform, SurveyCTO, and downloaded and formatted into Excel spreadsheets. DATA QUALITY The PE survey data collection effort utilized the following quality control measures: spot-checks by supervisors, phone verification by the survey team in Bogotá, and weekly back-checks by the PE team. In addition to supervisor checks, the survey team in Bogotá would conduct telephone verifications with participants who made their telephone numbers available to the enumeration team. Participants were randomly called by the survey team in Bogotá and asked to confirm or verify a number of questions from the survey. Verification reduces enumerator error and also captures as well as discourages data falsification on the part of enumerators, who are made aware of these random verifications. Approximately 15% of participants were re-contacted for verification. Finally, the PE team conducted thorough back-checks of incoming data. These checks were conducted on all household and stakeholder surveys, and results were compiled and shared with the survey firm. The back-checks compared survey responses by each enumerator to search for patterns indicating data falsification or systematic errors that should be corrected, including short survey times, missing responses, and unusual survey start or end times. SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS The secondary data analysis included two data sources: LRDP’s M&E data and panel data from the research center CEDE, at the University of Los Andes. LRDP’s M&E data was used to better understand primary data sources. As part of LRDP’s M&E methodology, a selection of performance indicators was chosen for the baseline study. While these indicators vary by municipality, program component, and uniformity overtime, there were several indicators that could be used as a proxy for outcomes in order to examine institutional strengthening activities and explore challenges across the municipalities or at the national level. While there are many factors that can influence these indicators, a descriptive analysis of the indicators provided context for primary data analysis and for the overall evaluation. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 103 The following adjusted M&E indicators listed in Table A1-2 were identified in line with the evaluation questions to supplement primary data sources. TABLE A1-2 M&E INDICATORS Indicator Description Actual Goal Percent LRDP-1.1.1 Number of restitution cases supported by LRDP 348 2700 13% LRDP-2.1.1-1 Number of formalization cases processed 5178 136872 4% LRDP-2.2.1-1 Number of targeted municipalities in which the formalization program is operating as a result of program assistance 5 37 14% LRDP-2.3.1 Number of cases of recoverable public lands inventoried to potentially feed into the Land Fund.” 48840 47000 104% LRDP-3.1.1 Number of PPPs formed with LRDP support 5 13 38% LRDP-3.1.1-2 Number of priority projects identified by local citizens that are included in rural development plans or initiatives 100 113 88% LRDP-O.3.1 Percentage of implemented projected finances with LRDP support 81 75 108% LRDP-O3.2 Number of rural households in conflict affected regions that gain access to public goods through expanded funding as a result of LRDP assistance 1969 5000 39% LRDP-O4.2-2 Reduced time to access inputs to restitution and formalization processes (Min) 29 0 LRDP-PO1 Percentage of project beneficiaries that are women. 19 50 38% LRDP-PO2 Number of restitution cases that benefit families belonging to ethnic groups 41 117 35% LRDP-PO2-1 Number of women, minorities and vulnerable populations directly benefiting from LRDP assistance in land restitution, formalization, rural development and/or IKM 1139 22585 5% LRDP-PO3 Percentage Increase In Resources Mobilized By The National GoC As A Result Of Lrdp In The Targeted Regions That Meet Community Needs 90 90 100% The evaluation team incorporated CEDE’s panel data into the study to inform the matching procedure. The CEDE data bears on the historic incidence of conflict, the nature of local agricultural production, the distribution of land, the incidence of land displacement, recent agricultural production, etc. CEDE’s municipal-level data is very rich in this regard. The data was used in the matching algorithm and to characterize the final control and treatment sample. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 104 ANNEX 2—QUALITATIVE METHODS RESPONDENT SELECTION The qualitative methods for the PE included FGDs and national and regional KIIs. Focus group participants and key informants represented purposive samples that had been selected in close collaboration with LRDP and USAID/Colombia. LRDP supplied lists of national and regional partners with associated contact information. Subsequently, the evaluation team worked closely with LRDP and USAID during the evaluation design process to identify priority key informants across the four structural components and GoC partner institutions. Given the large and diverse number of institutions involved in LRDP, respondent selection sought to balance the selection of a representative number of respondents within the allowable budget and timeframe for the evaluation. National KIIs were focused in Bogotá and regional KIIs were planned across five LRDP programming regions, including Montes de Maria, Tolima, Cauca, Cesar and Meta. Regional KIIs were selected to coincide with municipalities and institutions with the most intensive programming and, therefore, offered an opportunity for exploring progress along the relevant programming components. PE team members were instructed to follow a strict protocol regarding phone/email contacts with respondents, and the conduct of the interviews, to ensure the qualitative information required for evaluation purposes was gathered. Attached as Annex 3 are samples of the KII protocols followed for respondents in Bogotá. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS The KIIs were conducted in Bogotá and in LRDP programming regions between March and April 2017. The PE team interviewed key informants in Bogotá across several agencies and institutions, listed below: • LRU • SNR • IGAC • ANT • DNP • UPRA • OACP • CSJ • DDP • LRDP • AJP • NRDA • MARD • INCODER • Alquería SA FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Focus groups took place with direct project beneficiaries in municipalities that have experienced more intensive programming. In the same vein as the KII respondent selection, the identification of FGD sites and beneficiaries occurred in close collaboration with LRDP and USAID during the design phase. Ten FGDs were conducted across four LRDP programming regions including, Tolima, Montes de Maria, Cauca and Cesar. The FGDs were designed to capture information on the LRDP’s four structural LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 105 components across the following key beneficiary sub groups: women, youth, producer association members, Afro-Colombian and Indigenous. Among the FGD groups, women, youth and Afro-Colombian and Indigenous respondents are likely to face specific challenges in relation to restitution, formalization, and rural development. For example, rural women have historically struggled to gain access to land titling services, have lower developmental outcomes than their male counterparts, and have high victimization rates with respect to the armed conflict. Determining the effect of LRDP programming on these vulnerable groups was important to the PE given that this is one of the key objectives of the program. The specific focus groups and locations are listed below. To the extent possible, the evaluation team selected FGD sites in the same municipalities where the KIIs were held. As previously mentioned, these areas have experienced a larger amount of LRDP programming, which afforded the PE team the opportunity to analyze how civilians perceive various aspects of the programming. In addition, by holding focus groups in the same areas as KIIs the team was able to collect qualitative data on both the “demand” and “supply” side of land restitution and formalization. The 10 FGDs for five LRDP programming regions are listed below in Table A2-3; interviews took place between March and April 2017. The topical areas covered by the FGDs included: Restitution (R), Land Titling and Documentation (L), Rural Development (RD), Tenure Security and Conflict (TS), Government Support and Relationships (G), and Producer Association (PA). Each group had questions that were specifically relevant to that group, based on LRDP programming. TABLE A2-3 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY FGD Location FGD Type LRDP Intervention/ Topics Topic Participants Santander (Cauca) Youth Community hip hop performance to raise awareness of collective land rights of Afro Communities L, TS, G M (3) F (2) Total (5) Santander (Cauca) Afro Colombian Participation in Municipal Plan of Formalization R, L, RD, TS, G M (3) F (0) Total (3) Corinto (Cauca) Young Women Itinerant school for rural women R, L, RD, TS, G M (0) F (2) Total (2) Carmen de Bolivar (Montes de Maria) Producer Association Producer associations support including Name, Yuca and Cacao PA, R, L M (2) F (6) Total (8) Carmen de Bolivar (Montes de Maria) Women Women’s group including Cacao producers R, L, RD, TS, G, PA M (3) F (8) Total (11) San Cristobal (Montes de Maria) Afro Colombian (Consejo Comunitario Eladio Ariza) Characterization studies to support restitution of collective Afro Colombian territory R, RD, TS, G M (6) F (1) Total (7) Pueblo Bello (Cesar) Producer Associations, Peasants, Indigenous (Arhuacos) Mobilization of integrated rural development resources from national and regional level to local level RD, TS, G, PA M (20) F (5) Total (25) La Paz (Cesar) Yukpas (Indigenous) Characterizations of effects of armed conflict in ethnic territories R, D, TS, G M (6) F (1) Total (7) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 106 TABLE A2-3 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY FGD Location FGD Type LRDP Intervention/ Topics Topic Participants Chaparral (Tolima) Women Strategy for diffusion of information on women's restitution and property rights L, RD, TS, G M (1 boy child) F (11) Total (12) Maria la Baja (Montes de Maria) Afro Colombian Women Technical assistance to women members of producers’ associations R, L, RD, TS, G M (6) F (5) Total (11) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 107 ANNEX 3—BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY INSTRUMENT The beneficiary household survey has been posted in a zip file with all of the PE data collection tools to Land Links, the E3/LU Office land portal at the following URL: https://www.land-links.org/evaluation/land-rural-development-program-colombia/ A copy of the beneficiary household survey can be found on the following pages. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 108 LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Household Survey FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_a1 A. Household Information time_st A1. Date of Survey: (Date) int_name A2. Name of Enumerator: (Text) superv A3. Name of Supervisor: (Text) meeting A4. Is this a special meeting organized as a group by the LRU, producer association or some other entity? Mark yes if this survey is taking place in a location organized by the LRU or a productive association (rare) 0=No 1=Yes department A5. What department does the respondent live in? 1=Antioquia 2=Bolivar 3=Boyaca 4=Caldas 5=Caqueta 6=Cauca 7=Cesar 8=Cordoba 9=Huila 10=La Guajira 11=Meta 12=Nor De Santa 13=Quindio 14=Sucre 15=Tolima municipality A6. What municipality does the respondent live in? [CENSORED] lane A7. What lane/community does the respondent live in? Or municipal head [CENSORED] hhid A8. Please enter the household ID (Integer) head A9. Are you the head of household or the wife/companion of the head of household? 1=Head of household 2=Spouse or partner of head of household 3=No, I am not home A10. Do you live in this home? Question relevant when: A9 = 1 or A9 = 2 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer citizen A11. Are you a Colombian citizen or permanent resident of Colombia? Question relevant when: A9 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer adult A12. Are you above the age of 18? Question relevant when: A11 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer iconsent Hi, my name is ______. I am a researcher working with Ipsos, The Cloudburst Group, and Duke University in the United States on a study of institutional strengthening initiatives in rural Colombia. We are particularly interested in land issues including restitution, formalization, and rural development. We are looking for volunteers to participate in a survey and answer questions about their household and opinions about these issues. The survey will be administered by one Ipsos employee who will use a mobile device to record answers; it will take about 45 minutes of your time. Participation is completely voluntary. You may decline to respond to any questions you do not want to answer. If you agree now but later decide to drop out of the study, you are free to do so. Your responses will be used to inform a final report that will be provided to Duke University and the LRDP. Although we will ask you to provide your name, we will use your name only to follow-up with you if necessary. Your name will never be used in our analysis. We will destroy your name once we can confirm we no longer need it. There are no risks nor any direct and tangible benefits of participating in this survey. However, it is our hope that our findings may help communities like yours to benefit from improvements in rural programs as we learn what is working and what is not. If you have any questions or concerns about our study, please contact __________ at ###-###-#### or __________ at ###-###-####. May we continue? Question relevant when: A12 = 1 LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 109 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER consent A13. Did the respondent consent? Question relevant when: A12 = 1 0=No 1=Yes refuse A14. Can you please tell me why you have chosen not to participate? Question relevant when: A13 = 0 (Text) FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_b1 B. Respondent And Household Information note_b2 Let's begin with a few facts about yourself and your household. When we say household, we mean people living under the same roof or eating from the same pot as you and are controlled by one person regarded as the head man or woman for your people in this house hhsize B1. How many people in total live in this household at this time? (Integer) child B2. How many children under the age of 13 live in this household? Must be less than B1 (Integer) sex B3. Sex of the respondent Observation only 1=Male 2=Female age B4. In what year were you born? Enter 888 if they do not know Must be less than or equal to 1999 (Year) age_aprox B5. About how old are you? Question relevant when: B4 = 888 1=18-30 2=31-40 3=41-50 4=51-60 5=60 or older 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond marry B6. What is your present marital status? 1=Never married 2=Engaged 3=Married 4=Permanent partner 5=Separated 6=Divorced 7=Widowed 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond marryo B6b. Other, specify Question relevant when: B6 = 97 (Text) born B7. Were you born in this municipality? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer live_year B8. How many years have you lived in this municipality? Question relevant when: B7 = 1 (Integer) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 110 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER activity B9. How do you primarily spend your time? Are you currently: 1=Working 2=Actively looking for a job 3=A student 4=Taking care of the home 5=Retired, a pensioner or permanently disabled to work 6=Not working and not looking for a job 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond job B10. What is your primary job? Probe and code Question relevant when: B9 = 1 or 2 1=Smallholder farming (subsistence) 2=Smallholder farming (wage labor) 3=Largeholder farming 4=Mine (artisanal and small mining) 5=Factory/other industrial work 6=Tourism 7=Pension/retired 8=Petty trade 9=Businessman/woman (eg. Shop owner) 10=Teacher 11=Health worker 12=Police/security 13=Parastalal/governmen t corporation 14=Driver/transport 15=NGO 16=Priest/minister/chief 17=Other skilled professional (mechanic, electrician, carpenter) 18=Unskilled wage labor (fuel station attendant, waiter, hair dresser) 19=Non-official position within community 20=Economic assessor / Tax assessor 21=Handcrafts, dressmaking 22=Housekeeping / childcare 23=Construction 24=Service sector (assistant, waitress) 25=Various occupations 26=Looking for a job / Not working 27=Student 28=Livestock 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond job_civil B10b. Other civil servant, specify Question relevant when: B10 = 19 (Text) jobo B10c. Other, specify Question relevant when: B10 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 111 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER jobtype B11. In your primary job, are you: Question relevant when: B9 = 1 or 2 1=A salaried employee of the government 2=A salaried employee of the private sector 3=Owner or partner in a business 4=Self-employed 5=Unpaid worker 6=Casual labor with no contract 7=Student 8=Looking for a job 9=Taking care of the home 10=Not working 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond jobtypeo B11b. Other, specify Question relevant when: B11 = 97 (Text) jobyr B12. How many years have you held your primary job? If less than 1 year, enter 0 (Integer) ed B13. How many years of formal school have you completed? If less than 1 year, enter 0 Response must be less than or equal to 25 (Integer) read B14. Can you read? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer race B15. Do you consider yourself white, mesitzo, indigenous, black, mulatto, or another race? If respondent says Afro-Colombian, choose 4 1=White 2=Mestizo 3=Indigenous 4=Black 5=Mulatto 6=Morena 7=Afro 8=Trigue 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond raceo B15b. Other, specify Question relevant when: B15 = 97 (Text) news B16. How often do you follow the news on the radio, tv, or newspaper or the internet? Read all options 1=Daily 2=A few times a week 3=A few times a month 4=Rarely 5=Never 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_c1 C. Interaction With Institutions And Land Inequality LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 112 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER B1 C1. Approximately what size of land does your household own? 0.5=Less than 0.5 hectáreas 1=Between 0.6 and 1 hectares 2.5=Between 1.1 and 2.5 hectares 5=Between 2.6 and 5 hectares 10=Between 6 and 10 hectares 20=Between 11 and 20 hectares 50=Between 21 and 50 hectares 100=Between 51 and 100 hectares 200=Between 101 and 200 hectares 500=Between 201 and 500 hectares 1000=Between 501 and 1000 hectares 2000=Between 1001 and 2000 hectares 5000=Between 2001 and 5000 hectares 10000=Between 5001 and 10000 hectares 10001=More than 10001 hectares B2 C2. Out of 100 people, how many people do you think have more land than you? Response must be less than or equal to 100. (Integer) K_Note1 C3. Given the amount of land you declared you own, recent data indicate that [K1_Percentile]% of people have more land than you, while you thought you had [B2]%. K_Note2 C4. In fact, you were right about how many people have more land than you. taxes C5. The state should charge higher taxes to large landholders and use these resources to help those in need. To what extent do you agree with this statement? 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond moretax C6. Would you be willing to pay more land property taxes if they were used to help those in need? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer seekhelp C7. If you face a problem related with your farm, would you seek help from? 1=Mayor 2=Personero Municipal 3=Police 4=Secretario de Agricultura 5=Your Producer Association 6=Family or Friends 7=You solve it by yourself 8=I don't have a farm 9=Comunity committee 10=With the neighbor 11=Indigineous committee 12=Judicial institutions 13=IGAC 14=Planning office 15=Lawyer 16=Any competent person (Notary, conciliator, fiscalia, etc) 97=Other, specify 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond seekhelpo C7b. Other, specify Question relevant when: C7 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 113 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER together C8. Would you get together with other rural families to demand the state to improve your situation? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer note_c2 C9. Now I'd like to ask you some questions about your interactions with various institutions note_c3 Please tell me how much you agree with the following statements trust_courts C10. The Courts in Colombia guarantee a fair trial 1=Trust very much 2=Trust 3=Neither trust nor distrust 4=Do not trust very much 5=Distrust very much 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond trust_mard C11. I trust the MARD works in the benefit of small and large landholders 1=Trust very much 2=Trust 3=Neither trust nor distrust 4=Do not trust very much 5=Distrust very much 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond trust_mayor C12. I trust the municipal government works on behalf of the interests of all its citizens regardless of their socio-economic situations 1=Trust very much 2=Trust 3=Neither trust nor distrust 4=Do not trust very much 5=Distrust very much 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond trust_pmun C13. I trust the Personeria Municipal protects the rights of every citizen equally 1=Trust very much 2=Trust 3=Neither trust nor distrust 4=Do not trust very much 5=Distrust very much 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond trust_incoder C14. I trust the National Land Agency (ANT) formerly known as the Colombian Rural Development Institute (INCODER) distributes public land fairly 1=Trust very much 2=Trust 3=Neither trust nor distrust 4=Do not trust very much 5=Distrust very much 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond trust_police C15. I trust the state government works on behalf of the interest of all its citizens regardless of their socio-economic situation 1=Trust very much 2=Trust 3=Neither trust nor distrust 4=Do not trust very much 5=Distrust very much 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agency_yn C16. In the last 3 years have you or anyone in your household directly engage with any government agencies or officials for services or support? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 114 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER agency C17. Which agencies or officials have members of your household interacted with? read all options Question relevant when: C16 = 1 1=LRU 2=INCODER/ANT 3=MARD 4=Mayor 5=Governor 6=Personero Municipal 7=Defensor 8=Registry Office 9=IGAC 10=Land restitution courts 11=Department of Education 12=Fiscalia 13=Victims Units 14=Producer Associations 15=Police 16=El Concejo 17=Agrarian Bank 18=Health provider 19=Councilor 20=Anh National Hydrocarbons Agency 21=The ICA, Environment 22=Victims unit 23=A secretary of the town hall 24=Reparations unit 25=Social Action 26=None 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agencyo C17b. Other, specify Question relevant when: C17 = 97 (Text) note_c4 Please tell me how much you agree with the following statements about your municipal government corrupt_mun govt C18. Overall, there is very little corruption among public officials that work for the municipal government Municipal government is the alcaldia 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond satisfy_mung ovt C19. Overall, I am very satisfied with the work of the municipal government in rural development Municipal government is the alcaldia 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond note_c5 Please tell me how much you agree with the following statements about land rights in Colombia LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 115 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER rights_unders tand C20. Citizen's land rights are clear and easy to understand for most citizens in Colombia 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rights_protec t C21. Citizen's land rights are well protected by the authorities of Colombia 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_d1 D. Land Conflict and Displacement note_d2 Now I'd like to ask you some questions about land conflicts that have impacted your household displace_yn D1. Have you ever been forced to leave your land or had to abandon your land as a result of armed conflict? Here, we mean whether you were forced to leave your home as a result of the armed conflict. 1=No 2=Yes - Forced to leave 3=Yes - I abandoned my land 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond displace_why D2. Why were you forced to leave or abandon your land? Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 1=My family decided it was too dangerous to stay 2=Armed groups threatened me or my family 3=Elites threatened me or my family 4=I or a member of my family wouldn’t cooperate with armed group 5=I or a member of my family wouldn’t cooperate with elites 6=Armed group wanted my family’s land 7=Elites wanted my family's land 8=They killed a relative (or many) 9=Forced recruitment 10=The army 11=Lack of opportunities 12=Common crime 97=Other 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond displace_why 0 D2b. Other, specify Question relevant when: D2 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 116 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER displace_grou p D3. What groups were responsible for your displacement? Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 1=FARC 2=ELN 3=Paramilitaries 4=BACRIM 5=Army 6=La guerilla 7=EPL 8=La chusma 9=Los pajaros 10=Delincuencia comun 11=Narcos 12=Grupo 35 13=Las autodefensas 14=Hernando Girardo and the Chestnuts (a group of Colombian armed forces) 15=Police 16=The state (government groups) 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond displace_grou po D3b. Other specify Question relevant when: D3 = 97 (Text) displace_yr D4. What year did this occur? Enter a full four-digit year Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 Answer must be less than or equal to 2017 (Year) D5. What size of land were you displaced from? Group relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 dis_amnt D5a. Amount (Integer) dis_unit D5b. Unit 1=Hectare 2=Square kilometer 3=Fanegada 4=Cuarterón 5=square meters 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond displace_amn t0 D5c. Other, specify Question relevant when: D5b = 97 (Text) dis_landuse D6. Before you were displaced, what was the primary use of your land? Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 1=Farming 2=Cattle-raising 3=Housing 4=Investment/savings 5=No own land 6=None 7=coca 8=mechanics / industry 9=To raise animals other than cattle 10=Mining 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 117 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER dis_landuseo D6b. Other, specify Question relevant when: D6 = 97 (Text) dis_depart D7. From what department were you displaced? Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 [CENSORED] dis_mun D8. From what municipality were you displaced? Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 (Text) dis_return D9. Were you able to return to the home that you were displaced from? Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dis_noreturn D10. Why were you not able to return? Question relevant when: D9 = 0 1=Land/home was destroyed 2=Not safe to return 3=Better living conditions elsewhere 4=I have not yet been able to recover my land 5=Too many mines 6=Does not want to return (bad memories) 7=They are not the current owners of the land 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dis_noreturn o D10b. Other, specify Question relevant when: D10 = 97 (Text) dis_home D11. Is the current home where you reside the same home you were displaced from? Question relevant when: D9 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dis_returnyr D12. In what year did you return to this home? Enter a full four-digit year Question relevant when: D11 = 1 Response must be greater than D4. (Year) dis_returny D13. Why did you decide to return? Spontaneous answer Question relevant when: D9 = 1 1=Wanted to return to family/friends in the neighborhood 2=Security conditions improved in the neighborhood 3=A government agency helped me to return 4=I needed access to land/home in order to survive 5=Living conditions in the city were worse than in my community 6=I no longer felt threatened by armed groups or elites 7=I decided to cooperate with armed groups or elites 8=To recover my land 9=To work the land 10=Emotional reasons (roots, I feel good here…) 11=Because of the peace process 12=To resist 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dis_returnyo D13b. Other, specify Question relevant when: D13 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 118 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER harm_force D14. Have you or anyone in your family suffered other harm as a result of the conflict in Colombia? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer harm_group D15. What groups were responsible for causing harm? spontaneous answer Question relevant when: D14 = 1 1=FARC 2=ELN 3=Paramilitaries 4=BACRIM 5=Army 6=Other or Unknown Group 7=AUC 8=M19 9=Common Criminals 10=Miners 11=Grupo 35 12=Guerilla 13=Las autodefensas 14=La guerrilla y los paramilitares 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond harm_groupo D15b. Other specify Question relevant when: D15 = 97 (Text) harm_yr D16. What year did this occur? Enter a full four-digit year Question relevant when: D14 = 1 Response must be less than or equal to 2017. (Year) dis_ruv D17. Are you registered in the National Registry of Victims? Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dis_noruv D18. Why haven't you registered in the National Registry of Victims? Read all options Question relevant when: D17 = 0 1=I have never heard of the RUV 2=I do not trust the process 3=I do not believe registering will help me 4=The process takes too much time 5=I do not understand how to register 6=Lack of information 7=Process Failed (e.g. erased from system, papers never sent) 8=Fear 9=Just haven't done it/intended to do it 10=Not eligible 11=Prevented by a group 12=Others need it more 13=Too late to register 14=no have time/money 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dis_noruvo D18b. Other, specify Question relevant when: D18 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 119 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER dis_reparyn D19. Have you received any type of reparation from the government? Question relevant when: D1 = 2 or 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dis_repar D20. What type of reparations have you received? Question relevant when: D19 = 1 1=Health subsidies 2=Education subsidies 3=Housing subsidies 4=Prosecution of the displacement authors 5=Cash payment as compensation 6=Restitution of land or assets lost 7=Personal or family safety 8=Debt relief 9=Job or livelihood support 10=Symbolic act to preserve memory 11=Food and water 12=Humanitarian Aid/Unspecified aid 13=Nothing 14=Livestock and Farming Aid 15=Productive project 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dis_reparo D20b. Other, specify Question relevant when: D20 = 97 (Text) law_know D21. How much do you know about the Law of Victims and Land Restitution 1448 of 2011 1=I haven’t even heard about 2=I have heard, but do not know much 3=Know a little 4=Know a lot 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 120 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER law_knowho w D22. How did you know about this law? spontaneous answer Question relevant when: D21 = 2 or 3 or 4 1=Through the Attorney General’s Office 2=Through the Ombudsperson’s Office 3=Through the National Commission for Reparations and Reconciliation 4=Through radio broadcasts/programs 5=Through the Mayor’s office 6=Through the Social Action Agency 7=Through a neighbor, friend or relative 8=Through a private lawyer 9=Internet 10=Through the Land Restitution Unit 11=TV 12=Newspapers 13=Through another organization 14=Through unspecified government agency/official 15=Through this interview 16=The police 17=The Victim's unit 18=Community council 19=Personal experience 20=USAID 21=Indigineous council 22=Abother international cooperation agency 97=Other 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond law_knowho wo D22b. Other, specify Question relevant when: D22 = 97 (Text) law_opin D23. What is your opinion of this law? Question relevant when: D21 = 2 or 3 or 4 1=Very positive 2=Positive 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_e1 E. Restitution lru_know E1. Have you heard of the Land Restitution Unit? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer lru_location E2. Do you know where the closest office of the Land Restitution Unit is located? Question relevant when: E1 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 121 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER lru_contact E3. Do you know how to contact the Land Restitution Unit? Question relevant when: E1 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer lru_hear E4. How did you hear about the Land Restitution Unit? read all options Question relevant when: E1 = 1 1=Friends or family 2=Local government advertisement 3=Radio 4=Attended a training event 5=Internet 6=Television 7=Community Visit (training not mentioned) 8=Sought out the information 9=The polica 10=Land recruitment officers 11=LRU 12=Local government or community notice board 13=Telephone call 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lru_hearo E4b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E4 = 97 (Text) rest_yn E5. Have you ever or are you currently seeking restitution of your land? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer rest_stage E6. What stage are you currently in the restitution process? Question relevant when: E5 = 1 1=Administrative request submitted and accepted 2=Administrative request submitted and rejected 3=Judicial case under review or appeal 4=Final judgment issued but no land restituted 5=Land restituted 6=Awaiting action - stage unspecified or unknown 7=Awaiting promised action 8=The process will begin soon 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_stageo E6b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E6 = 97 (Text) rest_live E7. Are you currently living on the land you are trying to reclaim? Question relevant when: E6 = 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer rest_opp E8. Does/did your case have another claimant? Opponent is a person or family claiming ownership of your land Question relevant when: E6 = 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 122 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER rest_oppwho E9. Who is/was the other claimant? Question relevant when: E8 = 1 1=Individual or family 2=A company or corporation 3=The state (baldio) 4=Previous landowner 5=My ex-husband/ex-wife 6=Armed actor 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_oppwho o E9b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E9 = 97 (Text) rest_opindv E10. Is the individual/family another claimant like you? Question relevant when: E9 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer E11. When did you begin the restitution process? Question relevant when: E6 = 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 rest_beginy E11a. Year Enter a full four-digit year. If person does not know or does not respond, mark '888'. Response must be less than or equal to 2017. (Year) rest_beginm E11b. Month 1=January 2=February 3=March 4=April 5=May 6=June 7=July 8=August 9=September 10=October 11=November 12=December 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond E12. When did you begin the restitution process? Question relevant when: E6 = 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 rest_endy E12a. Year Enter a full four-digit year. If person does not know or does not respond, mark '888'. Response must be less than or equal to 2017. (Year) rest_endm E12b. Month 1=January 2=February 3=March 4=April 5=May 6=June 7=July 8=August 9=September 10=October 11=November 12=December 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_rejecty E13. Why was your administrative request rejected? Question relevant when: E6 = 2 1=No supporting documentation or other evidence available 2=Supporting documentation or other evidence rejected 3=Have been waiting for a response 4=Land reallocated 5=Further requirements needed 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_rejectyo E13b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E13 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 123 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER con_rep E14. Who is handling the legal representation of your land restitution case? Question relevant when: E5 = 1 1=Land Restitution Unit/public defender 2=NGO, specify 3=Private lawyer 4=I have no legal representation 5=Family 6=Not sure who 7=Local leader or local government member 8=The reserve 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_repo E14b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E14 = 97 (Text) con_repngo E14c. NGO, specify Question relevant when: E14 = 2 (Text) con_norep E15. Why do you not have access to legal representation? Spontaneous answer Question relevant when: E14 = 4 1=Legal representation is too expensive 2=I don't know where to find legal representation 3=I don't have the time to find legal representation 4=I don't trust any legal representation 5=I haven't found anyone I like 6=I wasn't aware I needed representation 7=I did not want legal representation 8=A friend is in charge of my legal representation 9=I do not understand about it 10=I didn't need legal representation 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_norepo E15b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E15 = 97 (Text) con_reptrust E16. I trust my legal counsel (LRU, NGO, private lawyer etc) and feel they have my best interest in mind Question relevant when: E14 = 1 or 2 or 3 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lru_sat E17. How satisfied are you with the level of services or support that you have received from the Land Restitution Unit? Question relevant when: E14 = 1 1=Very satisfied 2=Somewhat satisfied 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat dissatisfied 5=Very dissatisfied 777=Not applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_yn E18. Since your land has been restituted, have you experienced any disagreement or conflict over the land? Question relevant when: E6 = 5 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 124 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER con_who E19. Who was involved in the disagreement or conflict over the land? Spontaneous answer Question relevant when: E18 = 1 1=Neighbor or other community member (between households in this community) 2=Non-resident of this neighborhood 3=Intra-household conflict between immediate family 4=Intra-household conflict between extended family 5=Conflict with external armed group 6=Conflict with government officials 7=Conflict with private investors 8=A secondary occupant 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_whoo E19b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E19 = 97 (Text) con_cause E20. What was the cause of the dispute or conflict over the land? Question relevant when: E18 = 1 1=Boundary dispute 2=Claim dispute 3=Inheritance dispute 4=Marriage dispute 5=Livestock related dispute 6=An armed group demanded the land that was being restituted 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_causeo E20b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E20 = 97 (Text) lru_trust E21. To what extent do you trust the Land Restitution Unit? Question relevant when: E1 = 1 1=Trust very much 2=Trust 3=Neither trust nor distrust 4=Do not trust very much 5=Distrust very much 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lru_notrust E22. Why do you not trust the Land Restitution Unit? Spontaneous answer Question relevant when: E21 = 4 or 5 1=Do not trust the government generally 2=Others have had bad experiences with them 3=They don't represent the interests of people like me 4=They have treated me poorly in the past 5=Inconsistent or biased treatment 6=Do not inspire confidence (late to meetings, slow, disorganized) 7=Can not accomplish anything 8=Respondent does not know enough 9=Do not trust the process 10=Process is actively corrupt 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lru_notrusto E22b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E22 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 125 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER lru_friendyn E23. In the past 3 years, have any friends of anyone else in the area engaged directly with the Land Restitution Unit to get back their land? Question relevant when: E1 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer lru_friend E24. Were they successful in getting their land back? Question relevant when: E23 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 2=They are still in process 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer lru_clear E25. Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with this statement: The administrative and judicial procedures of the land restitution process have been clear and easy to understand Question relevant when: E5 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lru_unclear E26. Why has the land restitution process been unclear or difficult to understand? Read all options Question relevant when: E25 = 4 or 5 1=Too expensive 2=Too slow 3=Too complex 4=Too confusing 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lru_unclearo E26b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E26 = 97 (Text) lru_easy E27. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the administrative and judicial procedures of the land restitution process have been easy to participate in Question relevant when: E5 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lru_noteasy E28. Why has the land restitution process been difficult to participate in? Read all options Question relevant when: E27 = 4 or 5 1=I do not have legal representation 2=I do not have time to travel 3=I do not understand the process 4=I do not trust government officials 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lru_noteasyo E28b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E28 = 97 (Text) note_e2 Please tell me how much you agree with the following questions about the land restitution process Question relevant when: E5 = 1 rest_respect E29. Government officials have treated me respectfully throughout the land restitution process Question relevant when: E5 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 126 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER rest_local E30. Local Government is committed to enforce the land restitution orders 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_public E31. I feel comfortable talking about the restitution process in public Question relevant when: E5 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_equal E32. I have been treated the same as everyone else in the restitution process, irrespective of my gender or ethnicity Question relevant when: E5 = 1 and B3 = 2 or B15 = 3 or 4 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_trust E33. The Police officials treat citizens respectfully when enforcing land restitution orders 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_fair E34. I feel that the land restitution process is fair and just 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_time E35. I feel that the land restitution process has been timely and moving at a reasonable pace Question relevant when: E5 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_improve E36. My overall perception of the land restitution process has improved during the last three years 2014-2016 Question relevant when: E5 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 127 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER rest_improve y E37. How has the restitution process improved during the last three years? Question relevant when: E26 = 1 or 2 1=Process is less expensive than before 2=Process is faster than before 3=Process is less complex than before 4=Process hasn't changed, my view has 5=It is more consistent 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_improve yo E37b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E37 = 97 (Text) rest_noimpro vey E38. How has the restitution process degraded during the last three years? Question relevant when: E36 = 4 or 5 1=Process is too expensive 2=Process is too slow 3=Process is too complex 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rest_noimpro veyo E38b. Other, specify Question relevant when: E38 = 97 (Text) note_exp1a Thank you for your effort on our survey so far. The next part of the survey will ask you to put yourself in the shoes of a displaced person. I will describe to you two scenarios. note_exp1b Each scenario is a hypothetical land restitution case. I want you to imagine that you have the choice to take one of these two cases to court. [Description of Restitution Cases - version A versus B: For each sample restitution case, an option for each blank is randomly selected.] • 1. Propietario Con Escritura; Poseedor; Ocupante • 2. Menos De 1 Hectarea; Entre 2 Y 10 Hectareas; Mas De 10 Hectareas • 3. Las Farc; Los Paramilitares; Las Bacrim; Grandes Empresarios • 4. No Han Sido Restituidos Porque Las Autoridades Locales No Han Cumplido Con La Orden Judicial; Han Sido Restituidos Exitosamente Porque Las Autoridades Locales Si Cumplieron Con La Orden note_e1case1 Case 1: Juan es (1)______ de un terreno de (2)______. Fue desplazado por (3)______. En su región, algunos casos (4)______. Case 2: Camilo es (1)______ de un terreno de (2)______. Fue desplazado por (3)______. En su región, algunos casos (4)______. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 128 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER exp1_prefcas e1 E39. Which of these two situations would you be more likely to take to court? 1=Case 1 2=Case 2 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp1_case1wi n E40a. How likely do you think that CASO 1 will win? 1=Will win 2=Likely 3=Somewhat likely 4=Not very likely 5=No chance to win 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp1_case2wi n E40b. How likely do you think that CASO 2 will win? 1=Will win 2=Likely 3=Somewhat likely 4=Not very likely 5=No chance to win 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer note_exp_e2 Please consider two more cases. THIS EXERCISE IS REPEATED. • 1. Propietario Con Escritura; Poseedor; Ocupante • 2. Menos De 1 Hectarea; Entre 2 Y 10 Hectareas; Mas De 10 Hectareas • 3. Las Farc; Los Paramilitares; Las Bacrim; Grandes Empresarios • 4. No Han Sido Restituidos Porque Las Autoridades Locales No Han Cumplido Con La Orden Judicial; Han Sido Restituidos Exitosamente Porque Las Autoridades Locales Si Cumplieron Con La Orden note_e2case2 Case 1: Juan es (1)______ de un terreno de (2)______. Fue desplazado por (3)______. En su región, algunos casos (4)______. Case 2: Camilo es (1)______ de un terreno de (2)______. Fue desplazado por (3)______. En su región, algunos casos (4)______. exp1_prefcas e2 E41. Which of these two situations would you be more likely to take to court? 1=Case 1 2=Case 2 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 129 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER exp2_case1wi n E42a. How likely do you think that CASO 1 will win? 1=Will win 2=Likely 3=Somewhat likely 4=Not very likely 5=No chance to win 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp2_case2wi n E42b. How likely do you think that CASO 2 will win? 1=Will win 2=Likely 3=Somewhat likely 4=Not very likely 5=No chance to win 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_f1 F. Tenure Security landyn F1. Do you currently use, occupy, rent, or own land that is separate from the property where your house (the place you live) is located? In other words, is your house located in one place and your land in another? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer note_f2 Please answer the following questions about your LAND only Group relevant when: F1 = 1 land_liveyr F2. How many years have you lived on your land? Group relevant when: F1 = 1 (Integer) land_type F3. How would you describe your current legal status in connection with your land? Spontaneous answer Group relevant when: F1 = 1 1=I own my land 2=I am the spouse of the land owner. 3=I rent my land 4=I inherited my land from family 5=Occupant 6=Possessor 7=Government land occupant 8=Collective owner of ethnic territory 9=Other collective owner 10=Owner, but don't have documentation 11=I am the sibling or parent of the owner. 