February 26, 2019 (Revised November 19, 2019) 
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development for the E3 
Analytics and Evaluation Project. It was prepared independently by Management Systems International, A Tetra Tech 
Company; and NORC at the University of Chicago. 
EVALUATION 
Endline Report: Performance Evaluation the Responsible 
Land-Based Investment Pilot 
ABSTRACT 
This is the endline performance evaluation of USAID’s Public-Private Partnership for Responsible Land￾Based Investment Pilot (“the Pilot”). The Pilot aims to facilitate a global land rights analytical framework 
(AF). This report answers four questions: 
1. How has community participation in AF-guided activities under the Pilot affected how 
community members perceive and engage with land-based investor companies and schemes? 
2. To what degree have community-level objectives of the AF-guided activities under the Pilot 
been achieved, and what explains where successes, failures, or unanticipated effects have 
occurred? 
3. How well do the AF-guided activities under the Pilot meet underlying challenges and the needs 
of communities with respect to participation in or locational proximity to new or existing land￾based investment schemes? 
4. What are the lessons learned from the AF-guided activities under the Pilot that can inform 
future application and dissemination of the AF to better achieve intended community-level 
objectives? 
The evaluation team conducted 7 group discussions with 109 respondents and 13 key informant 
interviews, implemented computer-assisted telephone interviews with 483 respondents, and reviewed 
Pilot documents and data. 
The evaluation found that engagement with outgrowing has increased since baseline but use of Pilot 
documentation to access investment schemes is limited. The AF-guided activities under the Pilot 
strengthened perceptions of tenure security for parcels in the Pilot zone. Key lessons include realistically 
defining the theory of change within pilot timelines, ensuring a full chain of communication from 
implementing partner staff to beneficiaries, and planning how data systems are managed and transferred. 
ENDLINE REPORT: 
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND￾BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 
February 26, 2019 (Revised November 19, 2019) 
Contracted under AID-OAA-M-13-00017 
E3 Analytics and Evaluation Project 
Prepared by: 
Dr. Lauren Persha, Evaluation Team Leader, NORC at the University of Chicago 
Jacob Patterson-Stein, Evaluation Coordinator, Management Systems International 
Cover Photo: Women walk by a Central Zone floodplain in Mozambique. 
Credit: Jacob Patterson-Stein 
DISCLAIMER 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT iv 
CONTENTS 
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. II
CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... IV
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... VII
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
PILOT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Pilot Implementation in Mozambique ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
MOZAMBIQUE LAND CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
PILOT DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS .................................................................................................................................................... 6
PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, AND INTENDED USES ................................................................................... 8
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
AUDIENCE ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
INTENDED USES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
EVALUATION QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 8
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 9
TEAM COMPOSITION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9
DATA COLLECTION METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Group Discussions .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Key Informant Interviews ................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
CATI ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
SITE SELECTION................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
EVALUATION DESIGN LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 17
SUMMARY OF BASELINE FINDINGS AND THEMES ......................................................................... 17
ENDLINE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 19
EQ1: HOW HAS COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN AF-GUIDED ACTIVITIES UNDER THE PILOT AFFECTED HOW COMMUNITY 
MEMBERS PERCEIVE AND ENGAGE WITH LAND-BASED INVESTOR COMPANIES AND SCHEMES? ................................................. 19
Baseline Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Use of Pilot documentation to access outgrowing schemes was limited. ......................................................................................... 20
The Pilot-provided documentation was perceived as legitimate and a means of obtaining future outgrowing benefits. . 22
Many beneficiaries are uncertain about engagement with outgrowing schemes. ........................................................................ 25
It is too soon to fully assess the relationship between certification, outgrowing, and perceptions in the theory of change.
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
EQ2: TO WHAT DEGREE HAVE COMMUNITY-LEVEL OBJECTIVES OF THE AF-GUIDED ACTIVITIES UNDER THE PILOT BEEN 
ACHIEVED, AND WHAT EXPLAINS WHERE SUCCESSES, FAILURES, OR UNANTICIPATED EFFECTS HAVE OCCURRED? .............. 27
Baseline Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Strengthened Perceptions of Tenure Security ........................................................................................................................................... 29
The Pilot’s AF-guided provision of documentation faced several challenges, but also improved perceptions of economic 
opportunity, gender equity, and dispute mitigation. ................................................................................................................................ 32
The Pilot encountered unanticipated communication and implementation challenges that limited achievement of 
objectives. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Overall Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 42
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT v 
EQ3: HOW WELL DO THE AF-GUIDED ACTIVITIES UNDER THE PILOT MEET UNDERLYING CHALLENGES AND THE NEEDS OF 
COMMUNITIES WITH RESPECT TO PARTICIPATION IN OR LOCATIONAL PROXIMITY TO NEW OR EXISTING LAND-BASED 
INVESTMENT SCHEMES? ...................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Baseline Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43
The Pilot did not relieve underlying technical capacity constraints with respect to participation in land-based investment 
schemes. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Pilot participants viewed land rights documentation as a critical need and the Pilot successfully addressed this 
community constraint. ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 44
EQ4: WHAT ARE THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE AF-GUIDED ACTIVITIES UNDER THE PILOT THAT CAN INFORM 
FUTURE APPLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF THE AF TO BETTER ACHIEVE INTENDED COMMUNITY-LEVEL OBJECTIVES? 45
Timeline Lessons ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Communication Lessons ................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Data Management Lessons ............................................................................................................................................................................ 47
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 47
USAID ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 48
USAID AND IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS .......................................................................................................................................... 48
IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
ANNEX A: EVALUATION SOW ............................................................................................................ 50
ANNEX B: ENDLINE KII INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................. 63
ANNEX C: ENDLINE GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL ................................................................. 72
ANNEX D: ANONYMIZED RESPONDENT LIST ................................................................................. 77
ANNEX E: ADDITIONAL LINES OF EVALUATION QUESTION INQUIRY ................................... 83
ANNEX F: EVALUATION TEAM PROFILES ........................................................................................ 85
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT vi 
ACRONYMS 
ADS Automated Directives System 
AF Analytical Framework for Land-Based Investments in African Agriculture 
CATI Computer Assisted Telephone Interview 
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse 
DUAT Law of Use Rights and Tenure/Direito do Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra
E3 Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (USAID) 
EQ Evaluation Question 
ERC Evaluation, Research, and Communications 
EU European Union 
GD Group Discussion 
IP Implementing Partner 
KII Key Informant Interview 
LU Office of Land and Urban (USAID/E3) 
MOU Memorandum of Understanding 
MSI Management Systems International 
SOW Statement of Work 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT vii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This report presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations from endline data collection for the 
performance evaluation of the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Public￾Private Partnership for Responsible Land-Based Investment Pilot (“the Pilot”). The Office of Land and 
Urban in USAID’s Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (USAID/E3/LU) 
commissioned the evaluation, and the E3 Analytics and Evaluation Project designed and implemented it. 
Pilot Background 
In 2012, the Committee on World Food Security adopted international soft law that “promotes secure 
tenure rights and equitable access to land, fisheries, and forests as a means of eradicating hunger and 
poverty, supporting sustainable development, and enhancing the environment.”1 To provide practical 
guidance about how private sector investors can comply with these soft law guidelines, the international 
community produced the Analytical Framework for Land-Based Investments in African Agriculture (the 
AF). The AF consolidates existing guidance on responsible land-based investment into a succinct 
framework and provides guidance for companies to align with international best practices. Despite 
consensus on tenure risks and beneficial mitigation measures outlined in the AF, there is little evidence 
that the private sector is incorporating the AF into investment due diligence and project development. 
USAID/E3/LU tasked the Cloudburst Group (“Cloudburst”) to pilot utilization of the AF with private 
sector partners. The Pilot is one of the first attempts to study how implementation of different 
components of the AF affects private firms’ investment, including investment decision-making and 
operational planning, land rights, tenure security, and firm relations in affected communities. Cloudburst 
implemented the Pilot from December 2016 to March 2018 in Mozambique and at least one other 
country. Through a co-creation process, Cloudburst selected the Indufor/Moringa/Illovo consortium to 
implement the Pilot. This consortium included Terra Firma as a subcontractor. 
In Mozambique, Indufor and Terra Firma collaborated with Illovo Sugar Limited through its local 
subsidiary Maragra Açúcar Limited to implement the Pilot in rehabilitated floodplain zones near the 
Maragra nucleus sugarcane estate, 75 kilometers north of Maputo. The Pilot is layered over two 
livelihoods-oriented projects funded by the European Union (EU) that operate in the same floodplain 
area and are rehabilitating existing flood protection infrastructure and building new drainage and pumps 
infrastructure. The EU projects also established partnerships with Maragra and several farmer 
associations and are expanding the number of sugarcane outgrowers and the quantity of outgrower￾produced sugarcane for milling at the Maragra estate. 
Development Hypothesis 
USAID believes that if companies appropriately apply the AF as part of their land investment, acquisition, 
and management activities, private businesses will be able to identify and understand individual and 
community land tenure risks, and firms will be more likely to adopt approaches to avoid these risks. This 
will also mitigate risks in affected communities. USAID also expects investor application of the AF to 
produce outcomes for individuals and communities affected by land-based investments that are more 
inclusive and positive. This includes greater tenure security, lower perceived risk of land expropriation 
by individuals within affected communities, and fewer land disputes. 
1 See: http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT viii 
Evaluation Purpose and Questions 
USAID/E3/LU commissioned this evaluation to examine how the application of the AF affects community 
perceptions and actions as they relate to land management, tenure security, and engagement with 
private sector investors. USAID will use this evaluation to inform the design and implementation of 
future land tenure and investment-related activities and improve the AF’s facilitation with private sector 
firms. As one of the first evaluations of the AF’s implementation, it will help USAID, Cloudburst, private 
sector partners, other donors, and businesses in the land sector learn how implementation of the AF’s 
different components affects firms and community members. 