12=My parents-in-law or siblings-in-law are the owner(s) 13=I am planning to buy this land 14=I am the caretaker for this land, do not own 15=The sale or transfer is in process / waiting on documentation 16=Given to me by the government 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond land_typeo F3b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F3 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 130 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER land_rentyr F4. For how many years have you rented this land? Enter 0 if less than 1 Question relevant when: F3 = 3 (Integer) lrent_contrac t F5. Do you have a signed rental contract for your land? Question relevant when: F3 = 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer land_ownyr F6. About how many years ago did you get ownership of your land? Question relevant when: F3 = 1 or 2 or 4 (Integer) land_doc F7. What kind of document, if any, do you have showing ownership of your LAND? Question relevant when: F3 = 1 or 2 or 4 1=Recorded deed 2=Unrecorded deed 3=A document other than a deed, specify 4=Do not have any ownership documents 5=Sales letter 6=Notarized document 7=Adjudication document 8=Title or certificate of ownership (not a deed) 9=Inheritance documentation 10=Co-ownership with spouse (marriage certificate) 11=Possesion document 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond land_doco F7b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F7 = 3 (Text) land_paper F8. Where did you get your official papers for your land? Question relevant when: F3 = 1 or 2 or 4 1=De Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro 2=From the MARD 3=From INCODER/ANT 4=From LRU 5=From another government agency 6=From a private party 7=town hall 8=Notary 9=Judge 10=Police station 11=Unofficial person/entity 12=No documentation / it's a verbal agreement 13=Ministry of Housing 14=Agricultural bank 15=National Register 16=Inurbe (housing program) 17=Communal action board 18=Incora 19= God's Minute (Catholic org) 20=IGAC 21=From the previous owner 22=Indigenous reserve 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond land_papergvt F8b. Government agency, specify Question relevant when: F8 = 5 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 131 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER land_papero F8c. Other, specify Question relevant when: F8 = 97 (Text) land_nopaper F9. Why do you not have official papers? Question relevant when: F7 = 4 1=I occupied the land my house sits on 2=I bought it from someone who occupied the land 3=It belonged to my parents/ancestors but I never got official papers 4=I have not (no one else has) done the paperwork 5=It belongs to my (underage) children 6=The land/home does not belong to me 7=I submitted papers, but they aren't processed yet 8=There is clerical issues, I can't get the papers processed 9=The house is gov subsidized, the papers haven't come yet 10=Didn't get paperwork done out of fear of violence / conflict 11=The house is new and doesn't have documents associated with it. 12=The home is co-owned, unsure who would have the papers 13=Cannot afford to do the paperwork / submit documents 14=The house is not paid off, doesn't belong to me yet 15=The house was donated, no papers with it 16=Because of the embargo they mad 17=The papers are in my husband's name 18=the papers are lost 19=It is a collective land 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond land_nopaper o F9b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F9 = 97 (Text) landdoc_3 F10. Were you issued these land ownership documents within the past 3 years? Question relevant when: F7 = 1 or 2 or 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer land_evict F11. In the last year, have you ever been threatened with eviction from your land? Group relevant when: F1 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer land_evictnu m F12. How many times have you been threatened with eviction? Question relevant when: F11 = 1 (Integer) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 132 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER land_evictwh y F13. For what reasons have you been threatened with eviction? Question relevant when: F11 = 1 1=Late on payment 2=Others claim to own the land my home is on 3=Armed groups threatened me 4=Government wants to claim the land 5=The homeowners want to live here (can no longer borrow / rent / lease) 6=The home/land is no longer safe (erosion, natural disaster, etc.) 7=Imminent domain 8=Argument with family about ownership 9=Neighbors / others want the respondent to leave for reasons unknown 11=In the restitution process 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond land_evictwh yo F13b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F13 = 97 (Text) note_f3 Please answer the following questions about your HOME only Group relevant when: F1 = 1 home_type F14. How would you describe your current legal status in connection with your home? Group relevant when: F1 = 1 1=I own my house 2=I am the spouse of the house owner. 3=I rent my house 4=I inherited my house from family 5=Possessor 6=A family member is letting me live here 7=I am a caretaker of the house or land or farm 8=I am borrowing or renting 9=I do not have a house 10=Occupant 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond home_typeo F14b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F14 = 97 (Text) home_rentyr F15. For how many years have you rented your home? Enter 0 if less than 1 Question relevant when: F14 = 3 (Integer) rent_contract F16. Do you have a signed rental contract for your home? Question relevant when: F14 = 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer home_ownyr F17. About how many years ago did you get ownership of your home? Question relevant when: F14 = 1 or 2 or 4 (Integer) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 133 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER home_doc F18. What kind of document, if any, do you have showing ownership of your HOME? Question relevant when: F14 = 1 or 2 or 4 1=Recorded deed 2=Unrecorded deed 3=A document other than a deed, specify 4=Do not have any ownership documents 5=Sales letter 6=Notarized document 7=Adjudication document 8=Title or certificate of ownership (not a deed) 9=Inheritance documentation 10=Co-ownership with spouse (marriage certificate) 11=Possesion document 12=Certificate of liberty and tradition 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond home_doco F18b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F18 = 3 (Text) home_paper F19. Where did you get your official papers for your home? Question relevant when: F18 = 1 or 2 or 3 1=De Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro 2=From the MARD 3=From INCODER/ANT 4=From LRU 5=From another government agency 6=From a private party 7=town hall 8=Notary 9=Judge 10=Police station 11=Unofficial person/entity 12=No documentation / it's a verbal agreement 13=Ministry of Housing 14=Agricultural bank 15=National Register 16=Inurbe (housing program) 17=Communal action board 18=Incora 19= God's Minute (Catholic org) 20=IGAC 21=From the previous owner 22=Indigenous reserve 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond home_paperg vt F19b. Government agency, specify Question relevant when: F19 = 5 (Text) home_papero F19c. Other, specify Question relevant when: F19 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 134 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER home_nopap er F20. Why do you not have official papers? Question relevant when: F18 = 4 1=I occupied the land my house sits on 2=I bought it from someone who occupied the land 3=It belonged to my parents/ancestors but I never got official papers 4=I have not (no one else has) done the paperwork 5=It belongs to my (underage) children 6=The land/home does not belong to me 7=I submitted papers, but they aren't processed yet 8=There is clerical issues, I can't get the papers processed 9=The house is gov subsidized, the papers haven't come yet 10=Didn't get paperwork done out of fear of violence / conflict 11=The house is new and doesn't have documents associated with it. 12=The home is co-owned, unsure who would have the papers 13=Cannot afford to do the paperwork / submit documents 14=The house is not paid off, doesn't belong to me yet 15=The house was donated, no papers with it 16=Because of the embargo they mad 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond home_nopap ero F20b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F20 = 97 (Text) homedoc_3 F21. Were you issued these home ownership documents within the past 3 years? Question relevant when: F18 = 1 or 2 or 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer home_evict F22. In the last year, have you ever been threatened with eviction from your home? Group relevant when: F1 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer home_evictn um F23. How many times have you been threatened with eviction? Question relevant when: F22 = 1 home_evictw hy F24. For what reasons have you been threatened with eviction? Question relevant when: F22 = 1 1=Late on payment 2=Others claim to own the land my home is on 3=Armed groups threatened me 4=Government wants to claim the land 5=The homeowners want to live here (can no longer borrow / rent / lease) 6=The home/land is no longer safe (erosion, natural disaster, etc.) 7=Imminent domain 8=Argument with family about ownership 9=Neighbors / others want the respondent to leave for reasons unknown 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 135 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER home_evictw hyo F24b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F24 = 97 (Text) home_invest F25. Have you invested more time and/or money in your home and land in the past 3 years than in prior years? Group relevant when: F1 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer home_investy F26. Why have you invested more time and/or money in your home or land? Question relevant when: F25 = 1 1=I have more money than before 2=My family is growing 3=I now own my land 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 136 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER home_impro ve F27. Over the past 3 years, has your household implemented any of the following improvements to your land or house? Group relevant when: F1 = 1 0=No improvements 1=Built fence around property 2=Build house of concrete/stone/brick 3=Built an animal shelter 4=Built a well or water tank 5=Built an outhouse or separate toilet area 6=Upgraded material of roof 7=Upgraded floors (not dirt) 8=Added separate kitchen area 9=Painted interior or exterior walls 10=Added shade to fence 11=Bought more land 12=Built a coffee shop / invested in coffee beans or production 13=Upgraded the kitchen 14=The house is newly built 15=I've added more rooms 16=Planted crops/garden or trees 17=Wall remodeling / corridor arrangement 18=Irrigation or water management 19=Removing trees, shrubs, weeds, etc. 20=Built another house 21=Upgraded/added the sewer lines 22=Upgraded/added electricity 23=Fixed/upgraded the ceiling 24=upgraded/added laundry facility 25=Total remodel / everything 26=upgraded the garage 27=Invested in cocoa planting / processing 28=Added/upgrade fertilizer 29=Tools for agriculture 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond home_impro veo F27b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F27 = 97 (Text) note_f4 Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements boundary_co m F28. The boundaries of my land are clear and respected by INDIVIDUALS IN MY COMMUNITY 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 137 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER encroach_gov t F29. I am confident that the GOVERNMENT cannot take any of my land without negotiation and fair compensation 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond encroach_out side F30. I am confident that an OUTSIDE GROUP cannot take any of my land without negotiation and fair compensation 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond land_conflict F31. I am confident that conflict will NOT arise over my land in the future 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond land_knowled ge F32. I know more about my land and property rights now than I did 3 years ago 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 138 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER land_knowled gey F33. Why do you know more about your land and property rights than your did 3 years ago? spontaneous answer Question relevant when: F32 = 1 or 2 1=I received information from MARD 2=I received information from INCODER/ANT 3=I received information from LRU 4=I saw on television 5=I received information from a private party 6=I learned from attending a public event or festival 7=I heard a radio program 8=I attended a training 9=I learned from my neighbor/community 10=I read about it online 11=I read about it (not online) (newspapers) 12=I learned about it at the townhall / mayoralty 13=Just from owning the land and absorbing knowledge (e.g. hearsay, pamphlets, etc) 14=Multiple sources / experts, through research 15=People handing out pamphlets or other government information dispersal 16=Notary public 17=Learned from going through legal processes for my land or house (buying/selling, getting documentation, settling conflicts) 18=Through the community action board 19=Was taught about the law 1448 (law of victims) 20=In cadastre 26=Through an official of Ipsos 27=Because I am an owner 28=The peace process 29=The victims' unit 30=The Public Defender's Office 31=Communal Action Board 32=USAID 97=other 888=Don’t Know 999=Refuse to answer land_knowled geyo F33b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F33 = 97 (Text) land_conreso lve F34. I know where or whom to go to if I have a conflict or dispute about my land 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond land_legal F35. I have access to legal representation if I have a land-related dispute 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond note_f5 Now I'd like to ask you some questions about your household's interaction with rental and credit markets LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 139 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER rentyn F36. Has anyone in your household earned income from leasing or renting your land in the past three years? 0=No 1=Yes 777=Do not own land 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rent_who F37. From whom was the rent/lease transfer payment? Read all options Question relevant when: F36 = 1 1=Private person 2=Company 3=Government agency 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond loanyn F38. Over the past 3 years, did you or anyone else in this household borrow on credit from someone outside of the household or from an institution for business or farming? Either cash or inputs 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer loan_source F39. What was the source of credit? Question relevant when: F38 = 1 1=Bank 2=Local savings group 3=Government office 4=Women's group 5=Family members 6=Money lender 7=Agricultural bank 8=Women's association 9=Women's World Foundation 10=The Coffee Federation 11=Women's World Foundation and Associative Horror Groups 12=New Dawn Foundation 13=Bank of the woman 14=Coffee table 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond loan_sourceo F39b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F39 = 97 (Text) loan_why F40. What was the main reason for obtaining the loan? spontaneous answer Question relevant when: F38 = 1 1=Purchase house/lease land 2=Business/farming 3=Purchase agricultural inputs for food crops 4=Better my land 5=Business start-up capital 6=Expanding business 7=Purchase non-farm inputs 8=Home improvements / construction 9=College tuition 10=Improve qualityof life 11=Buy machinery (non-farm machines) 12=Beekeeping 13=Livestock 14=Fishing / fish farming 15=Buy a car or other vehicle 16=Because I have no more money 17=Pay debts 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 140 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER loan_whyo F40b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F40 = 97 (Text) loan_proof F41. Did you provide proof of land ownership to obtain the loan? Question relevant when: F38 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer house_sell F42. If you wanted to sell the house you live in, how hard would it be? 1=Very difficult 2=Difficult 3=Easy 4=Very easy 777=Do not own a home 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond house_hard F43. Why would it be difficult? Question relevant when: F42 = 1 or 2 1=I don't have formal documentation 2=I have to get permission 3=A third party is the legal owner 4=The government is the legal owner 5=House is far/hard to get to 6=No one willing to buy (because of cost or no interest) 7=I don't want to sell 8=Because it’s a risk area (for floods, mudslides, etc) 9=I am unable to buy a new house (have no where to go) 10=I don't have a house 11=The house / land is in poor condition 12=For the embargo 13=Wouldn't know how to sell, what to do 14=The property is not mine. 15=I am still paying off a home loan 16=Can't sell within 10 years/Patrimonio 17=Land / house is in the middle of legal process (inheritance, restitution, etc). 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond house_hardo F43b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F43 = 97 (Text) house_inherit F44. Imagine you wanted to pass this home to your children. How difficult would that be? 1=Very difficult 2=Difficult 3=Easy 4=Very easy 777=Do not own a home 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond doc_advantag e F45. Do you think there is an advantage to having a property title or documentation? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 141 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER papdoc_ben F46. What do you think is the most important advantage of having documentation? spontaneous answer Question relevant when: F45 = 1 0=Don't have any document 1=Increased property value 2=Access to loans from banks or other institutions 3=Increased security to be able to stay on land or in home 4=Access to public subsidies 5=Increased capacity to make investment in land/agriculture 6=Access to education 7=Road/electricity and water facility 8=Easier to leave to children 9=It's proof of ownership / legally recorded ownership 10=Easier to sell / lease / rent out the land 11=I can start a business here 12=Be more respected 13=I'm not the owner 14=I can do what I want with my land/house 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond papdoc_beno F46b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F46 = 97 (Text) papdoc_nobe n F47. Why do you not think there is an advantage to having a property title or documentation? Question relevant when: F45 = 0 1=Everyone in my community knows who owns what land 2=The government can always take the land away even if you have a title 3=Armed groups can take your land even if you have a title 4=You have to pay taxes and fees if you have a title 5=A title does not increase respect for one's ownership of the land or decrease land disputes 6=I am / we are not the owners 7=Need resources / money to get the documentation 8=The land management is given by the indigeneous law 9=Does not have any deed record 97=Other 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond papdoc_nobe no F47b. Other, specify Question relevant when: F47 = 97 (Text) FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_g1 G. Local Service Delivery And Rural Development note_g2 We would like to know your views on the quality of services in your municipality LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 142 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER dev_road G1. How satisfied are you with the quality of roads in your municipality? 1=Very satisfied 2=Somewhat satisfied 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat dissatisfied 5=Very dissatisfied 777=Not applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_infastruc ture G2. Overall, would you say that the infrastructure services your municipality is providing to you are: 1=Very good 2=Good 3=Neither good nor bad 4=Bad 5=Very bad 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_irr G3. How satisfied are you with the quality of irrigation infrastructure in your municipality? Irrigation system is used to provide water to agriculture. 1=Very satisfied 2=Somewhat satisfied 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat dissatisfied 5=Very dissatisfied 777=Not applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_assistyn G4. Have you or anyone in your household received any technical assistance from the government to help improve agricultural production? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dev_assist G5. Please describe the services received read all options Question relevant when: G4 = 1 1=Tools or technology 2=Training/workshop 3=Primary inputs (seeds, etc.) 4=All three (tools/tech, training, & inputs) 5=Fertilizer 6=Animals or animal-related items /knowledge 7=Non-Ag items or knowledge 8=Orchards 97=Other, 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_assisto G5b. Other, specify Question relevant when: G5 = 97 (Text) dev_assistben G6. How beneficial has this technical assistance been? Question relevant when: G4 = 1 1=Very beneficial 2=Somewhat beneficial 3=A little beneficial 4=Not beneficial 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_subyn G7. Have you received any subsidies from the government in the past 3 years to help agricultural producers? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 143 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER dev_sub G8. What type of subsidies have you received? Question relevant when: G7 = 1 1=fertilizer 2=seeds 3=equipment 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refuse to answer dev_subsat G9. How satisfied were you with the results of the subsidies? Question relevant when: G7 = 1 1=Very satisfied 2=Somewhat satisfied 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat dissatisfied 5=Very dissatisfied 777=Not applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_projecty n G10. In the past 3 years, have you [or anyone in your household] participated in a private-public partnership (PPP) related to agriculture, livestock, or water management? A PPP is a project that links producer associations with the private sector with support from the local government. 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 144 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER dev_project G11. Which type of project did you or your household participate in? Question relevant when: G10 = 1 1=Plantain 2=Fruit (mango, berry, lulo) 3=Beekeeping 4=Cacao/chocolate 5=Milk 6=Cassava 7=Corn 8=Name 9=Cattle-raising 10=Panela 11=Coffee 12=Palm oil 13=Irrigation or water management 14=For general inputs 15=Peppers 16=Vegetables 17=Beans 18=Guava 19=Avocado 20=Citrus fruits 21=Bananas 22=Tomato 23=Onion 24=carrot 25=beet 26=green benas 27=cilantro 28=Lettuce 29=Fish, fishing, fishery 30=Hens / game birds 31=Rice 32=Home Garden 33=Pineapple 34=subsistence crops 35=Animals 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_projecto G11b. Other, specify Question relevant when: G11 = 97 (Text) dev_projectsa t G12. How satisfied were you with the results of the productive project? Question relevant when: G10 = 1 1=Very satisfied 2=Somewhat satisfied 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat dissatisfied 5=Very dissatisfied 777=Not applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 145 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER dev_unsatco mpany G13. Why are you dissatisfied? spontaneous answer Question relevant when: G12 = 4 or 5 1=Private partner demands quality that is too high 2=Private partner does not pay a fair price 3=Private partner does not purchase my product on a regular basis 97=Other, 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_satcomp any G14. How satisfied are you overall in working with the private company (partner)? Question relevant when: G10 = 1 1=Very satisfied 2=Somewhat satisfied 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat dissatisfied 5=Very dissatisfied 777=Not applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_change G15. Have you noticed any changes in your household income as a result of participating in this project? Question relevant when: G10 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dev_income G16. Has your household’s income increased, decreased, or stayed the same as a result of this partnership? Question relevant when: G15 = 1 1=Increase a lot 2=Increased a little 3=No change 4=Decreased a little 5=Decreased a lot 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond note_g3 Please tell me how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements: dev_projectb en G18. Over the past 3 years, my household has benefited from government development projects 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_job G19. Over the past 3 years, it has become easier to find a job in my municipality 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_life G20. Over the past 3 years, the quality of life for my household has improved 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 146 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_g4 Now I would like to ask you some questions about your attitutdes regarding the cultivation of coca. Remember, your asnwers are confidential. No one will know how you respond. 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_coca G21. In my municipality, there is a perception that the cultivation of coca is a reasonable way to make a living 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_cocacrim e2 G22. The cultivation of coca is a crime, and it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond dev_cocacrim e3 G23. If a neighbor planted coca, I would report them to the authorities 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_h1 H. Participation In Community Decision-Making And Political Process note_h2 Now I would like to ask you some questions about your participation in your community decision-making process mtng_yn H1. In the past 12 months, have you or anyone in your household participated in a meeting to discuss a municipal or regional development plans? 0=No 1=Yes, I participated 2=Yes, someone in my house participated 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mtng_speak H2. Did you or any member of your household speak out or contribute any feedback during the meeting? Question relevant when: H1 = 1 or 2 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer mtng_conside r H3. To what extent do you agree that your concerns and feedback were taken into consideration during the meeting? Question relevant when: H3 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 147 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER prblmsolve H4. In the last 12 months, have you tried to help solve a problem in your community? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer prblmsolve_o ften H5. How often have you tried to help solve a problem in your community? Question relevant when: H4 = 1 1=Once a week 2=Once or twice a month 3=Once or twice a year 4=Never 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond politics H6. How interested are you in politics? 1=A lot 2=Somewhat 3=A little bit 4=Not at all 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond election H7. Are you going to vote in the next presidential election in 2018? 1=I will not vote 2=I will vote for the candidate or party of the current president 3=I will vote for a different candidate or party of the current president 4=I will vote, but will leave the ballot blank or cancel it 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond note_h3 I am going to read you a list of groups and organizations. Please tell me how often you attend meetings of these organizations. mtng_cic H8. How often do you attend meetings of a community improvement committee or association 1=Once a week 2=Once or twice a month 3=Once or twice a year 4=Never 777= Not applicable - organization does not exist 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mtng_pparty H9. How often do you attend meetings of a political party or political organization 1=Once a week 2=Once or twice a month 3=Once or twice a year 4=Never 777= Not applicable - organization does not exist 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mtng_victim H10. How often do you attend meeting of victim's organization 1=Once a week 2=Once or twice a month 3=Once or twice a year 4=Never 777= Not applicable - organization does not exist 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 148 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER mtng_farmer H11. How often do you attend meetings of farmers' association or peasant organizations? 1=Once a week 2=Once or twice a month 3=Once or twice a year 4=Never 777= Not applicable - organization does not exist 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mtn_women H12. How often do you attend meetings of women's organizations? Question relevant when: B3 = 2 1=Once a week 2=Once or twice a month 3=Once or twice a year 4=Never 777= Not applicable - organization does not exist 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_i1 I. Conflict & Attitudes note_i2 Now I'd like to ask your some questions about some of the armed groups that have existed in this country and the peace process note_i3 Please tell me how much you agree with the following statements con_land I1. The only way to improve landless peasants’ access to land is to take land from those who have a lot by force, for example, by invading unused land. 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_peace I2. To what extent do you support the implementation of the Peace Accords with the FARC? 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_success I3. How successful do you think the GOC will be at implementing the land reforms promised in the peace agreement? 1=Very successful 2=Successful 3=Neutral 4=Unsuccessful 5=Very Unsuccessful 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_gocpeac e I4. After peace process, how successful do you think the GOC will be at guaranteeing your personal security? 1=Very successful 2=Successful 3=Neutral 4=Unsuccessful 5=Very Unsuccessful 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 149 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER con_aftpeace I5. After the peace process, do you think there will be fewer land conflicts in your community, more land conflicts, or the same? 1=Much fewer conflict 2=Fewer conflict 3=The same 4=More conflict 5=Much more conflict 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond con_befpeace I6. Comparing to the time before the peace process began, to what extent do you feel more or less secure that you will not be displaced from your land or have to abandon it? 1=very secure 2=somewhat secure 3=neutral 4=somewhat insecure 5=very insecure 888=don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_demob I7. To what extent, if at all, do you worry that following demobilization a different group will become stronger or capture territory previously held by the FARC? 1=very worried 2=somewhat worried 3=neutral 4=somewhat calm 5=very calm 888=don't know 999=Prefer not to respond con_optimis m I8. How optimistic or pessimistic do you feel about demobilized FARC members successfully reintegrating into society? 1=very optimistic 2=somewhat optimistic 3=neutral 4=somewhat pessimistic 5=very pessimistic 888=don't know 999=Prefer not to respond note_i4 Now we will ask you read to you some recent policy proposals and ask you what you think of them. A number will be randomly assigned to this interview session for use in the following questions. exp2_fooda I9. A recent proposal calls for shifting away from importing foodstuffs from foreign countries and instead producing food domestically, so that the majority of food consumed in the country is made by Colombians. How do you feel about this proposal? Question relevant when the randomly assigned number is greater that 0.5 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond exp2_cocaa I10. A recent proposal calls for the legalization of coca cultivation in Colombia. This proposal would allow coca cultivators to sell coca legally, and has been argued will end the drug trade and the need for counter-narcotics efforts on the part of the state. How do you feel about this proposal? Question relevant when the randomly assigned number is greater that 0.5 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond exp2_cocab I11. A recent proposal by the FARC calls for the legalization of coca cultivation in Colombia. This proposal would allow coca cultivators to sell coca legally, and has been argued will end the drug trade and the need for counter-narcotics efforts on the part of the state. How do you feel about this proposal? Question relevant when the randomly assigned number is greater that 0.5 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 150 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_i5 In the next section, we are going to ask you to consider different peace agreements and pick which accord you like best. In each round, you will see two hypothetical peace agreements and a brief summary of their contents. For each pair of agreements, please pick the one you would rather see implemented in Colombia. This exercise is completely hypothetical. Even if you are not sure, please chose which of the two you prefer. [Description of Peace Accords - version A versus B: For each sample peace accord, an option from each category listed is randomly selected.] THIS EXERCISE IS REPEATED THREE TIMES. • Land Redistribution: no change in land distribution, small change in land redistribution, large change in land redistribution • Justice: no FARC member goes to jail, only worst offenders go to jail, all FARC go to jail • Drug Policy: manual eradication, aerial eradication, crop substitution • Elections: no change in election format, rural areas given more electoral representation exp3_treaty1 I12. Which peace agreement do you prefer? Show tablet 1=Peace agreement A 2=Peace agreement B 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp3_treaty2 I13. Which peace agreement do you prefer? Show tablet 1=Peace agreement A 2=Peace agreement B 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp3_treaty3 I14. Which peace agreement do you prefer? Show tablet 1=Peace agreement A 2=Peace agreement B 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_j1 J. Household Assets And Income note_j2 Please tell me how any of the following assets your household owns motorcycle J1. How many MOTORCYCLES or SCOOTERS does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) wmachine J2. How many WASHING MACHINES does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) car J3. How many CARS does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) tv J4. How many TELEVISIONS does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) mobile J5. How many MOBILE PHONES does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) bicycle J6. How many BICYCLES does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) phone J7. How many LANDLINES/RESIDENTIAL TELEPHONES does your household own? Not cellular Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) radio J8. How many RADIOS does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 151 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER computer J9. How many COMPUTERS does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) fridge J10. How many REFRIGERATORS does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) stove J11. How many STOVES does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) hoe J12. How many HOES does your household own? Response must be between 0 and 10 (Integer) internet J13. Does your household have access to the internet? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer bathroom J14. Does the house have an indoor bathroom? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer sewage J15. Is the house connected to the sewage system? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer income J16. What is the total monthly income of this household? Include remittances from abroad and income of all working adults and children 0=No income 1=Less than 225 2=Between 225 and 325 3=Between 325 and 425 4=Between 425 and 545 5=Between 545 and 620 6=Between 620 and 660 7=Between 660 and 700 8=Between 700 and 750 9=Between 750 and 840 10=Between 840 and 980 11=Between 980 and 1,200 12=Between 1,200 and 1,300 13=Between 1,300 and 1,600 14=Between 1,600 and 2,000 15=Between 2,000 and 3,250 16=More than 3,250 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond income_enou gh J17. Your total household income, including your own salary is: Read all options 1=Is good enough for you and you can save from it 2=Is just enough for you so that you do not have major problems 3=Is not enough for you and you are stretched 4=Is not enough for you and you are having a hard time 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond income_incre ase J18. Over the past 3 years, has the income of your household: 1=Increased 2=Remained the same 3=Decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 152 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER income_incre asey J19. Why has your income increased over the past 3 years? spontaneous answer Question relevant when: J18 = 1 1=More job opportunities 2=Improved wages 3=Improved harvest 4=More education / training 5=Cost of living has lowered / items are less expensive 6=Has vehicle/motorcycle to expand work search 7=Has more than one job 8=The business is growing / improving; my prices are rising. 9=The family is smaller (kids moved out) / more family members have income now 10=government assistance 11=VAT has been raised 12=Pension 13=Assistance from family 14=Their land was restituted 15=Due to productive projects 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond income_incre aseyo J19b. Other, specify Question relevant when: J19 = 97 (Text) hunger J20. Over the past year, how often have you or anyone in your household gone without enough food to eat? Read all options 1=Every day 2=A few times a week 3=A few times a month 4=Less than once a month 5=Never 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond note_j3 Now I'd like to ask you some questions about your beliefs around getting ahead and taking risks note_j4 Picture a ladder. Suppose some people say you should be cautious about making major changes in life. These people are located at the bottom of the ladder (1). Other people say that you will never achieve much in life unless you act boldly. These people are located at the top of the ladder (7). Other people have views that are somewhere in between. risk_ladder J21. Where would you place yourself on this scale? 1=1 2=2 3=3 4=4 5=5 6=6 7=7 888=Don’t Know 999=Prefer not to respond risk_rules J22. I like new and exciting experiences, even if I have to break the rules 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neutral 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 153 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER risk_easy J23. In general, how easy or difficult is it for you to accept taking risks? 1=Very easy 2=Somewhat easy 3=Somewhat difficult 4=Very difficult 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_k1 K. Respondent Follow Up note_k2 We might like to contact you later in order to see how developments in your community have changed. name K1. Name of the respondent (Text) address K2. Address of the respondent predio name (Text) phonenum K3. What is your mobile phone number? If no mobile number, enter 0. If refuse, enter 999 (Phone Number) contactname K4. What is the name of your closest family member or friend, in case we need to contact you through them? (Text) note_l1 L. Conclusion note_l2 Thank you for your participation in the survey gps L1. Geopoint: If you cannot record GPS please make note of it (Geo point) int_present L3. Were there any other people immediately present who might be listening during the interview? 1=No one 2=Spouse/partner 3=Other adult 4=Children 5=A few others 6=A small crowd int_understan d L4. What proportion of the questions do you feel the respondent had difficulty answering? 1=All 2=Most 3=Some 4=A few 5=None int_reaction L5. What was the respondent's reaction to the interview? 1=Very positive 2=Somewhat positive 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat negative 5=Very negative supervision_y n L6. Was there supervision? 0=No 1=Yes LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 154 ANNEX 4—MUNICIPAL LEVEL DATA FOR MATCHING The municipal level data below was used for the matching process. To create matches an optimal matching algorithm was used. Optimal matching is one of various standard matching algorithms deployed by researchers and has been found to improve on 'greedy' matching methods in terms of reducing distance between programming and comparison pairs29,30. Implementation of the algorithm relied on the 'design match' package in the R statistical software. Variable Description Reason for Inclusion tpobc_FARC Aggregate of FARC attacks 10 years prior to program start Account for conflict dynamics tpobc_ELN Aggregate of ELN attacks 10 years prior to program start Account for conflict dynamics tpobc_AUC Aggregate of AUC attacks 10 years prior to program start Account for conflict dynamics o_homic Aggregate of homicides, municipal level General characteristics desplazados_expulsion Aggregate of displaced (expulsion) Account for conflict dynamics desplazados_recepcion Aggregate of displaced (reception of victims) Account for conflict dynamics ipm_ledu_p Poverty Index: education level Account for uneven development ipm_analf_p Poverty Index: illiteracy level Account for uneven development ipm_asisescu_p Poverty Index: school attendance Account for uneven development ipm_rezagoescu_p Poverty Index: school failure Account for uneven development ipm_serv_pinf_p Poverty Index: access to health services Account for uneven development ipm_ti_p Poverty Index: underage labor Account for uneven development ipm_tdep_p Poverty Index: economic dependence Account for uneven development ipm_templeof_p Poverty Index: formal employement Account for uneven development ipm_assalud_p Poverty Index: health insurance Account for uneven development ipm_accsalud_p Poverty Index: access to emergency care Account for uneven development ipm_accagua_p Poverty Index: access to treated water Account for uneven development ipm_excretas_p Poverty Index: access to sewer Account for uneven development ipm_pisos_p Poverty Index: floor in home Account for uneven development ipm_paredes_p Poverty Index: home exterior walls Account for uneven development ipm_hacinam_p Poverty Index: overcrowding in home Account for uneven development 29 Gu, Xing Sam, and Paul R. Rosenbaum. "Comparison of multivariate matching methods: Structures, distances, and algorithms." Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 2.4 (1993): 405-420. 30 Jose R. Zubizarreta and Cinar Kilcioglu (2016). designmatch: Construction of Optimally Matched Samples for Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies that are Balanced and Representative by Design. R package version 0.2.0. https://CRAN.R￾project.org/package=designmatchr Matching Process LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 155 pib_total Total GDP General characteristics informalidad Property informality index Land characteristics g_terreno Land ownership GINI Land characteristics minorias Land owned by minority groups Land characteristics baldios_nacion Presence of baldios Land characteristics pobl_rur Rural population Account for uneven development pobl_tot Total population General characteristics altura Altitude General characteristics disbogota Distance to Bogotá General characteristics desemp_fisc Local governance fiscal score Account for uneven development conflicto Presence of land conflicts Land characteristics coca Coca presence Account for conflict dynamics KM Distance to nearest LRU Account for LRDP selection criteria / treatment exposure incoder LRDP selection criteria: INCODER Account for LRDP selection criteria restitution LRDP selection criteria: restitution need Account for LRDP selection criteria lrdp_conf LRDP selection criteria: presence of conflict Account for LRDP selection criteria pib_agr_share Rural share of total GDP Account for uneven development total_map Aggregate of similar programs operating in Colombia (ACIP, CELIS, VISP, AJP) Account for LRDP selection criteria LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 156 ANNEX 5—STAKEHOLDER SURVEY INSTRUMENT The stakeholder survey has been posted in a zip file with all of the PE data collection tools to Land Links, the E3/LU Office land portal at the following URL: https://www.land-links.org/evaluation/land-rural-development-program-colombia/ A copy of the stakeholder survey can be found on the following pages. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 157 LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Stakeholder Survey FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_a4 Respondent Information & Consent time_st A1. Date of Survey: (Date) interviewer A2. Name of Interviewer (Text) department A3. Department: (Text) municipality A4. Municipality: [CENSORED] control A5. Is this a control or treatment stakeholder? 1=control 2=treatment stakeholder A6. Stakeholder category 1=Mayor 2=LRU Official 3=Judge note_a5 Hi, my name is ______. I am a researcher working with the U.S. Agency for International Development and Duke University in the United States on a study of institutional strengthening initiatives in rural Colombia. We are particularly interested in land issues including restitution, formalization, rural development and land information systems. We are looking for government stakeholders in rural land issues who will be willing to answer questions on these issues. The survey will be administered by one Ipsos employee who will use a mobile device to record answers and will take about 45-60 minutes of your time. Participation is completely voluntary and your decision will have no bearing on your employment or relationship with USAID, Cloudburst Group, or Duke University. We do not think this information can be used to identify you. However, in the event you are inadvertently identified, we do not anticipate any potential harm to you. You may decline to respond to any questions you do not want to answer. If you agree now but later decide to drop out of the study, you are free to do so. Our findings will be reported in group summaries and averages so that no individual respondent is identified. If you have any questions or concerns about our study, please contact Ana Montoya: 317-434-1302. May we continue? consent A7. Does the respondent consent? 0=No 1=Yes FIELD QUESTION ANSWER position A8. What is your current position? Question relevant when: A6 = 2 1=Land Restitution First Instance Judges 2=Land Restitution Appeal Judges 3=Social Director for the LRU 4=Judicial Director for the LRU 5=Cadastral Director for the LRU 6=Context Analyst for the LRU 7=Ethnic Affairs Director for the LRU 8=General/Territory Director 9=Social Worker 97=Other 999=Prefer not to respond positiono A8.o If 'Other", please specify. Question relevant when: A8 = 97 (Text) note_a3 Please answer questions based on your experience working in your specific department and/or municipalities. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 158 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER workmunic1 A9. Which of these municipalities do you work in? Question relevant when: A6 = 3 [CENSORED] LRUcity A10. In which city is the LRU where you work? Question relevant when: A6 = 2 [CENSORED] LRUcityo A10o. If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: A10 = 97 (Text) sex A11. Respondent's sex: 1=Male 2=Female age A12. About how old are you? 1=18 - 30 2=31 - 40 3=41 - 50 4=51 - 60 5=61 or older 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_b1 B: Respondent Information edu B1. What is the highest level of education you have attained? Spontaneous 0=No schooling at all 1=Did not complete highschool 2=Secondary school/high school completed 3=Post-secondary qualifications, other than university e.g. a diploma or degree from a polytechnic 4=Some university 5=University completed 6=One-year or less of post-graduate degree (Specialization, Diploma or Certificate) 7=Master degree 8=Doctorate degree 999=Prefer not to respond field B2. What field were you trained in at school? spontaneous Question relevant when: B1 = 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 1=Public administration 2=Economics 3=Accounting 4=Politics/Sociology 5=Law 97=Other 999=Prefer not to respond fieldo B2.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: B2 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 159 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER subfield B3. What subfield were you trained in during your law training at the post-graduate level? spontaneous Question relevant when: B2 = 5 1=Civil Law 2=Labor Law 3=Economic Law 4=International Law and Human Rights 5=Criminal Law 6=Constitutional Law 7=Administrative Law 8=Commercial Law 9=Land Law 97=Other 999=Prefer not to respond subfieldo B3.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: B3 = 97 (Text) jobtime B4. How many years/months have you held your current job title? jobyears B4a. Years: (Integer) jobmonths B4b. Months: (Integer) FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_c1 C: Land Restitution note_c2 Please answer all of the following questions based on the LRU that you work at Section relevant when: A6 = 2 note_c3 C1. The LRU makes decisions about which victims’ cases to pursue. In your experience, how important are the following attributes when the LRU is selecting victims’ cases? factor_secur ity C1a. The current security situation in the region where the victim is seeking restitution 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_elite C1b. The wealth and power of the current land occupant 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_evide nce C1c. The strength of evidence favoring the victim 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 160 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER factor_advo cacy C1d. The advocacy from victims’ organizations in favor of a particular case 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond note_c4 C2. The LRU makes decisions about which victims’ cases to pursue. Please rank the level of importance of each of the following attributes in whether victim’s cases are selected by the LRU. Use 1 as the most important and 4 as the least important. Please use each number once. rank_securit y C2a. The current security situation in the region where the victim is seeking restitution. Response constrained to: .>0 and .<5 (Integer) rank_elite C2b. The wealth and resources of the current land occupant. Response constrained to: .>0 and .<5 (Integer) rank_eviden ce C2c. The strength of evidence favoring the victim. Response constrained to: .>0 and .<5 (Integer) rank_advoca cy C2d. Advocacy from victims’ organizations in favor of a particular case. Response constrained to: .>0 and .<5 (Integer) note_c5 C3. In some cases victims present restitution cases that are not successful. In your experience, how important are the following attributes in producing a restitution decision against the claimant? (Text) success_cist ance C3a. The claimants lives very far from the URT and as a result has difficulty advocating for themselves. 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond success_yea rs C3b. The displacement happened a long time ago. 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 161 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER success_occ upant C3c. The wealth and resources of the current land occupant 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond success_size C3d. the size of the plot of land in dispute 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond success_cisp ossess C3e. The victim was dispossessed of their land, instead of having abandoned it 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond vicobstacle C4. In the municipalities where you work/oversee, what would you say is/are the biggest obstacle(s) for victims seeking restitution? show tablet 1=The law is difficult to understand or implement 2=Little or no access to legal resources 3=They lack personal knowledge about rights 4=They don’t believe in or have confidence in their ability to seek and achieve restitution 5=Bureaucratic regulation/slowdown by the LRU 6=Bureaucratic regulation/slowdown by judges 7=Fear of retribution or persecution 8=Security conditions 9=None 97=Other 777=N/A. There are no restitution cases that I know of in my municipality 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond vicobstacleo C4.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: C4 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 162 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER speedproces s1 C5. In the municipalities where you work/oversee, what is a primary challenge to speeding up the restitution process? show tablet Question relevant when: C4 = 777 1=Complexity of individual cases 2=Lack of bureaucratic capacity 3=Lack of registry/cadastral information 4=Judicial processes are slow 5=Administrative processes are slow 6=Insufficient resources for administrative/judicial processes 7=Information sharing between government bodies involved in restitution 8=Local government uncooperative 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond speedproces s1o C5.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: C5 = 97 (Text) speedproces s2 C6. In the municipalities where you work/oversee, what is a secondary challenge to speeding up the restitution process? show tablet Question relevant when: C4 = 777 1=Complexity of individual cases 2=Lack of bureaucratic capacity 3=Lack of registry/cadastral information 4=Judicial processes are slow 5=Administrative processes are slow 6=Insufficient resources for administrative/judicial processes 7=Information sharing between government bodies involved in restitution 8=Local government uncooperative 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond speedproces s2o C6.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: C6 = 97 (Text) proctimea C7. Based on your experience, what would you say is the average processing time for a restitution case, from the point when the case is initiated by the LRU to the point the administrative file is finalized? proctimey C7a. Years: (Integer) proctimeam C7b. Months: (Integer) proctimeb C8. Based on your experience, what would you say is the average processing time for a restitution case, from the point when the case is brought to the court by LRU to the point where the case receives a ruling? proctimeby C8a. Years: (Integer) proctimebm C8b. Months: (Integer) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 163 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER impdecision C9. In the municipalities where you work/oversee, how challenging is it to implement a restitution decision once it is made? 1=Very difficult 2=Somewhat difficult 3=Neither difficult nor easy 4=Somewhat easy 5=Very easy 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond impchallenge C10. In the municipalities where you work/oversee, what is the primary reason implementation of restitution decisions can be challenging? Read all Question relevant when: C9 = 1 or 2 1=Security conditions of area where land is restituted 2=Too many other cases that require implementation 3=Local government is uncooperative 4=Local government is unable to implement 5=National government is unable to implement 6=Defendant/occupant is a powerful person 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond impchallenge o C10.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: C10 = 97 (Text) understandla w C11. How comfortable do you feel with your understanding of the content of the Law of Victims and Land Restitution (1448 of 2011)? 1=Very comfortable 2=Somewhat comfortable 3=Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 4=Somewhat uncomfortable 5=Very uncomfortable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond opinionlaw C12. What is your opinion of this law? 1=Very positive 2=Positive 3=Neutral (neither positive or negative) 4=Negative 5=Very negative 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond negopinionla w C13. If negative or very negative, why? Question relevant when: C12 = 4 or 5 1=People may present fake restitution cases 2=The law is too vague 3=The law makes impossible demands on Government agencies 4=The law makes promises to victims that are impossible to fulfill 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond negopinionla wo C13.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: C13 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 164 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER opinionaspe ct C14. The Law of Victims and Land Restitution (1448 of 1011) takes the burden of proof away from the alleged victim. Do you see this as a positive or negative aspect of the law? 1=Very positive 2=Positive 3=Neutral (neither positive or negative) 4=Negative 5=Very negative 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond fakevicmunic C15. Some people say that because the burden of proof does not fall on the victim, people may abuse the system and present fake restitution cases. In your opinion, what percentage of the cases in the area you work in/oversee are from fake victims? 1=0/None 2=1-10% 3=11-20% 4=21-30% 5=31-40% 6=41-50% 7=51-60% 8=61-70% 9=71-80% 10=81-90% 11=91-100% 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond knewlandow ned C16. In cases where the land under consideration for restitution is already occupied, how often would you say the occupant knowingly purchased abandoned or dispossessed land? 1=Very often 2=Somewhat often 3=Neither 4=Not very often 5=Rarely 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond timeincrease adm C17. Based on the municipalities where you work, do you think the average length of time for the administrative portions of restitution cases has increased or decreased in the past 3 years? 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Neither increased nor decreased 4=Decreased 5=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 165 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER timeincrease admyes C18. If increased, why? spontaneous Question relevant when: C17 = 1 or 2 1=The process is not easy to understand 2=Defendants can provide sufficient evidence that requires more elaborate investigation 3=Characterization studies take a long time 4=Judicial backup 5=Lack of information system 6=Secondary occupants 7=Security conditions 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond timeincrease admyeso C18.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C18 = 97 (Text) timeincrease admno C19. If decreased, why? Question relevant when: C17 = 4 or 5 1=The process is easier to understand than previously 2=LRU gained experience over time, leading to faster processing times 3=LRU hired more staff to process cases faster 4=LRU received assistance or support from LRDP 5=LRU received other additional resources/support 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond timeincrease admnoo C19.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C19 = 97 (Text) timeincrease jud C20. Based on the municipalities where you work, do you think the average length of time for the judicial portions of restitution cases has increased or decreased in the past 3 years? 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Neither increased nor decreased 4=Decreased 5=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 166 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER timeincrease judyes C21. If increased, why? show tablet Question relevant when: C20 = 1 or 2 1=The deadline to rule is too short 2=LRU is not prepared with sufficient evidence 3=The process is not easy to understand, therefore rulings are always unprecedented 4=Defendants hire aggressive litigants that delay the rulings 5=Defendants can provide sufficient evidence that requires more elaborate investigation 6=Judges may not have the resources to assess evidence and take a prompt decision 7=Process for judges to receive necessary information from other state agencies is slow 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond timeincrease judyeso C21.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C21 = 97 (Text) timeincrease judno C22. If decreased, why? show tablet Question relevant when: C20 = 4 or 5 2=The process is easier to understand than previously 3=Judges gained experience over time, leading to faster processing times 4=There are more judges working on land restitution than previously 5=Judges have been receiving additional resources/support 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond timeincrease judnoo C22.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C22 = 97 (Text) bringcasesst rong C23. Can you name 3 municipalities in your area of coverage where victims have presented particularly SUCCESSFUL restitution cases? If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. bringcasesst rong1 C23a. First municipality (Text) bringcasesst rong2 C23b. Second municipality (Text) bringcasesst rong3 C23c. Third municipality (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 167 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER whycasesstr ong1 C24. For the first municipality, why do you feel it has presented particularly successful restitution cases? 1=Density of displacement 2=Security conditions have improved 3=Coordination between different institutions 4=It is a municipality that has received much international support 5=Conditions of return 6=Clarity of context and responsibility of armed groups 7=Pilot cases 8=Municipality with indigenous reserves 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer whycasesstr ong2 C.25 For the second municipality, why do you feel it has presented particularly successful restitution cases? 1=Density of displacement 2=Security conditions have improved 3=Coordination between different institutions 4=It is a municipality that has received much international support 5=Conditions of return 6=Clarity of context and responsibility of armed groups 7=Pilot cases 8=Municipality with indigenous reserves 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer whycasesstr ong3 C.26 For the third municipality, why do you feel it has presented particularly successful restitution cases? 1=Density of displacement 2=Security conditions have improved 3=Coordination between different institutions 4=It is a municipality that has received much international support 5=Conditions of return 6=Clarity of context and responsibility of armed groups 7=Pilot cases 8=Municipality with indigenous reserves 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer bringcasesw eak C27. Can you name 3 municipalities in your area of coverage where victims have presented particularly UNSUCCESSFUL restitution cases? If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 168 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER bringcasesw eak1 C27a. First municipality (Text) bringcasesw eak2 C27b. Second municipality (Text) bringcasesw eak3 C27c. Third municipality (Text) whycasewea k1 C28. For the first municipality, why do you feel it has presented particularly unsuccessful restitution cases? 1=Lack of security conditions 2=Conditions not favorable for return 3=Not enough displaced land 4=Not enough proof 5=Difficult access 6=None 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer whycasewea k2 C29. For the second municipality, why do you feel it has presented particularly unsuccessful restitution cases? 1=Lack of security conditions 2=Conditions not favorable for return 3=Not enough displaced land 4=Not enough proof 5=Difficult access 6=None 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer whycasewea k3 C30. For the third municipality, why do you feel it has presented particularly unsuccessful restitution cases? 1=Lack of security conditions 2=Conditions not favorable for return 3=Not enough displaced land 4=Not enough proof 5=Difficult access 6=None 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer capincrease C31. Has the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases increased or decreased over the past 3 years ? 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Neither increased nor decreased 4=Decreased 5=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 169 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER capincreasey es C32. If increased, why? show tablet Question relevant when: C31 = 1 or 2 1=Cases are better quality with more evidence 2=The process is easier to understand than previously 3=LRU gained experience over time, leading to faster processing times 4=LRU hired more staff to process cases faster 5=LRU received assistance or support from LRDP 6=LRU received other additional resources/support 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond capincreasey eso1 C33a. If "Other additional support", please specify Question relevant when: C32 = 6 (Text) capincreasey eso2 C34.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C32 = 97 (Text) capincreasee th C35. Has the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases for collective territories and ethnic communities increased or decreased over the past 3 years? 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Neither increased nor decreased 4=Decreased 5=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond capincreasee thyes C36. If increased, why? show tablet Question relevant when: C35 = 1 or 2 1=Cases are better quality with more evidence 2=The process is easier to understand than previously 3=LRU gained experience over time, leading to faster processing times 4=LRU hired more staff to process cases faster 5=LRU received assistance or support from LRDP 6=LRU received other additional resources/support 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond capincreasee thyeso1 C36a. If "Other additional support", please specify Question relevant when: C36 = 6 (Text) capincreasee thyeso2 C36b. If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C36 = 97 (Text) capincrease wmn C37. Has the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases for women increased or decreased over the past 3 years? 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Neither increased nor decreased 4=Decreased 5=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 170 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER capincrease wmnyes C38. If increased, why? show tablet Question relevant when: C37 = 1 or 2 1=Cases are better quality with more evidence 2=The process is easier to understand than previously 3=LRU gained experience over time, leading to faster processing times 4=LRU hired more staff to process cases faster 5=LRU received assistance or support from LRDP 6=LRU received other additional resources/support 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond capincrease wmnyeso1 C38a. If "Other additional support", please specify Question relevant when: C38 = 6 (Text) capincrease wmnyeso2 C38.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C38 = 97 (Text) note_c8 Please answer all of the following questions based on the municipality that you work in Section relevant when: A6 = 1 restexperien ce C39. Do you have experience with restitution in the municipality you currently administer? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorobstac le C40. In the municipality you administer what would you say is the biggest obstacle for victims seeking restitution? show tablet Question relevant when: C39 = 1 1=The law is difficult to understand or implement 2=Little or no access to legal resources 3=They lack personal knowledge about rights 4=They don’t believe in or have confidence in their ability to seek and achieve restitution 5=Bureaucratic regulation/slowdown by the LRU 6=Bureaucratic regulation/slowdown by judges 7=Fear of retribution or persecution 8=Security conditions 9=None 97=Other 777=Not Applicable. There are no restitution cases that I know of in my municipality 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorobstac leo C40.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C40 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 171 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER mayorchalle nge1 C41. In the municipality you administer what is a primary challenge to speeding up the restitution process? show tablet Question relevant when: C39 = 1 1=Complexity of individual cases 2=Lack of bureaucratic capacity 3=Lack of registry/cadastral information 4=Judicial processes are slow 5=Administrative processes are slow 6=Insufficient resources for administrative/judicial processes 7=Information sharing between government bodies involved in restitution 8=Local government uncooperative 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorchalle nge1o C41.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C41 = 97 (Text) mayorchalle nge2 C42. In the municipality you administer what is a secondary challenge to speeding up the restitution process? show tablet Question relevant when: C39 = 1 1=Complexity of individual cases 2=Lack of bureaucratic capacity 3=Lack of registry/cadastral information 4=Judicial processes are slow 5=Administrative processes are slow 6=Insufficient resources for administrative/judicial processes 7=Information sharing between government bodies involved in restitution 8=Local government uncooperative 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorchalle nge2o C42.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C42 = 97 (Text) mayorrolere st C43. As mayor, do you believe you should play a role in the restitution process in your municipality? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 172 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER mayorrole C44. As mayor, which role(s) do you believe you should fufill in the resitution process? show tablet Question relevant when: C43 = 1 1=Informing victims about how to seek restitution when they have been displaced by conflict. 2=Providing relevant information and boosting knowledge of restitution process across municipality 3=Supporting victims in the application process. 4=Contributing to providing information to the LRU to support their work to restitute victims. 5=Securing resources tor restitution through local development planning processes. 6=Taking part in complying with restitution sentences. 7=Organizing local institutions responsible for complying with restitution sentences 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorroleo C44.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C44 = 97 (Text) mayortool C45. What tools (organizations, resources) do you see available to you to help you support the restitution process in your municipality? show tablet Question relevant when: C43 = 1 1=Local community organizations 2=Local institutional actors 3=Contacts at the regional or national level to advocate in victims’ favor 4=Municipal resource allocation 5=National or departmental resource allocation 6=Technical assistance from departmental or national government 7=Guidance from the LRU 8=Guidance from the judicial branch 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayortoolo C46.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C45 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 173 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER mayorrolere stno C47. If no, why not? Question relevant when: C43 = 0 1=It’s not part of a Mayor’s mandate 2=There are no tools or resources available for a Mayor to be involved in the restitution process 3=There is no clear process for how a Mayor would engage in the restitution process 4=It is not safe for a Mayor to be involved in the restitution process 5=As of today, I don’t believe the restitution process is doing what it is supposed to do and therefore I wouldn’t chose to participate 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorrolere stnoo C48.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: C48 = 97 (Text) FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_d1 D: Information Management note_d2 The LRU and other land-related entities in Colombia rely on information systems to keep track of victims, their claims, and restitution cases. I want to ask you about these information systems. Section relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 infosystems D1. What information systems related to restitution victims and cases are you familiar with? 1=Victims National Information Network (RNI) of the Victims Unit 2=The LRU information systems 3=Judiciary information systems 4=Other GOC agencies’ systems at the national level 5=International cooperation agencies information systems 6=NGO information systems 7=RUPTA (Abandoned land registry) 8=IGAC 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond infosystemso D1.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: D1 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 174 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER infoproblem s D2. What problems do you encounter with information management? 1=The information is not available 2=The information available is not accurate or periodically updated 3=The information available is not relevant or helpful 4=The information systems are slow or unreliable 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond infoproblem so D2.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: D2 = 97 (Text) infoimprove D3. In the past three years, have there been any programs to improve your office’s/institution’s information management systems? 1=Programs sponsored by the Red Nacional de Información (RNI) of the Victims Unit 2=Programs sponsored by the LRU 3=Programs sponsored by the Judiciary 4=Programs sponsored by the Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro 5=Programs sponsored by other GOC agencies at the national level 6=Programs sponsored by international cooperation agencies 7=Programs sponsored by NGOs 8=Programs sponsored by your own institution (other than the above) 9=Programs sponsored by Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) 10=No programs to improve information systems 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond infoimprove o D3.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: D3 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 175 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER infoimpwho D4. Who implemented these programs? Question relevant when: D3 ≠ 8 or 888 or 999 1=The RNI of the Victims Unit 2=The LRU 3=The Judiciary 4=Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro 5=Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones 6=Other GOC agencies at the national level 7=International cooperation agencies 8=NGOs 9=Land and Rural Development Program 10=Your own institution (other than the above) 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond infoimpwho o D4.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: D4 = 97 (Text) infoimpben D5. Which benefits has your office/institution experienced with regards to information management due to this/these program? Question relevant when: D3 ≠ 8 or 888 or 999 1=More information is available 2=More information is accurate and periodically updated 3=More information is relevant or helpful 4=Information systems are faster and more reliable 5=I have not seen any benefits 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond infoimpbeno D5.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: D5 = 97 (Text) infoimphelp D6. Which of these benefits is the most helpful for your day￾to-day work? Question relevant when: D5 ≠ 5 or 888 or 999 1=More information is available 2=More information is accurate and periodically updated 3=More information is relevant or helpful 4=Information systems are faster and more reliable 5=I have not seen any benefits 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond infoimphelp o D6.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: D6 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 176 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER infoimpnegd esc D7. If none, please describe why not. Question relevant when: D5 = 5 or D6 = 5 1=The information system is not sufficient 2=The time to completion is very slow 3=The information is outdated 4=The institutions do not cooperate 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer infoimpwant D8. What additional improvements would you like to see to information management to help improve restitution processing? 1=Better inter-institutional cooperation 2=Faster information exchange 3=More consistent update of information 4=Include other institutions 5=More teams and resources 6=More decentralized information 7=None 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer note_d3 How effective would you say the following systems are in your specific department or municipality: systrckclaim s D9. How effective would you say the information system used to keep track of victims’ claims is in your specific department or municipality? 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond systrckclaim swhy D10. If not effective, why? Question relevant when: D9 = 4 or 5 1=It is not efficient 2=It is not easy to access 3=It is slow 4=It does not meet user needs 5=It does not have user protocol 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer systrckcases D11. How effective would you say the information system used to keep track of ongoing restitution cases is in your specific department or municipality? 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 177 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER systrckcases why D12. If not effective, why? Question relevant when: D11 = 4 or 5 1=It is not efficient 2=It is not easy to access 3=It is slow 4=It does not meet user needs 5=It does not have user protocol 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer systrckpubla nds D13. How effective would you say the process of accessing information on existing public lands (baldios) from the ANT is in your specific department or municipality? 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond systrckpubla ndswhy D14. If not effective, why? Question relevant when: D13 = 4 or 5 1=It is not efficient 2=It is not easy to access 3=It is slow 4=Information is too decentralized 5=There is no public lands inventory 6=Information is out of date 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 178 Conjoint Experiment for Judges note_exp1 Thank you for your effort on our survey so far. The next part of the survey, I will describe to you two scenarios. Each scenario is a hypothetical land restitution case. Please read the description of the potential judicial cases carefully. Then, please indicate which of the two victims you would prioritize to review their case. [Description of Restitution Cases - version A versus B: For each sample restitution case, an option for each blank is randomly selected.] 1 Propietario Con Escritura; Poseedor; Ocupante 2 Menos De 1 Hectarea; Entre 2 Y 10 Hectareas; Mas De 10 Hectareas 3 1992 1998 2004 2010 4 Las Farc; Los Paramilitares; Las Bacrim; Grandes Empresarios 5 Microfocalizada No microfocalizada 6 Anglogold ashanti El estado (baldio) Otra victima 7 No han sido restituidos porque las autoridades locales no han cumplido con la orden judicial Si han sido restituidos con exito porque las autoridades locales cumplieron con la orden judicial note_e1case 1 Case 1: John is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. Case 2: Camilo is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. exp1_prefca se D15. If you had to chose between these two cases, which case would you give priority to on your docket? 1=Case 1 2=Case 2 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 179 exp1_case1 select D16. How likely is it that your office selects CASE 1? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp1_case2 select D17. How likely is it that your office selects CASE 2? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer note_e2case 1 Case 1: John is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. Case 2: Camilo is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. exp2_prefca se D18. If you had to chose between these two cases, which case would you give priority to on your docket? 1=Case 1 2=Case 2 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp2_case1 select D19. How likely is it that your office selects CASE 1? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp2_case2 select D20. How likely is it that your office selects CASE 2? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 180 note_e3case 1 Case 1: John is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. Case 2: Camilo is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. exp3_prefca se D21. If you had to chose between these two cases, which case would you give priority to on your docket? 1=Case 1 2=Case 2 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp3_case1 select D22. How likely is it that your office selects CASE 1? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer exp3_case2 select D23. How likely is it that your office selects CASE 2? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 181 Conjoint Experiment for Judicial and Social Directors in LRU note_dexp1 Thank you for your effort on our survey so far. The next part of the survey, I will describe to you two scenarios. Each scenario is a hypothetical land restitution case. Please read the desription of the potential judicial cases carefully. Then, please indicate which of the two victims you would prioritize to review her case. - [Description of Restitution Cases - version A versus B: For each sample restitution case, an option for each blank is randomly selected.] 1 Propietario Con Escritura; Poseedor; Ocupante 2 Menos De 1 Hectarea; Entre 2 Y 10 Hectareas; Mas De 10 Hectareas 3 1992 1998 2004 2010 4 Las Farc; Los Paramilitares; Las Bacrim; Grandes Empresarios 5 Microfocalizada No microfocalizada 6 Anglogold ashanti El estado (baldio) Otra victima 7 No han sido restituidos porque las autoridades locales no han cumplido con la orden judicial Si han sido restituidos con exito porque las autoridades locales cumplieron con la orden judicial note_d1cas e1 Case 1: John is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. Case 2: Camilo is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. dexp1_prefc ase D24. If you had to choose between these cases, which case would you prioritize? 1=Case 1 2=Case 2 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 182 dexp1_case 1select D25. How likely is it that your office selects each CASE 1 for review? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dexp1_case 2select D26. How likely is it that your office selects each CASE 2 for review? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer note_d2cas e1 Case 1: John is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. Case 2: Camilo is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. dexp2_prefc ase D27. If you had to choose between these cases, which case would you prioritize? 1=Case 1 2=Case 2 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dexp2_case 1select D28. How likely is it that your office selects each CASE 1 for review? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dexp2_case 2select D29. How likely is it that your office selects each CASE 2 for review? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 183 note_d3cas e1 Case 1: John is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. Case 2: Camilo is the (1)______ of a plot of land of (2)______. He was displaced in (3)______ by the (4)______ in (5)______. The opponent is (6)______. In this region, some cases (7)______. dexp3_prefc ase D30. If you had to choose between these cases, which case would you prioritize? 1=Case 1 2=Case 2 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dexp3_case 1select D31. How likely is it that your office selects each CASE 1 for review? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer dexp3_case 2select D32. How likely is it that your office selects each CASE 2 for review? 1=Very likely 2=Likely 3=Neutral 4=Unlikely 5=Very unlikely 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 184 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_e1 E: Formalization note_e2 Please answer the following questions about the formalization process Section relevant when: A6 = 1 or A8 = 5 formhowcha ll E1. Now, thinking about the formalization efforts that your office has been engaged in, how challenging is it to make progress on formalization? 1=Very difficult 2=Somewhat difficult 3=Neither difficult nor easy 4=Somewhat easy 5=Very easy 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formchallwh y E2. In your opinion, what is the primary reason formalization can be so difficult to implement? Show tablet Question relevant when: E1 = 1 or 2 1=Lack of registry/cadastral information 2=Geographic characteristics that make identification difficult 3=Security conditions 4=Centralized processing of formalization 5=Complexity of individual cases 6=Lack of capacity on the judicial side 7=Administrative processes are too slow 8=Judicial processes are too slow 9=Information sharing between government bodies involved in formalization is limited or non-existent 10=Local government uncooperative 11=Citizens do not have funds for registration fees 12=Citizens do not understand the procedures to formalize their land 13=Citizens do not have time and capacity to seek formalization 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formchallwh yo E2.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: E2 = 97 (Text) formtimeinc rease E3. Based on your experience, do you feel the average length of time to issue titles in a formalization program has increased or decreased in the past 3 years? 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Neither increased nor decreased 4=Decreased 5=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formtimeinc reaseo E3.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: E3 = 97 (Text) formtime E4. Based on your experience, what would you estimate is the average processing time to formalize ownership? formtimey E4a. Years: (Integer) formtimem E4b. Months: (Integer) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 185 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER formtimecha ll1 E5. In your experience, what is a primary challenge to speeding up the formalization process? Show tablet 1=Complexity of individual cases 2=Lack of bureaucratic motivation 3=Lack of registry/cadastral information 4=Judicial processes are slow 5=Administrative processes are slow 6=Information sharing between government bodies involved in restitution 7=Local government uncooperative 8=Centralized processing of formalization 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formtimecha ll1o E5.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: E5 = 97 (Text) formtimecha ll2 E6. In your experience, what is a secondary challenge to speeding up the formalization process? Show tablet 1=Complexity of individual cases 2=Lack of bureaucratic motivation 3=Lack of registry/cadastral information 4=Judicial processes are slow 5=Administrative processes are slow 6=Information sharing between government bodies involved in restitution 7=Local government uncooperative 8=Centralized processing of formalization 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formtimecha ll2o E6.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: E6 = 97 (Text) formobstacl e E7. Thinking more generally, what would you say are the biggest obstacle(s) for people during the formalization process? Show tablet 1=Lack of access to legal information/resources 2=Lack of knowledge of procedures for formalization 3=Lack of time and other resources to pursue a title 4=Bureaucratic regulation/slowdown 5=Geographic changes that make boundary identification difficult 6=Citizens do not have funds for registration fees 7=Perception that formalizing land rights is not worth the time 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formobstacl eo E7.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: E7 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 186 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER promoclears trong E8. Can you name 3 municipalities in your region that you think have been particularly strong in supporting families to formalize their land rights? If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. promoclears trong1 E8a. First municipality (Text) promoclears trong2 E8b. Second municipality (Text) promoclears trong3 E8c. Third municipality (Text) whyformstr ong1 E8a.o For the first municipality, why do you think these municipalities have been particularly strong in supporting families to formalize their land rights? If no municipalities, mark 888 1=Pilot cases 2=Citizens have access to the information 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer whyformstr ong2 E8b.o For the second municipality, why do you think these municipalities have been particularly strong in supporting families to formalize their land rights? If no municipalities, mark 888 1=Pilot cases 2=Citizens have access to the information 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer whyformstr ong3 E8c.o For the third municipality, why do you think these municipalities have been particularly strong in supporting families to formalize their land rights? If no municipalities, mark 888 1=Pilot cases 2=Citizens have access to the information 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer promoclear weak E9. Can you name 3 municipalities in your region that you think have been particularly weak in supporting families to formalize their land rights? If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. promoclear weak1 E9a. First municipality (Text) promoclear weak2 E9b. Second municipality (Text) promoclear weak3 E9c. Third municipality (Text) whyformwea k1 E9a.o For the first municipality, why do you think these municipalities have been particularly weak in supporting families to formalize their land rights? - (Text) whyformwea k2 E9b.o For the second municipality, why do you think these municipalities have been particularly weak in supporting families to formalize their land rights? - (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 187 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER whyformwea k3 E9c.o For the third municipality, why do you think these municipalities have been particularly weak in supporting families to formalize their land rights? - (Text) Group relevant when: A6 = 1 expform E10. Do you have experience with formalization in the municipality you currently oversee? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formalobst E11. In the municipality you oversee, what would you say is the biggest obstacle for households seeking to formalize their land rights? show tablet Question relevant when: E10 = 1 1=Lack of access to legal information/resources 2=Lack of knowledge of procedures for formalization 3=Lack of time and other resources to pursue a title 4=They don’t believe in or have confidence in their ability to seek and achieve formalization 5=Bureaucratic regulation/slowdown 6=Geographic changes that make boundary identification difficult 7=Citizens do not have funds for registration fees 8=Perception that formalizing land rights is not worth the time 9=Fear of retribution or persecution 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formalobsto E11.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: E11 = 97 (Text) formalchall1 E12. In the municipality you oversee, what is a primary challenge to speeding up the formalization process? show tablet Question relevant when: E10 = 1 1=Complexity of individual cases 2=Lack of bureaucratic motivation 3=Lack of bureaucratic capacity 4=Lack of registry/cadastral information 5=Judicial processes are slow 6=Administrative processes are slow 7=Information sharing between government bodies involved in restitution 8=Local government uncooperative 9=Centralized processing of formalization 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formalchall1 o E12.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: E12 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 188 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER formalchall2 E13. In the municipality you oversee, what is a secondary challenge to speeding up the formalization process? show tablet Question relevant when: E10 = 1 1=Complexity of individual cases 2=Lack of bureaucratic motivation 3=Lack of bureaucratic capacity 4=Lack of registry/cadastral information 5=Judicial processes are slow 6=Administrative processes are slow 7=Information sharing between government bodies involved in restitution 8=Local government uncooperative 9=Centralized processing of formalization 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formalchall2 o E13.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: E13 = 97 (Text) mayorrolefo rm E14. As mayor, do you believe you should play a role in rural land titling and formalizing land rights in your municipality? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorrolefo rmyes E15. What tools (organizations, resources) do you see available to you to help you support the rural land titling process in your municipality? Question relevant when: E14 = 1 1=IGAC 2=SNR Notaries 3=Ministry of Agriculture (MARD) Formalization Program of Rural Property 4=International organization formalization programs 5=Guidance provided by INCODER/ANT 6=Guidance provided by the judicial branch 7=National Land agency 8=Municipal agriculture technical units 9=Land office/USAID 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorrolefo rmyeso E15.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: E15 = 97 (Text) mayorrolefo rmno E16. If no, why not? Question relevant when: E14 = 0 1=It’s not part of a Mayor’s mandate 2=There are no tools or resources available for a Mayor to be involved in land titling 3=There is no clear process for how a Mayor would engage in the land titling process 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mayorrolefo rmnoo E16.o If 'Other' please specify. Question relevant when: E16 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 189 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER awarecivrigh ts E17. Overall, how aware would you say civilians in your municipality are of their land rights and land titling? 1=Very aware 2=Somewhat aware 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat unaware 5=Very unaware 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond awarecivfor m E18. Overall, how aware would you say women in your municipality are of their land rights and land titling? 1=Very aware 2=Somewhat aware 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat unaware 5=Very unaware 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond awarespouse rights E19. Thinking specifically of the land rights of common law spouses, how aware would you say these civilians are of their land rights and land titling? 1=Very aware 2=Somewhat aware 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat unaware 5=Very unaware 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_f F: Land Restitution Judges note_fa I want to ask you questions relating to your position as a land restitution judge. Section relevant when: A6 = 3 note_f1 F1. Judges have discretion in deciding what restitution cases to adjudicate. Please tell me how important the following criteria are when selecting a case. factor_propt ype F1a. The type of property rights the victim is claiming? 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_size F1b. The size of the plot of land in dispute? 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 190 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER factor_times ince F1c. The amount of time since the displacement occurred? 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_occu pant F1d. The defendant/occupant is a business or company? 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_owne r F1e. The territory is collectively owned (Indigenous, Afro Colombian)? 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_qualit y F1f. The quality of the case received from the LRU? 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond note_f2 F2. Judges have discretion in deciding what restitution cases to adjudicate. Please organize in order of importance each of the following criteria when selecting a case. Use 1 as the most important and 6 as the least important. Please only use each number one time. rank_propty pe F2a. Type of property rights the victim is claiming Response constrained to: .>0 and .<7 (Integer) rank_size F2b. The size of the plot of land in dispute Response constrained to: .>0 and .<7 (Integer) rank_timesin ce F2c. The amount of time since the displacement occurred Response constrained to: .>0 and .<7 (Integer) rank_occupa nt F2d. The defendant/occupant's power or wealth Response constrained to: .>0 and .<7 (Integer) rank_owner F2e. The ethnicity of claimant (Indigenous, Afro Colombian) Response constrained to: .>0 and .<7 (Integer) rank_quality F2f. The quality of the case received from the LRU. Response constrained to: .>0 and .