The report answers USAID’s four evaluation questions (EQs): 
1. How has community participation in AF-guided activities under the Pilot affected how 
community members perceive and engage with land-based investor companies and schemes? 
2. To what degree have community-level objectives of the AF-guided activities under the Pilot 
been achieved, and what explains where successes, failures, or unanticipated effects have 
occurred? 
3. How well do the AF-guided activities under the Pilot meet underlying challenges and the needs 
of communities with respect to participation in or locational proximity to new or existing land￾based investment schemes? 
4. What are the lessons learned from the AF-guided activities under the Pilot that can inform 
future application and dissemination of the AF to better achieve intended community-level 
objectives? 
Evaluation Design and Methodology 
This evaluation takes a non-experimental approach using qualitative pre-post analysis to explore the 
relationship between Pilot activities and outcomes of interest for land users in the Pilot zone. Endline 
data collection attempted to capture changes that may have occurred over the implementation period. 
The evaluation was designed iteratively in coordination with USAID and Cloudburst to find the best way 
to assess Pilot outcomes within the budget and timeframe available. 
The evaluation uses four data collection methods: 
 Desk review of implementing partner performance reports, other available Pilot documents, and 
monitoring and evaluation data, which was conducted as part of the evaluation’s endline analysis. 
 Group discussions (GD) at baseline and endline with land users in the Pilot zone. The evaluation 
team conducted 7 GDs with a total of 109 participants for the endline, including 4 GDs in the 
Central Zone and 3 in the South Zone. 
 Key informant interviews (KIIs) with farmer cooperative and association leaders, government 
administrative staff, and Pilot and EU project liaisons at baseline and endline. The team 
conducted 13 KIIs at endline. 
 A computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey at endline with 483 Pilot participants to 
capture quantitative information about their Pilot experiences and tenure security. 
The evaluation team conducted field-based endline data collection from August 22 to September 1, 2018 
in Manhiça District, Mozambique. The endline research captured the experiences and perspectives of 
floodplain farmers in the Pilot zone to understand their experiences with the mapping and certification 
of individual parcels, as well as perceptions around tenure security and engagement with Illovo-Maragra. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT ix 
Limitations and sources of bias in the evaluation design include: 
 Lack of a counterfactual: The design cannot definitively attribute reported impact to the 
Pilot, and the ability to mitigate this issue is limited. However, the design deployed a pre-post 
approach wherein questions asked at baseline and endline aimed to capture information on 
potential confounding factors. 
 Response bias: Respondents may have given biased answers or answers they thought the 
evaluation team was looking for. The evaluation team crafted its GD guides and ensured that 
GD facilitation was oriented to minimize response bias. It also used qualitative response coding 
during analysis to check whether response bias was an issue. The CATI data provided an 
additional check on this source of bias and were used to contextualize and compare with the 
qualitative data. 
 Recall bias: With the passage of time, respondents may have had difficulty remembering some 
evaluation topics, such as disputes or perceptions about specific actors. Follow-up interviews, 
well-crafted interview templates, appropriate follow-up questions, and the use of secondary data 
helped the evaluation team mitigate this challenge. 
 Selection bias: Respondents willing to share their views may not be representative of Pilot 
participants or may be different in observed and unobserved ways. The evaluation team sought 
respondents with various experiences and roles for data collection. However, the evaluation’s 
non-random design cannot rigorously control for selection bias. 
Endline Findings and Conclusions 
This section summarizes the report’s key findings and conclusions by EQ, first in Table 1 and then in a 
brief narrative. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT x 
TABLE 1: SUMMARY ENDLINE FINDINGS BY EVALUATION QUESTION 
EQ Key Findings Key Conclusions
EQ1 
 Engagement with investor companies and schemes was not widely reported. 
 Where respondents were engaged in outgrowing, AF-facilitated activities, such as 
certification, had not been utilized to obtain contracts. 
 EU project participants perceived AF-guided documentation as potentially helpful to 
engaging in sugarcane outgrowing in the future. This was echoed among non-EU project 
participants, although few in this group are engaged or plan to engage with local investor 
schemes. 
 GD respondents did not perceive Maragra differently as a result of the Pilot. 
 While engagement with outgrowing appears to have increased since 
baseline, use of Pilot documentation to access outgrowing schemes 
was limited at endline. 
 Pilot-facilitated documentation was perceived as a legitimate and 
helpful means of obtaining future outgrowing benefits. 
 Many beneficiaries continue to express uncertainty about engagement 
with outgrowing schemes. 
 It is too soon to fully assess the relationship between certification, 
outgrowing, and perceptions in the theory of change.
EQ2 
 The Pilot achieved its community-level tenure security objectives. 
 There were individual farmer-level challenges in photographing, mapping, and adapting to 
weather-related issues. 
 GD respondents voiced concerns about whether the certificate could resist counter 
claims from DUAT holders or ward off government land grabbing. 
 GD respondents reported potential future economic opportunities as a result of Pilot 
activities, but there was not a strong sense that economic opportunity had already 
tangibly changed. 
 About half of GD respondents felt the Pilot successfully promoted land-related gender 
equity, but there were concerns around the protection of rights for inheritance. 
 The Pilot was unable to provide DUATs due to unanticipated implementation, 
coordination, and technical challenges. 
 GD respondents reported confusion about how to contact the Pilot or follow up on 
issues with the AF-guided activities under the Pilot.
 AF-guided activities under the Pilot successfully strengthened 
perceptions of tenure security. 
 Pilot provision of documentation faced several challenges while also 
improving perceptions of economic opportunity, gender equity, and 
dispute mitigation. 
 The AF-guided Pilot implementation context limited the ability of the 
Pilot to follow through on providing government-issued DUATs. 
 There is significant confusion among beneficiaries around the 
difference between DUATs and cooperative-issued certificates. 
 The Pilot encountered unanticipated communication and 
implementation challenges that limited achievement of key 
government-issued document objectives. 
EQ3 
 Many respondents reported ongoing underlying technical and financial barriers to 
engaging in outgrowing. 
 Pilot beneficiaries reported widespread tenure insecurity for lands they used outside of 
the Pilot zone. 
 The Pilot’s mapping and certification activities relieved concerns 
around having documentation to engage with outgrowing schemes but 
technical and financial capacity constraints remain and are likely to 
inhibit engagement with private sector investment schemes. 
 Broad tenure insecurity is still an underlying challenge for people 
farming in the floodplain zone.
EQ4 
There are three main lessons from the AF-guided activities under the Pilot that can inform its future application and dissemination:
1. Timeline: the Pilot implementation period limited the time for addressing intervention challenges and for fully addressing the theory of change. 
2. Communication: in decentralized contexts, such as the floodplain Pilot zones, application and dissemination of the AF should focus on strong upward and 
downward communication flows across the entire chain of communication and ensure that participants are directly aware of activity benefits, details, and how to 
follow up when clarifications are needed. 
3. Data management: systems for the analysis, storage, and transfer of data related to AF-guided activities should be designed to consider existing local systems 
integration, local capacity, and future sustainability to fully achieve intended community-level objectives. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT xi 
EQ1: How has community participation in AF-guided activities under the 
Pilot affected how community members perceive and engage with land￾based investor companies and schemes? 
The Pilot’s efforts have not affected how community members perceive and engage with land-based 
investor schemes. Community participation in AF-guided activities under the Pilot appears to have 
increased awareness of the requirements for outgrowing among farmers in Pilot Zones. Previously, 
respondents were not interested in, aware of, or able to access outgrowing. Endline data suggest that 
perceptions of Maragra had not substantially changed compared to the baseline. While the number of 
outgrowers may have increased over the Pilot period, many GD respondents at endline echoed the 
same challenges voiced at baseline toward engaging with outgrowing schemes. At endline, the use of 
Pilot supported, cooperative-issued certificates to engage in outgrowing contracts with Maragra was 
rare, but more time may be needed for farmers to utilize them for firm engagement. 
Key findings and conclusions for EQ1 include: 
 Use of Pilot documentation to access outgrowing schemes was limited: Only seven 
CATI survey respondents who started outgrowing during the Pilot reported using the 
cooperative-issued certificates as part of the documentation they provided to Maragra. None of 
the GD respondents reported using the cooperative-issued certificates. This is likely due to the 
timing of data collection and relatively recent receipt of the certificates. Other forms of 
documentation are still the norm for engaging in outgrowing schemes. 
 Farmers perceived the Pilot-provided documentation as a means for obtaining 
future outgrowing benefits: Farmers viewed the cooperative-issued certificates as a way to 
meet previously non-standard outgrowing contract requirements. Both categories of GD 
respondents posited that the cooperative-issued certificates confer legitimacy onto the holders 
for future engagement with Maragra and outgrowing schemes. 
 Many beneficiaries are uncertain about engagement with outgrowing schemes: In all 
GDs, discussants expressed uncertainty around outgrowing. This was partly due to aversion to 
the risks of an unknown crop cycle, but also to fixed constraints such as parcel size. 
 It is too soon to fully assess the relationship between certification, outgrowing, and 
perceptions in the Pilot’s theory of change. More time is needed to understand how 
engagement with outgrowing schemes will change because of the Pilot. Pilot participants 
reported receiving certificates in June and July 2018. Field-based data collection took place in 
August and September 2018. Based on the low rate of engagement with Maragra among the 
evaluation sample, more time may be needed before the outgrowing potential of the certificates 
is realized. The certification process did not appear to change broader perceptions of Maragra 
among outgrowers and non-outgrowers. 
EQ2: To what degree have community-level objectives of the AF-guided 
activities under the Pilot been achieved, and what explains where successes, 
failures, or unanticipated effects have occurred? 