<7 (Integer) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 191 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER noclaimswhy F3. One of the main obstacles in the current restitutions challenge is that only 20% of the total victims have filed a case. From the following list, which of these do you see as the primary reasons victims do not file claims? show tablet 1=The Victims Law has not been widely publicized 2=Fear of returning 3=Mistrust of state institutions 4=Victims do not know their rights 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond noclaimswhy o F3.o if 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: F3 = 97 (Text) note_f4 F4. Some rulings involve additional measures like improving basic services and infrastructure in the area. Please tell me how important the following factors are in successfully implementing these additional measures. factor_follo wup F4a. The judicial decision establishes a follow-up mechanism 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_deadl ine F4b. The judicial decision establishes a deadline of compliance 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_respo nsible F4c. Ruling designates specific government agencies to be responsible for implementation 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_mayo r F4d. The mayor is engaged and interested in the restitution process. 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 192 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER factor_gover nor F4e. The governor of the region is engaged and interested in the restitution process. 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond factor_vague F4f. The level of specificity of the judicial decision. 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond notorigwhy F5. In some cases, judges have not been able to restitute original land and instead compensate the victim with land that is similar in characteristics. From the following reasons for why this happens, which one do you think it is the most common? show tablet 1=Security conditions 2=Environmental restriction 3=The opponent is also a victim 4=Destruction of the property 5=The land was already restituted 6=Risk of natural disaster 7=A large company or business now owns the land 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond notorigwhyo F5.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: F5 = 97 (Text) meetdeadine F6. First instance and appeal judges have a deadline of four months to rule on individual cases. In your experience, what percentage of cases have you been able to resolve in that amount of time? 1=0/None 2=1-10% 3=11-20% 4=21-30% 5=31-40% 6=41-50% 7=51-60% 8=61-70% 9=71-80% 10=81-90% 11=91-100% 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond rulingtime F7. Based on your experience, what would you say is the average processing time for a restitution case, from the point when the case is brought to the court to the point where the case receives a ruling? rulingtimey F7a. Years: (Integer) rulingtimem F7b. Months: (Integer) admintime F8. Based on your experience, do you feel the average length of time for the ADMINISTRATION PHASE of restitution cases has decreased in the past 3 years? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 193 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER admintimede cr F9a. If No, why not? Question relevant when: F8 = 0 1=The process is not easy to understand 2=Defendants can provide sufficient evidence that requires more elaborate investigation 3=Characterization studies take a long time 4=Lack of geographic information 5=Lack of security conditions 6=High rate of displacement 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond admintimede cryes F9b. If Yes why? Question relevant when: F8 = 1 1=The LRU is faster 2=There are no secondary occupants 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Refused to answer admintimede cro F9a.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: F9b = 97 (Text) judictime F10. Based on your experience, do you feel the average length of time for the JUDICIAL PHASE of restitution cases has decreased in the past 3 years? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond judictimedec r F11a. If No, why not? Question relevant when: F10 = 0 1=The deadline to rule is too short 2=The LRU has not prepared sufficient evidence 3=The process is not easy to understand 4=Defendants hire aggressive litigants that delay the rulings 5=Defendants have sufficient evidence of their own rights that requires serious consideration 6=Judges may not have the resources to assess evidence and take a prompt decision 7=Too many cases 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond judictimedec ryes F11b. If Yes why? Question relevant when: F10 = 1 1=The judges have more experience and are faster 2=Better quality of proofs 3=Cases with low information 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond judictimedec ro F11a.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: F11a = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 194 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER imptime F12. Based on your experience, do you feel the average length of time for the COMPLIANCE / IMPLEMENTATION PHASE of restitution cases has decreased in the past 3 years? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond imptimedecr F13a. If No, why not? Question relevant when: F12 = 0 1=Local actors do not know how to enforce rulings 2=Local government lacks actors to enforce rulings 3=Claimants do not have enough support after the ruling is made 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond imptimedecr yes F13b. If Yes why? Question relevant when: F12 = 1 1=Lack of commitment; slow-downs and deliberations 2=Greater sanctions against institutions that don't comply 3=Too many cases 4=The institutions have recognized the importance of restitution 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond imptimedecr o F13a.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: F13a = 97 (Text) restprocchn g F14. Based on your experience, how has the restitution process changed in Colombia in the past 3 years? 1=Greatly improved 2=Somewhat improved 3=Neither improved nor worsened 4=Somewhat worsened 5=Much worse 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRUcityjudg e F15. Which LRU office(s) do you normally receive cases from? 1=Apartado 2=Barrancaberme ja 3=Bogota 4=Cali 5=Cartagena 6=Cucuta 7=El Carmen de Bolivar 8=Ibague 9=Medellin 10=Mocoa 11=Monteria 12=Pasto 13=Popayan 14=Santa Marta 15=Sincelejo 16=Valledupar 17=Villavicencio 97=Other 999=Prefer not to respond LRUcityjudg eo F15.o If 'Other', please specify Question relevant when: F15 = 97 (Text) FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_g1 G: Rural Development Section relevant when: A6 = 1 LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 195 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER mrdplan G1. In your municipality, did you receive LRDP support to construct your Municipal Rural Development plan? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond planrural G2. Does your Municipal Rural Development Plan include rural development assistance to rural households and farmers in order to improve livelihoods? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond planvictims G3. Does your Municipal Rural Development Plan include rural development assistance to conflict victims in order to improve livelihoods? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond infrastructur e G4. Have any infrastructure projects been constructed in the past 3 years in your municipality? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond projecttypes G5. If yes, please list the types of infrastructure projects. Question relevant when: G4 = 1 1=Irrigation 2=Roads 3=Water supply 4=Sewage 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond projecttypes o G5.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: G5 = 97 (Text) infrasvictims G6. Have any of these infrastructure projects targeted areas of previous conflict and displacement in your municipality? Question relevant when: G4 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond planwomen G7. Does your Municipal Rural Development Plan include assistance to women? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond planethnic G8. Does your Municipal Rural Development Plan include assistance to ethnic minorities? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond planyouth G9. Does your Municipal Rural Development Plan include assistance to youth? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 196 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER projectincre ase G10. In the past 3 years, has there been an increase or decrease in the number of submissions of rural projects to be funded departmental or national government? 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Neither increased nor decreased 4=Decreased 5=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond percentsucc ess G11. Approximately what percentage of these submissions have been successful in the past 3 years? 1=0/None 2=1-10% 3=11-20% 4=21-30% 5=31-40% 6=41-50% 7=51-60% 8=61-70% 9=71-80% 10=81-90% 11=91-100% 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond amountfund G12. Approximately what amount of funds have been secured for these submissions in the past 3 years? - (Integer) forumvic G13. Does your municipality have forums that specifically engage CONFLICT VICTIMS in the development of the municipal rural development plan? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond forumvicno G13a. If no, why not? Question relevant when: G13 = 0 1=Victims participate in all spaces 2=We have not worked with victims 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond forumrest G14. Does your municipality have forums that specifically engage RESTITUTED FAMILIES in the development of the municipal rural development plan? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond forumrestno G14a. If no, why not? Question relevant when: G14 = 0 1=These forums do not exist 2=There are few restituted families 2=Don't know 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond forumsrural G15. Does your municipality have forums that specifically engage RURAL HOUSEHOLDS in the development of the municipal rural development plan? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond forumsrural no G15a. If no, why not? Question relevant when: G15 = 0 1=There is no plan 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 197 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER forumwome n G16. Does your municipality have forums that specifically engage WOMEN in the development of the municipal rural development plan? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond forumwome nno G16a. If no, why not? Question relevant when: G16 = 0 (Text) forumprod G17. Does your municipality have forums that specifically engage PRODUCER ASSOCIATIONS in the development of the municipal rural development plan? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond forumprodn o G17a. If no, why not? Question relevant when: G17 = 0 1=The peasants are not organized 2=These forums do not exist 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond pppfamiliar G18. How familiar are you with Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)? A PPP is a project that links producer associations with the private sector with support from the local government. 1=Very familiar 2=Somewhat familiar 3=A little familiar 4=Not at all familiar 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond pppnew G19. Have there been any new PPPs initiated in your municipality in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: G18 = 1 or 2 or 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond pppcrops G20. What crops are the PPPs associated with? Question relevant when: G19 = 1 1=Coffee 2=Honey 3=Plantains 4=Cacao 5=Dairy 6=Yucca 7=Avocado 8=Name 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond pppcropso G20.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: G20 = 97 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 198 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER pppimportan t G21. How important do you think PPPs are for increasing incomes and improving the livelihoods for producers and their families in your municipality? Question relevant when: G18 = 1 or 2 or 3 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond pppeffective G22. Overall, how effective are the PPPs in improving the livelihoods of VICTIMS OF CONFLICT in your municipality? Question relevant when: G18 = 1 or 2 or 3 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond pppimprove G23. If not effective, what could they do to improve their support? Question relevant when: G22 = 4 or 5 (Text) pppvic G24. Overall, how effective are the PPPs in improving the livelihoods of ETHNIC MINORITES in conflict-affected areas in your municipality? Question relevant when: G18 = 1 or 2 or 3 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond pppvicimpr G25. If not effective, what could they do to improve? Question relevant when: G24 = 4 or 5 (Text) pppeth G26. Overall, how effective are the PPPs in improving the livelihoods of WOMEN in conflict-affected areas in your municipality? Question relevant when: G18 = 1 or 2 or 3 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond pppethimpr G27. If not effective, what could they do to improve? Question relevant when: G26 = 4 or 5 (Text) pppwom G28. Now thinking about the agriculture secretariat in your department, how effective are they at supporting rural development projects that benefit communities? 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 199 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER pppwomimp r G29. If not effective, what could they do to improve? Question relevant when: G28 = 4 or 5 1=Promote the issues of the municipality 2=Create private-public alliances 3=Better inter-institutional cooperation 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond Section relevant when: A6 = 2 provideservs trong G30. Can you name 3 municipalities in your region that you think have been particularly strong at providing services and reparations to victims? If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. provideservs trong1 G30a. First municipality (Text) provideservs trong2 G30b. Second municipality (Text) provideservs trong3 G30c. Third municipality (Text) provideserv weak G31. Can you name 3 municipalities in your region that you think have been particularly weak at providing services and reparations to victims? If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. provideserv weak1 G31a. First municipality (Text) provideserv weak2 G31b. Second municipality (Text) provideserv weak3 G31c. Third municipality (Text) engagevicwe ak G32. Can you name 3 municipalities in your region that you think have been particularly strong at engaging victims in the development of municipal rural development plans? If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. engagevicwe ak1 G32a. First municipality (Text) engagevicwe ak2 G32b. Second municipality (Text) engagevicwe ak3 G32c. Third municipality (Text) engagevicstr ong G33. Can you name 3 municipalities in your region that you think have been particularly weak at engaging victims in the development of municipal rural development plans? If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. engagevicstr ong1 G33a. First municipality (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 200 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER engagevicstr ong2 G33b. Second municipality (Text) engagevicstr ong3 G33c. Third municipality (Text) FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_h1 H: Citizen Engagement and Awareness Process drop22 I want to ask you some questions about citizen engagement in your municipality/office/department Section relevant when: A6 = 1 or 2 restnewprog H1. In the past 3 years, has your municipality/office/department implemented any new outreach programs to encourage citizens to seek restitution? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond restprogram s H2. Please list these outreach programs or forums. Question relevant when: H1 = 1 1=Trainings and workshops 2=Forums about land information 3=Forums and discussion meetings 4=Victims' reunions 5=Media communication strategies 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond restprogeffe ct H2a. To what extent do you think these outreach programs have been effective? Question relevant when: H1 = 1 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond restengagem ent H3. Have you seen any change in the extent of citizens seeking restitution in the past 3 years? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond restengchan ge H4. If yes, how has the extent of citizens seeking restitution changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H3 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formalnewpr og H5. In the past 3 years, has your municipality/office/department implemented any new outreach programs to encourage citizens to formalize their land? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 or A8 = 5 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 201 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER formalprogr ams H6. Please list these outreach programs or forums. Question relevant when: H5 = 1 1=Trainings and workshops 2=Forums about land information 3=Forums and discussion meetings 4=Victims' reunions 5=Media communication strategies 6=Meetings about Law 1441 and the restitution process 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formalengag ement H7. Have you seen any change in the extent that citizens are able to formalize their land in the past 3 years? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond formalengch ange H8. If yes, how has citizen engagement changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H7 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond plannewprog H9. In the past 3 years, has your municipality/office/department implemented any new outreach programs to encourage citizen participation in the development of regional/municipal plans process? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond planprogram s H10. Please list these outreach programs or forums. Question relevant when: H9 = 1 1=Trainings and workshops 2=Forums about land information 3=Forums and discussion meetings 4=Victims' reunions 5=Media communication strategies 6=Meetings about Law 1441 and the restitucion process 7=Workshops for the development and socialization of the development plan 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond planengagem ent H11. Have you seen any change in the extent of citizen engagement in the development of regional/municipal plans in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 202 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER planengchan ge H12. If yes, how has citizen engagement changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H11 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenrest H13. Have you seen any change in the extent that women are aware and involved in the restitution process in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenresty es H14a. If yes, how has this changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H13 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenresty eswhy H14b. Why do you think there has been an increase in the extent that women are aware and involved in the restitution process? Question relevant when: H14a = 1 or 2 1=There are more womens' organizations 2=Women are receiving more training 3=Women are more aware of their rights 4=Women are more confident about the institutions 5=There are more womens' institutions 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenform al H15a. Have you seen any change in the extent that women are aware of and involved in the formalization process in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 or A8 = 5 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenform alyes H15b. If yes, how has this changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H15a = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenform alyeswhy H16. Why do you think there has been an increase in the extent that women are aware of and involved in the formalization process? Question relevant when: H15b = 1 or 2 1=There are more womens' organizations 2=Women are receiving more training 3=Women are more aware of their rights 4=Women are more confident about the institutions 5=There are more womens' institutions 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 203 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER womenmrdp H17. Have you seen any change in the extent that women are engaged in the municipal and regional development planning in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenmrdp yes H18a. If yes, how has this changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H17 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenmrdp yeswhy H18b. Why do you think there has been an increase in the extent women are engaged in the municipal and regional development planning process? Question relevant when: H18a = 1 or 2 1=There are more womens' organizations 2=Women are receiving more training 3=Women are more aware of their rights 4=Women are more confident about the institutions 5=There are more womens' institutions 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenppp H19. Have you seen any change in the extent that women are engaged in PPPs in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenpppy es H20a. If yes, how has this changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H19 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond womenpppy eswhy H20b. Why do you think there has been an increase in the extent that women are engaged in PPPs? Question relevant when: H20a = 1 or 2 1=There are more womens' organizations 2=Women are receiving more training 3=Women are more aware of their rights 4=Women are more confident about the institutions 5=There are more womens' institutions 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicrest H21. Have you seen any change in the extent that ethnic minority groups are engaged in the restitution process the past 3 years? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicrestye s H22a. If yes, how has this changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H21 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 204 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER ethnicrestye swhy H22b. Why do you think there has been an increase in the extent that ethnic minority groups are aware and involved in the restitution process? Question relevant when: H22a = 1 or 2 1=They are better organized 2=Better knowledge of their rights 3=Greater number of sentences that protect their rights 4=Greater trust in the institutions of the state 5=Better diffusion of information about their rights 6=More institutions and support for ethnic groups 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicformal H23. Have you seen any change in the extent that ethnic minority groups are engaged in the formalization process the past 3 years? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 or A8 = 5 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicformal yes H24a. If yes, how has this changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H23 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicformal yeswhy H24b. Why do you think there has been an increase in the extent that ethnic minorities are aware and involved in the formalization process? Question relevant when: H24a = 1 or 2 1=Greater interest in legalizing their property rights 2=Greater knowledge of their rights 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicppp H25. Have you seen any change in the extent that ethnic minorities are engaged in PPPs in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicpppye s H26a. If yes, how has this changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H25 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicpppye swhy H26b. Why do you think there has been an increase in the extent that ethnic minorities are engaged in PPPs? Question relevant when: H26a = 1 or 2 1=Greater number of private-public alliances 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicplan H27. Have you seen any change in the extent that ethnic minority groups are engaged in the municipal and regional development planning in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: A6 = 1 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 205 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER ethnicplanye s H27a. If yes, how has this changed in the past 3 years? Question relevant when: H27 = 1 1=Significantly increased 2=Increased 3=Decreased 4=Significantly decreased 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond ethnicplanye swhy H27b. Why do you think there has been an increase in the extent that ethnic minorities are engaged in the municipal and regional development planning? Question relevant when: H27a = 1 or 2 1=They are better organized 2=Better knowledge of their rights 3=Greater number of sentences that protect their rights 4=Greater trust in the institutions of the state 5=Better diffusion of information about their rights 6=More institutions and support for ethnic groups 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_i1 I: Political Effectiveness note_i2 I want to ask you about your opinion on political effectiveness of certain government officials mimportrest I1. How important would you say the mayor and the mayor’s office are to the success of restitution compliance? Question relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond minvestrest I2. To what extent would you say the mayors are personally invested in the areas that you administrate in in the restitution process? Question relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 1=Very invested 2=Somewhat invested 3=Neither invested nor not invested 4=Somewhat not invested 5=Not at all invested 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mactiverest I3. Please identify 2-3 municipalities in your region where the mayor has been very active and invested in the restitution process. If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. Group relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 mactiverest1 Municipality 1: (Text) mactiverest2 Municipality 2: (Text) mactiverest3 Municipality 3: (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 206 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER mimportfor m I4. How important would you say the mayor and the mayor’s office are to the success of formalization and the rural titling process. Question relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond minvestform I5. To what extent would you say the mayors are personally invested in the areas you administrate in the formalization and rural titling process? Question relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 1=Very invested 2=Somewhat invested 3=Neither invested nor not invested 4=Somewhat not invested 5=Not at all invested 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond mactiveform I6. Please identify 2-3 municipalities in your region where the mayor has been very active and invested in the formalization process. If respondent doesn't know, type 888. If respondent prefers not to answer, type 999. Group relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 mactiveform 1 Municipality 1: (Text) mactiveform 2 Municipality 2: (Text) mactiveform 3 Municipality 3: (Text) fimportrest I7. How important would you say the governor is to the success of restitution programming? 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond gimportrest I8. To what extent would you say the governor has invested in the areas you administrate in the restitution process? 1=Very invested 2=Somewhat invested 3=Neither invested nor not invested 4=Somewhat not invested 5=Not at all invested 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 207 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER gimportform I9. How important would you say the governor is to the success of formalization and the rural titling process. 1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Very unimportant 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond gactiveform I10. To what extent would you say the governor has invested in the areas you administrate in the formalization and rural titling process? 1=Very invested 2=Somewhat invested 3=Neither invested nor not invested 4=Somewhat not invested 5=Not at all invested 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_j1 J: LRDP Awareness and Influence note_j3 These next questions are about the Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) lrdpfamiliar J1. How familiar are you with the work of the Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP)? 1=Very familiar 2=Somewhat familiar 3=A little familiar 4=Not at all familiar 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond treat J2. Have you received any form of support, technical assistance, training, or resources from LRDP? Please answer YES if have gotten ANY form of support from LRDP Question relevant when: J1 = 1 or 2 or 3 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdptraining J3. Have you attended any trainings or workshops offered by LRDP? 0=No 1=Yes 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 208 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER lrdptrainwhi ch J3a. IF YES, which trainings? Question relevant when: J3 = 1 1=Restitution-related training or TA 2=Training or TA related to formalization of land rights 3=Training or TA related to development planning 4=Training or TA related to productive projects\ 5=Training or Ta related to gender issues 6=Training or TA related to rural infrastructure 7=Training or TA related to information systems 8=Trainings and workshops about land formalization 9=Trainings about environmental topics 10=Trainings about USAID programs 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdptrainwhi cho J3.o If 'Other', please specify. Question relevant when: J3a = 97 (Text) lrdpsatisfied _1 J4. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Restitution-related training or TA? Question relevant when: J3 = 1 1=Very satisfied 2=Satisfied 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=Dissatisfied 5=Very Dissatisfied 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdpsatisfied no_1 J5. If not satisfied, please explain why not? Question relevant when: J4 = 4 or 5 1 A bit useful 97=Other 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdpsatisfied _2 J6. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Training or TA related to formalization of land rights? Question relevant when: J3 = 2 1=Very satisfied 2=Satisfied 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=Dissatisfied 5=Very Dissatisfied 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdpsatisfied no_2 J7. If not satisfied, please explain why not? Question relevant when: J6 = 4 or 5 (Text) lrdpsatisfied _3 J8. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Training or TA related to development planning? Question relevant when: J3 = 3 1=Very satisfied 2=Satisfied 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=Dissatisfied 5=Very Dissatisfied 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdpsatisfied no_3 J9. If not satisfied, please explain why not? Question relevant when: J8 = 4 or 5 (Text) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 209 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER lrdpsatisfied _4 J10. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Training or TA related to productive projects? Question relevant when: J3 = 4 1=Very satisfied 2=Satisfied 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=Dissatisfied 5=Very Dissatisfied 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdpsatisfied no_4 J11. If not satisfied, please explain why not? Question relevant when: J10 = 4 or 5 (Text) lrdpsatisfied _5 J12. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Training or Ta related to gender issues? Question relevant when: J3 = 5 1=Very satisfied 2=Satisfied 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=Dissatisfied 5=Very Dissatisfied 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdpsatisfied no_5 J13. If not satisfied, please explain why not? Question relevant when: J12 = 4 or 5 (Text) lrdpsatisfied _6 J14. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Training or TA related to rural infrastructure? Question relevant when: J3 = 6 1=Very satisfied 2=Satisfied 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=Dissatisfied 5=Very Dissatisfied 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdpsatisfied no_6 J15. If not satisfied, please explain why not? Question relevant when: J14 = 4 or 5 (Text) lrdpsatisfied _7 J16. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Training or TA related to information systems? Question relevant when: J3 = 7 1=Very satisfied 2=Satisfied 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=Dissatisfied 5=Very Dissatisfied 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond lrdpsatisfied no_7 J17. If not satisfied, please explain why not? Question relevant when: J16 = 4 or 5 (Text) note_j2 Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about the activities of the LRDP in your office/entity/municipality. Question relevant when: J2 = 1 LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 210 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER agree_time J18. LRDP has helped reduce my office's processing time for restitution claims. Question relevant when: A6 = 2 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_restit ution J19.LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to comply with restitution rulings. Question relevant when: J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_rights J20. LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to support the rights of secondary occupants. Question relevant when: A6 ≠ 3 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_forma lize J21. LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to formalize rural property rights. Question relevant when: A6 ≠ 3 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_regist er J22. LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to support rural development for rural households. Question relevant when: A6 ≠ 3 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 211 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER agree_rurald ev J23. LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to support rural development specifically for conflict victims. Question relevant when: A6 ≠ 3 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_infosu pport J24. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to use and manage information to support land rights services. Question relevant when: J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_infosh are J25. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to share information with other agencies/municipalities to support land rights services. Question relevant when: J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agreemayor J26. LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s connection to national and regional agencies. Question relevant when: A6 = 1 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agreelrujudg e1 J27. LRDP has improved my offices/institution’s connection to local government actors. Question relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 212 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER agreelrujudg e2 J28. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions’ connections to other national and regional agencies. Question relevant when: A6 = 2 or 3 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_engag e J29. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to engage with citizens on land rights services. Question relevant when: A6 = 1 or 2 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_wom en1 J30. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to restitution services. Question relevant when: A6 = 1 or 2 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_wom en2 J31. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to formalization services. Question relevant when: A6 = 1 or 2 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_wom en3 J32. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to rural development services. Question relevant when: A6 = 1 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 213 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER agree_ethnic 1 J33. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to give ethnic minorities stronger access to restitution services. Question relevant when: A6 = 1 or 2 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_ethnic 2 J34. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to give ethnic minorities stronger access to formalization services. Question relevant when: A6 = 1 or 2 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond agree_ethnic 3 J35. LRDP has improved my offices/institutions/municipality’s capacity to give ethnic minorities stronger access to rural development services. Question relevant when: A6 = 1 and J2 = 1 1=Strongly agree 2=Agree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4=Disagree 5=Strongly disagree 777=Not Applicable 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_j1a K: Colombia and the Peace Agreement note_j1b These last questions are about Colombia and the peace agreement optimism1 K1. In general, how optimistic do you feel about the ability of the local government to resolve many of the land-related problems plaguing the country? 1=Very optimistic 2=Somewhat optimistic 3=Neither optimistic nor pessimistic 4=Somewhat pessimistic 5=Very pessimistic 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond optimism2 K2. In general, how optimistic do you feel about the ability of YOUR OFFICE to resolve the land-related problems facing the municipality(ies) you serve? 1=Very optimistic 2=Somewhat optimistic 3=Neither optimistic nor pessimistic 4=Somewhat pessimistic 5=Very pessimistic 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 214 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER helpful1 K3. In your opinion, do you see the current peace agreement as helpful or unhelpful in the Land RESTITUTION problem in Colombia? 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond helpful2 K4. In your opinion, do you see the current peace agreement as helpful or unhelpful in the land DISTRIBUTION problem in Colombia? 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond helpful3 K5. In your opinion, do you see the current peace agreement as helpful or unhelpful in the land formalization problem in Colombia? 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond helpful4 K6. In your opinion, do you see the current peace agreement as helpful or unhelpful in the Investment in historically neglected rural areas in Colombia? 1=Very effective 2=Somewhat effective 3=Neither effective nor ineffective 4=Somewhat ineffective 5=Not effective 888=Don't know 999=Prefer not to respond FIELD QUESTION ANSWER note_k1 Conclusion note_k2 Thank you for your participation in the survey noconsent A7b. Can you tell me why you have chosen not to particpate? Question relevant when: consent = 0 (Text) gps K1. Geopoint: GPS coordinates can only be collected when outside. (GPS) int_underst and K3. What proportion of the questions do you feel the respondent had difficulty answering? 1=All 2=Most 3=Some 4=A few 5=None LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 215 FIELD QUESTION ANSWER int_reaction K4. What was the respondent's reaction to the interview? 1=Very positive 2=Somewhat positive 3=Neutral 4=Somewhat negative 5=Very negative name_stake K5. Name of the respondent (Text) address_sta ke K6. Contact (Text) cargoname K7. Position 1=Land Restitution First Instance Judges 2=Land Restitution Appeal Judges 3=Social Director for the LRU 4=Judicial Director for the LRU 5=Cadastral Director for the LRU 6=Context Analyst for the LRU 7=Ethnic Affairs Director for the LRU 8=General/Territory Director 9=Social Worker 10=Mayor 11=Secretary of government 12=Land judge 13=Land magistrate 97=Other 999=Prefer not to respond LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 216 ANNEX 6—FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL The FGD protocol has been posted in a zip file with all of the PE data collection tools to Land Links, the E3/LU Office land portal at the following URL: https://www.land-links.org/evaluation/land-rural-development-program-colombia/ A copy of the FGD protocol can be found on the following pages. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 217 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL NOTE: Focus Group Discussions will be conducted in Spanish, and the final version of the protocol will include this language. This draft is presented in English for initial review of the content and flow of questions. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) will focus on the perceptions of relevant LRDP beneficiary sub￾populations in the programming municipalities. FGDs will include discussion of perceptions of the restitution process and relevant institutions, challenges citizens face with land titling and obtaining documentation, rural development, tenure security, the role of land in past conflict, and their relationship with and trust in government institutions. FGDs will be held in a location that is convenient and comfortable for participants. This protocol covers group discussions with the following groups and topics: GROUPS ● Women ● Ethnic Minorities (Indigenous and Afro Colombian Communities) ● Producer Association Members ● Youth TOPICS ● Restitution (R) ● Land Titling and Documentation (L) ● Rural Development (RD) ● Tenure Security and Conflict (TS) ● Government Relationships and Institutional Support (G) ● Producer Associations (PA) FGD Location Group Specific Population Topics LRDP Notes Corinto (Cauca) Youth NA L, TS, G Fundacion Ayara - Music Santander (Cauca) Afro Colombian R, L, RD, TS, G Santander (Cauca) Women R, L, RD, TS, G Carmen de Bolivar (Montes de Maria) Producer Association PA, R, L, RD, G ñame + yuca, cacao Carmen de Bolivar (Montes de Maria) Women R, L, RD, TS, G, PA Ñame San Jacinto (Montes de Maria) Afro Colombian Eladio Ariza R, RD, TS, G Pueblo Bello (Cesar) Producer Association Farmers & Indigenous (Arhuacos) RD, TS, G, PA Honey, Coffee, Cane La Paz (Cesar) Indigenous Yukpas R, D, TS, G Chaparral (Tolima) Women L, RD, TS, G Coffee PPP, formalization Maria la Baja (Montes de Maria) Afro Colombian Women R, L, RD, TS, G, PA Cacao LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 218 Information for Discussion Record FGD Type (Women, Afro Colombian, Indigenous, Farmers, Producer Association, etc.) Name of Facilitator: Date of Discussion: Location of Discussion (City, Municipality) Description of Discussion Location (Office, School, etc.) Discussion Start Time: Discussion End Time: Number of Women Number of Men How was FGD organized? (by what organization, etc.) Thank you for coming today to tell us about your experiences with land and rural development in your community. Your thoughts and opinions are important to us because we are trying to help the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to assist the Government of Colombia in improving land management issues and to better understand any challenges you are facing. This discussion will be about two hours long. It’s also important that you know that we do not work for the government and that any personal information about you or will not be collected or shown to anyone other than who is currently in this space. We have an audio recorder that will help us capture everything you say and take better notes. These recordings are ONLY for our personal use so we can listen again to what you say today. If you have questions at any time, please feel free to ask. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Enumerator: the goal of this part of the discussion is to try to develop a little bit of trust and confidence between enumerator and the respondents. In the process, we will also learn a bit about who they are and their background. First we would like to understand who you are and a little bit about your background. Can a few of you tell me a bit about yourself? I’ll start. My name is (enumerator can state their name and talk a bit about themselves, their family, some personal information) RESTITUTION This discussion is about your experience with the restitution process. Land restitution refers to the process of returning property to people who have been displaced as a result of the conflict. We are trying to understand what challenges you have experienced or are currently experiencing in regards to restitution and what your thoughts are about how to improve the process. We would also like to understand if your perception has changed about restitution over the past 3 years. 1. First I’d like to understand how many of you have ever experienced or are currently involved in the restitution process? Please raise your hands. Have any of you completed the process? Please raise your hands. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 219 a. Note taker: estimate and record the % of respondents involved in process b. Note taker: estimate and record the % of respondents who have completed process 2. Can you describe what the restitution process has been like for you or someone you know? QUESTIONS TO PROBE: a. Were they previously displaced by conflict? Why did they leave? b. How did they learn about the restitution process? Did you hear about it from a neighbor, organization, TV, radio program etc.? c. Did they return before starting the restitution process? Why do you think they felt they could return? What changed? d. Is the land they are seeking to be restituted currently occupied by someone else? If so, are they an individual or a company? e. Not in this case specifically but in general, do you think that occupants know that the land they occupy was previously occupied by a displaced person? f. How common is it for someone in your community to have land legally restituted to them? 3. How common is it for someone in your community to have land legally restituted to them? a. How easy or difficult is it in your community for a victim to have land restituted to them? Why do you think this is the case? b. How long would you estimate it takes to go through the restitution process? 4. What have been the most challenging or confusing parts of the restitution process? 5. What parts of the restitution process would you improve and how would you improve it? 6. When and how do you engage with local government officials, agencies or people regarding restitution? Who are they and in what ways do you engage with them? What is their role? 7. Is your local government more or less involved in restitution than they used to be? 8. Some people say that some of those seeking restitution are not actually victims, but people trying to receive free land from the government. How common do you think this is in your town? a. If common, how do you know? b. If not common, why do you think some people believe this? 9. Now thinking about restitution as a whole, how do you see the restitution effort in your community changing in the past three years? Is it better, worse, or the same? FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES 10. We have heard that restitution claims may be harder for some groups than others. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain. 11. Being part of a minority group, do you feel that government officials treat you any differently regarding the restitution process? Please explain. Who do you normally engage with and what is their role? 12. When you have had interacted with public officers from LRU and lawyers, have you perceived a differential treatment regarding the collective land rights and the daily realities and histories of being part of an ethnic group? FOR WOMEN LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 220 Women in Colombia have sometimes been excluded from restitution processes and face obstacles that other groups do not face. 13. Do you feel that restitution claims may be harder for women than for men. Have any of you experienced or know about this? Do you agree or disagree? Please explain and provide examples. 14. As women in this community, please describe the relationship with government officials regarding the restitution process? Which officials do you work with and in what ways do you engage with them? What is their role? Have you perceived a change in their treatment towards women over the past 3 years? 15. Have you had the opportunity to participate in activities that promote women’s rights to land and raising awareness of the ways that state institutions can help fulfill those rights? What activities have you participated in? Please provide example and explain how, if at all, they were helpful. LAND TITLING AND DOCUMENTATION Now I’d like to discuss your experience with land titling and documentation, if any, that you have for your land. Land titling refers to the process of ensuring people have legal documents that indicate they own the property they live on. 1. In your opinion, do most, many, some, or few of the people in your town have formal title over their land? Ask participants to raise their hands and record a rough % estimate. QUESTIONS TO PROBE: a. What do you see as the primary obstacle to obtaining legal title over land? b. Has this changed over the last three years? Was it better or worse in the past? c. If it has gotten better, why do you think that is? What has made formal land ownership more common in your community? d. If worse, why do you think that is? What has made formal land ownership less common in your community? 2. Can you describe what the land titling process has been like for you so far? QUESTION TO PROBE: a. How long have you been going through the process? b. What have been the most challenging or confusing parts of the land titling process? 3. Are there organizations or state agencies working to increase access to formal titling? If so, which ones? How effective do you think these agencies have been at increasing formal titling in your community? Please be specific when describing each agency and their role. 4. What parts of the land titling process would you improve and how would you improve it? 5. For those of you that have documentation: a. Has this changed the way you invest in your land? For example, did you decide to building a fence, upgrade your roof or start farming your land once you had documentation? b. Have you used the document to attain credit or get a bank loan? c. Do you feel more confident in your rights to your land and property now that you have documentation? If no, why not? 6. For those of you who DO NOT have documentation: LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 221 d. If you do not have documentation, what is stopping you from getting it? Can you please explain what would help you make this process easier? 7. When and how do you engage with local government officials, agencies or people regarding land titling? Who are they and in what ways do you engage with them? What is their role? 8. Is your local government more or less involved in land titling than they used to be? 9. Now thinking about land titling as a whole, have land titling efforts in your community been improving in the past three years? Please explain or describe why not. 10. Now thinking about buying and selling land in your community, can you tell me a bit about what this process is like? e. How difficult is it generally to buy/sell land in your community? What are the challenges to doing so? a. Is there a place or person who has information on what is for sale? b. How has the process of buying and selling land in your community changed in the past three years? Can you provide an example? FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES 11. Do you feel that being an ethnic minority has affected getting documentation for your land? Please explain. FOR WOMEN Women in Colombia have traditionally been excluded from land titling processes. 12. Do you feel that being a woman has affected getting documentation for your land? Do you feel you are treated any different because you are woman in regards to land titling processes? Please provide examples and explain. RURAL DEVELOPMENT Now I’d like to discuss how you use your land currently and your experience with various rural development initiatives in your area We are trying to understand what rural development services you may or may not be using and what could be done to improve these programs. 1. First, can you tell me a bit about how you use your land productively? Do people cultivate crops, engage in cattle or other livestock raising, or other agricultural activities? 2. Has the way you use your land in the past 3 years changed? Can you provide examples of how things have changed or stayed the same? For example, did you change the type of crop you were growing or changed the types of agricultural practices you use? 3. Does your local government in your municipality or department offer services or assistance to victims or those who have been displaced? Probe and describe. a. If yes, can you give examples of how you access these services? b. If services or assistance is available, but you don’t have access, why not? c. Are these services only for people that have been displaced or for the entire community? 4. Are there any other ways that your local or regional government supports your livelihood? LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 222 d. If not already mentioned, have you received any form of government subsidies, technical assistance or public goods for farming related activities? e. If you could choose, in what ways would you like the local government to support your livelihood? What services or assistance would help you to use your land more productively or to make more money for your household? f. Do you feel that the government’s support of your livelihoods has changed in the past 3 years? Has it increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Please explain. 5. Have you seen improvements in infrastructure in your community such as water infrastructure or roads in the past 3 years? If so, please give examples. g. If yes, have these improvements in infrastructure helped you? In what ways? If they have not helped you, how could they have been more useful? 6. Do any members of your community engage in any other partnerships with the private sector/companies relevant to the production of agricultural products? If yes, please describe the nature of these partnerships. QUESTIONS TO PROBE: a. What is the name of the company involved? b. What members of your community are involved? Are there any specific groups/members of your community that are involved? c. How did this partnership come to be? In other words, who initiated the process (i.e., the Government, the private sector, an NGO, indigenous leaders, etc.)? Who from your community was involved in negotiating/establishing this partnership? d. Does your community receive any benefits as a result of this partnership? If yes, please describe. (Carefully probe any benefit sharing arrangements) e. Do you feel this partnership is helpful for your community? Please explain why or why not. If not helpful, what could they do to be more helpful? FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES 7. Do you feel like these partnerships engage ethnic minorities? Please explain. 8. In your opinion, do any of these partnership impact your communities’ right to self￾determination (i.e., affect your ability to live in accordance with your values and traditions)? How so? FOR WOMEN 9. Are any of the partnerships specifically targeting women or engage women in their work? Please explain. TENURE SECURITY AND CONFLICT This part of our discussion is about land-related conflicts in your community. When I am thinking about land￾related conflicts, I am thinking about disagreements or disputes that arise between people in your town as to who rightfully owns a piece of land. These disputes can be between two people, a person and a company, or two companies that own land in your community. I am also thinking about the ways in which the armed conflict has affected land ownership in your community. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 223 1. How common would you say land-related disputes are in your community? Would you say that they are very common, somewhat common, or rare? Can you give an example of a land-related dispute? QUESTIONS TO PROBE: a. Who were the sides in the conflict? How did it begin? b. What steps did the two parties take in the dispute? c. Was someone from the local government consulted? Why or why not? d. Who do you think was at fault in that example, and why? 2. Thinking about the armed conflict in Colombia, can you tell me a bit about how the conflict has affected the way you use your land in your community? a. Has the conflict impacted the types of things that people do with their land? For example, what they grow? 3. Compared to three years ago, how secure do you feel about your land? “Secure” means that you are confident that no one can take your land or encroach on your land without your permission. a. If you are feeling secure, why is this? b. If you are feeling insecure, why is this? c. What authorities/actors/institutions are involved in this feeling of security or lack thereof? 4. How concerned are you that you may be involved in a land-related dispute in the future? Is this something you worry about often? a. If so, do you feel less worried, more worried or the same as you did 3 years ago? b. If you are not worried about this, why not? What is it that makes you feel confident that you will not be pulled into a land conflict? c. If you are worried about this, why? What is it that makes you concerned you will be pulled into a land conflict? d. What steps can a person take to ensure that they do not become involved in a land dispute? e. If you were involved in a dispute, what would you do to try to resolve it? How confident do you feel in your ability to resolve it? FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES 1. More generally, what challenges does your community face in land disputes that makes you different from other communities? 2. Thinking of your community as a whole, how confident do you feel that your community will not be involved in a land-related dispute, either with the state, an individual, or a company, in the future? 3. Thinking about collective titling, do you feel that your community owning property collectively makes disputes more likely, less likely, or neither? (If applicable) FOR WOMEN LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 224 1. As women in this community, can you tell me how or whether being involved in a land dispute is different for a woman than it is for a man? 2. Do women have it easier, the same, or harder than men when involved in a land dispute? 3. If you think women have it easier/harder, why do you think this is? Is it because of how men in the community treat women, because women face unique legal issues that men don’t, some other issue, or all of the above? GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIPS AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT A lot of ongoing government relationships and changes are happening now in the country, which may be impacting you and your family. I have a few questions about your engagement with and trust in your local government. 1. When and how do you engage with government officials regarding community land management or rural development? Which officials and in what ways do you engage with them? What is their role? 2. In the last 3 years, is your local government more or less involved in land management or rural development than they used to be? 3. In the last 3 years, have you observed any differences in how local leaders work with/interact with government officials on land or rural development issues? How has this changed for you personally? Please explain these changes. 4. What is the relationship like between your community and the government officials from institutions such as the mayor’s office or Secretariat of Agriculture? PRODUCER ASSOCIATIONS 1. To begin, can you talk a bit about the producer association that you belong to? What product or crop does the producer association work with? Who belongs to the producer association and across how many municipalities? What is the relationship of each individual farmer/producer to the association? 2. What sort of assistance does the producer association provide its members? Lobbying efforts? Technical assistance? Access to credit etc? Tracking progress in the industry? What else? a. [Lobbying Only] If the producer association has been lobbying the government for any particular types of policies associated with your industry, what policies are they? i. What is the impact that these policies would have on your industry? ii. What barriers or obstacles are you facing in regards to lobbying for these policies? iii. If relevant, what government support would you need to help you push forward these policies? LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 225 b. [Technical Assistance] If the association provides technical assistance, what sort of technical assistance does it provide? i. How has this technical assistance helped the communities you work in? ii. What barriers or obstacles are you facing in regards to providing this technical assistance? iii. What support has the government been providing you thus far? How could this support be improved? c. [Access to Credit] If the association provides access to credit, can you please explain this process? i. How does the association select who to help get access to credit? ii. How has access to credit helped the communities you work with? iii. What support has the government been providing you thus far? How could this support be improved? d. In the case of technical assistance and access to credit, what would producers in your community do to gain access to either credit or technical assistance before the association was formalized? Do you find that the association is more efficient at providing these things? e. Do you work in more than one municipality? If so, are there any particular challenges that differ across the municipalities that you work in? 3. Is the producer association that you belong to engaged in a Public-Private Partnership? If so, can you describe this Public-Private Partnership? Who belongs to the partnership? Who are the “public” partners? Who are the “private” partners? a. What are some of the results of having your producer association be part of a public￾private partnership? What do the “public” and “private” partners provide to your association as a whole and the producers individually? i. If your association has experience working in the past with private entities, how does having [‘public partner’ described above’] involved change the relationship between the association and the private entity? Please explain. ii. Do you feel that the association has gotten a “fair deal” in the partnership with the public and private partner, overall? b. Even if on the whole you find the public-private partnership favorable, are there any challenges or difficulties to having your producer association be part of it? Please explain. c. Overall, how would you say that belonging to a public-private partnership altered the way your association functions? What are some of the more significant changes? 4. In looking for producers to incorporate into the association, how do you engage and make choices about which producers to approach about joining the association? Do you look for new associates or do they come to you, generally? Are there any challenges reaching or connecting with certain types of populations? QUESTIONS TO PROBE: a. Do you specifically try to engage any ethnic minorities? If so, how do you do this and what groups do you engage (Afro Colombian, Indigenous)? Are there any barriers you experience in engaging these groups? If so, what do you think could be done to overcome these barriers? LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 226 b. Similarly, do you try to engage women producers? If so, please explain. Are there any barriers you experience engaging women? If so, what do you think could be done to overcome these barriers? c. Now, thinking about producers who have been victimized in the past as a result of the conflict, do you find that you try to engage these producers in your association? How do you engage producers with these backgrounds? Do you find that there are specific challenges to working with and engaging producers who have been victimized? 5. Do you feel that the government has been supportive of the work that you do? Please explain why or why not? a. What do you feel they have been doing well to support your work? b. What do you think they could change in order to improve your work? 6. Looking to the future, what do you see as the biggest areas for growth and improvement for your producer association? How can it be made better and what would that process look like? What would you say are some of the bigger challenges that producer associations face in your region and in the country? CONCLUSION I asked a lot of questions today. Is there anything that you would like to ask me? Did my questions allow you to express your thoughts and feelings about the land and rural development issues of importance to you? If not, is there anything else that you want to add? LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 227 LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 228 ANNEX 7—KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS The KII protocol has been posted in a zip file with all of the PE data collection tools to Land Links, the E3/LU Office land portal at the following URL: https://www.land-links.org/evaluation/land-rural-development-program-colombia/ A copy of the KII protocol can be found on the following pages. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 229 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL This key informant interviews will include the following entities and topic areas. Different modules/topics will be asked for different institutions/agencies. Given the unique context of each key informant across the national and regional levels, the interview protocol may vary for each key informant. MODULES/TOPICS ● LRDP Awareness and Influence (for all informants) ● Restitution ● Formalization ● Rural Development ● Information Management ● PPP Private Sector ● Institutional Coordination and Strengthening (for all informants) ● LRDP Internal Evaluation (LRDP Only) Information for Identification/Interview Record Name of Interviewer: Date of Interview: Location of Interview (City, Municipality) Interview Start Time: Interview End Time: Name of Respondent: Title of Respondent: Respondent Affiliation/Relation to LRDP: Respondent Gender: Modules (List out modules that they will answer) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 230 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT “The Cloudburst Group is conducting a performance evaluation of the Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP). We would be very grateful if we could ask you some questions to help us to better understand the general context of land, restitution, formalization, rural development and information management in Colombia, the LRDP and potentially your agency. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. If you decide to participate, the interview will last approximately 45 minutes. Your contribution is very important to us and we would appreciate your time and input. Results of this interview may be used in LRDP performance evaluation reporting, however depending on your preference, we can either quote your comments directly, only include your name in the list of interviewees, or your responses can remain anonymous. If you wish for your responses to remain anonymous, no identifying information will be stored with your interview. At any time in the interview, you can decide to stop participating. Do you have any questions before we begin?” SECTION 2: BACKGROUND ON RESPONDENT (FOR ALL INFORMANTS) I’d like to start by asking you a bit about yourself and your role. 1. Can you please tell us your title/position? For how long have you been in this position? 2. Please describe your roles and responsibilities. SECTION 3: LRDP ENGAGEMENT and INFLUENCE (FOR ALL INFORMANTS) Next, I would like to ask some questions about your awareness of the LRDP. 1. How long have you been engaged with the LRDP program? 2. How do you collaborate/engage with LRDP? 3. What type of support/technical assistance does LRDP provide to your institution/agency? Please provide examples. 4. Have you attended any interinstitutional dialogues or workshops organized by LRDP? If so, which ones? Did you find them helpful? If not, what would you change? SECTION 4: PROGRAM COMPONENTS Next I’d like to ask you about one or more LRDP program components depending on your exposure to each component. Which of the following LRDP components have you had exposure to? Which component have you had the MOST exposure to? (Start with component they have the most exposure to) • Restitution, aimed at supporting the GOC to return land to victims displaced from their homes by the conflict • Formalization, aimed at supporting the GOC to formalize rural property rights and allocate baldios to those who need land • Rural development, aimed at supporting the GOC to mobilize and execue resources for rural public goods and productive initiatives • Information management, aimed at supporting the GOC to improve information sharing in land right and rural development services LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 231 NOTE: Key Informants will only be asked questions about the program activities/components they have had exposure to. They will start with the component they have had the most exposure to and then be asked “priority questions” across the other components as time allows. Priority questions are marked with ** below. RESTITUTION Next I’d like to ask you about restitution and relevant initiatives in your region or institution/agency. 1. Since 2013, what has been the role of your institution/agency in land restitution? 2. What were the initial start-up challenges of LRDP programming in regards to land restitution? 3. **What specific constraints has your region or institution/agency face in regards to land restitution? Has LRDP helped you solve or alleviate any of these constraints? Please explain and provide examples. 4. **What has been the most important institutional change due to LRDP support in regards to land restitution? How have land restitution outcomes changed because of these institutional changes? 5. **Have there been any unintended positive (easier) /negative (more difficult) aspects of LRDP programming on your institution’s restitution activities or the land restitution process itself? How has LRDP responded to the negative aspects? What course corrections were made and what were the best practices/lessons learned? 6. Has your agency/institution seen any change in the extent that certain groups of rural citizens have been engaged in the land restitution process because of LRDP, for instance women, afro-colombians, indigenous peoples? If yes, can you describe this engagement? If no, what do you think is impeding this engagement? 7. **In the future, how would you like your institution/agency to benefit from LRDP’s support in regards to land restitution? What changes could LRDP make to help your institution/agency receive these benefits? 8. In your opinion, has LRDP supported your institution/agency to: ● Increase the rates of resolved land restitution cases? ● Reduce processing time or costs or number of steps for processing restitution claims? ● Support LRU and judges to work together to reduce processing time, costs or number of steps for restitution ruling? ● Improve the quality of restitution cases presented to judges? ● Increase the number of land restitution cases involving women and ethnic minorities? ● Support the Defensoria so secondary occupants get a better chance of being represented [Def: families occupying land being claimed by others in restitution process] ● If YES, please provide examples. If NO, can you share how you think LRDP could support your institution/agency to achieve these? 9. Restitution micro-focalization happens in some parts of Colombia but not others. In the places that are micro-focalized, what do you see as the primary reason for micro-focalization? 10. Besides the severity of the dispossession or of the security conditions, which other criteria may be used when selecting the areas to be micro-focalized? 11. In your opinion, how feasible will it be for the government of Colombia to fulfill its restitution goals in 2021? Please explain. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 232 FORMALIZATION Next I’d like to ask you about formalization and relevant initiatives in your region or institution /agency. 1. Since 2013, what has been the role of your institution/agency in formalization activities, land management, land administration, adjudication, and planning? 2. What were the initial start-up challenges of LRDP programming in regards to formalization? 3. **What specific challenges or constraints has your region or institution/agency faced in regards to formalization? Has LRDP helped you solve or alleviate any of these challenges? Please explain and provide examples. 4. **In what ways has your institution/agency’s formalization activities changed because of LRDP? Please provide examples. 5. Have LRDP activities contributed to your knowledge of formalization? If so, how? 6. **What has been the most important institutional change due to LRDP support in regards to formalization? How have formalization outcomes changed because of these institutional changes? 7. **Has any LRDP programming been too difficult to implement in your institution/agency in regards to formalization? Similarly, what issues have been the easiest for LRDP programming to address? 8. **Have there been any unintended negative results of LRDP programming on your institution’s formalization activities or the formalization process itself? How has LRDP responded to these challenges? What course corrections were made and what were the lessons learned? 9. Has your agency/institution seen any change in the extent that local governments have been engaged in the formalization process because of LRDP? If yes, can you describe this engagement? If no, what do you think is impeding this process? 10. **What would you ideally like your institution/agency to gain from LRDP’s support in regards to formalization? What changes could LRDP make to help your institution/agency achieve this? 11. In your opinion, has LRDP supported your institution/agency to: ● Reduce processing time or costs or number of steps for processing formalization cases? ● Reduce processing time or costs or number of steps for ANT (the ANT or with its predecessor INCODER’ since before INCODER was liquidated, we directed a lot of support to them.) to adjudicate land to beneficiaries? ● Reduce insecurity of rural families about the possibility of losing all or part of their land to another person? ● Increase the number of public lands identified and recovered by ANT and adjudicated to beneficiaries? ● Increase the number of titles registered in the name of women and ethnic minorities? ● Facilitate the registration of public lands (baldios) in the name of the state? ● Facilitate recovery of public lands that were irregularly acquired? ● If YES, please provide examples. If NO, can you share how you think LRDP could support your institution/agency to achieve these? 12. What are your impressions of the government’s multipurpose cadaster initiative? 13. Have you seen any change in the extent that local governments have been engaged in the formalization process because of LRDP? If yes, can you describe this engagement? If no, what do you think is impeding this process? 14. In your opinion, has LRDP support to the GOC in formalization efforts helped citizens feel more secure in their land tenure? Please explain. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 233 RURAL DEVELOPMENT Next I’d like to ask you about rural development and relevant initiatives in your region or institution/agency. 1. Since 2013, what has been the role of your institution/agency in rural development? Specifically, which rural development activities does your institution/agency carry out? 2. What were the initial start-up challenges of LRDP programming in regards to rural development? 3. When/where did your institution/agency start engaging in these rural development activities? What is the geographic focus of your efforts? 4. **What specific challenges or constraints does your region or institution/agency face in regards to rural development? Has LRDP helped you solve or alleviate any of these challenges? Please explain and provide examples. 5. **In what ways has your institution/agency’s rural development activities changed because of LRDP? Please provide examples. 6. Have LRDP activities contributed to your knowledge of rural development? If so, how? 7. **What has been the most important institutional change due to LRDP support in regards to rural development? How have rural development outcomes changed because of these institutional changes? 8. **Has any LRDP programming been too difficult to implement in your institution/agency in regards to rural development? Similarly, what issues have been the easiest for LRDP programming to address? 9. **Have there been any unintended negative results of LRDP programming on your institution’s rural development activities or the rural development process itself? How has LRDP responded to these challenges? What course corrections were made and what were the lessons learned? 10. From your perspective, has LRDP encouraged your institution/agency to engage more Afro Colombian, indigenous populations and women in the rural development process? If yes, can you describe this engagement? If no, what do you think is impeding this process? 11. **What would you ideally like your institution/agency to gain from LRDP’s support in regards to rural development? What changes could LRDP make to help your institution/agency achieve this? 12. In your opinion, has LRDP supported your institution/agency to: ● Increased number of Departmental/Municipal Rural Development Plans that include reference to rural development? ● Increase number of submissions of rural projects to be funded by Municipal governments? ● Increase number of new LRDP-supported public-private partnerships (PPPs)? ● Increase the number of infrastructure projects?. ● Increase funds mobilized for rural development? ● If YES, please provide examples. If NO, can you share how you think LRDP could support your institution/agency to achieve these? 13. How will the various productive sectors in your region benefit from LRDP rural development support? 14. **How familiar are you with Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)? Has the LRDP initiated PPP’s in the region you oversee? What crops are the PPPs associated with? What is your opinion of PPPs overall in improving rural livelihoods? 15. **How has LRDP support for your institution’s rural development activities impacted the livelihoods of people in your region (or just broadly if Bogota based agency)? Please explain. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 234 INFORMATION SHARING AND MANAGEMENT Next I’d like to ask you about information sharing or management relevant initiatives in your area. 1. Since 2013, what has been the role of your institution/agency in information sharing or management? 2. When/where did your institution/agency start engaging in these information sharing or management activities? 3. **What specific challenges or constraints has your region or institution/agency face in regards to information sharing or management? Has LRDP helped solve or alleviate any of these challenges? Please explain and provide examples. 4. **In what ways has your institution/agency’s information sharing or management activities changed because of LRDP? Please provide examples. 5. What were the initial start-up challenges of LRDP programming in regards to information sharing or management? 6. Have LRDP activities contributed to your knowledge of information sharing or management? If so, how? 7. **What has been the most important institutional change due to LRDP support in regards to information sharing and management? How have information sharing or management outcomes changed because of these institutional changes? 8. **Has any LRDP programming been too difficult to implement in your institution/agency in regards to information sharing or management? Similarly, what issues have been the easiest for LRDP programming to address? 9. **Have there been any unintended negative results of LRDP programming on your institution’s information sharing and management activities or the information sharing or management process itself? How has LRDP responded to these challenges? What course corrections were made and what were the lessons learned? 10. **What would you ideally like your institution/agency to gain from LRDP’s support in regards to information sharing or management? What changes could LRDP make to help your institution/agency achieve this? 11. In your opinion, has LRDP supported your institution/agency to: ● Improve administrators’ information-sharing capacity and efficacy (inter or intra￾institutional) ● Improve institutional access to information needed to make decisions? ● Create project banks to better track and obtain funding. ● If YES, please provide examples. If NO, can you share how you think LRDP could support your institution/agency to achieve these? 12. Are you familiar with the Land Node that the LRDP is helping to create? If so, how do you think the Land Node will impact your be able to help institutions fulfill their individual mandates, such as restitution and formalization. 13. Are you familiar with the LRDPs efforts to digitalize land files and records? If so, how do you think this effort with impact your ability to fulfill your institutional mandate? LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 235 SECTION 5: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND STRENGTHENING (FOR ALL INFORMANTS) Next I’d like to ask you about institutional coordination in your area. 1. How and to what extent does LRDP support your institution/agencies’ coordination or integration with other agencies? Which agencies? Please provide examples on how this has improved or deteriorated. 2. How and to what extent does LRDP support capacity building at your institution/agency? Has LRDP’s support helped you achieve your institutional mandate? Please provide examples. 3. How and to what extent does LRDP programming support the creation and implementation of land and rural development policies? 4. Thinking about the sustainability of your institution/agency’s activities, do you think the benefits and outcomes of LRDP will still be useful in 5 years? Please explain your reasoning in regards to each program component (restitution, formalization, rural development, information sharing and management) SECTION 6: PRIVATE SECTOR IN PPPS (PRIVATE SECTOR PPP ONLY) Next I’d like to ask you about your work from the perspective of the private sector in Private-Public Partnerships. 1. Since 2013, what has been the role of your company in PPPs? What is the geographic focus of these PPPs? What crops are the PPPs associated with? What type of support has LRDP provided to forming and facilitating these PPPs? 2. What were the initial start-up challenges to forming these PPPs? What has been LRDP’s role in forming these PPPs? 3. Based on your experience working with producer associations prior to 2013 (if applicable), how has LRDP changed your role, coordination or capacity to work with producer associations? 4. What specific challenges or constraints does your company face in regards to ongoing coordination of these PPPs? Has LRDP helped you solve or alleviate any of these challenges? Please explain and provide examples. 5. Have there been any unintended negative results of LRDP programming on your company in regards to forming and maintaining these PPP partnerships or on rural development more broadly? If so, how has LRDP responded to these challenges? What course corrections were made and what were the lessons learned? 6. From your perspective, has LRDP encouraged your company to engage more Afro Colombian, indigenous populations and women in these PPPs? If yes, can you describe this engagement? If no, what do you think is impeding this process? Please provide examples. 7. What would you ideally like your company to gain from LRDP’s support in regards to PPPs? What changes could LRDP make to help your company achieve this? 8. How will the various productive sectors in the region you work in benefit from LRDP’s support in regards to PPPs? 9. Have you seen any change in the extent that rural citizens’ livelihoods have been improved from these PPPs since 2013? If yes, please provide examples. If no, what do you think LRDP could do to support these PPPs to achieve this? 10. One of LRDP’s goals is to use PPPs as a cross-cutting activity to support restitution beneficiaries, help rural families on the land titling process, and increase rural development in their respective regions. To what extent have you seen or been exposed to this cross-cutting approach? How would LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 236 you recommend that LRDP try to target these specific households (restitution, those with informal tenure security, etc.)? Please provide examples. 11. Do you feel that the partnership is likely to continue once the LRDP ends? If yes, why? And if no, why not? SECTION 7: LRDP INTERNAL EVALUATION (FOR LRDP STAFF ONLY) Next I’d like to ask questions about LRDP challenges and outcomes. 1. In your region, which institutions/agencies are you directly involved with? 2. Please explain the impact that the activities you are involved at are having in said regions or institutions/agencies. How has your involvement overtime with these institutions changed? INCODER for example? 3. What were the initial start-up challenges of LRDP activities you encountered? 4. What would you ideally like the institutions/agencies you deal to gain from LRDP’s support? 5. From your perspective, what has been the most important outcome of LRDP programming? 6. From your perspective, what has been the most challenging in regards to LRDP programming? 7. Have there been any unintended negative results of LRDP programming? How has LRDP responded to these challenges? What course corrections were made and what were the lessons learned? From what you have observed, what changes could be made to improve LRDP activities across the various regions and/or institutions/agencies? 8. From your perspective, has LRDP encouraged said institutions/agencies to engage more Afro Colombian and/or indigenous populations and/or youth in their work? If yes, can you describe this engagement? If no, what do you think is impeding this process? 9. From your perspective, has LRDP encouraged said institutions/agencies to engage more women in their work? If yes, can you describe this engagement? If no, what do you think is impeding this process? 10. What have been some of the challenges in implementing LRDP activities in your particular region? 11. In your opinion, what have been some of the most important outcomes of LRDP activities? 12. Thinking more generally, do you think LRDP is using an integrated approach among all of its program components? If yes, how so? 13. What impact has LRDP had on coordination across all the various regional and national institutions in Colombia? Please explain and provide examples. 14. What impact has LRDP had on the creation and implementation of land and rural development policies? Please explain and provide examples. 15. Do you think the benefits and outcomes of LRDP will still exist in 10 years? Please explain your reasoning in regards to each program component (restitution, formalization, rural development etc)? What are the main improvements you would make to LRDP programming across the various components? SECTION 8: INTERVIEW WRAP-UP/CONCLUSION (FOR ALL INFORMANTS) 1. Do you have any final comments on LRDP that you wish to share at this time? 2. Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 237 Anonymity preference – the respondent consents to: [ ] Direct quote of comments [ ] Include name in list of interviewees, but not direct quote of comments [ ] Responses remain anonymous LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 238 ANNEX 8—LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES LACK OF COOPERATION FROM KEY INFORMANTS While most informants in the original lists were fully responsive, the final lists reflect some slight deviations from the originals due to difficulties in scheduling interviews with the intended key informant. In many cases, interviewees were difficult to contact for interview scheduling due to outdated contact information or busy schedules. Once scheduled, there were additional challenges in completing interviews because stakeholders would often have to cancel and reschedule interviews. In some cases, stakeholders pushed for shorter interviews than the original allotment. Finally, in many cases, stakeholders would insist on having a subordinate replace them in the interview. This was particularly the case with mayors, who are often not in their municipality and would ask the team to interview the Secretary of Government instead. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION LOCATIONS While the PE team worked with LRDP and USAID to select relevant FGD areas, adjustments were made in cases where communities were inaccessible. Communities that were more than three hours away from an urban location were ultimately not considered for a FGD. For indigenous territories where the PE team was not allowed to enter, the discussion participants were given a travel allowance to come to an urban location as well as provided food upon arrival. The PE team ensured that the locations of the FGDs were private in order for respondents to feel comfortable communicating their thoughts. BENEFICIARY IDENTIFICATION & RESPONSIVENESS Regarding the beneficiary household survey, the sampling frame relied heavily on the quality of sub￾municipal data for restitution, producer associations and formalization. The availability of data was defined by whether the individual in charge of the data or information was responsive to the request or not. The evaluation team used LRDP’s “Programming Matrix” to identify who needed to be contacted, but responsiveness was not always consistent. The quality of data also varied by individual. Producer association lists consisted of photos of documents or a combination of handwritten names of individuals and communities. Additionally, several producer associations did not have lists, or the lists did not have complete information. Given the challenges of collecting such data from rural communities and individuals, all producer association totals by village may not always be accurate. For formalization, related contacts, most individuals did not have a list of beneficiaries. To overcome this challenge, the data collection firm was given the contact information of individual leaders in order to request that they support the firm in gathering a group of beneficiaries. Where leaders were not available, lists of names were generated (if available) and given to the survey firm in order for them to attempt to contact those individuals once they arrived in the selected village. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 239 LACK OF COOPERATION FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT In some cases, local governments were uncooperative with data collection. Some municipalities informed the survey team upon arrival that special permissions would have to be acquired, which in some cases slowed down the data collection process and in others made data collection impossible. In contexts where indigenous communities governed a village, the team often met resistance from these groups in carrying out surveys, either asking for extensive documents of permission from their leaders or outright refusal to have the team conduct surveys in their village. In these instances, alternative survey locations had to be identified. DIFFICULT SURVEY CONDITIONS Climate and distance often conspired to make data collection more difficult. In a few cases, recent rains made road access to certain communities impossible or too costly. In a broader set of cases, communities selected by the LRDP, LRU, or identified by the PE team as ideal sample locations turned out to be very far from the municipal head, in some cases as much as six hours from the urban center of the municipality. Surveying these communities would be too costly, and closer alternatives had to be found. Given that community-level information was collected while in country and during the data collection process, the PE team did not always immediately have community-level geographic and transport data so it was impossible to incorporate distance into the selection criteria prior to data collection. However, village substitutes were minimal and was only replaced if there was an adequate/comparable village for replacement. Below is a list of the number of veredas that were replaced by municipality. Department Municipality Numbers of Veredas Replaced Reason Cesar Agustín Codazzi 1 The producer association leader recommended another vereda that was easier to access Cauca Caldono 1 The leader of the local government council (gobernador del cabildo) would not allow access Antioquia Canasgordas 1 Security Issues: An armed group (Clan del Golfo) operating in the area. Meta Cumaral 2 There were landslides at the time of the survey Nor De Santa El Carmen 2 The community is far away from the urban center Quindio Génova 1 The community is far away from the urban center Antioquia Giraldo 1 Security issues Córdoba Los Córdobas 1 The community is far away from the urban center Cauca Paez (Belalcazar) 2 The leaders of the local government council (gobernador del cabildo) would not allow access Cauca Popayán 2 The leaders of the local government council (gobernador del cabildo) would not allow access Cesar Pueblo Bello 1 Community is far from urban center Meta Puerto Gaitán 2 Community is far from urban center Antioquia Salgar 1 The houses are about one hour walk from one to the other (very dispersed) Bolívar San Jacinto 1 LRU confirmed another vereda as a better alternative Sucre San Juan De Betulia 1 Road issues trying to reach community Caquetá San Vicente Del Caguán 1 Community is far from urban center La Guajira Villanueva 1 Community is far from urban center Antioquia Canasgordas 1 Threats from armed group LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 240 SAFETY & THREATS In a few cases the survey team encountered safety concerns that required altering the sampling strategy. El Tarro—a municipality originally selected based on matching—had to be replaced based on information provided to the survey team that there was armed group presence in the area. Once in the field, the team also encountered several instances where either armed groups or coca cultivation was taking place in a village meant to be sampled. Either a representative of the armed group or a local told the team that surveying the community would not be possible. In one case, armed group members threatened to confiscate survey tablets from the team. In all of these cases, replacement communities were selected. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 241 ANNEX 9—BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY OUTCOME TABLES Overall Gender Ethnic minorities Programming Comparison Programming Comparison Programming Comparison Formalization Outcome trust_mard Respondent trusts the MARD works in the benefit of small and large landholders 39% (195) 41% (297) 34% (47) 45% (167) 33% (32) 35% (68) trust_incoder Respondent trusts the National Land Agency (ANT) formally known as the Colombian Rural Development Institute (INCODER) distributes public land fairly 36% (99) 34% (235) 35% (48); 34% (126) 35% (33) 39% (74) landdoc_3 Respondent was issued their land ownership documents within the past 3 years. 42% (22) 38% (35) 44% (7) 40% (17) 35% (9) 37% (14) land_evict In the last year, respondent was been threatened with eviction from your land. 3% (3) 9% (18) 0% 14% (13) 2% (1) 8% (5) homedoc_3 Respondent was issued their home ownership documents within the past 3 years. 44% (57) 28% (88) 43% (26) 24% (37) 42% (19) 28% (24) home_invest Respondent has invested more time and/or money in your home and land in the past 3 years than in prior years. 59% (164) 53% (389) 56% (76) 48% (186) 57% (54) 55% (107) boundary_com Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: The boundaries of my land are clear and respected by individuals in my community 90% (251) 83% (617) 92% (128) 83% (323) 89% (86) 75% (126) encroach_govt Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I am confident that the government cannot take any of my land without negotiation and fair compensation 78% (207) 68% (494) 74% (96) 69% (263) 70% (63) 63% (120) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 242 Overall Gender Ethnic minorities Programming Comparison Programming Comparison Programming Comparison encroach_outside Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I am confident that an outside group cannot take any of my land without negotiation and fair compensation 69% (184) 62% (448) 65% (85) 63% (240) 57% (52) 57% (110) land_conflict Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I am confident that conflict will NOT arise over my land in the future 79% (218) 67% (493) 74% (101) 67% (209) 79% (75) 69% (135) land_knowledge Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I know more about my land and property rights now than I did 3 years ago 75% (201) 62% (428) 72% (92) 60% (212) 73% (64) 62% (106) land_conresolve Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I know where or whom to go to if I have a conflict or dispute about my land 76(191) 70% (502) 71% (86) 71% (256) 77% (65) 73% (135) land_legal Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I have access to legal representation if I have a land-related dispute 66% (173) 65% (454) 69% (86) 61% (222) 73% (67) 70% (133) rentyn Someone in respondent’s household earned income from leasing or renting your land in the past three years. 