The Pilot appears to have achieved many of its community-level objectives by endline, though there are 
some gaps. Pilot activities (sensitization, land mapping, and provisioning of DUAT titles or certificates of 
proof of DUAT rights) have positively affected land users’ perceptions of tenure security, vulnerability to 
land conflict or disputes, and risk of land expropriation in the Pilot zone in ways that are consistent with 
the Pilot’s theory of change. The Pilot encountered technical and communication challenges, including 
the inability to share data with Government of Mozambique systems and lack of follow-up with 
beneficiaries about DUAT submissions. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT xii 
Key findings and conclusions for EQ2 include: 
 AF-guided activities under the Pilot successfully strengthened perceptions of tenure 
security: Participants expressed increased confidence in their ability to mitigate or avoid land 
disputes because of Pilot parcel mapping and land rights certification activities. Women reported 
greater equity in the strength and potential use of the certificates. 
 Pilot provision of documentation faced several challenges, but also improved 
perceptions of economic opportunity, gender equity, and dispute mitigation: Pilot 
activities positively affected land users’ knowledge of land rights and perceptions of transparency 
vis-à-vis land access and land rights in the Pilot zone. GD and KII respondents felt the 
certificates would reduce future incidence of land disputes and enable easier resolution of 
disputes, as the certificates would serve as proof of holders’ rights to the land. 
 There is confusion as to the difference between DUATs and cooperative-issued 
certificates: Many respondents did not differentiate between Pilot-issued certificates and 
formal government-issued DUAT title documents. This may have implications for sustained 
tenure gains if cooperative-issued certificates are unevenly recognized in different legal or land 
dispute contexts, or the perceived validity changes over time. 
 The Pilot encountered unanticipated communication and implementation 
challenges: There were clear information dissemination gaps, with some Pilot participants 
unaware that the Pilot had ended or unsure of where to direct questions. The lack of technical 
capacity within the local cooperative partner, coupled with the decentralized floodplain 
structure, led to challenges in sustaining local data management. 
EQ3: How well do the AF-guided activities under the Pilot meet underlying 
challenges and the needs of communities with respect to participation in or 
locational proximity to new or existing land-based investment schemes? 
By providing land rights certificates, Pilot activities appeared to meet one of the key challenges and 
community’s needs with respect to its ability to participate in local land-based investment schemes. 
Tenure security is not the only important barrier to engaging in outgrowing. Technical skills, capital 
support, information uncertainty, and high labor needs are also important reasons individuals in the Pilot 
area do not take advantage of available land-based investment opportunities. Further, broader feelings of 
tenure insecurity outside the Pilot zone contribute to a sense of anxiety about land use. Tenure security 
and proof of land claims are necessary but insufficient conditions for land users in the Pilot area to 
effectively participate in available land-based investment schemes. There are broader concerns about 
household and other parcel tenure security that could influence the decision to engage with investment 
schemes. 
Key findings and conclusions for EQ3 include: 
 The Pilot’s mapping and certification activities relieved some concerns about having 
documentation to engage with outgrowing schemes, but underlying technical 
capacity constraints remain: The Pilot may have cleared a pathway for outgrowing (see EQs 
1 and 2), but underlying financial and capacity needs the Pilot was not designed to support 
remain in Pilot zone communities. These community challenges continue to inhibit engagement 
with outgrowing. 
 Pilot participants in select floodplain zones are still insecure in their land rights even 
as the Pilot addressed tenure security concerns: GD respondents are insecure about land 
rights for homes and parcels outside the Pilot zones. These areas are outside the scope of the 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT xiii 
Pilot, but may explain continued reluctance toward outgrowing, especially as there are other 
constraints to outgrowing and a history of land grabbing in the area. 
EQ4: What are the lessons learned from the AF-guided activities under the 
Pilot that can inform future application and dissemination of the AF to 
better achieve intended community-level objectives? 
Three lessons from the AF-guided activities under the Pilot can inform future application and 
dissemination of the AF: 
 Timeline: The Pilot’s implementation period limited the time for addressing intervention 
challenges and for fully addressing the theory change. 
 Communication: In decentralized contexts, such as the floodplain Pilot zones, application and 
dissemination of the AF should account for the entire chain of communication and ensure that 
participants are directly aware of activity benefits and details. 
 Data management: Systems for the analysis, storage, and transfer of data related to AF￾guided activities should be designed to consider existing local systems integration, local capacity, 
and future sustainability to fully achieve intended community-level objectives. 
Overall, GD respondents were happy with the AF-guided activities and community objectives. When 
asked about recommendations for future activities, respondents in four of the seven GDs mentioned 
mapping and certification of their home and non-flood zone parcels. While GD and KII respondents 
directly or indirectly mentioned the lessons above, it is worth reiterating that, as a test of the AF, the 
Pilot’s mapping and certification activities were limited within the grand sweep of what the AF covers. 
Recommendations 
USAID should: 
 Ensure that technology and certification data are compatible with government national cadastral 
systems prior to the start of the activity. 
 Consider longer timeframes for Pilot activities to achieve linkages between certification and 
outgrower engagement and improved livelihoods. Also, consider monitoring beyond pilot 
lifetimes to better understand theoretical and practical relationships. 
USAID and implementing partners should: 
 Plan activities and objectives around government time frames to improve results. 
 Require a clear exit strategy and well-defined transfer of responsibilities to local land 
administration institutions. 
 Consider revising expectations of what can be achieved through a highly decentralized, 
community-led approach to establishing and maintaining a land administration system locally. 
 Account for the exit and sustainability of Pilot activities. 
Implementing partners should: 
 Consider stronger attention to building and ensuring channels for upward communications from 
beneficiaries to pilot or activity staff. Ensure that upward communications channels are 
established and functioning for beneficiaries during and after the project. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 1 
INTRODUCTION 
This report presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations from endline data collection for the 
performance evaluation of the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Public￾Private Partnership for Responsible Land-Based Investment Pilot (“the Pilot”). The Office of Land and 
Urban in USAID’s Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (USAID/E3/LU) 
commissioned the evaluation, and the E3 Analytics and Evaluation Project designed and implemented it.2
Pilot Description 
In 2012, the Committee on World Food Security adopted the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible 
Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security 
(“Voluntary Guidelines”). This international soft law3 “promotes secure tenure rights and equitable 
access to land, fisheries, and forests as a means of eradicating hunger and poverty, supporting sustainable 
development, and enhancing the environment.”4 Almost 100 nations agreed to the Voluntary Guidelines. 
To provide practical guidance to private sector investors regarding how they can comply with the 
Voluntary Guidelines, the United States, French, German, and British governments; the United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization; and the African Union collaboratively produced the Analytical 
Framework for Land-Based Investments in African Agriculture (the AF).5 The AF consolidates existing 
guidance on responsible land-based investment into a succinct framework. The Global Donor Working 
Group on Land endorsed the AF in October 2015. The AF provides guidance for companies to align 
with international best practices while reducing potential risks to their investments. Despite consensus 
on tenure risks and beneficial mitigation measures outlined in the AF, there is little evidence that the 
private sector is incorporating the AF into investment due diligence and project development. 
USAID/E3/LU tasked the Cloudburst Group (“Cloudburst”), through the Evaluation, Research, and 
Communications (ERC) task order under the Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights indefinite 
quantity contract (#AID-OAA-I-12-00030), to Pilot utilization of the AF with private sector partners. 
The Pilot is one of the first attempts to study how implementation of different components of the AF 
affects private firms’ investment, including investment decision-making and operational planning, land 
rights, tenure security, and firm relations in affected communities. Cloudburst implemented the Pilot 
from approximately December 2016 through March 2018 in Mozambique, with certificates issued after 
the end of the main implementation period in June 2018. Cloudburst ran a co-creation process through 
which it selected the Indufor/Moringa/Illovo consortium to implement the Pilot. This includes Terra 
Firma as a subcontractor. In Mozambique, Indufor and Terra Firma collaborated with Illovo Sugar 
Limited through its local subsidiary Maragra Açúcar Limited to implement the Pilot in a series of 
rehabilitated floodplain zones near the Maragra nucleus sugarcane estate, 75 kilometers north of 
Maputo. 
Because the AF is applicable at different investment stages and can be adopted midway through the 
investment cycle, Pilot activities in each country focused on different components of the AF’s five stages. 
2 Team lead Management Systems International (MSI), in partnership with Development and Training Services, a Palladium 
company; and NORC at the University of Chicago, implements the E3 Analytics and Evaluation Project. 
3 “Soft law” generally refers to agreed-upon, though non-binding, guidelines based on international consensus. They have limited 
enforcement or accountability mechanisms. For more, see Andrew T. Guzman and Timothy L. Meyer, "International Soft Law." 
Journal of Legal Analysis 2, 1 (2010): 171-225. 
4 See: http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/. 
5 See: https://www.growafrica.com/sites/default/files/Analytical-framework-for-land-based-investments-in-African￾agriculture_0.pdf. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 2 
In Mozambique, Pilot activities covered elements of Stages 1 (Due Diligence), 2 (Participation, 
Consultation, and Negotiations), 3 (Grievance Mechanism-Dispute Resolution), and 4 (Transparency and 
Corruption).6 
Pilot Implementation in Mozambique 
The Mozambique portion of the Pilot was designed to include three main components: 
1. A land rights and Pilot participation sensitization period, followed by initial assessment and 
registration of Pilot beneficiaries; 
2. Land mapping and parcel registration; and 
3. Provisioning one or two types of documents to confirm land use rights: (1) a Pilot-issued 
certificate of proof of acquisition of Right of Use Rights and Tenure (DUAT) rights, issued to all 
interested Pilot beneficiaries; and (2) for a subset of beneficiaries,7 support for obtaining a 
DUAT title, which affirms the holder’s right to use and benefit from the land according to 
Mozambique’s 1997 Land Law. According to the Pilot design, the Pilot-issued certificate is 
suggested to be a legal equivalent to the DUAT title for the purposes of establishing a 
landholder’s DUAT rights to the land per Mozambique’s Land Law.8 However, it is not a 
government document. 
Cloudburst, as the prime contractor, performed contractual oversight of Indufor. It also played a 
monitoring and data collection role in the Pilot, including developing case studies, communications 
materials, and success stories, and collecting monitoring data from participating firms through Indufor. 
Performance indicators for the Pilot included a focus on changes in capacity and knowledge of due 
diligence steps to mitigate land tenure risk on the part of land-based investors participating in Pilot 
activities. For communities in Pilot areas, performance indicators included tracking the number of 
parcels, land area, and number of households that have land rights mapped and recorded by the Pilot. 
The number of DUAT title applications filled out by producer associations and the number of 
households with formalized land rights in the Pilot area were also collected as part of Pilot monitoring 
and evaluation activities. 
Monitoring data collected by Terra Firma show that the Pilot delivered 1,757 certificates to beneficiaries 
in the target zones. There were 24 reported cases where potential beneficiaries did not receive 
certificates. However, endline data collection suggests this number may be open to question.9 According 
to Terra Firma’s activity tracking data, 70 percent of beneficiaries who started the registration process 
were female and the average age of eligible participants was around 50 years old. Cloudburst reported 
1,849 parcels mapped over the Pilot’s implementation period. The original implementation plan aimed to 
provide 200 government-issued DUATs. However, Terra Firma eventually submitted information for 
formal DUAT applications to the government of Mozambique for all certificate beneficiaries. By Pilot’s 
end, no DUAT titles were issued by government or received by beneficiaries. This is in line with 
implementer expectations given the anticipated length of time it takes for government to process 
applications and issue DUAT title documents. According to implementing partner (IP) documents, the 
Pilot further achieved the following outcomes: 
6 The fifth stage of the AF is Food Security, Human Rights, Environmental Sustainability, and Local Capacity Building, which is 
not formally part of the Mozambique Pilot. 
7 As explained later in this report, all beneficiaries who obtained the cooperative-issued certificate had their information 
submitted to obtain a formal government-issued DUAT, rather than just a subset. 
8 This is because Mozambique Land Law of 1997 states that a DUAT can be acquired through one of the following three ways: 
(1) local community occupation governed by customary law; (2) good faith occupation after using the land for at least 10 years 
without objection; or (3) adjudication and allocation of a 50-year lease by the state (van den Brink 2008). 
9 This also differs slightly from that cited in the ERC 2018 annual report (although this data is derived from Terra Firma’s data). 
See Evaluation, Research, and Communication project: final report, p. 62. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00T7X9.pdf. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 3 
 Delivered cooperative-issued certificates of documented land rights to 558 men and 1,084 
women (66 percent women). 
 Facilitated the formal DUAT registration process for these 1,642 landholders. 
 Developed a new grievance mechanism for Illovo to address land-related and other concerns 
among local community members and growers. 
FIGURE 1: PILOT BENEFICIARY COUNT BY CERTIFICATION STATUS 
European Union Project Overlap 
The Pilot is layered over two livelihoods-oriented projects funded by the European Union (EU) and 
currently operating in the same floodplain area: the Maragra Smallholder Sugarcane Development 
Project and the Maragra Sugarcane Outgrowers Capacity Building Project. These two projects are 
rehabilitating existing flood protection infrastructure and building new drainage and pumps 
infrastructure. The EU projects have also established partnerships with Maragra and several farmer 
associations and are expanding the number of sugarcane outgrowers and the amount of outgrower￾produced sugarcane for milling at the Maragra estate.10
As part of the EU-funded outgrower support, project beneficiaries are provided with the following 
services during the lifetime of the EU project: technical and management support for sugarcane 
production (including cane establishment, weeding, and farm management extension services); subsidized 
fertilizer and other inputs; and harvesting and transport services during the harvest period, including 
transporting the cane to the Maragra mill, where it is processed into sugar. Farmers are paid for the 
sugar obtained from their cane. Because the sugar content in the cane begins to drop on harvest, the 
timing of cane harvest and transport are important for maximizing farmer income. 
While Maragra is actively part of the EU project in an ongoing capacity, it also played a role in the 
USAID Pilot by participating in the Pilot design and launch. In addition, Maragra provided staff to assist in 
10 “Outgrowing” refers to contract-based farming wherein a farmer or seller agrees to produce an agreed upon quantity of 
crops, generally at an agreed upon price, for a set buyer or private firm. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 4 
Pilot implementation, provided input to Cloudburst’s case studies and communications materials about 
the Pilot, and purchased sugarcane from any floodplain farmers who were eligible and chose to 
participate in both EU and Pilot activities. 
Pilot Implementation Zones 
The Pilot and EU projects overlap in several discrete, low-lying floodplain areas (locally known as 
“blocks”) that landholders from neighboring localities have historically used for subsistence and small￾scale commercial farming. However, many landholders have abandoned farming recently because of 
poor drainage and frequent flooding, both of which resulted in high crop loss in any given year. 
The overlap of donor-supported activities in the Pilot zones has implications for this evaluation with 
respect to potential Pilot beneficiaries. First, although the Pilot is wholly operating in a subset of six 
floodplain blocks under the EU-funded projects, not all individuals with land in these blocks participated 
in the EU-funded projects and there is no systematic tracking to determine which Pilot beneficiaries are 
also involved in the EU-funded projects. Second, non-participants in the EU projects may consist of 
individuals who were not interested in participating or were not eligible (e.g., because they did not have 
a personal identification document or had an unresolved dispute on their parcel). Third, participation in 
the Pilot (i.e., receipt of land mapping and certification services) was open to any interested land user in 
the Pilot blocks, regardless of whether they participated in the EU project. However, most of the 
sugarcane outgrowers in the Pilot blocks are EU project beneficiaries. This means that parcels in a given 
Pilot block that are planted under sugarcane for the 2016-2017 farming season are held by individuals or 
farmer associations that are EU-project beneficiaries. Most of these were newly contracted during the 
2016-2017 farming season as outgrowers for Maragra through EU project support.11 
FIGURE 2: ILLUSTRATION OF PILOT BENEFICIARIES 
11 Sugarcane outgrowers during the 2016-2017 farming season primarily consisted of EU project beneficiaries. Pilot activities 
may facilitate other parcel holders to be eligible for such types of outgrowing schemes with Maragra in the future because the 
DUAT title of Pilot-issued certificate equally meets Maragra’s criteria to establish the landholder’s right to the land prior to 
engaging in an outgrower contract. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 5 
Mozambique Land Context 
In the aftermath of Mozambique’s 17-year civil war, the National Assembly approved a national land law 
that sought to clarify land rights for men and women and lay the foundation for investment.12 Hailed for 
its participatory process, the 1997 land law asserts the state’s ownership of all land within the country 
but clarifies “the right of land use and benefit” for individuals, communities, and companies. This is 
commonly known as a DUAT right.13 Land use rights may be obtained through customary occupancy 
but may also be obtained through a DUAT title document issued individually or jointly. Although the 
state retains ownership of land throughout Mozambique, DUAT titles can be transferred between 
individuals to allow for investment, clarification of tenure, and inheritance.14 DUAT titles are issued 
through a costly and time-consuming bureaucratic process, but the law provides that the right to use 
and benefit from land may be acquired through any of the following three means: 
 Individual or community occupancy “in accordance with customary norms and practices which 
do not contradict the Constitution.” 
 Occupancy by individuals “who have been using the land in good faith for at least 10 years.” 
 Authorization of an application submitted according to procedures established by the law.15
Individuals or joint land users may acquire a DUAT title, in which their right to use and benefit from the 
land is awarded, through the application specified in the third point. However, the law also specifies that 
the absence of a DUAT title does not prevent individuals from acquiring land rights through either of 
the two occupancy means outlined above and should not present a disadvantage for individuals who only 
have occupancy rights rather than a formal DUAT title. Furthermore, the law states that proof of an 
individual’s or a community’s right to land use may be provided by a DUAT title or by testimonials 
provided by community members, in addition to other evidence permitted by the law.16
The government is expected to process DUAT title applications within 90 days of receipt. In practice, 
however, many rural smallholder farmers are unfamiliar with the land laws and regulations for securing 
their land tenure rights.17 The institutional capacity of local authorities to address DUAT title 
applications and conduct the associated land survey is often limited, with varied understanding of how to 
interpret, enforce, and facilitate implementation of land regulations.18 This situation, along with 
institutional financial constraints, can also leave individuals in local communities, including women and 
other vulnerable populations, at particular risk for outright land expropriation and rent-seeking behavior 
by officials within the titling bureaucracy. It can also introduce barriers to community members 
effectively asserting their land claims and obtaining a DUAT title.19 A 2013 study20 found that beyond the 
12 Christopher Tanner, "Land Rights and Enclosures: Implementing the Mozambican Land Law in Practice." In The Struggle Over 
Land in Africa: Conflicts, Politics, and Change, edited by Ward Anseeuw and Chris Alden, Chapter 6. Cape Town, South Africa: 
HSRC Press, 2010. 
13 Christopher Tanner, “Law-Making in an African Context: the 1997 Mozambican Land Law.” FAO Legal Papers Online #26. 
March 2002. 
14 Land Tenure, Housing Rights and Gender in Mozambique. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 
2005. 
15 Mozambique Land Law, No. 19/97, Article 12. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/moz15369E.pdf. 
16 Mozambique Land Law, No. 19/97, Articles 13 and 15. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/moz15369E.pdf. 
17 Mozambique—Property Rights and Resource Governance Profile. USAID. 2011. 
18 Rogier J. E. Van Den Brin, “Land Reform in Mozambique.” World Bank Agriculture & Rural Development Notes, Issue 43, 
World Bank, Washington, DC, December 2008. 
19 International Federation for Human Rights, Women's Rights in Mozambique: Duty to end illegal practices, May 2007, no. 
474/2, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/46f146890.html [accessed 17 July 2017]. Also, Mozambique—Property Rights 
and Resource Governance Profile. USAID. 2011. 