7% (19) 3% (22) 6% (8) 2% (8) 7% (7) 3% (6) Restitution Outcome rights_understand Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: Citizens’ land rights are clear and easy to understand for most citizens in Colombia 46% (208) 43% (290) 42% (96) 43% (164) 45% (59) 43% (81) rights_protect Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: Citizen's land rights are well protected by the authorities of Colombia 50% (242) 51% (361) 46% (112) 51% (191) 51% (71) 50% (95) dis_ruv Respondent is registered in the National Registry of Victims 73% (205) 56% (160) 73% (96) 62% (92) 74% (66) 57% (43) lru_know Respondent has heard of the LRU 86% (429) 77% (580) 83% (207) 74% (294) 88% (127) 77% (150) lru_location Respondent knows where the closest office of the LRU is located 42% (175) 23% (132) 36% (73) 21% (60) 41% (49) 25% (36) con_reptrust Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I trust my legal counsel (LRU, NGO, private lawyer etc) and feel they have my best interest in mind 84% (47) 63% (15) 89% (16) 67% (8) 80% (8) 50% (2) lru_trust Respondent trusts the LRU. 58% (242) 53% (284) 55% (109) 51% (137) 60% (75) 56% (79) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 243 Overall Gender Ethnic minorities Programming Comparison Programming Comparison Programming Comparison lru_clear Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: The administrative and judicial procedures of the land restitution process have been clear and easy to understand 58% (242) 53% (284) 61% (25); 63% (20); 56% (92) 59% (13) lru_easy Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: The administrative and judicial procedures of the land restitution process have been easy to participate in 53% (58) 44% (26) 57% (22) 59% (17) 53% (18) 59% (13) rest_respect Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: Government officials have treated me respectfully throughout the land restitution process 69% (75) 61% (37) 80% (32) 58% (18) 64% (23) 57% (12) rest_local Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: Local Government is committed to enforce the land restitution orders 65% (295) 59% (406) 63% (142) 57% (205) 70% (94) 61% (112) rest_public Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I feel comfortable talking about the restitution process in public 75% (85) 72% (45) 81% (33) 68% (21) 84% (32) 81% (17) rest_equal Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I have been treated the same as everyone else in the restitution process, irrespective of my gender or ethnicity 71% (91) 66% (99) 73% (56) 66% (57) 67% (69) 63% (83) rest_fair Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I feel that the land restitution process is fair and just 62% (286) 54% (377) 60% (138) 53% (192) 58% (78) 58% (107) rest_time Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: I feel that the land restitution process has been timely and moving at a reasonable pace 59% (66) 51% (32) 64% (27) 65% (21) 64% (24) 65% (15) rest_improve Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: My overall perception of the land restitution process has improved during the last three years 63% (69) 45% (28) 72% (29) 55% (17) 66% (23) 65% (15) con_befpeace Respondent feels secure or very secure that they will not be displaced from their land or have to abandon it 51% (242) 50% (358) 45% (107) 43% (160) 52% (71) 46% (87) Rural Development Outcome LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 244 Overall Gender Ethnic minorities Programming Comparison Programming Comparison Programming Comparison satisfy_mungovt Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: Overall, I am very satisfied with the work of the municipal government in rural development 42%(240) 37%(271) 40%(112) 40%(157) 45%(76) 37%(72) dev_road Respondent is satisfied or strongly satisfied with the quality of roads in your municipality. 34% (196) 34% (251) 32% (90) 35% (139) 35% (61) 29% (57) dev_infastructure Respondent believes the infrastructure services their municipality is providing to them are good or very good. 27% (155) 32% (236) 23% (66) 32% (127) 28% (49) 19% (38) dev_irr Respondent is satisfied or strongly satisfied with the quality of irrigation infrastructure in your municipality. 34% (138) 41% (209) 32% (60) 41% (109) 40% (51) 30% (42) dev_assistyn Respondent or someone in respondent’s household has received any technical assistance from the government to help improve agricultural production. 29% (167) 24% (177) 28% (77) 23% (89) 25% (43) 20% (39) dev_assistben Respondent believes the technical assistance has been beneficial or very beneficial. 79% (131) 80% (142) 84% (64) 77% (68) 86% (37) 74% (29) dev_subyn Respondent has received any subsidies from the government in the past 3 years to help agricultural producers. 16% (94) 8% (59) 14% (39) 7% (27) 13% (22) 10% (19) dev_subsat Respondent is satisfied or strongly satisfied with the results of the subsidies. 82% (77) 77% (45) 75% (29) 78% (21) 95% (21) 64% (12) dev_projectyn In the past 3 years, respondent or someone in respondent’s household has participated in a private-public partnership (PPP) related to agriculture, livestock, or water management. 17% (99) 8% (63) 15% (43) 7% (29) 21% (36) 10% (20) dev_projectsat Respondent is satisfied or strongly satisfied with the results of the productive project. 69% (67) 85% (52) 67% (29) 82% (23) 69% (25) 80% (16) dev_satcompany Respondent is satisfied or strongly satisfied overall in working with the private company (partner). 68% (59) 66% (34) 70% (22) 65% (13) 67% (22) 65% (13) dev_change Respondent has noticed any changes in their household income as a result of participating in this project. 61% (60) 66% (40) 53% (23) 68% (19) 64% (23) 65% (13) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 245 Overall Gender Ethnic minorities Programming Comparison Programming Comparison Programming Comparison dev_projectben Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: Over the past 3 years, my household has benefited from government development projects. 26% (146) 21% (147) 24% (64) 20% (79) 32% (53) 24% (64) dev_job Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: Over the past 3 years, it has become easier to find a job in my municipality. 26% (146) 24% (180) 22% (60) 21% (80) 30% (49) 22% (44) dev_life Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that: Over the past 3 years, the quality of life for my household has improved. 51% (293) 53% (396) 48% (137) 50% (196) 50% (86) 47% (94) mtng_yn In the past 12 months, respondent or someone in respondent’s household has participated in a meeting to discuss a municipal or regional development plans. 11% (64) 7% (51) 9% (25) 6% (24) 18% (30) 7% (14) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 246 ANNEX 10—STAKEHOLDER SURVEY OUTCOME TABLES FORMALIZATION Variable Description Overall Mayors awarecivform Respondent believes women in their municipality are aware or very aware of their land rights and land titling 55% (12) lrdpsatisfied_2 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to formalization of land rights. 75% (3) agree_engage Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to engage with citizens on land rights services. 50% (5) agree_women2 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to formalization services. 60% (6) agree_ethnic2 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to give ethnic minorities stronger access to formalization services. 60% (6) agree_formalize Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to formalize rural property rights. 60% (6) LRU formtimeincrease Respondent feels the average length of time to issue titles in a formalization program has increased or greatly increased in the past 3 years. 50% (2) formtimey Respondents’ average estimate of the processing time to formalize ownership. 13.5 months lrdpsatisfied_2 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to formalization of land rights. 80% (4) agree_engage Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to engage with citizens on land rights services. 55% (21) agree_women2 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to formalization services. 39% (14) agree_ethnic2 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to give ethnic minorities stronger access to formalization services. 31% (11) Judges lrdpsatisfied_2 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to formalization of land rights. 100% (5) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 247 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Variable Description Overall Mayors lrdpsatisfied_7 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to information systems. 100% (1) agree_infosupport Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to use and manage information to support land rights services. 80% (8) agree_infoshare Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to share information with other agencies/municipalities to support land rights services. 80% (8) LRU systrckclaims Respondent believes the information system used to keep track of victims’ claims is in their specific department or municipality is effective or very effective. 75% (27) systrckcases Respondent believes the information system used to keep track of ongoing restitution cases is in their specific department or municipality is effective or very effective. 80% (29) lrdpsatisfied_7 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to information systems. 80% (4) agree_infosupport Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to use and manage information to support land rights services. 61% (11) agree_infoshare Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to share information with other agencies/municipalities to support land rights services. 56% (10) infoimprove_1 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by the Red Nacional de Información (RNI) of the Victims Unit 8% (3) infoimprove_2 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by the LRU 64% (23) infoimprove_3 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by the Judiciary 6% (2) infoimprove_4 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by the Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro 22% (8) infoimprove_5 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by other GOC agencies at the national level 6% (2) infoimprove_6 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by international cooperation agencies 33% (12) infoimprove_7 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by NGOs 3% (1) infoimprove_8 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by your own institution (other than the above) 11% (4) infoimprove_9 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsorted by Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) 25% (9) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 248 Variable Description Overall infoimprove_10 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — No programs to improve information systems 8% (3) infoimpben_1 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — More information is available 36% (13) infoimpben_2 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — More information is accurate and periodically updated 47% (17) infoimpben_3 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — More information is relevant or helpful 17% (6) infoimpben_4 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — Information systems are faster and more reliable 28% (10) infoimpben_5 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — I have not seen any benefits 14% (5) Judges systrckclaims Respondent believes the information system used to keep track of victims’ claims is in their specific department or municipality is effective or very effective. 44% (10) systrckcases Respondent believes the information system used to keep track of ongoing restitution cases is in their specific department or municipality is effective or very effective. 65% (15) lrdpsatisfied_7 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to information systems. 25% (1) agree_infosupport Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to use and manage information to support land rights services. 44% (4) agree_infoshare Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to share information with other agencies/municipalities to support land rights services. 44% (4) infoimprove_1 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by the Red Nacional de Información (RNI) of the Victims Unit 13% (3) infoimprove_2 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by the LRU 17% (4) infoimprove_3 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by the Judiciary 70% (16) infoimprove_4 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by the Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro 100% (23) infoimprove_5 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by other GOC agencies at the national level 4% (1) infoimprove_6 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by international cooperation agencies 39% (9) infoimprove_7 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by NGOs 13% (3) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 249 Variable Description Overall infoimprove_8 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsored by your own institution (other than the above) 13% (3) infoimprove_9 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — Programs sponsorted by Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) 100% (23) infoimprove_10 In the past three years, there have been programs to improve the respondent’s office’s/institution’s information management systems — No programs to improve information systems 4% (1) infoimpben_1 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — More information is available 43% (10) infoimpben_2 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — More information is accurate and periodically updated 48% (11) infoimpben_3 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — More information is relevant or helpful 39% (9) infoimpben_4 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — Information systems are faster and more reliable 30% (7) infoimpben_5 Respondent’s office/institution has experienced benefits with regards to information management due to this/these program(s) — I have not seen any benefits 4% (1) RESTITUTION Variable Description Overall Mayors lrdpsatisfied_1 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Restitution-related training or TA. 40% (2) lrdpsatisfied_5 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to gender issues. 50% (1) agree_restitution Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has helped reduce their office’s processing time for restitution claims. 60% (6) agree_women1 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/municipality’s capacity to comply with restitution rulings. 50% (5) agree_ethnic1 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/municipality’s capacity to support the rights of secondary occupants. 50% (5) agree_rights Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to support the rights of secondary occupants. 22% (2) LRU proctimey Based on respondent’s experience, what they say is the average processing time for a restitution case, from the point when the case is initiated by the LRU to the point the administrative file is finalized. 8.3 months LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 250 Variable Description Overall timeincreaseady Respondent believes the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases increased or significantly increased over the past 3 years. 53% (19) capincrease Respondent believes the LRU’s capacity to process restitution cases for collective territories and ethnic communities has increased or significantly increased over the past 3 years. 69% (25) capincreaseeth Based on respondent’s experience, they feel the average length of time for the administration phase of restitution cases has decreased or significantly decreased in the past 3 years. 9% (3) lrdpsatisfied_1 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Restitution-related training or TA. 91% (10) lrdpsatisfied_5 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to formalization of land rights. 87% (7) agree_time Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has helped reduce their office's processing time for restitution claims. 45% (8) agree_restitution Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/municipality’s capacity to comply with restitution rulings. 56% (10) agreelrujudge1 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/municipality’s connection to local government actors. 52% (19) agreelrujudge2 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/municipality’s connections to other national and regional agencies. 69% (14) agree_women1 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institutions’/municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to restitution services. 53% (19) agree_ethnic1 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/institutions’/municipality’s capacity to give ethnic minorities stronger access to restitution services. 33% (12) timeincreaseadmyes_1 Why the respondent thinks the average length of time for the administrative portions of restitution cases has increased in the past 3 years — The process is not easy to understand 5% (1) timeincreaseadmyes_2 Why the respondent thinks the average length of time for the administrative portions of restitution cases has increased in the past 3 years — Defendants can provide sufficient evidence that requires more elaborate investigation 11% (2) timeincreaseadmyes_3 Why the respondent thinks the average length of time for the administrative portions of restitution cases has increased in the past 3 years — Characterization studies take a long time 100% (19) Judges admintime Based on respondent’s experience, they feel the average length of time for the administration phase of restitution cases has decreased in the past 3 years. 35% (8) restprocchng Based on respondent’s experience, the restitution process in Colombia has improved or greatly improved in the past 3 years. 91% (21) lrdpsatisfied_1 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Restitution-related training or TA. 75% (3) lrdpsatisfied_5 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to formalization of land rights. 67% (4) agree_restitution Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/municipality’s capacity to comply with restitution rulings. 55% (5) agreelrujudge1 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/municipality’s connection to local government actors. 22% (2) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 251 Variable Description Overall agreelrujudge2 Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved their office’s/municipality’s connections to other national and regional agencies. 44% (4) RURAL DEVELOPMENT Variable Description Overall Mayors agree_register Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to support rural development for rural households. 60% (6) agree_ruraldev Respondent agrees or strongly agrees that LRDP has improved my offices/municipality’s capacity to support rural development specifically for conflict victims. 60% (6) projectincrease In the past 3 years, there has been an increase or significant increase in the number of submissions of rural projects to be funded departmental or national government. 46% (10) percentsuccess Based on the respndent’s perception, approximately 71% or higher of submissions of rural projects to be funded, have been successful in the past 3 years. 10% (1) amountfund Average approximate amount of funds that have been secured for these submissions in the past 3 years. 118.7 COP31 pppnew There been new PPPs initiated in the respondent’s municipality in the past 3 years. 38% (6) pppimportant Respondent believes that PPPs are important or very important for increasing incomes and improving the livelihoods for producers and their families in their municipality. 94% (15) pppeffective Respondent believes that the PPPs are effective or very effective in improving the livelihoods of VICTIMS OF CONFLICT in your municipality. 86% (9) pppvic Respondent believes that the PPPs are effective or very effective in improving the livelihoods of ETHNIC MINORITES in conflict-affected areas in your municipality. 43% (7) pppeth Respondent believes that the PPPs are effective or very effective in improving the livelihoods of WOMEN in conflict￾affected areas in your municipality. 69% (11) pppwom Respondent believes the agriculture secretariat in their department is effective or very effective at supporting rural development projects that benefit communities. 55% (12) womenppp Respondent has seen change in the extent that women are engaged in PPPs in the past 3 years. 41% (9) lrdpsatisfied_3 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to development planning. 75% (3) lrdpsatisfied_4 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to productive projects. 100% (3) lrdpsatisfied_6 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to rural infrastructure. 100% (1) agreemayor Respondent believes LRDP has improved or greatly improved the respondent’s office’s/municipality’s connection to national and regional agencies. 40% (4) 31 Due to the low N for this variable, this mean is not fully representative. The distribution is highly left-skewed and the median stakeholder reported receiving only 10 million pesos in funds. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 252 Variable Description Overall agree_women3 Respondent believes LRDP has improved or greatly improved the respondent’s office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to give women stronger access to rural development services. 70% (7) agree_ethnic3 Respondent believes LRDP has improved or greatly improved the respondent’s office’s/institution’s/municipality’s capacity to give ethnic minorities stronger access to rural development services. 70% (7) LRU lrdpsatisfied_3 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to development planning. 100% (5) lrdpsatisfied_4 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to productive projects. 50% (1) lrdpsatisfied_6 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to rural infrastructure. 100% (2) Judges lrdpsatisfied_4 Respondent is satisfied or very satisfied with the Training or TA related to productive projects. 67% (2) LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 253 ANNEX 11—BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY REGRESSION TABLES The beneficiary household survey regression tables can be found on the following pages. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 254 FORMALIZATION LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 255 RESTITUTION LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 256 RURAL DEVELOPMENT LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 257 ANNEX 12—LRDP WORK PLAN & EVALUATION DESIGN The LRDP evaluation work plan and evaluation design report has been posted to Land Links, the E3/LU Office land portal at the following URL: https://www.land-links.org/evaluation/land-rural-development-program-colombia/ LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 258 ANNEX 13—EVALUATION TEAM The Cloudburst Group assigned an evaluation team composed of five core personnel: Evaluation Manger (Dr. Heather Huntington), Evaluation Team Leader (Mr. David F. Varela), Senior Land Analyst (Ms. Ana Montoya), Evaluation Specialist (Ms. Nicole Walter), and Senior Research Analyst (Mr. Juan Tellez). The overall evaluation effort was managed and coordinated by the Evaluation Manager. With the exception of the Evaluation Manager, the core team collaborated on the KIIs and meetings with primary stakeholders in Bogotá. Three members of the team served as the key field team personnel—Evaluation Team Leader, Senior Land Analyst, and Evaluation Specialist—for the municipal-level data collection and were responsible for conducting KIIs across the five programming regions. In addition, the team included two local subject matter experts (SMEs) (Anthropologists) who focused on the organization, implementation and analysis of FGDs. Cloudburst also partnered with a local Colombian data collection firm (IPSOS) to collect the required quantitative data for the study, including the large beneficiary survey and structured interviews with GoC stakeholders. With support from Cloudburst home staff and the Evaluation Specialist, the Senior Research Analyst was primarily responsible for training and managing the local data collection firm and survey analysis. All team members collaborated on data analysis and drafting of the final report. KEY PERSONNEL Evaluation Team Leader—David F. Varela led the team during the field based data collection. He served as the team’s subject matter expert on context and land related issues for the evaluation. Mr. Varela also assisted with conducting qualitative interviews with regional and Bogotá-based key informants. He also assisted with quality assurance for all efforts including analysis and report generation. Senior Land Analyst—Ana Maria Montoya supported the development of the research design, as well as quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments. Ms. Montoya helped coordinate and conduct the qualitative interviews and data collection in Bogotá and at the regional level. She assisted Mr. Tellez in the research preparations related to the training of the data collection firm. Evaluation Specialist—Nicole Walter coordinated field based data collection including qualitative and quantitative data collection. Ms. Walter also supported the development of the research design, the quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments, and interpreted and analyzed data. Ms. Walter also provided the team with mapping or geo spatial support, as needed. OTHER TEAM MEMBERS Evaluation Manager—Heather Huntington managed the evaluation and provided technical direction for instrument development and data analysis. She served as the principal point of contact with the USAID technical office and the implementing partners. With the collaboration of the team, she LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 259 coordinated the development of work plans, scopes for assignments, prepared all major deliverables and ensure that deliverables were high quality and timely. Senior Research Analyst—Juan Tellez supported the development of research design and drafting of quantitative and qualitative data collection tools. He focused on in-country survey firm training and management, and led the quantitative survey data analysis. Mr. Tellez also conducted interviews in Bogotá, and supported the collection and analysis of any secondary data, as needed. Local SME—Paula Guerrero helped coordinate the KIIs in Bogotá and led the FGD effort across the regions. She worked closely with LRDP and community leaders to organize, conduct and analyze the findings from each FGD with program beneficiaries. Local SME—Tania Bonilla supported Paula Guerrero in organizing, conducting and reporting on each of the FGDs. Research Analysts—Aleta Haflett, Aidan Schneider, and Ben Ewing provide as-needed support by conducting: survey programming, survey firm management, data cleaning and analysis; field work travel and logistics; deliverable formatting and branding; and PE communications. Senior Land Tenure SME—Karol Boudreaux provided quality assurance of technical deliverables and STARR IQC reporting. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 260 ANNEX 14—FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION REPORTS The individual FGD reports, in the original Spanish, begin on the following page. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 261 CESAR REGIONAL Caracterization for restitution process Yukpa Indigenous FGD Type Yukpa Indigenous Name of Facilitator: Name of Notetaker: Paula Guerrero Tania Bonilla Date of Discussion: 27/03/2017 Location of Discussion (City, Municipality) Valledupar Description of Discussion Location Hotel Discussion Start Time: 11:00 am Discussion End Time: 1 pm Number of Women 1 Number of Men 6 Key findings: • USAID has worked together with the LRU in the yukpa case from march 2015. • LRU had been granting land to peasants who had lost their land because of the armed conflict, Yukpa community opposed this process: o “This is a complex process in our territory because it generates problems with the peasants because they are being given back lands that are part of our ancestral territory. It is a process that seeks the peasants to recover what they left because of violence but that territory has always been ours" o “The State formed the Land Restitution Unit but had not created an ethnic chapter. They included it from the 004 AUTO and the safeguard plan, so they included indigenous communities”. • The team that made the characterization was composed of an anthropologist, a lawyer, a surveyor, a cadastral engineer, an environmental engineer and a social worker. o “In that characterization, we walked and talked with the professionals who were performing it. We visited rivers and mountains and also the ancestral sites where we practice our culture, because there were many affectations by the paramilitary and guerrilla groups, as well as by the army " • During the four months it lasted, the professionals visited the territory for three times for one week to meet with the traditional authorities and with groups of women, children, young and old to collect the information needed. • They emphasize the good coordination in the logistics and the resources contributed for the food, the realization of the maps and the topographic description to indicate the lands that must be bought, to clean or to extend the Resguardo. • Between the shortcomings, they mentioned they could not reach the whole territory: o “Specifically, the points that were not visited were those where paramilitary groups still exist and do not allow access to them; also some estates where the landowners did not allow us to enter those territories just because they own them, although they are in Yukpa territory” • Regarding land issues, indigenous assured that they do not trust in the government. The acts that have been directed by the government, do not meet their expectations. o “year after year there are promises and more promises and not concrete results. The State is not interested in complying. We have been working on the territorial LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 262 issue for several years, we have talked about the need to put limits on our territory and the results are not yet seen." • During this process the National Victims Unit wanted to work together with the Land Restitution Unit but the Yukpas did not accept. o "[NVU] they wanted to come the same time with LRU together to do the same [caracterization] job but we said we needed different processes." o “Their argument was that they wanted to work together because the budget was not enough to carry out the processes separately. For us this is different information and should be done separately. They just wanted to save some money; if both processes were carried out together, the members of our communities could be confused.” • They expect the judgment will give compliance and justice to their territorial rights, restoring them their land, clarifying and expanding their Resguardos by buying the lands to peasants and settlers. • At the end of the restitution process they hope to have their ancestral territory back. El 27 de marzo atendieron a la reunión siete indígenas yukpas, pertenecientes a los Resguardos Del Rosario, Bella Vista y Yucatán, La Laguna, Cinco Caminos, El Corso, y Caño Padilla. Todos resguardos que se conformaron entre el 2000 y el 2001. Según expresaron los indígenas asistentes a la reunión, los yukpas son descendientes los caribe, último pueblo hablante de esta lengua. Se encuentran ubicados en los Municipios de La Paz y Codazzi, y se caracterizan por ser una sociedad cazadora-recolectora. “Fue durante el mes de marzo del 2015 que se nos convocó para socializarse el proyecto de restitución de tierras y en donde se nos comentó que la caracterización para este proceso sería financiada por USAID”, dijo uno de los asistentes a la reunión. Según señalaron, el programa de restitución de tierras inició como un proceso a favor de los colonos y campesinos que perdieron sus tierras durante el conflicto armado que vive el país. Sin embargo, los yukpas consideran que “este proceso es complejo en nuestro territorio porque nos genera problemas con los campesinos ya que a ellos se les está devolviendo tierras que hacen parte de nuestro territorio ancestral, es seguirle dando tierras al campesino que son de los yukpas. Es un proceso que busca que los campesinos recuperen lo que dejaron con la violencia pero ese territorio siempre ha sido nuestro”, señaló uno de los indígenas. Otro indígena agregó inmediatamente que “el Estado conformó la Unidad de Restitución de Tierras pero no había creado un capítulo étnico. Éste lo incluyeron a partir del auto 004 y el plan de salvaguarda, así es que se incluyeron a las comunidades indígenas”. Otro hombre agregó, “en nuestro caso, la primera convocatoria que recibimos de la Unidad de Restitución de Tierras se realizó en la casa indígena. Nos convocó la Unidad y USAID”. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 263 Durante el proceso de caracterización que se desarrolló con la Unidad de Restitución de Tierras y con USAID, se realizaron tres grandes reuniones. “En esa caracterización, nosotros caminamos y hablamos con los profesionales que la estaban realizando. Se recogió la información sobre la problemática que viven los campesinos y los indígenas, así como también los sitios ancestrales donde nosotros practicamos nuestra cultura. Visitamos ríos y montañas porque hubo muchas afectaciones por parte de los grupos paramilitares y guerrilleros, así como también por parte del ejército”, señaló uno de los indígenas. Según expresaron, el equipo que realizó la caracterización estaba compuesto por un antropólogo, un abogado, un topógrafo, un ingeniero catastral, un ingeniero ambiental y un trabajador social. Para los siete asistentes a la reunión, el trabajo que se realizó durante la caracterización “fue bastante bueno. Yo estuve como facilitador para ubicar los puntos, para ver cómo era el resguardo, hacer el LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 264 mapa, ubicar los sitios en el resguardo. Se trató de un trabajo mancomunado para que saliera todo bien. Durante los cuatro meses que duró, los profesionales visitaron el territorio durante tres veces, cada temporada duraba ocho días para reunirse con las autoridades tradicionales y con grupos de mujeres, niños, jóvenes y ancianos para recoger toda la información que se necesitaba”. Para ellos, la buena coordinación en la logística, los recursos que aportaron para la comida, la realización de los mapas y la descripción topográfica para señalar los terrenos que se deben comprar, sanear o ampliar, significa un gran paso. Otro indígena agregó que, “a algunos sitios sagrados sólo fueron los ancianos porque los blancos no pueden entrar a estos lugares. Por ejemplo a los cementerios, los lugares en donde se encuentran las plantas medicinales, las montañas, las lagunas. Todos esos sitios son sagrados para nosotros, son ancestrales. Aunque actualmente, muchos de nuestros sitios sagrados se encuentran en manos de colonos y/o terratenientes”. No obstante, para el pueblo yukpa cuatro meses fue un período demasiado corto para realizar el trabajo y consideran que, aunque se trató de hacer la caracterización de todo el territorio, los puntos que no se visitaron no permitieron hablar específicamente y con detalle sobre éstos. “Específicamente los puntos que no se visitaron fueron en los que aún se encuentran grupos paramilitares y que no permiten el acceso a ellos; como también, las fincas de los terratenientes que no dejaron que ingresáramos a esos territorios bajo el argumento que son de su propiedad, aunque se encuentran en territorio yukpa”. De igual manera, se refirieron a que no se puede hablar de restitución de tierras para el campesinado en territorio indígena. “Nosotros entendemos que el Estado quiera restituir a los campesinos que han sido afectados por la violencia que se ha vivido desde hace muchos años, pero nosotros hemos perdido territorio desde la invasión española en nuestro territorio”. “Nosotros no consideramos que los campesinos sean nuestros enemigos, ellos son nuestros hermanos. Lo que no consideramos adecuado es que les restituyan en nuestro territorio. Lo que nosotros estamos pidiendo es que les compren sus tierras y nos las devuelvan a nosotros. Pero la respuesta del gobierno y de la gobernación siempre es la misma: no hay plata. El único que nos ha colaborado en este proceso ha sido USAID” Por otro lado, señalaron que durante este proceso la Unidad Nacional para las Víctimas quiso trabajar conjuntamente con la Unidad de Restitución de Tierras pero los yukpas no aceptaron, “ellos querían entrar al tiempo con Restitución de Tierra, juntos, para hacer el mismo trabajo pero nosotros dijimos que las cosas no son así, que necesitábamos que fueran procesos diferentes”, señaló uno de los indígenas asistentes a la reunión, y otro agregó: “su argumento fue que querían trabajar conjuntamente porque el presupuesto no alcanzaba para realizar los procesos de manera separada. A nosotros no nos pareció y les dijimos que no. Para nosotros se trata de información diferente y debe hacerse por separado. Además por ahorrarse una plata y no pagar lo que nos deben pagar; y, si se realizaban ambos procesos de manera conjunta, los integrantes de nuestras comunidades podrían confundirse”. Asimismo, los asistentes a la reunión hicieron alusión al proceso que han venido desarrollando con la Agencia Nacional de Tierras. Expresaron que la entidad está realizando la cartografía territorial pero que no se ha avanzado mucho. “Hace unos días unos topógrafos estuvieron por los resguardos disque para hacer el levantamiento topográfico y los respectivos mapas pero se perdieron. Tenían que ir al Corzo pero terminaron en La Laguna”. Desean que este proceso culmine pronto para que sea transferido al respectivo juez, del que esperan un fallo que dé cumplimiento y justicia a sus derechos territoriales, restituyéndoseles tierra, saneando y ampliando el resguardo mediante la compra de los predios que se encuentran en manos de campesinos y colonos. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 265 Sin embargo, durante toda la reunión, los indígenas señalaron que no confían en el gobierno “porque año tras año son promesas y promesas y nada que se ven resultados concretos. Al Estado no le interesa cumplir. Nosotros desde hace varios años venimos trabajando el tema territorial, hemos hablado de la necesidad de poner límites a nuestro territorio y aún no se ven los resultados”. Para ellos, todos los actos que ha dirigido el gobierno, a excepción de la caracterización para dar inicio al proceso de restitución de tierras, deja mucho que desear. De esta manera, se refirieron a la zona veredal que ha instalado el gobierno nacional en su territorio. Alegaron que ésta se instaló sin haberse realizado la Consulta Previa y cómo “esa gente, los guerrilleros, ahora andan por toda esa vaina y se mueven como quieren, van haciendo reuniones y todo lo que quieren sin consultarnos a nosotros”, dijo un indígena y otro agregó: “además, la zona veredal, la pusieron en lugares sagrados, lugares en donde cazamos, pescamos y recolectamos nuestros materiales para construir diferentes objetos como artesanías y material de construcción. Eso es una violación a nuestro territorio. La zona veredal afecta a nuestra comunidad, nuestra movilidad y nuestra cultura”. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 266 MONTES DE MARIA REGIONAL MACAYEPO COCOA PPP FGD Type Members of ASOPRAN Date of Discussion: 3 April, 2017 Location of Discussion Macayepo Description of Discussion Location ASOPRAN Discussion Start Time: 2:00 pm Discussion End Time: 3:30 pm Number of Women 6 Number of Men 2 Observations: Population of this little town has been directly affected by the armed conflict. They were displaced and after some years they returned to the town. Their experience set an example of reconciliation. Currently there is an environment of uncertainty and fear. Key findings: • In 2009 ASOPRAN started with cocoa. It has been a difficult process. o "Due to the heavy rains of 2010 and 2011, many cacao crops died, its value droped from COP$6,000 to COP$2,500. In addition the National Chocolate Company and Chocolate Luker closed the purchase of the product. Then, many producers left to lose the cultures". • The National Chocolate Company only reapeared in 2016, to renew comercial links with the producers. Producers feel insecure with this situation. o “Only since last year they have shown interest and are seeking to renew relationships. We want to work with them seriously but we need the company's commitment because we can not embark on something that is going to be left behaind. We have to care of our work and our budget”. • They understand the PPP as a joint effort between different institutions: o “We understand that the budget for this project comes from a Productive Partnerships program organized by the Ministry of Agriculture. This project is new. We know that USAID has been watching and evaluating it.” • The bureaucratic aspect of the PPP discourage the peasants producers. o “To start this work, they demand some documents and requirements, such as bank certification, income tax return, all those documents require a lot of time to obtain. We need those documents so that, as soon as the cacao crop arrives, we can market with them [National Chocolate Company]” • The chamber of commerce have been involved in the PPP providing training on marketing and inventory of the association. • In Macayepo, the chamber of commerce has strengthened the organizational processes of women, supporting them to create the women committee to generate additional income through the processing of cocoa and the identification of other business opportunities, such as the marketing of flowers. • One of the major problems for the commercialization of the agricultural products produced by peasants, not only cocoa, is the poor conditions of the roads, the lack of a crop collection center as well as the high costs of transportation and intermediaries. • They were skeptical about new proposals for the production of ñame: LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 267 o “They [private party] told us the same thing with the cocoa for the Montes de María. It was expected that 6,000 hectares of cocoa were grown but with production the prices dropped. We started getting COP$8000 per kilo and now we get COP$5000. That's no business for anyone” • Regarding the rol of USAID in the PPP, they expressed: o "USAID is coming to Macayepo since last year. We do not know if they have invested with the Ministry. We have only been given training and cocoa management workshops on how to prune and manage pests. " El 3 de abril de 2017 seis mujeres y cuatro hombres, pertenecientes a la asociación ASOPRAN y Mujeres Unidas de Macayeco, atendieron a la reunion con la intención de hablar sobre la APP de cacao de la cual han sido beneficiarios. Los asistentes a la reunión expresaron que Macayeco está compuesto, según el censo que realizó la población, por 1200 habitantes aproximadamente. “Geográficamente, nuestra comunidad Macayeco se encuentra ubicada a 100 kilómetros de Sincelejo, a 32 kilómetros del Carmen de Bolívar y a 14 kilómetros de Chinulito”. Durante la reunión, los asistentes señalaron que en 1989 los integrantes de la comunidad empezaron a desplazarse hacia Sincelejo debido al conflicto armado que se desencadenó entre guerrilla, ejército y grupos paramilitares en el territorio. Finalmente, entre el año 2000 y el 2004, la comunidad quedó completamente abandonada, debido al miedo que les daba ser asesinados o torturados. Sin embargo, “a pesar de que las circunstancias estaban muy difíciles, a pesar que se encontraban los actores armados dentro del territorio, nosotros usamos la única herramienta que tiene la población colombiana, la presión, la protesta para pelear por nuestros derechos. Nosotros les exigimos a las autoridades que nos retornaran al territorio, que ellos nos trajeran de regreso: a la Infantería de Marina, a la Policía, al Gaula, a la SIJIN, a la Gobernación y a la Acaldía”. Alrededor de 300 personas se reunían constantemente en Sincelejo para exigirles a las autoridades las garantías y la eficacia para retornar al territorio. Finalmente, en septiembre del 2004, un helicóptero trasladó de Sincelejo a Macayepo cincuenta hombres para que trabajaran en la limpieza y organización de la comunidad. La idea era que prepararan el terreno para el retorno de las familias. El retorno de la mayoría de la población se realizó el 21 de diciembre del mismo año. Según señaló uno de los asistentes a la reunión, “cuando llegamos aquí, esto estaba completamente amontañado, tuvimos que limpiarlo. Un grupo de campesinos trabajó en todo esto y limpió las casas que quedaron medio buenas, las lavaron por dentro. No hubo pérdida de tierra”. “Nosotros empezamos a entrar a las fincas que cultivaban aguacate. Empezamos por éstas porque eran las que tenían apropiadas la guerrilla. Entonces nosotros trabajábamos de manera conjunta con el ejército, velando por las noches y haciendo guardia con los soldados. La guerrilla nos mandaba cartas, nos hostigaba, pero era más la necesidad de recuperar la región que hostigar a la guerrilla. Hicieron emboscada para cogernos pero en ese tiempo había protección de la armada y nunca permanecíamos solos. Nosotros nos unimos al ejército con la intención de protegernos porque en ese entonces existía el estigma que las Acciones Comunales eran aliadas de la guerrilla y para decir que no éramos guerrilleros decidimos organizar la Asociación” LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 268 Así, en el marco del retorno, y como método de protección frente al hostigamiento a las Acciones Comunales, nació la asociación ASOPRAN, pues “en ese entonces mientras las Acciones Comunales eran perseguidas y estigmatizadas, el gobierno y el ejército empezaron a dar apoyo a las Asociaciones. Era una iniciativa para que el campesinado trabajara con ellos y colaborara contra la insurgencia”, señaló uno de los asistentes a la reunión. Si bien, durante el retorno, la constitución de la Asociación y el trabajo de expulsar a los guerrilleros del territorio, se sintieron cómodos trabajando con el ejército, la policía, la infantería de maría y la móvil del ejército, inmediatamente estalló el escándalo de los “falsos positivos” a nivel nacional, los integrantes de la comunidad “dijimos en eso sí nosotros no nos metemos. En eso no estábamos de acuerdo. Entonces decidimos retirarnos del trabajo conjunto”, dijo un señor, mientras otro quiso explicar por qué se aliaron con el ejército para retornar al territorio: “es que en esa época quien mandaba en el país era el ejército y la policía. Eran ellos los que movían la institucionalidad en el país. En el tiempo de Uribe, si un Coronel iba a la alcaldía o a la gobernación, inmediatamente, sin ninguna contemplación, lo hacían seguir. Entonces, como nosotros nos dimos cuenta de eso fue que decidimos pegárnosle al ejército para lograr beneficios. Otro de los beneficios que obtuvimos al juntarnos con la armada fue que fuimos beneficiaros de Acción Social. Ellos fueron los que nos dieron acueducto y, por su parte, la Armada nos ayudó con un montón de cosas más. Ya cuando hubo el cambio de gobierno, la Armada volvió a ocupar su lugar”. Aunque los integrantes de la comunidad agradecen a la Armada y al Ejército su apoyo en el retorno al territorio, consideran que esta alianza les costó muy caro, “la unión que hicimos con la armada nos hizo mucho daño. Inmediatamente, como en las otras comunidades funcionaban las Acciones Comunales y fueron tan tenazmente perseguidas, inmediatamente nosotros fuimos señalados como paramilitares”, expresó una de las asistentes a la reunión, mientras continuaba: “eso hizo una brecha muy grande entre ASOPRAN y las Acciones comunales. Empezó un miedo conjunto, ellos nos tenían miedo a nosotros y nosotros a ellos; como también separó al territorio: la guerrilla hizo una separación diciendo que del puente para allá ninguno de nosotros podíamos pasar”. Fue entonces cuando aparecieron minas y varios muertos. Sin embargo, a partir del año 2009 ASOPRAN ha trabajado para unirse a las Acciones Comunales. Luego de que ese mismo año los paramilitares realizaran una masacre, ASOPRAN inició un recorrido por veredas y municipios pidiendo perdón y expresando la necesidad de trabajar conjuntamente. “Nosotros no somos ni guerrilleros ni paramilitares. Somos campesinos y tratamos de sobrevivir en medio de una guerra que no es nuestra”, dijo un señor. “Nosotros trabajamos duro en reconciliación y en una de esas vereda hicimos un evento de reconciliación como juego de fútbol y todo eso. Empezamos a trabajar duro en la forma de trabajar con la gente y cómo cambiar su mirada, que no nos vieran como paramilitares, reuniéndonos con ellos diciéndoles que no éramos paramilitares. Y se habló con ellos, nosotros siempre nos hemos mantenido como asociación. Y logramos unirnos y entonces el desafío de eso fue que nosotros fuéramos a todas las veredas de allá”. Aunque ASOPRAN nació como asociación en el 2004, fue a partir del 2009 que empezó a trabajar fuertemente en la producción cacaotera, pues el Ministerio de Agricultura empezó a promover el cultivo de cacao en la región de los Montes de María. No obstante, para ASOPRAN ha sido muy complicada la comercialización del producto debido a “muchas debilidades que presenta la estructura económica que hay en el mundo y en nuestro país, donde el más grande absorbe al más chico. El campesino en muchas LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 269 oportunidades se siente amarrado y no lograr hacer los contactos ni trabajos que requiere la comercialización”, señaló un señor. Adicionalmente, “debido a las fuertes lluvias que hubo en el 2010 y el 2011 se murieron muchos cultivos de cacao, bajando su valor de $6000 a $2500. Además la Nacional de Chocolates y Chocolate Luker cerraron la compra del producto. Entonces, muchos productores bajaron la guardia y ante tanto gasto para la producción dejaron perder los cultivos”, expresó uno de los asistentes a la reunión. De igual manera, señalaron que aunque firmaron unos acuerdos con la Nacional de Chocolates en el año 2009, “no nos respondieron. Sólo desde el año pasado han demostrado interés y están buscando renovar relaciones. Nosotros queremos trabajar con ellos en serio pero necesitamos compromiso de la compañía porque no nos podemos embarcar en algo para que nos dejen tirados con nuestro trabajo y nuestro presupuesto, que es tan poco el que tenemos. Para iniciar este trabajo, nos están exigiendo algunos documentos y requisitos, como la certificación bancaria, declaración de renta, todos papeles que requieren de mucho tiempo para obtenerlos. Necesitamos estos papeles para que apenas llegue la cosecha de cacao podamos comercializarlos con ellos” Por otro lado, los campesinos asistentes a la reunión se refirieron a las altas potencialidades que presentan los terrenos de los Montes de María, “prácticamente aquí se cultiva de todo. Se cultivan más de cien productos. Es una zona apta para el aguacate, el ñame, la yuca, el fríjol, el plátano, la ahuyama, el arroz, la batata, el ají, el ajonjolí, entre otros; además que se puede mantener la ganadería. Nosotros estamos ubicados en una de las tierras más ricas de Colombia”, dijo un señor. Al igual que con el cultivo de cacao, uno de los grandes problemas para la comercialización de los productos agrícolas que producen los campesinos son las pésimas condiciones en las que se encuentran las vías, la falta de un centro de acopio en el que el campesinado pueda ofrecer sus productos, así como los altos costos del transporte y los intermediarios, quienes, no sólo son los que le ponen el valor a los alimentos, sino también los que se quedan con gran parte de la ganancia. En cuanto a la producción cacaotera expresaron que “entendemos que el presupuesto para este proyecto viene de un programa de Alianzas Productivas que ha organizado el Ministerio de Agricultura. Este proyecto es nuevo. Sabemos que USAID ha estado mirando y haciendo evaluaciones”. Ellos han asistido a encuentros de fortalecimiento organizativo en donde les han dado charlas sobre comercialización para que sean ellos mismos quienes vendan sus productos agrícolas. Asimismo, la Cámara de Comercio de Sincelejo también ha diseñado un plan para colaborarles a los productores en la comercialización. “Se comprometieron con nosotros en ayudarnos a comercializar ñame diamante y aguacate”. Para ellos es significativo que diferentes entidades quieran colaborarles en la comercialización de sus productos, pero su experiencia con el cacao los ha desmotivado ya que “nos dijeron lo mismo con el cacao para los Montes de María. Se esperaba que se cultivaran 6000 hectáreas de cacao y cuando hubo producción el cacao bajo. El kilo nos lo empezaron pagando a $8000 y ahora nos lo pagan a $5000. Eso no es negocio para nadie, ¿quién puede manejar eso?”, señalaron varios de los asistentes a la reunión. Respecto a sus expectativas, señalaron que esperan poder construir un centro de acopio; la entrega de dos tractores que el Ministerio de Agricultura les prometió, así como la construcción de sistemas de riego que le vienen solicitando a este ministerio; la creación del Comité de Cacao, la asistencia y capacitación técnica que USAID les ofreció para la producción cacaotera; y la implementación del cultivo de plátano con la que se comprometió la Gobernación de Bolívar. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 270 Por último, en cuanto al rol que ha desarrollado USAID en este proceso señalaron que: “USAID está llegando al corregimiento de Macayepo desde el año pasado. No sabemos si ellos han invertido con el Ministerio. Sólo nos han brindado capacitación y talleres de manejo de cacao sobre cómo podar y manejar plagas”. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 271 PPP COCOA AND YAM ASPROAGROMAR FGD Type Members of Asproagromar Date of Discussion: 8 April , 2017 Location of Discussion (City, Municipality) María La Baja Description of Discussion Location Headquarters of Asproagromar Discussion Start Time: 11:00 am Discussion End Time: 1:00 pm Number of Women 5 Number of Men 6 Observations: While the association board were very enthusiastic about the yam PPP, the other producers were skeptical and with very little information about it. It seemed to be a cause of disagreement between them. Key findings: • They defined as main problems the lack of land and credit. o "The great problem of Maria La Baja is that peasant does not have land to plant and to have crops" o “In addition to the land problem, we have many setbacks to access credit. Sometimes the Women's Foundation gives us some, but there they have high interests." • Although the farmers consider that the cacao PPP can become a great business for them. It is a project that they see with good eyes but that they consider must be done with good technical training, dedication and transparency. So far this has failed because of the poor technical assistance they have received. o "For example, to me, the technician put me to plant cacao in a mountain because it needs shade. Of course you need shade but not 100%. They practically buried me before starting the project. " • One of the main obstacles to planting cacao has been the scarcity of irrigation during the strong summers. o “In large proportion, the cocoa farmers lost the crops because of the summer. 90% of us sow on the slopes and in winter. It is so that there are companions that planted 2000 bushes and today has 100 or 200 bushes.” o The major need in Maria la Baja for the cultivation are the construction of irrigation mini-districts for water supply and if not, there is no way to move forward. They are only losses for us". • The producers referred to the PPP that has operated since 2016 between the Government, the Mayor, SENA, Corpoica and USAID. They refered USAID as the “Leading institution”. o "This APP is very new and recent. The economic contributions are given by the Governor, the Mayor's Office and USAID so that Corpoica and SENA can provide training, but these training courses have not yet arrived. Corpoica offered some materials supposedly for high production, to obtain good yields, but have not arrived yet.” o "We expect each member of the partnership to comply with what is proposed because the idea is that from that PPP we will be strengthened to work harder. So LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 272 we also hope that we can work with cocoa derivatives like chocolate paste or chocolates”. o "The important thing about the PPP is to fulfill the established functions. That each institution fulfill its commitments and that we comply with a good product. But for that we need responsibility from the institutions because we are already exhausted that all the time they come, visit us and leave. We are tired they give us bread, we want to be taught how to make it. " • For the PPP to be succesful, they consider fundamental an accurate technical assistance. o “Cocoa grown in large quantities requires good agronomic management, otherwise it does not grow. This has discouraged those who have been planting cocoa”. o "We need continuous support, we need a greater presence of thechnicians. They can not come to embark us on a project, give us basic technical assistance and leave.” • With regard to the new yam PPP, some producers expressed fear about the sowing commitments they had acquired, expressing that it was "a lot to start." • The sowing of yam for exportation will require the use of expensive machinery, which generates fear among some producers and expectation in others. They wonder if all producers will have access to the drills. • The yam PPP needs to be socialized and widespread between the members of the association. El 8 de abril de 2017 nos reunimos con once integrantes de la asociación ASPROAGROMAR (Asociación de productores agropecuarios de María la Baja), cinco mujeres y seis hombres. Según expresaron, esta asociación agrupa a agropecuarios que producen cacao y otros productos agrícolas. Los campesinos agrupados en esta asociación, además de sembrar cacao también producen ñame, yuca, maíz, ahuyama, aguacate, patilla, berenjena, pepino, melón, y se dedican a la ganadería a pequeña escala. Sin embargo, todos los campesinos asociados en ASPROAGROMAR no poseen tierra, lo que los obliga a alquilar parcelas para poder cultivar. “El gran problema de María La Baja es que no tiene tierras para sembrar y para tener los cultivos”, señaló uno de los hombres asistentes a la reunión. Una mujer agregó: “necesitamos que los proyectos lleguen a los que de verdad son campesinos. Además del problema de tierra, tenemos muchos contratiempos para poder acceder a un crédito. A veces la Fundación de la Mujer nos da alguno pero ahí cobran muchos intereses”. Por otro lado, señalaron que “el sistema de mercadeo acá es muy atrasado porque el campesinado de María La Baja trabaja es para los cartageneros y los barranquilleros que son los que nos compran nuestros productos agrícolas. Pero lo más difícil acá es lidiar con los intermediarios que nos pagan a nosotros migajas y venden en los mercados los productos mucho más caros”. En cuanto al proyecto para sembrar cacao, expresaron que éste se empezó a idear en el año 2005, luego que la Nacional de Chocolate quisiera sembrar cacao en la región. Dando inicio a partir del año 2008 como un proyecto de gran envergadura. No obstante, los campesinos desde siempre lo habían cultivado de manera silvestre. Si bien los campesinos consideran que el proyecto de cacao puede convertirse en una gran empresa para ellos, “pues es sólo que usted empiece a cultivar que se empiezan a ver los frutos del trabajo. Pero ese trabajo debe realizarse con buena asesoría. No se puede hacer a la bulla de los cocos”. Es un LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 273 proyecto que ven con muy buenos ojos pero que consideran debe realizarse con buen entrenamiento técnico, dedicación y transparencia ya que hasta el momento éste ha fracasado debido a la mala asistencia técnica que han recibido, “por ejemplo a mí, el técnico me puso a sembrar cacao en una montaña disque porque necesita sombrío. Claro que necesita sombrío pero no al 100%. Prácticamente me enterraron antes de iniciar el proyecto”. Adicionalmente señalaron la importancia de, además obtener asistencia técnica, solucionar los problemas de agua mediante sistemas de riegos pues, “en gran proporción, los cacaoteros que sembramos cacao perdimos cacao por causa del verano. El 90% de nosotros sembramos en las laderas y en invierno. Cuando acaso pegaba, llegaba el verano y lo mataba. Es tanto así que hay compañeros que de 2000 matas que pudieron sembrar hoy tiene 100 o 200 matas. La necesidad mayoritaria en María la Baja para el cultivo son la construcciones de minidistritos de riego para que surta agua y si no, no hay cómo avanzar. Sólo son pérdidas para uno”, expresó una de las campesinas asistentes a la reunión. Según señalaron, al inicio del proyecto la relación con la Nacional de Chocolates fue positiva ya que recibían visitas, asesorías técnicas, de mercadeo y capacitaciones. Sin embargo, de un momento para otro, la Nacional de Chocolates “no se preocupó por venir a mirar los cultivos y como el cacao cultivado a grandes cantidades requiere buen manejo agronómico, al no tenerlo pues no funciona. Esto ha desmotivado bastante a los que venimos sembrando cacao”, señaló una de las asistentes a la reunión, mientras un señor agregó: “La Nacional de Chocolates nos dio charlas sobre la poda e injertos y mandaban mensajes diciendo qué debíamos hacer. Pero es que las cosas no funcionan así. Nosotros necesitamos acompañamiento continúo. Necesitamos mayor presencia, no pueden venir a embarcarnos en un proyecto, darnos una asistencia técnica básica y salir e irse. Así no funciona nada”. Otra señora intervino para expresar: “el cacao llega un momento que crece tanto que uno ya no sabe ni qué hacer, es muy difícil mantenerlo. Los talleres sobre poda de cacao no fueron suficiente, no nos explicaron exactamente en qué período es que se deben podar. A eso tenemos que sumarle que en el análisis técnico que hicieron sobre los territorios todos salimos con los mismos terrenos, el de la loma y el del fango. Realmente no hicieron un buen estudio, no hubo diferenciación y así planearon la realización de proyecto. Es decir, que iba a funcionar un proyecto sobre malos estudios técnicos”. Por último, los productores se refirieron a la Alianza Público Privada que ha funcionado desde el año 2016 entre la Gobernación, la Alcaldía, el SENA, Corpoica y USAID. Para ellos esta APP “es muy nueva y reciente. Los aportes económicos los dan la Gobernación, la Alcaldía y USAID para que Corpoica y el SENA brinden capacitaciones, pero aún no han llegado estas capacitaciones. Por su parte, Corpoica ofreció unos materiales que dicen que son de alta producción para obtener buenos rendimientos pero tampoco han llegado por estos lados”. Asimismo, están esperando que la Red Nacional Cacaotera les cumpla la promesa de beneficiar a 53 productores de los 73 que hay en María La Baja con herramientas y fertilizantes. “Nosotros esperamos que cada miembro de la alianza cumpla con lo que se propone porque la idea es que de esa alianza nosotros quedemos fortalecidos para poder trabajar más. Así también esperamos que podamos trabajar con derivados del cacao como pasta de chocolate o chocolatinas”, señaló una mujer. Otro hombre expresó, “lo importante de la APP es que se cumpla las funciones establecidas. Que cada institución cumpla con sus compromisos y que nosotros cumplamos con estar pendiente del producto. Pero para eso necesitamos responsabilidad de las instituciones porque ya estamos agotados de que todo el tiempo vengan, nos visiten y se vayan. Estamos cansados que nos den pan nosotros queremos que nos enseñen a hacer el pan”. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 274 REGIONAL CAUCA FGD Type Afro Colombian women, men and youth Name of Facilitator: Paula Guerrero Name of notetaker: Tania Bonilla Date of Discussion: 21-22 March, 2017 Location of Discussion (City, Municipality) Santander de Quilichao Description of Discussion Location (Office, School, etc.) Salón de Eventos Casablanca Rented location Los días 21 y 22 de marzo se realizaron tres reuniones en el casco urbano de Santander de Quilacho con la intención de hablar sobre el programa de Tierras y Desarrollo Rural de USAID. Durante la mañana del 21 de marzo se esperaban ocho mujeres. Sin embargo, luego de haberlas llamado y confirmado su asistencia, sólo asistieron dos lideresas: una, de la vereda El Palmar, perteneciente al Consejo Comunitario Sanjón de Garrapatero, y otra, de la vereda La Arrobleda, perteneciente al Consejo Comunitario Cuencas de la Quebrada. Durante la tarde de ese mismo día, se realizó la reunión con el grupo focal de Lomitas, integrado por cinco personas, participantes de proyecto Mi Tierra, Tu LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 275 Tierra, Nuestro Territorio: una niña, dos jóvenes, un hombre y una mujer; y, por último, en la mañana del 22 de marzo se realizó la reunión con tres lideres de dos consejos comunitarios: Zanjón de Garrapatero (Vereda La Toma, Santander de Quilichao) y Cuenca del Río Cauca Microcuenca Teta￾Mazamorrero (Veredas Mazamorrero y Cascajero, en los límites del municipio Buenos Aires y Santander de Quilichao). Se esperaba la presencia de 6 hombres que habían confirmado su asistencia. Durante las tres reuniones, los integrantes de las comunidades expresaron que su población está compuesta fundamentalmente por pequeños agricultores de piña, cacao, chontaduro, plátano, caña de azúcar, caña panelera, mandarina, naranja, aguacate, mango, yuca; cría a pequeña escala de cerdos, pollos y ganado. No obstante, la incursión paramilitar que inició a partir del año 2000 en la región, ha afectado el trabajo agrario de la población ya que muchos campesinos que se empleaban en las fincas de los hacendados para la producción y recolección de los productos fueron desempleados, luego de que los hacendados se cansaran de pagar los impuestos exigidos por el grupo al margen de la Ley y vendieran sus haciendas a ingenios azucareros o empresas monocultoras. Así, de 30 a 40 personas que eran contratadas en las haciendas, pasaron a contratarse tan sólo 3 o 4 personas para el cuidado de los cultivos en las compañías que llegaron a la región, aumentado el desempleo. Paralelamente, con la llegada paramilitar fue incursionando la minería ilegal. Según expresaron algunas de las personas que asistieron a la reunión, aunque desconocen el vínculo exacto entre minería y paramilitarismo, señalaron que fueron los paramilitares quienes transformaron velozmente la minería artesanal que se practicaba en la región, al introducir maquinaria y personas foráneas, especialmente paisas y gente proveniente de la región del pacífico. Así, en poco tiempo la minería artesanal fue desplazada por la minería industrial, produciendo impactos ambientales, sanitarios, sociales, culturales, económicos y territoriales. En el ecosistema, el cianuro y otros elementos químicos han contaminado los cerros y las aguas, acabando con la población de peces como también con diferentes especies de animales que bebían agua de los ríos. De igual modo, estos químicos han afectado la salud de la población, manifestándose enfermedades en la piel, diarrea y problemas entre las mujeres gestantes y los recién nacidos. A nivel cultural y social, al contaminarse las aguas de los ríos la población no ha podido mantener su práctica de bañarse en estas aguas. Por otro lado, ha aumentado el consumo de drogas entre la población juvenil (la población hizo referencia al basuco pero en realidad no sabe a ciencia cierta qué es lo que consumen los jóvenes drogadictos), la prostitución entre la población femenina adolescente, y grupos de adolescentes han conformado bandas delincuenciales en las comunidades que atracan e intimidan a la población. En los consejos comunitarios que no se ha instalado, la minería ilegal también ha intentado incursionar. Sin embargo, la gente está luchando para que esta actividad no se desarrolle en sus territorios al considerarla como un trabajo que perjudica la tierra y al medio ambiente. Asimismo, la llegada de hombres de otras regiones, en especial de Antioquía y el Pacífico, ha propiciado el aumento de madres cabeza de familia de niñas entre los 14 y 15 años ya que ellas se han involucrado sentimentalmente con los mineros foráneos, quienes cuando deciden que ha terminado su ciclo productivo en la región, las abandonan. De igual manera, la minería ilegal ha impactado la economía familiar, pues muchos hombres han decidido no trabajar más como jornaleros al obtener como remuneración muchísimo menos de lo que recibirían por media jornada o un día de trabajo en la mina, aun cuando no necesariamente se encuentran trabajando. Por otro lado, para los oriundos de las comunidades, los foráneos representan una gran LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 276 amenaza, no sólo por todos los aspectos señalados anteriormente, sino también porque “no contribuyen con nuestro desarrollo, con el desarrollo de nuestras comunidades. A ellos no les interesa invertir, mejorar la infraestructura de las casas que habitan. Sólo les interesa su propio beneficio, obtener dinero e irse cuando han cumplido su meta”. En relación a los problemas territoriales, señalaron que se presentó la expulsión soterrada de los propietarios de las minas. Según expresaron, recién cuando aparecieron las empresas mineras, éstas utilizaron ofertas tentadoras para que los mineros artesanales se asociaran con ellas diciendo que “con nosotros vas a sacar más. Mira, como a ti te falta la maquinaria apropiada para realizar este trabajo, yo la pongo y nos repartimos de acuerdo a lo que cada uno de nosotros saquemos. Y resulta que el que se asocia termina perdiendo porque no puede sacar lo mismo que el que le dio el carretazo y él otro le vuelve a proponer que de acuerdo a lo que se sacó, como utilizó la maquinaria, de a poquitos le vaya pagando por el uso de la maquinaria. La gente va accediendo hasta que termina dando su mina. Así muchos se convirtieron en empleados de esa gente en lo que antes era su mina”. Asimismo, la población expresa temer frente a los títulos mineros que quiere obtener la multinacional Anglogold Ashanti sobre 900 hectáreas, pues consideran que la Agencia Nacional de Minería no es imparcial frente a este tema y temen que esta compañía acceda al territorio para la explotación de minerales. Según expresaron, “las entidades y autoridades creen que nosotros jodemos mucho cuando nosotros ponemos quejas frente a las problemáticas que ha generado la minería. De allí que nosotros estemos trabajando por reestablecer la guardia cimarrona con la intención de cuidar nuestro territorio”. Los 41 Consejos Comunitarios del Norte del Cauca se han organizado para implementar la guardia cimarrona con la intención de defender su territorio de extractivismo y de posibles masacres cometidas por actores armados. Para ello, han decidido trabajar mancomunadamente con la guardia indígena, pues consideran que al tener mayor experiencia los pueblos indígenas en la protección de sus territorios y en el LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 277 funcionamiento de su guardia pueden hacer un trabajo espectacular en la protección territorial. Estas guardias han sido conformadas por hombres y mujeres ya que la población es consciente de todos los problemas que ha generado el paramilitarismo y la extracción de minerales. A continuación se describirán las experiencias de las comunidades y sectores apoyados por el programa de Tierras y Desarrollo Rural de USAID-Colombia. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 278 Formación con enfoque de género REGIONAL CAUCA TRAINING WITH GENDER APPROACH FGD Type Women beneficiaries of different porjects Date of Discussion: 21 March/2017 Location of Discussion Santander de Quilichao Description of Discussion Location Salón Casablanca. Rented location Discussion Start Time: 10 am Discussion End Time: 12 m Number of Women 2 Number of Men 0 How was FGD organized? Called one by one. Six women expected. Key findings: • The two women participants did not recognized LRDP. • Women did not recognized themselves as benefiaries of any LRDP project. • They were glad that USAID had their phone number, it meant for them that probably in the future will be contacted. • In August 2016, they received a training on territorial rights probably by USAID during one morning, in the frame of the “Itinerant School for Women's Political and Organizational Training for Economic Entrepreneurship and Peacebuilding” by the departmental government of Cauca: o "This school was a project that was organized according to the ethnic and sociocultural needs of us women. The school has held workshops on topics such as women's rights and duties, training processes for rural leaders”. o “They explained us the three forms that we have right over the land: as owners, as occupants and as possessors” • They seemed tired of having trainings and courses, they expresed they need a different tipe of support from the institutions: o “It is good that we learn new things but we need things to produce in concrete” o “More than training, which is necessary because we have learned a lot through it, especially in women's rights issues, what we need is to finance our small projects to create companies and micro-enterprises that allow us to have resources with which to collaborate In our homes” o “In my case I would like [institutions] to collaborate to keep pigs, chickens and a little display cabinet to sell products at home, maybe to have a photocopier ann an internet cafe. With that I would generate income for my family” Durante la reunión que se sostuvo con las dos lideresas de las veredas El Palmar y La Arrobleda, señalaron que la mayoría de la población femenina se dedican, además de la producción-comercialización de alimentos, los quehaceres del hogar y cuidado de los niños, a la venta de productos en catálogo, como ropa, joyas, perfumes y alimentos. De igual manera expresaron que en la región son los hombres los que normalmente poseen títulos de propiedad o escrituras porque se considera que las mujeres no tienen derecho a ser propietaria de LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 279 ningún bien. Así, en el caso en que fallece un padre de familia, el derecho sobre la propiedad de la tierra se traspasa a sus hijos varones o a sus yernos; o en el caso de las mujeres separadas, ya sea que ellas dejan sus parejas o que sus parejas las dejan a ellas, no tienen ningún derecho sobre repartición de bienes, quedando completamente desprotegidas. Ambas mujeres consideran que este fenómeno se debe específicamente al desconocimiento que tienen las mujeres de la región sobre sus derechos. De igual modo, creen que si la mayoría de la población femenina tuviera acceso a esta información, las comunidades sufrirían de “un revolcón entre hombres y mujeres porque los hombres no van a ceder a que las mujeres accedan a derechos territoriales y ellas van a empezar a pelearlos”, señaló una de las dos mujeres. No obstante, desde el 2014 el programa de Mujeres Ahorradores del Departamento de Planeación Nacional, mediante la secretaría de Desarrollo, y del Ministerio de Agricultura han implementado una serie de proyectos productivos con la intención de generar ingresos entre la población femenina de las comunidades. Así, el Departamento de Planeación Nacional ha financiado huertas caseras; cría y engorde de cerdos o pollos; y proyectos para cultivar cacao, plátano o café. Según señalaron las dos mujeres, el único requisito que exigieron estas dos entidades fue no hacer parte de otro proyecto productivo. No obstante, no todas las mujeres que se presentaron para ser beneficiarias de estos proyectos recibieron respuesta o ayuda de las entidades. Por otro lado, y según expresaron ambas mujeres, el conocimiento que actualmente poseen sobre derechos territoriales con enfoque de género se debe a las formaciones en derechos femeninos que han recibido como lideresas de sus comunidades desde el año 2014, con los programas mujeres ahorradoras y programas de Salud implementados por la Secretaría de Salud del municipio. Con mujeres ahorradoras, por ejemplo, se conformaron en el 2014 grupos de 15 mujeres con la intención de que trabajaran en la crianza de cerdos. Sin embargo, este intento no funcionó ya que entre las integrantes empezaron a surgir inconvenientes “porque mientras unas trabajaban, otras se recostaban sobre uno para obtener beneficios. Entonces muchas dijimos no, yo prefiero no trabajar más en esto porque yo no voy a trabajar para otra”. También señalaron que pertenecen a la oficina de la mujer, manejada por la gobernación del Departamento del Cauca, con sede en las instalaciones de la Alcaldía del Municipio de Santander de Quilichao; y han trabajado en el programa gubernamental Familias en Acción. Estas dos entidades financiaron una jornada de salud para realizar citologías y capacitarlas en el autoexamen de seno para que estén pendientes de posibles apariciones de tumores. Asimismo, como lideresas, ellas debían transmitir el conocimiento adquirido a las mujeres de la comunidad. Según expresaron las dos mujeres, en la región la población femenina es muy reacia a practicarse a citologías por considerarlas inapropiadas con sus parámetros culturales o inoperantes. Sin embargo, bajo este programa se logró que alrededor de 400 mujeres se realizaran la citología y concientizarlas que lo realicen periódicamente. Debido a la falta de recursos con los que cuenta la población femenina de la región, este programa también hizo convenio con Kilisalud para que las 400 mujeres dispusieran del presupuesto económico para realizarse las citologías líquidas, pues cada examen tiene un costo de $200.000. Esperan que este año se haga el convenio para realizarse nuevamente los exámenes y que se pueda ampliar la cobertura del mismo. Dentro de las capacitaciones que han recibido con el programa mujeres ahorradoras, la Gobernación del Cauca y la Secretaría de la Mujer, se encuentra la Escuela Itinerante de Formación Política y LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 280 Organizativa de las Mujeres para el Emprendimiento Económico y Construcción de Paz, realizada de agosto a diciembre, mediante cuatro capacitaciones, de media mañana cada una. En este programa, ambas mujeres son consideradas como gestoras de Paz. En palabras de una de las lideresas, “esta escuela fue un proyecto que se organizó de acuerdo a las necesidades étnicas y socioculturales de nosotras las mujeres. La escuela ha realizado talleres alrededor de temas como derechos y deberes de las mujeres, procesos formativos para lideresas rurales”. Cada taller ha tenido una duración de un día. Así, han brindado cuatro diplomados: desarrollo y mujer; violencia contra la mujer; equidad de género; y, emprendimiento socioeconómico. En este último, “nos han enseñado cómo se conforma una empresa y cómo debemos organizarnos para saber cuánto gano, cuánto pierdo y si mi negocio es equilibrado”. Respecto al módulo de desarrollo rural, las mujeres señalaron que aprendieron sobre formalización de tierras y “cómo puedo yo, como mujer, tener mi propio terreno”. Según expresaron, USAID colaboró en la capacitación que recibieron sobre Derechos femeninos sobre la tierra. Esta capacitación se celebró en el Tierra de Oro, el agosto de 2016. Allí, “nos explicaron las tres formas que tenemos derecho sobre las tierras: como propietarias, como ocupantes y como poseedoras. Como propietarias, somos dueñas y señoras del predio y debemos aparecer en el certificado de Libertad y Tradición que expide la Oficina de Registro Público. Las mujeres somos ocupantes cuando hemos trabajado un terreno por más de diez años que nadie ha habitado y que aparece como baldío. Y las mujeres somos poseedoras cuando hemos trabajado y habitado en un territorio por 10 años en el que en el certificado de Libertad y Tradición aparece otra persona como propietaria”. Por último, como recomendaciones, las dos mujeres señalaron que “mas que capacitaciones, las cuales son necesarias porque por medio de ellas hemos aprendido mucho, sobre todo en temas de derechos de mujeres, lo que nosotras necesitamos es que nos financien nuestros pequeños proyectos para crear empresas y microempresas que nos permitan tener recursos con qué colaborar en nuestros hogares. Por ejemplo, a mí me gustaría tener una empresa para el procesamiento de chontaduro y podría hacer tortas o un montón de derivados de este producto para distribuirlo en el mercado. Realmente uno se vuelve es cabezón de tener tantas capacitaciones y tantas cosas y no tener resultados concretos. Lo que uno necesita es algo que le de rentabilidad, que le genere ingresos a uno. Está bien que aprendamos cosas nuevas pero necesitamos cosas para producir en concreto”. La otra mujer asintió al comentario de su compañera y agregó: “en mi caso me gustaría que me colaboraran para mantener marranos, pollos y una vitrina para poder vender productos, poner una fotocopiadora y un café internet. Con eso yo generaría ingresos para mi familia”. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 281 Mi Tierra, Tu Tierra, Nuestro Territorio CAUCA REGIONAL MY LAND, YOUR LAND, OUR TERRITORY FGD Type Beneficiaries of “My Land, Your Land, Our Territory” Name of Facilitator: Paula Guerrero Name of Notetaker: Tania Bonilla Date of Discussion: 21 March Location of Discussion Santander de Quilichao Description of Discussion Location Salón Casablanca Discussion Start Time: 3 pm Discussion End Time: 5 pm Number of Women 1 women, 1 girl Number of Men 1 man, 2 boys How was FGD organized? Called one by one Key findings: • Participants did not recognized the project as one by LRDP but USAID. • The project is recognized as an ensemble effort by National Unit of Victims and USAID. o “It was a very cool process, very motivating, it was something new to transmit a message with different rhythms and that was what was worked and so far is what we have been doing”. • 40 youngs were expected to join but only 20 attended first, and only 12 remained the length of the project (2 months): o “When the call appeared, I was very happy, although then I was sad that so few young people attended” • The low attendance of the young people to the call as the demotivation showed by deserters is due to the population does not believe in the institutional programs that come to the territory: o “They [institutions] always come promising wonders, that we will do this, that we will do that, that this will be improved […] and at the end they leave without finishing the project or leave with any excuse”. • The conformed group was called “FlowMitas”. Its most representative song is "in spite of everything", which refers to the paramilitary violence, the resistance and the hope of being reborn as a community. • Young and adults were satisfied and grateful for the project: o “As mother I saw the project very well, with joy that my daughter and other children had come that opportunity. My skin was bristling after hearing so much talent in our community and young people are having problems because of lack of opportunities”. • They trully appreciate the fact that an institution like USAID has thought of the young people with this project: o “The lack of opportunities for them has led them to become involved in drugs, robberies, prostitution. There is no future for them. More projects should be targeted young people" LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 282 • The methodology used consisted in one visit per week of a renowed hip hopper from Cali, who gave them composing and singing tips. They did not recognized explicit work on territorial rights. • The project was short but they consider it has strong impact on the participants, as shown the fact that there remain seven young people in the group, who still gather together to compose and sing. • They recommended for future pojects to make the calling with more time so they get to cover more population. • Music is the best way to motivate and inspire young population. They suggest a second phase oriented to native music: o “As afro-caucanos we have traditional music like the violins from the Cauca and there are people interested to work with our native and traditional music” Según expresó el hombre que asistió a la reunión, Lomitas fue declarada como comunidad víctima por parte del Estado en el año 2012. Durante el proceso de caracterización, la Unidad Nacional para las Víctimas hizo una alianza con USAID con la intención de articular el proceso y de fortalecer la memoria histórica de la comunidad. Así, USAID se dirigió al presidente de la Junta de Acción Comunal de Lomitas para ofrecerle el proyecto para jóvenes de Tu Tierra, Mi Tierra, Nuestro Territorio. Entonces, junto con la familia Ayara se inició el proyecto, llamándose a convocatoria a los jóvenes de la comunidad. Se esperaba una participación de 40 jóvenes y se presentaron 20, especialmente jóvenes pertenecientes a Lomitas arriba. Según expresó el joven director del grupo, “desde siempre me ha gustado la música y el hip hop para mí es algo que me llama de las entrañas. Así que cuando apareció la convocatoria me alegré mucho, aunque me dio mucha tristeza que se presentaran tan pocos jóvenes, en especial de Lomitas abajo. Yo fui el único de Lomitas abajo, era el mayor del grupo y desde entonces me he dedicado a animar a mis compañeros. Creo que como líder de un grupo esa es la función de uno, de estar al frente, de dar ánimo, de organizar bien las cosas. Se trató de un proceso muy bacano, muy motivador, era algo nuevo de transmitir un mensaje con ritmos diferentes y eso fue lo que se trabajó y hasta ahora es lo que venimos haciendo”. Según expresaron los asistentes de la reunión, los jóvenes se encontraban una vez a la semana con Nico RST, al que consideran como “un gran hip hopper de Cali”, para que les brindara apoyo a nivel de composición y musical. “Él venía a vernos y a enseñarnos, él era nuestro profesor, traía equipos como micrófonos y consolas que nos motivaron mucho”. No obstante, uno de los inconvenientes del grupo juvenil fue encontrar espacios en donde realizar sus ensayos, pues con los pocos que cuenta la comunidad son los lugares de reunión. Muchas veces las reuniones de los adultos se cruzaban con las horas de ensayos de los muchachos. Asimismo, el acompañamiento de la familia Ayara fue durante dos meses y, aunque la financiación finalizó, el joven director mantiene el grupo mediante reuniones y motivando a sus integrantes a continuar. No obstante, se sienten tristes de no haber grabado más canciones, aspecto que consideran como desmotivador porque esperan llegar a sonar nacional e internacionalmente. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 283 Durante este proceso, los jóvenes compusieron canciones con temáticas que afecta la población juvenil de su comunidad, como de sexualidad, drogas y alcohol. Para ellos, se trataba de realizar la labor de llamar la atención de sus congéneres “contra la vagancia”. Su tema más representativo ha sido “a pesar de todo”, una canción que alude a la violencia paramilitar a la que tuvieron que someterse, a la resistencia que hicieron los integrantes de la comunidad y a la esperanza de renacer como colectividad. “ARRIBA Lomitas va a triunfar, arriba comunidad, arriba…el territorio siempre está ahí. Las letras son más de las vivencias cotidianas”. Según expresaron las cinco personas asistentes a la reunión, se ha tratado de un proceso motivador para quienes se han mantenido en el grupo musical. “Mi hija hasta tarde de la noche está componiendo. Ella escucha una canción y empieza con el hilo. Esa niña está que por ahí es, y ese es el camino. Yo como mamá vi el proyecto bien, con alegría que ella y otros niños les había llegado esa oportunidad. A mí se me erizaba la piel después de oír que hay tanto talento en una comunidad y que están atravesando por una serie de problemáticas por falta de oportunidades. Entonces eso me alegró mucho, me alegró que tanto ella como los otros niños estuvieran allí”. No obstante, de los 20 jóvenes que iniciaron tan sólo quedaron 12, todos estudiantes de colegio a excepción de director del grupo. Según expresaron las cinco personas asistentes a la reunión, tanto la poca asistencia de los jóvenes a la convocatoria como la desmotivación que mostraron los 8 desertores, se debe a que la población no cree en los programas institucionales que aparecen en el territorio, “siempre vienen prometiendo maravillas, que vamos hacer esto, que vamos hacer aquello, que esto va a mejorar, que van a tener mayor educación, que no sé que más cuentas y, o se van sin terminar el proyecto o salen con cualquier excusa”. Sin embargo, quienes no se decidieron a participar y quienes abandonaron el proyecto se sintieron frustrados al ver en sus compañeros alcanzar grandes logros como grabar un video, asistir a eventos en Bogotá, como la invitación que recibieron de la Unidad Nacional para las Víctimas en febrero del 2016; y ser conocidos y reconocidos en la región como artistas con gran potencial. “Pues el proyecto no fue sólo pajaritos pintados en el aire que los muchachos veían volar junto con sus sueños, sino que esos pajaritos dieron frutos e hicieron felices a nuestros muchachos”. El proceso de grabación de video duró una semana. Vinieron con sus equipos, el productor de la música fue bin gee, el camarógrafo fue Leo Rauda y el acompañamiento de chaca. Sentíamos muchos nervios aunque teníamos mucha emoción. Ess fue muy chévere. Nosotros escogimos fue Arriba, la escogimos ya que como esa trataba de lo que se vivió en la comunidad, pues decidimos que a esa se le iba hacer el video. En cuestión de vestimenta, eso si fue muy natural, fue de acuerdo a lo que era cada niño. Metimos zonas como la escuela, la cancha, la raíz que fue el final del video que es un árbol que está en una casa y ahí lo han cogido como un parking. Sin embargo, al interior de la comunidad se considera que muchos de los muchachos integrantes del grupo están ahí por “rosca e influencias”, al igual que los jóvenes seleccionados para representar al grupo también. Por ejemplo en el evento de la Unidad Nacional para las Víctimas en febrero de 2016, la institución sólo podía acarrear con los costos de 4 integrantes. Las madres de quienes no asistieron al evento “se quedaron como amargadas y molestas con esa situación”. Por último, como recomendaciones, señalaron la necesidad de mejorar la manera como se convoca a la población a los proyectos, “porque es que lo cogen a uno a quemarropa y quieren que todo sea ya, ya”. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 284 Por otro lado, para que las personas se animen a participar en las convocatorias y se mantengan en ellas, se requiere de seriedad por parte de las instituciones que las realizan, como lo hizo USAID en el tema del proyecto Tu Tierra, Mi Tierra, Nuestro Territorio. En el mismo sentido, consideran que la falta de seriedad de las instituciones estatales entorpece el desarrollo de las comunidades. En especial porque los proyectos que diseñan no tienen en cuenta las condiciones en las que viven las poblaciones. “Plantean proyectos productivos sin tener conocimiento, por ejemplo, del acceso al agua que tienen las comunidades”. Asimismo, están solicitando un bajo y financiación para continuar con su proyecto como grupo. Adicionalmente, piden que se haga una segunda fase del proyecto para que más jóvenes se involucren. No necesariamente tiene que ser nuevamente con hip hop, expresaron, “porque nosotros como afrocaucanos tenemos música tradicional como violines caucanos y hay población interesada para trabajar con nuestra música autóctona y tradicional”. Como también señalaron que, “la mayoría de los programas y proyectos que llegan acá al territorio no tienen en cuenta a la población juvenil, y eso es una falla. “Es una falla porque la falta de oportunidades para ellos los ha llevado a involucrarse en las drogas, robos, prostitución. No hay un futuro para ellos. Se deben orientar más proyectos para ellos”. De igual modo, consideran que requieren fortalecimiento institucional en capacitaciones sobre los derechos afrocolombianos. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 285 REGIONAL CAUCA MUNICIPAL PLAN OF FORMALIZATION/ FORMALIZATION PROCESSES FGD Type Comunity leaders Date of Discussion: 22 March Location of Discussion Santander de Quilichao, Cauca Description of Discussion Location Salón Casablanca Discussion Start Time: 10 am Discussion End Time: 12 m Number of Women 0 Number of Men 3 How was FGD organized? Called one by one. Six men expected. Key findings: • Participants were leaders of three different Consejos Comunitarios de Comunidades Negras. • They knew and respect USAID, but did not recognized LRDP. • They did not participate on the formulation of the Municipal Formalization Plan. They did not even know about the existence of it. • Afro communities consider colective tittling as one of the best ways they have to protect their territories from external threats, such as illegal mining. o “We are struggling for the protection of the territory. If it is titled individually, people could sell and each time we will have less land.” • Private formalization processes that has been carrying out by government from 2012 has confront the insterets of collective tittling. o “We understand that people are deeply rooted in the desire to have the land individually, they want their individual title but that harms our community councils” o “It is true that people need to know what they have, but we want and need to formalize collective lands to protect our territory from the people and multinational companies lurking our lands” o “Many estates are in the name of great-great-grandparents and there is no way to legalize them because nobody knows how to do it. This hinders individual titling, but not collective because we can argue land tenure and our ancestral right over it.” • They are aware of the land formalization process and the institutions involved, such as NAT, IGAC. • They know the current process of formalization of public property such as the football pitch and the common room of Buenos Aires municipality. • Topographical studies were problematic because the community were not informed of what they were doing. • Institution did not ask permission to the communal council. People demanded to be told what these studies were about, how would be done, how long would last and how would be develop. o “For us it was a lack of respect that they came to our territory to do public titling and that they did not informed us about it. In addition they informed us the same day they were carrying out the topographical studies”. • One of the drawbacks of the projects financed by USAID is that they are not directly agreed with the communities but with the governmental institutions. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 286 o “There are many obstacles because officials do not fulfill their duties and in the institutions there is much corruption with the money.” o “We know that USAID has good intentions but the solution is not to reach the mayor’s or governor’s office, but straight to the communities that require so much work and support.” Según señalaron los tres asistentes a la reunión, durante los años 2012 y 2013 el Ministerio de Agricultura realizó un proceso de formalización de la tierra en el Municipio de Buenos Aires. Sin embargo, este proceso de formalización generó una serie de discusiones al interior de la comunidad, pues el consejo comunitario esperaba la titulación colectiva del territorio ancestral. “Es cierto que la gente necesita saber qué es lo que tiene, pero nosotros queremos y necesitamos que se formalicen las tierras colectivas para proteger nuestro territorio de las personas y las empresas que lo quieren comercializar. Hay muchas personas y multinacionales al acecho de nuestras tierras, desean comprarlas”, señalaba uno de los hombres, y otro agregaba: “entendemos que la gente tienen muy arraigado el deseo de tener la tierra de manera individual, quieren su título individual pero eso perjudica a nuestros consejos comunitarios”. Los tres hombres no tienen conocimiento sobre cuántos predios se legalizaron y señalan que no entienden por qué la institucionalidad estatal no tiene interés en formalizar las titulaciones colectivas para los consejos comunitarios, de allí que sus integrantes consideren como necesario realizar acciones de hecho, como por ejemplo tomarse la vía panamericana y el INCODER. Para ellos se trata de un desinterés del gobierno por la titulación colectiva. Según señalaron, “El procedimiento para realizar la titulación colectiva para los consejos comunitarios es: el representante legal del consejo debe solicitar a la asamblea una autorización para presentar dicha autorización a la Agencia Nacional de Tierras. De igual manera, nosotros debemos presentar la información detallada sobre la etnohistoria de nuestro territorio, así como también, sus linderos. La Agencia Nacional tiene un término de cinco días hábiles para resolver la solicitud y responder si es o no procedente. En el caso de no ser procedente, la Agencia solicita documentos o información que se dejó de anexar. Si por el contrario la respuesta es positiva, se empieza el proceso de trámite para la inscripción ante el Ministerio del Interior. Posteriormente hay una vista técnica para mirar todo. Eso puede tardar más de cuatro años”. De igual manera, en la vereda de Buenos Aires, se inició el proceso para la titulación de predios públicos como la cancha de fútbol y el salón comunal, en el que USAID colaboró. Aunque la comunidad no se opuso a esta titulación, si tuvieron inconvenientes con la realización de los estudios topográficos porque llegaron sin avisar ni consultarle al consejo comunitario. Así, luego de que los integrantes del consejo comunitario exigieran que se les informara en qué consistían estos estudios, cómo se iban a realizar, cuánto tiempo durarían y cómo se desarrollarían, accedieron. “Para nosotros se trataba de una falta de respeto que llegaran a nuestro territorio hacer titulación pública y que no nos hubieran informado nada al respecto, además que llegaron ese día sin avisar de una vez a realizar los estudios topográficos”, señalaba uno de los líderes presentes en la comunidad. Durante este proceso, “el procedimiento a seguir es que luego de que se realizan los levantamientos topográficos y se hacen los edictos para ver si LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 287 alguna persona aparece como propietaria de los predios, el Agustín Codazzi realiza la declaratoria del área frente a la alcaldía y a la notaría respectivas”. Asimismo, en los corregimientos de San Miguel y la Balza también se inició un proceso de Titulación individual entre los años 2011 y 2015. Al igual que los líderes de Buenos Aires, los líderes de estos corregimientos se preocupan por “la amenaza que está viviendo el territorio. Nosotros estamos luchando para la protección del territorio. Si se titula de manera individual, la gente podría vender y cada vez vamos a tener menos tierra. Hoy por fortuna, Concarcuca tiene reconocimiento del Ministerio del Interior y tiene un título colectivo. Pero de igual manera, aún en el territorio hay poseedores de mala fe y gente que quiere llegar a la zona y apropiarse de nuestros territorios. Nuestra apuesta y nuestra lucha es por la titulación colectiva de nuestros territorios para nuestras comunidades, pero tenemos una lucha muy larga con el gobierno. Tenemos la esperanza que podamos romper el hielo que existe con el gobierno para que nos titulen colectivamente”. Por otro lado, los tres consejos comunitarios se encuentran en proceso de censar a su población y capacitación sobre “qué es un consejo comunitario, cómo nos beneficia y por qué hay que luchar por la titulación colectiva”, señalaron los tres hombres. De igual manera expresaron que una de las grandes dificultades por las que atraviesan las comunidades, tanto para la titulación colectiva como para la titulación individual, “es que muchos predios se encuentran a nombre de los tatarabuelos y no hay cómo legalizarlos porque nadie sabe cómo hacer este procedimiento. Esto dificulta la titulación individual, pero no colectiva porque de allí podemos argumentar la tenencia de la tierra y nuestros derecho ancestral sobre ella”. Otro hombre agregó: “la mayoría de las personas adultas mayores tienen escrituras. Pero la generación entre los 40 y los 60 no tenemos escrituras. Sin embargo, muchos adultos mayores les han dado a sus hijos unas cartas venta para garantizar las herencias. Sin embargo, cuando acá funcionaba el INCODER estuvo funcionando, escriturando…”. En cuanto a los proyectos productivos que se han desarrollado en sus territorios, señalaron que ARDECAN, organización de organizaciones productoras agremiadas, ha trabajado con organizaciones campesinas y a través de la FEDEMERCA, la comercializadora que ARDECAN ha creado, se le ha hecho prestamos al campesino, los cuales se garantizan con las cosechas de los mismos. Respecto al programa de Tierras y Desarrollo Rural de USAID, señalaron que no tienen conocimiento del Plan Municipal de Formalización y que muchas de sus dinámicas funcionan a través de la administración de la alcaldía. Si bien tiene conocimiento sobre varios proyectos que se han ejecutado en la región, señalaron que ellos no han sido beneficiarios de ningún programa proveniente o financiado por USAID. Para los tres hombres, uno de los inconvenientes de los proyectos que financia USAID es que no se acuerda directamente con las comunidades sino con la institucionalidad gubernamental y “se presentan muchos obstáculos debido a que muchos funcionarios no cumplen con sus deberes y que en las administraciones hay mucha corrupción con el dinero. Necesitamos fortalecimiento de nuestras comunidades porque tenemos muchos problemas con las vías de acceso y esto nos dificulta el proceso de sacar los alimentos para comercializarlos en diferentes lugares, como también, que podamos trasladar a personas enfermas hacia la cabecera municipal. Nosotros sabemos que USAID tiene buenas intenciones pero la solución no es llegar a la alcaldía o a la gobernación, sino directamente a las comunidades que requieren tantas cosas y tanto trabajo”. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 288 ANNEX 15—ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK The original scope of work for the Mid-term Performance Evaluation of the Land and Rural Development Project (Mid-term PE LRDP) Task Order #AID-514-TO-17-00003 under the Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights (STARR) IQC #AID-OAA-I-12-00030 can be found on the following pages. Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 5 of 44 SECTION C – DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK C.1 TITLE Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of USAID/Colombia’s Land and Rural Development Program (Mid-Term PE-LRDP). C.2 PURPOSE The purpose of the evaluation is to assess if the Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) institutional strengthening hypothesis is likely to be effective and sustainable. In accomplishing this purpose, the Evaluation Team will assess if the support provided by the Activity has contributed to structural changes in Government of Colombia (GOC) institutions and to the design, implementation, and GOC scale up of land titling, formalization and restitution policies and strategies. Evaluation findings will support USAID and Implementing Partner (IP) accountability, indicating whether design decisions made during the extended period of learning during start-up were suitable. The evaluation will also provide recommendations for changes to achieve the expected results. To succeed, LRDP must work closely with its many GOC partners at the National, Departmental and Municipal level. These institutions must forge productive and collaborative relationships among themselves to ensure alignment focused on achievement of common objectives. Thus, we expect the Government of Colombia’s partners will also use evaluation results to enhance the quality of their interactions with the LRDP and to foster an improved vision for land titling, formalization and restitution policies. C.3 BACKGROUND Most experts agree that insecure land and property rights and weak state presence in rural areas are root causes of conflict in Colombia. Today, many feel Colombia faces a unique window of opportunity. The current administration appears to be committed to removing these root causes by continuing to fight illegal activity, building state presence in conflict-affected regions, and reforming land and rural development policies. Improved security, sensible macroeconomic policies, and growing tax revenues and royalties would be necessary for the GOC to finance a comprehensive reparations program for victims and an expansion of infrastructure and public services in rural areas. As an institutional strengthening initiative, USAID/Colombia’s Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) is designed to help the Colombian Government improve its ability to resolve the many complicated land and rural development issues that have plagued the country and fueled conflict for decades. Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 6 of 44 LRDP will gauge success by whether key Colombian institutions demonstrate an enhanced ability to implement land policies that address the causes and consequences of conflict. Rather than taking the shorter-term approach of resolving problems directly for the GOC, LRDP strives for greater long-term impact. LRDP works to strengthen the GOC’s capability to title and register lands held informally (formalization), return stolen or abandoned lands to their rightful owners (restitution), and facilitate the provision of basic services required for improved rural livelihoods – all of which are important elements of a broader effort by LRDP to help the GOC develop the rural sector. LRDP also provides targeted technical assistance to strengthen GOC capacity to monitor and evaluate land services and to provide accurate and accessible data for restitution and formalization processes. No matter how an activity is developed, LRDP seeks to design initiatives to help the GOC understand and respond to the different needs of women, ethnic minorities, youth and children. The FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia; Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and GOC had committed to conclude peace negotiations by March 2016. This did not happen and the peace negotiations remain ongoing in Havana, Cuba without a specific end date in sight. Land issues are likely to figure prominently in the final accord, if it is reached. I. LRDP Objectives and Strategic Approach This evaluation is scheduled to begin at just past the chronological mid-point of the LRDP. The overall LRDP objective is to improve the ability of national and regional governments to equitably meet the needs of people, communities and businesses for secure land tenure and for rural public goods that support sustainable licit rural livelihoods in conflict-affected areas. It supports the GOC in bringing displaced victims of conflict back to their land, providing them and other poor rural families with legal certainty of land ownership, and catalyzing investments in public goods and services that support licit rural livelihoods. LRDP also implements pilot programs in an effort to build GOC capacity and to scale-up GOC efforts in specific areas. The Activity has four specific objectives, as follows: 1. Improved capacity of GOC at the regional and national levels, to restitute lands to victims of conflict; 2. Improved capacity of regional and national GOC institutions to formalize rural property rights and to allocate public lands (baldíos); 3. Improved capacity of regional and national government entities to mobilize and execute public resources for rural public goods that meet community needs and market requirements; and 4. Improved information available and efficiently used to deliver land rights services. Nevertheless, as noted in the most recent LRDP work-plan: Although LRDP’s efforts are organized under four structural components—restitution, formalization, rural development, and information sharing and management—the unique realities of each region call for a tailored package of activities. This means that the activities implemented under the components are not identical in every region, instead Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 7 of 44 appropriately balanced and designed with a bottom-up approach to consider local nuance and context. Similarly, LRDP’s national-level activities are demand driven, meaning that they respond to specific needs generated within the regions. LRDP aims to bridge the gap between national-level GOC entities and their regional branches, building government capacity to mobilize resources into rural areas and to streamline land restitution and formalization procedures—and ultimately, to effectively be able to handle new challenges in a post-conflict Colombia. At the same time, LRDP strives to elevate rural reality to the national-level agenda, building political will and shaping national-level policy that will improve rural livelihoods. In addition, LRDP must consider the following cross-cutting issues to achieve the above objectives:  Consistency with USAID Mission Strategic Goals. LRDP must strengthen the GOC’s ability to: (1) fulfill its obligation to victims of conflict through land restitution; (2) increase coverage of formal property rights; and (3) generate opportunities for viable rural livelihoods, thereby mitigating the impact of the conflict on the most vulnerable populations and ensuring sustainable land agenda efforts.1  USAID Forward. LRDP must build capacity of local organizations and institutions to ensure that activities respond to country needs, have institutional support, strengthen host country systems, and improve GOC expenditures of its own budgetary resources.  Women and minority ethnic communities. LRDP is intended to promote effective and innovative solutions to address the needs of women, youth, and Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities including legal rights, access to administrative and judicial processes, and mainstream participation in GOC programs at national and subnational levels. II. LRDP Interventions The first two years of implementation involved considerable flux in strategy, in staffing, and in relationship management. Some of this was in response to shifting GOC priorities regarding restitution, formalization, and rural development. As stated in the most recent LRDP work plan: At the beginning of the program, the national GOC focused primarily on restitution as the key mechanism for accessing land, paying less attention to formalization processes. Moreover, new rural development initiatives2 were developed and explored but were hampered by weak, complex, and uncoordinated institutional frameworks at the national and regional levels 1 Activity linkages with the DO3 and IRS 3.1 of the CDCS are explained in the Annex to this SOW. 2 Initiatives include the Agrarian Pact, Comprehensive Rural Development Program with a Territorial Focus, and Regional Coordination Plans. 3 The Land and Rural Development agencies were created by Presidential Decree on December 2015. They are newly created agencies in establishment process through 2016. Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 8 of 44 Whereas, Today, as LRDP is in its third year of implementation, the GOC has demonstrated its commitment to resolving these issues, as exhibited by the recently approved National Development Plan (NDP). For the first time ever, the NDP establishes clear and structured guidelines for the transformation of the country’s rural sector. The NDP gives extraordinary powers to the president to make the legal and institutional reforms that will allow Colombia to improve its ability to respond to land and rural development issues, particularly through the creation of a new Land Authority and a Rural Development Fund. In addition, it calls for reform of the administration of public land (art. 102), the formalization of private land (art. 103), the adoption of a multipurpose cadaster that serves for more than just tax-collection purposes (art. 104), and a rectification of the discrepancies between the reality on the ground and what is recorded in registries (art. 105). The LRDP implementing partner (IP) reports a much-improved working relationship with most of its GOC partners. Following are the main partners with which LRDP works:  DNP – Departamento Nacional de Planeación (National Planning Department)  MARD -- Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development)  High Commission for Peace  INCODER -- Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural (Colombian Institute for Rural Development)  ANT – Agencia Nacional de Tierras (National Land Agency)3  ADR – Agencia de Desarrollo Rural (Rural Development Agency) 3  IGAC -- Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (Agustin Codazzi Geographic Institute)  LRU -- Unidad de Restitución de Tierras (Land Restitution Unit)  MINTIC -- Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones (Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications)  57 target Municipalities & 6 Departmental Governments (Annex D presents a map showing these municipalities)  Secretaries of Agriculture  SNR – Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro (Superintendence of Notary and Registry)  UPRA - National Agricultural Planning Unit  Ministry of Post-Conflict  Public Defender’s Office USAID and the IP have worked closely to adapt implementation approaches, and the IP has revised its Activity Monitoring & Evaluation Plan (AMEP) to align with the new reality. LRDP’s staffing structure includes 121 employees spread across its headquarters in Bogotá and five regional offices in Ibague, Sincelejo, Popayan, Villavicencio, and Valledupar. Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 9 of 44 LRDP has what it calls a two-pronged, demand-driven approach for catalyzing institutional adoption by its partners of changes sought by LRDP:  Create enabling environments for the institutional uptake of LRDP pilot activities; and  Include “institutional adoption strategy” with relevant program activities. As part of the implementation strategy, LRDP is developing pilot efforts to test approaches proposed by the Activity intended to improve capacities and consider potential impacts on beneficiaries. Pilots will document experience as inputs into GOC policy design and decision making. For example, pilots with respect to land formalization are located as depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1: Locations of LRDP Formalization Piloting FORMALIZATION MECHANISM LOCATION OF IMPLEMENTATION / PILOTING Massive titling, notification, and registration of public lands Cesar Meta Sucre Tolima Municipal formalization plans Santander de Quilichao (Cauca) El Copey (Cesar) Ovejas (Sucre) MARD private land formalization program Santander de Quilichao (Cauca) Acacias (Meta) Ovejas (Sucre) Chaparral (Tolima) Property ownership clarification, and the recovery of illegally or inappropriately acquired baldíos National level C.4 STATEMENT OF WORK a. Evaluation Questions Considering the LRDP objectives stated in C.3.I, the evaluation must answer the following questions in order of priority, to assess the performance of Activity: 1) What were the LRDP start-up challenges, and what are the accomplishments and progress to date, in establishing the necessary relationships with, and systems within, GOC partner institutions at the national and local levels to achieve the activities and objectives by July 2018? 2) What are the achievements and challenges of the institutional strengthening activity/objective given the political and institutional dynamics of GOC entities technically supported by LRDP? Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 10 of 44 3) To what extent is the institutional strengthening activity/objective of the program having an effect in addressing structural land and rural development constraints for effective implementation of land policy?3 4) Does the progress to date prepare GOC partner institutions well to address new up￾coming institutional changes? 5) What effect has LRDP had on beneficiaries, especially on women, youth and ethnic minorities in conflict affected areas receiving technical support from LRDP4 ? 6) Is LRDP using a coordinated and integrated approach among its four components in responding to multi-faceted problems and diverse regional and institutional requirements? Figure 2: Activity Snapshot Activity: Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) Period of Performance : 25 July 2013 to 24 July 2018 Contract No: AID-OAA-I-12-00032 Order No: AID-514-TO-13-00015 Contracting Mechanism: Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC) (STARR IQC) TEC: USD $67.6 million Contractor: Tetra Tech ARD DO 3: Improved conditions for inclusive Rural Economic Growth IR 3.1: More equitable and secure land tenure IR 3.2: Increased public and private investment in the rural sector. Purpose: To build the capacity of the institutions to administer and manage the programs to restitute land to victims of conflict, extend land titling in prioritized rural areas, and promote sustainable rural development to enable beneficiaries of land interventions to retain and make productive and efficient use of their land. Contracting Officer Representative: Marcela Chaves Evaluation Activity Manager (EAM): Elizabeth Mendenhall, Director, Program Office b. General Methodology Principles The Evaluation Team will carefully review all the documentation relevant to the evaluation purpose provided by USAID, the implementers, the GOC and local partners involved, prior to evaluation start up. The evaluation team must demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s Evaluation Policy and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 203. The team members, evaluation process, and products must: 1. Enhance ownership among stakeholders of the LRDP and objectives. 3 This question does not ask for an impact evaluation, but rather capture information regarding the results of the intervention. 4 This question does not ask for an impact evaluation. Rather this question is meant to capture information about the results of the intervention observed in beneficiaries receiving technical support from the Program. Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 11 of 44 2. Be participatory, including GOC partners, USAID, and the IP in ways that preserve objectivity while improving the quality of data collected, collective learning, and ownership of the evaluation results. 3. Use a differentiated evaluation approach depending on the region. The Evaluation Team must engage with a selection of target municipalities. The evaluation team (and to a certain extent the questions) need to be split between the regions and national level. This is a very complex Activity, with no direct implementation activities, so a lot of questions need to be refined depending on capacity within a municipality, Afro-Colombian/IP community presence, Land Restitution Unit (LRU) progress and other factors. 4. Provide useful recommendations that are specific, actionable, time-bound and targeted to specific entities in the LRDP ecosystem. 5. Use, review and analyze the indicator data provided by the monitoring activities of LRDP and USAID, based on LRDP’s data management systems and on the USAID/Colombia MONITOR system. LRDP collected baseline data will be shared prior to evaluation startup. 6. Propose and use a mix of instruments and procedures to collect qualitative and quantitative data and information. 7. Use a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis that help all stakeholders understand, not only what is going on, but why. The approach will provide benchmarks for understanding ongoing progress after the evaluation. 8. Obtain information of individuals from all relevant demographic groups (and be able to report on differential perception, impacts, and experience among them), including:  Men and women  Youth and elderly  Afro-Colombian and Indigenous 9. Include exercises to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints for the implementing partner to effectively coordinate with national and local GOC institutions, USAID/Colombia, other USAID programs, other donors, private actors among others to achieve the required results. 10. Develop or suggest tools and/or frameworks to track progress from conception, through adoption to implementation of the key policy elements of LRDP. 11. Retain the ability to break up into two teams to complete a demanding data collection effort and complex analytic exercise. c. Evaluation Methodology To assess the performance of LRDP and comprehensively answer the evaluation questions, the evaluation approach includes a mixed methods research design, in which the evaluation team will collect, analyze and integrate both qualitative and qualitative data. The methodology is made up of three primary components: a desk study; the review and analysis of secondary data; and primary data collection conducted with GOC entity stakeholders and household level project beneficiaries. Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 12 of 44 As the activities implemented under the four structural components of LRDP and the four mechanisms of pilot formalization are not identical across the project area, each of the three components of the methodology will be tailored as appropriate to the specific context of LRDP implementation and its activities. COMPONENT 1: DESK STUDY Prior to the start of the evaluation field work in Colombia, the evaluation team will conduct a desk study to cover all LRDP project documents and additional materials relevant to LRDP implementation. The desk study component will also include preliminary consultations with key stakeholders and coordination with LRDP partners to further refine the evaluation approach. The main objectives of the desk study are to:  Inform the evaluation design and implementation plan;  Track progress towards expected LRDP outcomes and link program activities to the Performance Evaluation (PE) questions;  Identify gaps in reporting data and prioritize secondary data analysis and primary data collection to fill existing gaps; and  Prioritize regions, municipalities and key stakeholders of interest for focus during field work and data analysis. The desk study will draw on LRDP documents such as annual planning documents and periodic progress and monitoring reports. Throughout the desk study content analysis, special attention will be paid to disaggregated data separated by sex, age, and ethnic group. Such focus will allow the evaluation team to explore and analyze project activities and outcomes directly in relation to women, youth, elderly and ethnic minorities across the core population targets of LRDP support. COMPONENT 2: REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY DATA Concurrent with the desk study component, the evaluation team will review, organize, and analyze four sets of secondary data including: 1) indicator data provided by the monitoring activities of LRDP and USAID, based on LRDP’s data management systems and on the USAID/Colombia MONITOR system; 2) LRDP- collected baseline data, to be shared with the evaluation team prior to evaluation start-up; 3) available GOC data on land services relevant to the four components of LRDP support including, restitution, formalization, rural development, and information sharing and management, and 4) available 2015 census data on municipal-level indicators. The review and analysis of secondary data will serve three main purposes. First, it will be used to inform the evaluation design, household survey sampling plan and primary data collection instruments. For example, the data will be used to determine the key stakeholders of interest for additional primary data collection, inform the questions that should be included in data collection instruments, and ensure these questions are structured appropriately to the stakeholder and context. Second, the impact of LRDP on institution building can measured, in part, by administrative information on the number of applications for land title and restitution, along with Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 13 of 44 data on how long it takes for those applications to be processed. Third, secondary data will be used throughout the evaluation analysis to triangulate and verify the findings from the primary data collection. Finally, the evaluation will dedicate special attention to the analysis of secondary data that is disaggregated by sex, age and ethnic group to enable the study to investigate differential perceptions, impacts and experiences. COMPONENT 3: PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION The final component of the mixed-methods approach to the evaluation includes the rigorous collection of primary quantitative and qualitative data. Instruments utilized as a part of data collection activities will be designed by the evaluation team and all aspects of data collection will be informed by the prior two components of the methodology. Additionally, each data collection instrument will be tailored as appropriate to fit the regional and municipal context of LRDP implementation and the key stakeholders of interest. Further, in accordance with the USAID Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment, as well as to capture gender relations and gender inequality as relevant to the context of LRDP and the evaluation questions, all data will be collected as sex-disaggregated data. In addition, all research subjects will be asked to specify their age and ethnic affiliation in order to obtain primary data that can be disaggregated by and analyzed across key populations of LRDP support. Quantitative Data Collection Primary quantitative data will be collected by the evaluation team utilizing three main data collection instruments: a structured survey with GOC entity stakeholders; a representative household surveys with direct project beneficiaries; and rapid assessment PE tools. A. GOC Stakeholder Survey First, structured surveys will be administered to approximately 100 GOC entity stakeholders across the five regions of LRDP focus. The evaluation team will determine the specific entities of interest for the structured surveys throughout the evaluation design process based on the findings of the desk study and secondary data analysis, and based on input from LRDP and USAID. Stakeholders targeted for structured surveys are likely to include diverse GOC partners at the national, departmental and municipal levels with specialized knowledge of land service implementation and rural development efforts. The evaluation team will utilize purposeful sampling techniques informed by the findings of the desk study and secondary data analysis to identify information-rich cases related to the evaluation questions of focus. A special emphasis will be placed on sampling GOC stakeholders in conflict affected areas and in areas largely populated with ethnic minorities. The quantitative data obtained from the structured surveys will be used intensively throughout the analysis to answer the evaluation questions on institutional strengthening and its effect on addressing structural land and rural development constraints and GOC partner institutional capacity to address institutional challenges (Evaluation Questions 3 and 4). Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 14 of 44 B. Beneficiary Household Survey Secondary data does not include information on those citizens who have not chosen to engage with government institutions. Ultimately, the effectiveness of LRDP fundamentally rests on the attitudes of rural Colombians to the institutions that LRDP has aimed to improve. Thus, a rigorous assessment of LRDP’s effect on rural livelihoods and institutions requires a household beneficiary survey. The contractor will conduct a large N household survey in approximately 50 municipalities across the 5 LRDP programmed regions. This will involve a 45 – 60 minute household survey with 1500 respondents; a probabilistic sampling method will be used to ensure a representative sample of LRDP project beneficiaries across the treatment regions. The household survey will strengthen the ability of the team to address Evaluation Questions 3 and 5 by producing data on recipient satisfaction with Activity implementation as well as measures on household consumption patterns. Given that one key goal of implementation is institutional strengthening and that Colombia is plagued by low institutional trust, measuring individual perceptions of the LRDP and implementing institutions should be valuable in understanding how the Activity impacts perceptions of these institutions. Hearing directly from participants should also provide insight on unexpected gaps or consequences of program implementation. Measuring household consumption patterns through a survey should also help us evaluate how program implementation impacts recipient economic behavior more generally, as well as the more specific impact on vulnerable populations of interest to USAID including women and youth. The household survey will also be used to evaluate LRDP impacts and report on differential perception and experiences from all the relevant demographics groups including men and women, youth and elderly and vulnerable populations like Afro-Colombian and indigenous. Beyond the individual data, household surveys also allow us to collect data on self￾reported land area, dwelling characteristics and household asset items as a reliable economic well-being indicator than income-based indices. The household survey instrument will include questions related to the following key topics: local participation in resolving problems related to titling, rural development and land restitution; local perceptions of land services provided by GOC entities; perceived access to reliable information related to land services; local perceptions of experience with the process of land restitution; awareness of land rights related to land and property; and local perceptions of technical services provided directly by LRDP, such as legal support and awareness raising initiatives. C. Rapid Assessment PE Tools Lastly, as a part of quantitative data collection, the evaluation team will employ rapid assessment PE tools, designed to obtain additional information on program implementation from LRDP staff and partners. The rapid assessment tools will provide the evaluation team with important information beyond the reporting data collected as a part of the LRDP baseline and M&E activities and will consist of short structured surveys administered to implementers of LRDP. The surveys will be designed to collect data and provide additional rich contextual information on program implementation across the project area. The data obtained as a part of the rapid assessment will be particularly valuable in answering evaluation questions regarding LRDP start￾up challenges, LRDP progress to date, and the achievement and challenges of LRDP in relation Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 15 of 44 to institutional strengthening (Evaluation Questions 1, 2 and 4). Additionally, the rapid assessment data will enable the evaluation team to examine if LRDP is using a coordinated and integrated approach among its four components in responding to multi-faceted problems and diverse regional and institutional requirements (Evaluation Question 6). The evaluation team will further use the findings from the PE to:  Gain a better understanding of implementation and context processes that may moderate program performance and outcomes, including variations in program implementation across districts and municipalities and the key reasons behind them;  Assess whether and how program implementation and context variation should be incorporated into the evaluation analysis;  Provide rich descriptive and supporting program implementation and context information to enable better interpretation of the evaluation results; and  Where relevant, create and measure indicator variables that are not included in the LRDP M&E and that can be used in the evaluation analyses to test how program implementation differences and challenges may moderate performance and outcomes. Qualitative Data Collection The primary data collection effort also includes a qualitative component. The qualitative strategy serves three primary purposes: 1) to add a social context within which to situate the statistics; 2) to add depth to the overall study and the descriptive PE data and; 3) to examine the effects of LRDP on beneficiaries, especially on women, youth and ethnic minorities in conflict affected areas receiving technical support from LRDP (Evaluation Questions 3 and 5). While the quantitative data analysis helps to answers “what” types of questions that are posed, the qualitative data addresses the “how” and “why” questions from the perspective of the participants themselves, thus adding a localized logic to the evaluation, enriching the learning from and understanding of program performance and outcomes. The qualitative field research strategy will employ two data collection tools: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). FGDs will consist of constructive, small group discussions with project beneficiaries, moderated by a member of the PE team. The FGDs are intended to shed light on the lived experiences and knowledge of key LRDP target populations and subgroups of interest for the evaluation including, but not limited to, women, indigenous persons and Afro- Colombians and what, if any, differential effects LRDP has had on these groups. The FGD will also seek to understand whether or not project activities have generated any unintended effects— positive or negative- on women and vulnerable populations to ensure that future programming takes into account any unanticipated outcomes or emerging disparities. KIIs will consist of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with LRDP implementing partners, GOC representatives, beneficiaries, and other key stakeholders of interest to the evaluation, each identified based on their specialized knowledge of LRDP implementation, activities and specific topics of relevance to the evaluation questions. The selection of key informants of interest to the Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 16 of 44 evaluation will be further informed by the desk study and the analysis of secondary data. All KIIs and FGDs will be voice recorded, and recordings will be translated and transcribed as necessary for the analysis of the qualitative data. Approach to Analysis The evaluation team will design a data analysis framework as part of the Mid-Term PE-LRDP that handles both quantitative and qualitative data and includes descriptive statistics and higher level correlation analyses. This mixed methods and multisource approach to analysis will allow the evaluation team to perform analysis across multiple sources and types of data, and enhance the credibility of the evaluation. The team will integrate the secondary data with the primary quantitative data collected during the course of the evaluation field work to produce a more comprehensive dataset for the analysis of mid-term project performance. From the primary and secondary quantitative data, the evaluation team will generate descriptive statistics and advanced statistical models to explore the relationship between outcomes of interest and LRDP programming. The selection of the appropriate statistical models will be driven by the goal of the analysis and determined based on: the types of primary and secondary data available and; the types of response and explanatory variables included in the model (i.e., continuous variables, categorical variables, or a mixture of both). Types of statistical models that will be utilized include regression and analysis of variance models. For example, regression models and econometric analysis will be used to analyze the large N household data, whereas the model applied to the analysis of the secondary data will depend on the scope and structure of that data. Additional data that will inform the analysis includes the information that emerges from the comprehensive desk study and the analysis of primary qualitative data. The PE team will employ a deductive approach to the qualitative analysis of data obtained from FGDs and KIIs, meaning the evaluation questions and the LRDP Results Framework will be used to guide and focus the analysis of transcripts. The analysis will involve reading and re-reading the transcripts of the KIIs and FGDs, carefully coding and grouping the data according to similar or related pieces of information presented. This process will allow the PE team to organize and compare similar and related pieces of information in the qualitative data and to identify key themes and common properties across the survey area. The qualitative findings will therefore add depth and social context to inform the interpretation of the results of the empirical analysis and shed light on the multiplicity of perspectives and potential mechanisms surrounding outcomes and questions of interest to the evaluation. In terms of analysis in relation to gender, disaggregated analysis of the primary and secondary data will further inform the complex and changing gender realities in relation to LRDP implementation. Based on the findings of the analysis of sex-disaggregated data, the evaluation team will formulate gender-specific recommendations intended to inform the implementation of LRDP activities and to improve program outcomes related to women’s empowerment. Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 17 of 44 Approach to Learning and Dissemination Recognizing that the full value of the evaluation will only be realized if the learning and findings are properly documented and disseminated, the evaluation team will use the following activities to support a dissemination plan for evaluation findings:  Provide recommendations to USAID and the implementing partner for changes to LRDP implementation to further achieve the expected program results;  Determine the content of messages and communication relevant to the evaluation findings according to the intended audience, such as the GOC and Activity partners at the national, departmental and municipal levels, so that they can use evaluation results to enhance the quality of their interaction with the LRDP; and  Present draft evaluation findings, conclusions, recommendations, best practices and lessons learned to USAID/Colombia during out-briefings, and incorporate the USAID/Colombia review into the final draft of the Mid-Term PE report. d. Resources The assessment team will review the LRDP documents listed below:  Base Task Order and Modifications  Program Annual Work plans  Annual and Quarterly Reports  Quarterly and Semi-Annual Strategic Review Reports  “El Nodo Tiene La Palabra” bulletins  Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (AMEP) current and previous versions  Quarterly or other Financial Reports  Fact Sheets  Monthly Highlights  USAID/Colombia Country Development Cooperation Strategy C.5 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR THE EVALUATION The evaluation will be conducted in Colombia. The Evaluation Team will work in Bogota and on LRDP regions in the Departments of Tolima, Meta, Cauca, Sucre and Cesar C.6 LOGISTIC SUPPORT The contractor will provide all workspace, computers, printers, internet, cell phone services and other administrative services for the Evaluation Team. USAID/Colombia will provide a letter of introduction and a list of contacts to the Evaluation Team for meetings with implementing partners, GOC representatives, program beneficiaries, and other key stakeholders and contacts. The Mission and/or USAID implementing partners will make available relevant documents. Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 18 of 44 The contractor will be responsible for providing logistical personnel covering support in an evaluation, including professional translation services, data entry, administrative assistance, operations, etc. The contractor will be responsible for arranging all logistical support for the evaluation. However, given the difficulties of travel within project intervention sites, LRDP will be available to provide advice on security issues to the Evaluation Team. The Evaluation Task Order Contracting Officer Representative (TOCOR) may observe some of the data collection efforts, but will not serve as a member of the evaluation team. C.7 GENDER Gender-sensitive indicators, sex-dis-aggregated data, and attention to gender relations are required elements of USAID evaluations; therefore gender and vulnerable populations must be integrated into the design and implementation of the Activity/SOW. Integration of these themes must take into account women and vulnerable groups such as, but not limited to, indigenous persons, Afro-Colombians, persons with disabilities, youth, the elderly and the LGBTI community as appropriate. The evaluation team must address gender inequalities in relation to the questions asked to ensure that future programming takes into account any unanticipated outcomes or emerging gender disparities. The contractor must: 1) clearly identify the range of evaluation stakeholders and the range of project participants (the respondents, including those who are hard to reach; identify all subgroups, attending to gender); 2) clarify who should be included in the evaluation (as respondents) and the composition (in terms of positions and competencies) of the evaluation team; 3) specify if there is a need for a mixed method evaluation, if appropriate, that includes quantitative and qualitative data to enhance the ability to triangulate data sources, enhance the credibility of the evaluation, and to examine complex and changing gender realities; 4) identify the resources that the evaluation team will have at its disposal to complete a gender-sensitive evaluation; and 5) specify and provide access to any gender analysis, gender action plan, theory of change description, and/or stakeholder analyses that were completed. Further resources on the required elements of USAID Evaluations in terms of gender and vulnerable populations can be found at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K43P.pdf C.8 SECURITY STRATEGY Security remains a key concern for USAID/Colombia partners operating in conflict-affected regions, particularly given the expanded focus on rural areas. While the security landscape is currently complex, it is likely to become even more complex in a post-accord scenario where different illegal actors are likely to vie for power while state actors also try to expand their presence. Security conditions and territorial stability can fluctuate over time; therefore it is required for the Contractor to develop a security strategy which carves in flexibility in order to be able to respond efficiently. The security strategy must have a “Security for Development” approach with a security risk mitigation plan and information systems to support the Activity Task Order No. AID-514-TO-17-00003 Mid-Term PE-LRDP SECTION C Page 19 of 44 implementation. Prior to commencing work in Colombia, the Contractor must ensure that it has adequate procedures in place to advise its employees of situations or changed conditions that could adversely affect their security. [END OF SECTION C] LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 304 REFERENCES Albertus, M., Kaplan, O. (2012). Land reform as a counterinsurgency policy: Evidence from Colombia. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(2). (198–231) Barrett, C., Carter, M. (2010) The Power and Pitfalls of Experiments in Development Economics: Some Non-random Reflections. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(4). 515-548. Bell, A., & Jones, K. (2012). Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modelling of time-series cross￾sectional and panel data. School of Geographical Sciences, Centre for Multilevel Modelling. University of Bristol. Bruhn, M., McKenzie, D. (2010). In pursuit of balance: Randomization in practice in development field experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4). 200-232. Cepeda, M. J. (2007). Polémicas constitucionales. Bogotá: Legis. Couso, J. (2004). "The politics of judicial review in Chile in the era of domestic transition, 1990- 2002." In Democratization and the judiciary: The accountability function of courts in new democracies, ed. S. Gloppen, R. Gargarella and E. Skaar. London: Frank Cass Publishers. Garay, L., Barberi, F., Ramirez, C., & Vargas, F. (2010). Tercer informe de verificación sobre el cumplimiento de derechos de la población en situación de desplazamiento. Report for: Comisión de Seguimento a la Política Pública Sobre el Desplazamiento Forzado. Bogotá, Colombia. Jacob, H., Blankenburg, E., Kritzer, H. M., Provine, D. M., Sanders, J. (1996). Courts, law, and politics in comparative perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Ibánez, A. M., Querubin, P. (2004). Acceso a tierras y desplazamiento forzado en Colombia. Universidad de los Andes. Ibáñez, A. M. & Vélez, C. E. (2008). Civil conflict and forced migration: The micro determinants and welfare losses of displacement in Colombia. World Development, 36(4):659-676 LeGrand, C. (1986). Frontier expansion and peasant protest in Colombia. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Legrand, C. (1989). Colonization and violence in Colombia: Perspectives and Debates. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 14(28), 5-29. doi:10.1080/08263663.1989.10816623 Nasi, C. (2007). Cuando callan los fusiles. Impacto de la paz negociada en Colombia y en Centro América. Bogotá: Grupo Editorial Norma -Universidad de los Andes. Peeler, J. (1985). Latin American democracies: Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Roldán, M. (2002). La violencia in Antioquia, Colombia. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. LRDP Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 305 Uprimmy, R. (2004). The Constitutional court and the comparison of presidential extraordinary powers in Colombia. In S. Gloppen, R. Gargarella & E. Skaar (Eds.), Democratization and Judiciary: The Accountability Function of Courts in New Democracies (pp. 33-50). London: CHR Michelsen Institute U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524 www.usaid.gov