20 “OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Mozambique.” Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. October 
2013. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 6 
capacity and financial constraints to obtaining DUAT titles by land users, the procedures for obtaining a 
DUAT title are often unclear. In addition, the regulations for maintaining use rights to the land once a 
DUAT title is obtained are also open to interpretation and are often applied subjectively. For example, 
land expropriation events have been documented for those with legally recognized DUAT claims in 
cases where the state determined that the DUAT holder was not abiding by an agreed land use plan.21 
Pilot Development Hypothesis 
USAID believes that if companies appropriately apply the AF as part of their land investment, acquisition, 
and management activities, (1) private businesses will be able to identify and understand individual and 
community land tenure risks, and (2) firms will be more likely to adopt approaches to avoid these risks. 
This will mitigate risks in affected communities. USAID also expects investor application of the AF to 
lead to more inclusive and positive outcomes for individuals and communities affected by land-based 
investments. Within communities, USAID believes that firms’ use of the AF will improve perceptions of 
investor companies, relations with and participation in land-based investment schemes, and individuals’ 
or communities’ participatory input over land use and investments compared to when companies 
implement land-based investments without following AF guidance. USAID expects this to improve 
tenure security and lower perceived risk of land expropriation by individuals within affected 
communities, as well as reduce land disputes. 
Figure 3 shows the Pilot’s detailed theory of change. Each part of the theory of change presents activities 
that take place within the context of land practices and the AF recommendations. The theory of change 
presents firm outcomes, community outcomes, and cross-cutting community-firm outcomes to show 
areas where firm and community activities overlap. For example, firm consultation with community 
members (including vulnerable groups) is an outcome for firms that adjust their community outreach 
efforts as part of the AF, as well as for the community with which the firm consults and engages. 
Although outside the scope of this evaluation and the Pilot, the eventual benefit and impact for private 
firms is to minimize risks related to land-based investments, improve community engagement, and 
ensure a clear set of standards for investment decision-making, all of which may lead to an improved 
operating environment. 
21 Ibid. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 7 
FIGURE 3: PILOT THEORY OF CHANGE 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 8 
PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, AND INTENDED USES 
Purpose 
USAID/E3/LU commissioned this evaluation to examine how the application of the AF affects community 
perceptions and actions as they relate to land management, tenure security, and local community views 
of and engagement with private sector investors. The evaluation focuses on Pilot outcomes for 
individuals within communities affected by land-based investments. Data collected for the evaluation 
complemented Cloudburst data and reporting on participating firms’ experiences using the AF. 
Cloudburst information dealt with individual perspectives and experiences with the Pilot among land 
users within affected communities. 
Audience 
USAID/E3/LU, USAID/Mozambique, Pilot IPs, and private firms involved with the Pilot are the primary 
audiences for these evaluation results. Key secondary audiences include the broader donor community 
— particularly those working on land policy and investment — and private firms that may adapt the AF 
to their operations. 
Intended Uses 
USAID will use this evaluation to inform the design and implementation of future land tenure and 
investment-related activities, and to improve the facilitation of the AF with private sector firms. As one 
of the first evaluations of the AF’s implementation, the evaluation will be a tool for USAID, Cloudburst, 
private sector partners, other donors, and businesses in the land sector to learn how implementation of 
the AF’s different components affects firms and community members. This includes learning about 
whether and how the AF helps to reduce land tenure risks and facilitates positive outcomes within 
affected communities. The evaluation will serve as a platform for disseminating the results to other 
potential investors looking for ways to improve their due diligence and community engagement practices 
through the AF. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The evaluation answers the following evaluation questions (EQs), which are identical to those in 
USAID’s approved statement of work (see Annex A): 
1. How has community participation in AF-guided activities under the Pilot affected how 
community members perceive and engage with land-based investor companies and schemes? 
2. To what degree have community-level objectives of the AF-guided activities under the Pilot 
been achieved, and what explains where successes, failures, or unanticipated effects have 
occurred? 
3. How well do the AF-guided activities under the Pilot meet underlying challenges and the needs 
of communities with respect to participation in or locational proximity to new or existing land￾based investment schemes? 
4. What are the lessons learned from the AF-guided activities under the Pilot that can inform 
future application and dissemination of the AF to better achieve intended community-level 
objectives? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 9 
In addition to these EQs, several lines of inquiry (provided in Annex E) guide data collection and analysis 
to better understand how the Pilot affects local communities. 
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 
This evaluation takes a non-experimental approach to explore the relationship between Pilot activities 
and outcomes of interest for land users in the Pilot zone, using a simple pre-post analysis. This type of 
evaluation can provide details about activity processes, general relationships between Pilot inputs and 
outputs, and beneficiary perceptions, but cannot definitively attribute outcomes to the Pilot activities. At 
both baseline and endline, the evaluation utilized qualitative data collected from a diverse set of 
participants in group discussions (GDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs). At endline, the evaluation 
team also implemented a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey with Pilot participants to 
gain a broader understanding of perceptions and experiences. In addition, the evaluation team reviewed 
secondary data from Pilot implementation documents, monitoring data, and reports to incorporate into 
the analysis at endline. 
Endline data collection focused on capturing experiences and perspectives of floodplain farmers in the 
Pilot zone to understand their experiences engaging with the Pilot, tenure security, ongoing concerns 
about land, engagement with and perceptions of Maragra and outgrowing, and perceptions of the Pilot 
generally. 
This section provides an overview of the data collection methods, site selection, analysis methods, and 
design limitations. This design was the result of a collaborative workshop with USAID, Cloudburst, 
Indufor, and evaluation team members to determine what would be feasible given the short Pilot 
implementation period, gaps in understanding around the AF, and goals for utilizing evaluation findings. 
Team Composition 
One strength of this evaluation design was continuity across data collection rounds in team composition. 
The same team lead, evaluation specialist, and local coordinator were engaged across baseline and 
endline, which made outreach to associations for data collection easier and helped build trust among 
respondents who participated in GDs across data collection rounds. 
The evaluation team consisted of the following MSI/NORC staff: 
 Lauren Persha, team leader (NORC) 
 Jacob Patterson-Stein, evaluation specialist and coordinator (MSI) 
 Belmiro Nhamithambo, local coordinator (MSI) 
Annex F provides brief profiles of these team members. The team members signed conflict of interest 
disclosure statements, which are retained by the MSI home office and available upon request. 
Data Collection Methods 
Field-based endline data collection took place from August 22 to September 1, 2018 in Manhiça District, 
Mozambique. CATI survey implementation ran from September 27 through October 5, and was based in 
Maputo, Mozambique. The evaluation team used two field-based data collection methods at endline: (1) 
GDs with land users in the Pilot zone, and (2) KIIs with farmer cooperative and association leaders, 
Maragra staff, EU project liaisons, cooperative leadership, and Pilot implementation staff. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 10 
Group Discussions 
The evaluation team conducted seven GDs at endline: four in the Central Pilot Zone and three in the 
South Pilot Zone.22 These GDs comprised 109 participants (35 men and 75 women) ranging from 21 to 
83 years old. Farmer association leaders helped organize GDs in each of the two sampled Pilot zones. 
These were stratified by Pilot zone and participant status in the current EU project also operating in the 
Pilot zone. GD participants consisted of farmers who used land in the Pilot zone and included those who 
did and did not participate in the Pilot. 
Table 2 summarizes the target GD respondent categories. Based on the GD experience at baseline, the 
evaluation team did not conduct gender-segregated group discussions at endline. This decision was 
based on the fact that many of the participants in the GDs and the Pilot itself were women. There was 
little evidence from baseline that having mixed gender GDs would affect responsiveness from one 
gender group or another or bias responses overall. The evaluation team sought a cap of 15 participants 
per GD, although in some cases more people showed up than requested. In one South Zone case, the 
discussion was held with 20 participants because of a miscommunication with farmer association 
representatives about GD scheduling.23 Overall, an average of 13 people participated in each GD across 
the selected Pilot blocks. In recruitment of GD participants, there was also an effort to include multiple 
farmer associations within each GD. The goal of having representation across several farmer 
associations was to obtain a wider breadth of experiences within a single block. 
TABLE 2: GD SAMPLE PER SELECTED PILOT ZONE (CENTRAL AND SOUTH) 
GD Protocol Category at Endline Central Zone GDs South Zone GDs
1) Current sugarcane outgrowers (EU project 
beneficiaries) in Pilot blocks. Each GD comprised a 
mix of respondents who, at endline, were: 
a) Pilot participants who received services (land 
mapping and DUAT title or certificate 
provisioning); or 
b) Pilot non-beneficiaries who are still involved in 
outgrowing in the Pilot zone.
Target: 2-3 
Actual: 1 
Target: 2-3 
Actual: 3 
2) Non-sugarcane farmers (EU project non￾beneficiaries) in Pilot blocks. Each GD comprised a 
mix of respondents who, at endline, were: 
a) Pilot beneficiaries of land mapping and DUAT 
title or certificate provisioning; or 
b) Pilot non-beneficiaries farming in the Pilot zone.
Target: 2 
Actual: 2 
Target: 2 
Actual: 1 
Total GDs by sampled zone Target: 4-5, Actual: 3 Target: 4-5, Actual: 4
Total GD respondents by sampled zone Target: 40-60, Actual: 53 Target: 40-60, Actual: 56
A Mozambican moderator from the evaluation team conducted the GDs in Shangaan, the predominant 
language spoken in the Pilot zones. All GDs were held outside at common access points to each of the 
sampled floodplain blocks in the Pilot zone because these are typical meeting points for farmers with 
land in each of the respective floodplain areas. Semi-structured instruments with specific questions 
organized by theme were used to guide the discussion and are provided in Annex C. 
22 The original field work plan included four GDs in each zone, but participants for one GD in the South Zone arrived at the 
same time as another GD, so a joint GD was held. 
23 This was initially planned as two separate GDs with male and female farmer association members. However, members of 
both groups arrived for discussion at the same time. The evaluation team proceeded, therefore, with a mixed-gender discussion 
rather than ask some individuals to wait for the first discussion to end, to minimize the burden on respondents. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 11 
Although the evaluation team did not design data collection to include a panel of GD respondents across 
baseline and endline, there were respondents in the GDs who participated in both phases of the 
evaluation. Given the decentralized context of the blocks, with farmers living far from their parcels, 
coordination and planning for a panel would have been logistically challenging ex-ante. Having overlap in 
the GD participants across pre- and post-data collection phases strengthens the overall design since the 
Pilot’s contribution to a change in outcomes may be easier to discern. 
Key Informant Interviews 
The evaluation team conducted 13 KIIs over the 2-week field data collection period and over the phone 
from September 2-11, 2018. The team conducted four field-based KIIs with farmer association leaders, 
two with farmer cooperative leaders, two with community leaders, and two with Illovo EU-project 
liaisons. In addition, the team interviewed two Pilot staff and one Maragra liaison via Skype. All the 
interviews followed a semi-structured format to allow for follow-up questions and flexibility in the 
discussion’s evolution. The KII protocol was structured to gather information on the respondent’s role 
and familiarity with the Pilot, reflect on the mapping and provision of cooperative-issued certificates, 
highlight benefits and potential limits of the certificates, and share lessons learned. Annex B provides the 
KII guide used at endline. While the baseline KIIs were focused on farmer association leaders, endline 
KIIs included a broader mix of respondent types to better understand how the Pilot was implemented, 
reflections on this process, and potential opportunities for the future. All KIIs planned for endline were 
conducted as proposed. 
CATI 
Computer-assisted telephone interviews are an innovative way to conduct data collection activities. The 
CATI process involves developing a script for an enumerator to follow as part of a phone-based 
interview. Rather than an automated survey, or “robo call,” CATI interviews are similar in many ways to 
a household-based survey with an enumerator and respondent going through a closed-ended survey. 
The approach is ideal for short questionnaires involving respondents who may not live close to each 
other. This is the case for many Pilot participants. 
The evaluation team used a Pilot database that USAID and Terra Firma shared to access Pilot 
participants’ phone numbers. MSI contracted a Maputo-based survey research firm, Forcier, to 
implement a 24-question CATI survey in Shangaan and Portuguese, per respondent preference. Of the 
24 survey items, there were 4 short opened-ended questions, with responses post-coded for analysis. 
The Pilot database contained two datasets with phone numbers. MSI and Forcier worked to do initial 
quality assurance on the phone numbers to ensure a workable sample of potential respondents. 
The initial dataset contained a list of 1,153 phone numbers. From this dataset, the evaluation team 
sought a representative sample of 667 respondents.24 However, after moving ahead with the CATI 
survey, the evaluation team found that 343 numbers in the database were duplicates or implausible 
because they lacked the appropriate number of digits or were not formatted for numbers within 
Mozambique.25 The second dataset contained an additional 419 phone numbers for potential use in the 
CATI survey. The original list with the duplicates removed, plus the additional 419 phone numbers, 
resulted in a total of 1,229 numbers. 
As part of the CATI implementation process, enumerators were trained to make three call attempts, 
with at least three hours between attempts, to try to connect with respondents. As shown in Figure 4, 
24 This was based on a 95 percent confidence level, three percent margin of error, and 20 percent attrition inflator. 
25 A standard Mozambican phone number format contains nine digits and begins with a two-digit network code. Phone numbers 
were eliminated if they did not comply with these two standards. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 12 
of the 1,229 numbers, 483 (39.3 percent) resulted in completed surveys, with an almost equal 
percentage of numbers disconnected (n=457) (i.e., the enumerator received an automated out of service 
response with each attempt). In about 5 percent of cases (n=63), the listed beneficiary was permanently 
unavailable due to travel or death. The number of completed CATI surveys was below the target for 
data collection. However, obtaining new numbers was not feasible given that the Pilot had ended and 
the numbers were drawn directly from the beneficiary database Terra Firma used. The sample of 
completed CATI surveys is still representative at a 95 percent confidence interval and within a 4 percent 
margin of error. 
FIGURE 4: CATI RESPONSE RATES FOR TOTAL 1,229 SAMPLE OF VALID NUMBERS 
Site Selection 
As Figure 5 shows, the Pilot was implemented in 6 of the 11 rehabilitated floodplain blocks under EU 
project implementation. These six blocks – Taninga North, Taninga South, Manhiça Municipality, Martins, 
Cambeve, and Munguine South – are divided into three Pilot zones: North (Taninga North, Taninga 
South), Central (Manhiça, Martins, Cambeve) and South (Munguine South). Pilot activities were 
implemented with interested land users in each of the six blocks. Although many parcel holders in a 
given block reside in one of the localities directly adjacent to the block, this is not always the case. 
Parcel holders may reside in any of the surrounding localities. All the blocks are situated close to the 
main highway traversing the area, are bordered by the Incomati River or a secondary channel on one 
side and a peri-urban set of localities on the other, and are easily accessible to Manhiça town and 
Maputo. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 13 
Given the evaluation design and somewhat 
limited scope of data collection that was 
feasible within the available budget, the 
evaluation team conducted baseline and 
endline data collection in two of the three 
Pilot zones. The evaluation team employed a 
purposeful sample of land users from the 
Central (Figure 6) and South (Figure 7) zones 
from Manhiça Municipality, Martins, Cambeve, 
and Munguine South blocks.These two Pilot 
zones span a range of potentially relevant 
block and farmer characteristics present in all 
three zones. Further, land parcels in the 
blocks appear to be held predominantly by 
smallholders in the area. The blocks in the 
North zone, though not very different from 
the other two zones in many key 
characteristics, tend to have larger-than￾average parcel sizes, according to some 
scoping trip interviews. They are also located 
close to a competitor sugarcane estate, 
Xinavane. The evaluation team drew its 
sample from the Central and South Pilot 
zones. This was to avoid any potential 
confounding on issues of company practices 
or engagement. It was also designed to ensure 
that data are drawn from respondents who 
are representative of typical smallholders in 
the Pilot areas. 
FIGURE 4: MAP OF PILOT 
IMPLEMENTATION BLOCKS
(Map source: Terra Firma)
FIGURE 5: MANHICA MUNICIPALITY, MARTINS, AND CAMBEVE BLOCKS IN 
CENTRAL PILOT ZONE 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 14 
FIGURE 6: MUNGUINE SOUTH BLOCK IN SOUTHERN PILOT ZONE 
(Source for Figures 6 and 7: Terra Firma) 
Data Analysis 
The evaluation team transcribed recordings from the seven GDs from Shangaan into English. The team 
reviewed transcripts and notes from the GDs and KIIs and used them to identify major themes and 
subthemes for analysis. The team analyzed transcribed data from the GDs and KIIs using content analysis 
techniques, coding text according to key themes of interest across the KIIs and GDs. This included 
highlighting outlier responses and experiences to capture the range of feedback. Throughout the analysis 
phase, the team gave special attention to parallels and differences between male and female responses 
and experiences. 
The team conducted qualitative analysis on GD transcripts and KII notes using MAXQDA data analysis 
software. The analysis process followed three main steps: 
 Text organization: Data organized and grouped by respondent type and location. 
 Coding: Data extracted with key quotes coded. 
 Analysis: Data compared, contrasted, and assessed. 
The team applied an a priori coding approach to capture themes and broader trends based on 48 pre￾determined coding themes. These themes were developed after review of the transcripts and field notes 
to ensure relevancy for responding to the evaluation questions. After coding transcripts the evaluation 
team compared responses within and across GD group types to see what (if any) differences exist. The 
team also classified basic demographic information of respondents, such as gender, to enable 
comparisons by these demographic subgroups and across different respondent categories (e.g., EU 
project participants and nonparticipants). 
Figure 8 breaks down the codes by GD category.26 The figure shows that tenure security outcomes 
were most frequently coded in both categories. Notably, the formal DUAT title was more frequently 
coded in Category 1 (EU project participants) GDs, while Pilot participation was the second highest 
26 Boxes are sized based on the prevalence of themes. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 15 
theme in Category 2 (non-participants of the EU project). This was, perhaps, an indication of the 
direction discussions went given the composition of the groups. A key takeaway from the figure is that 
the themes across the two groups were generally similar, which is expected given that the same general 
questions were asked across discussion categories. 
The team analyzed data from the CATI survey to calculate descriptive statistics using R. The team 
calculated frequencies and disaggregated them by respondent type and location to highlight differences, 
track Pilot coverage, and complement the qualitative analysis on themes such as tenure security and 
certificate use and understanding. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 16 
FIGURE 7: QUALITATIVE CODES BY RESPONDENT CATEGORY 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 17 
Evaluation Design Limitations 
As outlined in the evaluation statement of work and design, there are a few key design limitations and 
sources of bias, including: 
 Lack of a counterfactual: The design for this performance evaluation cannot definitively 
attribute reported impact to the Pilot, and the ability to mitigate this issue is limited. However, 
the design deploys a pre–post approach wherein questions asked at baseline and endline during 
GDs aim to help capture information on potential confounding factors. 
 Response bias: There may be bias in the responses that respondents give because of an 
expectation that the evaluation team is looking for a certain type of answer. The team crafted its 
GD guides and ensured that GD facilitation was oriented to minimize response bias. The team 
also used response coding during analysis to identify whether response bias was an issue. 
 Recall bias: Some evaluation topics, such as disputes or perceptions about specific actors, may 
be difficult for respondents to remember accurately as time passes. The evaluation team was 
able to test its questions during baseline and refine them for endline data collection on certain 
topics, such as disputes. The use of CATI data provide another source to triangulate findings to 
assess the level of recall bias from field data collection. 
 Selection bias: Respondents willing to share their views may not be representative of Pilot 
participants or may be different in observable and unobservable ways. The evaluation team 
chose respondents with various experiences and roles for data collection, but the evaluation’s 
nonrandom design could not rigorously control for selection bias. The team overcame this 
limitation by using CATI data on key topics such as disputes and certificate provision. 
 Timeframe: The full benefits of land tenure interventions may be slow to accrue and may not 
be felt until they are tested (e.g., through a dispute or attempt to transfer land). The evaluation 
team pushed endline data collection back by several months in the hope that the effects of land 
certification and mapping would be stronger and backed up by specific experiences. In many 
cases, however, respondents had only received their certificates one to three months prior to 
endline data collection, and no Pilot beneficiaries had received government-issued DUATs. This 
means that perceptions of several areas of interest, such as participation in or benefits from 
outgrowing schemes, are anticipatory and speculative. The lack of specific invocation of the Pilot 
in tenure-related activities does not mean that the data collected are invalid or do not provide a 
robust understanding of how activities affected perceptions. It does mean, however, that 
responses on certain questions are based on assumed rather than actual benefits to date. 
SUMMARY OF BASELINE FINDINGS AND THEMES 
The evaluation team collected qualitative baseline data in June 2017. The overarching objective was to 
understand the context and conditions related to evaluation outcomes before the start of Pilot activities. 
This included capturing experiences and perspectives of floodplain farmers in the Pilot zone vis-a-vis land 
use, tenure security, land disputes and dispute resolution processes, land mapping and certification, and 
their linkages to farmer engagement, interest, and benefits from land-based investment opportunities. 
Table 3 summarizes the key baseline findings by these themes, together with their connection to the 
endline evaluation questions.27
27 The full baseline report is available at: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00T5HW.pdf. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 18 
TABLE 3: SUMMARY BASELINE FINDINGS BY THEMES 
Baseline Theme Related EQs Baseline Findings
Background 
Context on Land 
Acquisition and 
Use in Pilot Zones
Background, 
EQ 3 
 Familial land inheritance and customary, undocumented land use rights were widely reported. 
 Farmer associations help protect against and resolve land disputes, enable greater productivity and food security, and 
disseminate information related to sugarcane outgrowing and Maragra. 
 No differences were found between South and Central Zone respondents or between EU-supported sugarcane outgrower 
project participants and nonparticipants.
Pilot Program 
Awareness and 
Prior Land 
Mapping 
Experiences 
EQ 1 
 All GD respondents were aware of the Pilot. 
 Understanding of Pilot activities varied, but GDs revealed knowledge of Pilot support for 200 Law of Use Rights and Tenure 
(DUAT) titles. 
 Forty-four percent of GD respondents, including EU project participants and nonparticipants, reported prior land mapping 
experience, often due to mapping of collective farmer association land, or individual parcels through the EU project. 
 GD respondents were often unaware of their parcel size and had no individual documentation, despite prior mapping.
Land 
Documentation, 
Disputes, and 
Tenure Security 
EQ 2 
 GD participants overwhelmingly had no formal land documentation, either as individuals or collectively as a farmer 
association. 
 All GD participants saw DUATs as protection against expropriation. 
 Ten percent of GD respondents (n=13) had been directly involved in a land dispute and, overall, their perceived tenure 
security was low. 
 GD participants most commonly cited familial, association-leader, and outsider (both Mozambican and foreign) land disputes 
and expropriation. 
 GD participants saw poverty and associated powerlessness, lack of DUAT titles, and presence of uncultivated land held by 
customary land users as underlying drivers of land disputes. 
 Dispute resolution is often attempted via informal processes; GD participants indicated widespread mistrust in formal 
resolution mechanisms. 
 GD participants revealed that women are commonly disenfranchised of their land rights.
Sugarcane 
Outgrowing 
Participation and 
Maragra 
Engagement 
EQ 1, EQ 3, 
EQ 4 
 None of the EU project participants in the GDs had yet harvested their cane or received payments from Maragra for the 
recently concluded growing season, which was also most participants’ first year as outgrowers. 
 GD respondents expected that outgrowing would lead to a higher standard of living through sugarcane income. 
 Non-EU project participants have no relationship with Maragra and little expectation of engagement. 
 Non-outgrower GD participants expressed insufficient outgrower information or reluctance to move away from food crop 
production because of consumption and income smoothing concerns. Others are prevented from participation because of 
ongoing land disputes or insufficient soil quality for sugarcane production.
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 19 
ENDLINE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
EQ1: How has community participation in AF-guided activities under 
the Pilot affected how community members perceive and engage with 
land-based investor companies and schemes? 
The Pilot’s efforts have not affected how community members perceive and engage with 
land-based investor schemes. However, community participation in AF-guided activities 
under the Pilot appears to have increased awareness of the requirements for outgrowing 
among farmers in Pilot Zones where respondents were previously not interested in, aware 
of, or able to access outgrowing.
Key Findings for EQ1 
 Use of Pilot documentation to access outgrowing schemes was limited: Only seven CATI 
respondents who started outgrowing during the Pilot period reported using the cooperative-issued 
certificates as part of the documentation they provided to Maragra. None of the GD respondents 
reported using the cooperative-issued certificates. Other forms of documentation continue to be the 
norm for engaging in outgrowing schemes. Moreover, the certification process did not appear to 
change broader perceptions of Maragra among outgrowers or non-outgrowers. 
 Farmers perceived the Pilot provided documentation as a means for obtaining future 
outgrowing benefits: Farmers viewed the cooperative-issued certificates as a way to meet 
previously disparate outgrowing contract requirements. Both categories of GD respondents posited 
that the cooperative-issued certificates confer legitimacy onto the holders for future engagement with 
Maragra and outgrowing schemes. 
 Many beneficiaries are uncertain about engagement with outgrowing schemes: In all GDs, 
discussants expressed uncertainty about outgrowing. This was partly due to aversion to the risks of 
an unknown crop cycle, but also to fixed constraints such as parcel size. 
 It is too soon to fully assess the relationship between certification, outgrowing, and 
perceptions in the theory of change. More time is needed to understand how engagement with 
outgrowing schemes will change because of the Pilot. Pilot participants reported receiving certificates 
from March through July. Field-based data collection took place in August and September. The short 
time frame between receipt of certificates and data collection suggests there has not been enough 
time for the certificates to affect outgrowing. 
Baseline Findings 
Baseline findings suggested that pre-existing relationships strongly influenced individual farmers’ 
decisions on outgrowing. EU project participation explained quite a bit of the variation in engagement 
with Maragra. While EU participants reported attending meetings and trainings with Maragra staff, GD 
participants not involved with the EU project reported almost no relationship with Maragra. This was 
largely due lack of information, risk aversion, or local conditions such as poor soil quality or unresolved 
land disputes which made them ineligible to obtain outgrowing contracts. Overall, discussants were 
uncertain about outgrowing since few had gone through a full harvest cycle; most were not engaged 
with outgrowing schemes at all. Few respondents perceived any linkage between formal documentation 
and the ability to engage with Maragra as an outgrower. For example, baseline data found that extra￾legal declarations, documentation, and identification papers were used to prove rightful land use to 
Maragra for farmers already involved in outgrowing prior to the EU-project. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 20 
One of the key motivations behind the AF is to improve the relationship between private firms and 
nearby land users. As outlined above, the presence of Pilot staff and the overlap with the EU-project 
could theoretically set the conditions for a change in perception and engagement with outgrowing 
schemes. To capture data around this EQ, the evaluation team asked GD respondents about their 
engagement with Maragra, as well as constraints they faced in engaging with the firm. The CATI survey 
also asked whether respondents were engaged in outgrowing and for how long. This section highlights 
the key endline findings related to the perception of and engagement with Maragra after the end of the 
Pilot. 
Use of Pilot documentation to access outgrowing schemes was limited. 
Key Findings: 
 There was no widespread reporting of engagement with investor companies and schemes. 
 There was no widespread utilization of AF-facilitated certification even among respondents 
engaged in outgrowing. 
A key component of the theory of change is that mapping will open a pathway to engagement with 
investor schemes, such as outgrowing. At endline, around 17 percent (n=18) of GD respondents said 
they were involved in outgrowing as individuals. Of the 15 Category 1 GD respondents who reported 
outgrowing, six were male and nine were female. Of the three Category 2 respondents who reported 
outgrowing, one was female, the other two were male. Notably, 54 Category 1 GD respondents were 
not engaged in outgrowing despite being in the catchment area for outgrowing promotion and capacity 
building under the EU projects. 
The CATI survey was kept brief to avoid confusion among respondents, so no questions were asked 
about EU project engagement. However, as Figure 9 shows, the number of people in the CATI sample 
engaged in outgrowing grew steadily over the Pilot’s implementation. Within the CATI sample, an 
average of two people started outgrowing contracts prior to 2016, while 19 people reported 
outgrowing contracts in 2017 and 16 started contracts in 2018 (4 percent and 3 percent of the CATI 
sample, respectively). Although a small percentage of the CATI sample, these contextual metrics suggest 
that participation in outgrowing schemes may have increased. However, it is important to explore 
whether and how this may have changed perceptions of and engagement with Maragra. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 21 
FIGURE 8: CATI OUTGROWING CONTRACT START DATES BY YEAR 
To better understand how Pilot participants were engaging with Maragra as outgrowers, the CATI 
survey asked respondents which documents they were requested to provide to enter into an 
outgrowing contract. Respondents said they needed an average of two documents to become an 
outgrower between 2016 and 2018, while six respondents who reported having an outgrower contract 
said they were not sure which documents they were asked to provide. 
Figure 10 shows the count of documents used to enter into an outgrower contract with Maragra from 
2016 to 2018. For each year of the Pilot’s implementation, a government ID was the most common type 
of documentation. This echoed the comments made during the GDs. Among respondents who 
mentioned a form of documentation other than the four main options (i.e. “other”), the taxpayer 
identification number NUIT was the most common document. Seven respondents mentioned it as part 
of the documentation requirement. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 22 
FIGURE 9: DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BECOME AN OUTGROWER, 2016-2018 
Conclusion 
The theory of change (Figure 3) suggests that the certificates facilitated through the Pilot and guided by 
the AF should improve perceptions of tenure security, expropriation, and land rights. The Pilot itself did 
not promote outgrowing. However, a benefit of stronger tenure security might be farmers who are 
willing to engage with land-based investor companies and schemes further down the causal pathway. 
None of the GD participants and only seven CATI respondents have used the cooperative-issued 
certificates as part of their outgrower engagement with Maragra. While an increase in outgrowing 
occurred over the course of the Pilot’s implementation, it is not clear from CATI or the qualitative data 
that the Pilot-supported, cooperative-issued certificates contributed to this increase. 
The Pilot-provided documentation was perceived as legitimate and a means 
of obtaining future outgrowing benefits. 
While the previous findings are that none of the GD respondents and only seven of the CATI 
respondents used the cooperative-issued certificates to engage with outgrowing, it is worth exploring 
whether the certificates were perceived to potentially support outgrowing in the future. Qualitative 
findings show that although the use of certificates was low, Pilot beneficiaries believed the document 
could potentially facilitate engagement with Maragra. How respondents from Category 1 (EU project 
participants) and 2 (non-participants in EU project) perceive the future value of the certificates is telling. 
At baseline, Category 1 respondents already had more knowledge and awareness of outgrowing and 15 
GD participants reported engagement with outgrower schemes. 
Key Findings: 
 EU project participants (Category 1) viewed AF-guided documentation as potentially helpful to 
future engagement in outgrowing. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 23 
 Non-participants (Category 2) echoed this belief, though very few people are engaged in or plan 
to engage with local investor schemes. 
 None of the GD respondents perceived Maragra any differently as a result of the Pilot. 
Category 1 Perceptions about Outgrowing 
Group discussion respondents in Category 1 reported that cooperative-issued certificates could be 
helpful for facilitating the outgrowing relationship with Maragra. In two of the four GDs, discussants said 
they received inputs or training through the EU project. A leader of a farmer association in the South 
Zone described the certificate as potentially providing a “clear path” to outgrowing with Maragra. The 
common rationale for ease of facilitation was the legitimacy conferred by the certificates. Five 
respondents in the two Pilot zones described how the certificates prove that their sugarcane was grown 
legitimately on their land. Similar to the CATI data in Figure 10, GD participants were able to enact 
outgrowing contracts with Maragra, but required some form of formal identification or letter from a 
local group or leader. For example, a farmer not involved in outgrowing described the potential role of 
certificates in the following way: 
Facilitator: Do you think that the certificate could make the process of becoming an outgrower easy? 
Male Respondent: Yes, it facilitates this process because if you want to supply to Maragra, the thing that 
they ask for is the land ownership. You cannot supply sugarcane to Maragra without having a certificate. 
– South Zone GD, August 30, 2018 
A female GD respondent in the South Zone voiced a similar sentiment, noting that with the certificates 
“they [Maragra] are ensured that what we deliver to them is not stolen sugarcane or coming from an 
illegitimate parcel.” 
A GD in the South Zone highlighted how the previous system worked even as people felt optimistic 
about a changing engagement with Maragra: 
Facilitator: Did you have to show your certificates to become a Maragra outgrower? 
Male Respondent 1: We didn’t have certificates yet, so they asked for a declaration from our local 
leader stating that we were the legitimate owners of the lands. 
Facilitator: What other documents were requested? 
Male Respondent 1: They also asked for IDs. 
Male Respondent 2: In the beginning, they said that to start selling sugarcane to Maragra you needed a 
certificate from local leaders, confirming we were the legitimate owners of the land. Maragra saw that 
this was not enough, so they made sure we had the certificates through this project. – South Zone GD, 
August 30, 2018 
A Category 1 farmer association leader in the South Zone who has being involved in outgrowing since 
2016 echoed this point during a KII: 
Facilitator: How were you able to outgrow with Maragra since they ask for the certificate to outgrow and 
you didn’t have any at the time? 
Female KII Respondent: There was an arrangement with someone that owned a [government-issued]
certificate that represented a group of farmers. 
Facilitator: What other documents did Maragra request? 
Female KII Respondent: They did not request any other document. They just wanted us not to be in any 
litigation or conflict. – South Zone, August 27, 2018 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 24 
The motivation for outgrowing among 
Category 1 respondents was often financial 
and as a form of insurance, given the security 
of a guaranteed buyer. Two of the four GDs 
brought up the theme of security in sales 
and potential profits. Even in cases where 
GD participants had not yet started 
outgrowing, these were perceived as 
benefits of engaging with Maragra. The 
following dialogue captures these 
perceptions succinctly: 
Facilitator: What benefits do you expect 
to receive as a result of outgrowing to 
Maragra? 
Male Respondent 1: For me, the benefit 
is not like selling to just anyone. I have 
a secure buyer where all my sugarcane 
can be delivered. It is like a secure 
market. 
Female Respondent 1: Since I haven’t 
harvest yet, I am yet to see what the 
benefits will be but having a targeted 
place to sell is a big benefit. – South 
Zone, August 27, 2018. 
A farmer gathers corn in the South Zone. 
Photo: Jacob Patterson-Stein 
Category 1 GD respondents stated that Maragra has clear expectations about the sugarcane they 
contracted through outgrowers. As the above quotes highlight, Maragra requests documents and a 
formal process. None of the GD participants reported that the Pilot changed how they view Maragra 
beyond being a potential source of income. A female GD participant in the South Zone summarized this 
perception: 
Facilitator: Do you perceive any changes in how you engage with Maragra as a result of any of the Pilot 
activities? 
Female Respondent: It didn’t change. Our relationship is strictly commercial and related to the selling of 
sugarcane. We just interact with Maragra as outgrowers of sugarcane. -- South Zone GD, August 27, 
2018 
Category 2 Perceptions about Outgrowing 
Category 2 (non-participants in the EU project) voiced the benefits of a secure buyer and clear 
standards for engagement. Only three GD respondents in this category engaged in outgrowing. 
Nevertheless, Category 2 respondents reported their expectations for outgrowing as a result of having 
cooperative-issued certificates through the Pilot. 
Two male GD respondents from the Central Zone believed the cooperative-issued certificates prove 
legitimacy for Maragra: 
Male Respondent 1: It [the certificate] will help because when you’re working with Maragra they are 
assured that for contractual purposes the land where the sugarcane will be coming from is legitimate. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 25 
Male Respondent 2: It [the certificate] helps because the first thing that Maragra asks when you want 
to become an outgrower is for us to show that we are the legitimate owners of the lands. -- Central 
Zone GD, August 22, 2018 
While only three GD respondents reported engaging with outgrowing schemes, farmer association 
leaders were more informed about the benefits of the Pilot for engaging with Maragra. A farmer 
association leader from a Category 2 GD said he started engaging with Maragra as a result of the Pilot: 
When I received the certificate with the USAID project is when I became an outgrower for Maragra. 
Before that, I tried to assemble other documents, but they were never accepted. -- Male Farmer 
Association Leader KII, Central Zone, August 23, 2018 
Category 2 respondents who engaged in outgrowing had similar experiences as Category 1 respondents 
regarding documentation requirements before the Pilot. 
Male Respondent: They asked for the NUIT, ID and other documents including a bank statement. –
South Zone, August 28, 2018 
Perceptions of the main local investor, Maragra, were largely unchanged after the Pilot among Category 
2 GD participants. They reported having almost no relationship with the company. Likewise, the three 
GD respondents who reported outgrowing had not changed their perceptions of Maragra following the 
Pilot. The following discussion in the South Zone highlights both the lack of engagement among non￾outgrowers and the level of engagement with outgrowers: 
Facilitator: Do you feel that since the project started your engagement with Maragra has changed? 
Female Respondent: A person who does not grow sugarcane does not have any kind of contact with 
Maragra. 
Facilitator: It is the same with those that have outgrower contracts with Maragra? 
Male Respondent: Yes, it is the same as the project did not have any influence on how we interact with 
Maragra. – South Zone, August 28, 2018 
Conclusion 
The Pilot-facilitated documentation was perceived as a means of obtaining future outgrowing benefits. 
For both categories of Pilot participants, the cooperative-issued certificate formally recognizes land use. 
Previously, land may have been inaccessible or use rights would have been pieced together by a few 
formal documents and letters from local officials vouching for the legitimacy of the crops. The Pilot 
helped strengthen a secure, formal outgrowing opportunity that, otherwise, would have been 
cumbersome to access. This type of security is in line with the overall theory of change, but it remains 
to be seen how the perceived legitimacy and benefits of cooperative-issued certificates translate to 
engagement with investor schemes. The Pilot did not appear to change how farmers perceive the local 
land-based investor, Maragra, regardless of engagement in outgrowing schemes. 
Many beneficiaries are uncertain about engagement with outgrowing 
schemes. 
The Pilot’s efforts have not affected how community members perceive and engage with land-based 
investor schemes. While the number of outgrowers increased over the Pilot period, many of the 
challenges facing potential outgrowers at baseline remain the same at endline. Thus, community 
participation in AF-guided activities under the Pilot has not changed perceptions of outgrowing. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 26 
In four of the seven GDs, respondents not engaged in outgrowing reported small parcel sizes as the 
reason, while farmers in three of the GDs noted the need for food crops as the key barrier to 
outgrowing. A GD discussion in the Central Zone summed up these points: 
Facilitator: For people not participating as Maragra outgrowers, what tends to be the reason? 
Female Respondent: It is mainly because we prioritize food. 
Male Respondent: There is another thing. The sugarcane cycle is of once per year, so we cannot just 
focus on sugarcane, but also need to focus on food. Otherwise during the cycle in which we are waiting 
for sugarcane to mature we need to have subsistence crops as well. The other thing is capacity to 
support people financially since sugarcane requires a lot of investment for input supplies, fertilizers, etc. 
[Central Zone, August 23, 2018] 
Both categories of respondents 
reported not engaging in outgrowing 
due to parcel sizes, food crop 
prioritization, and general uncertainty 
about the process (two GDs). For 
example, one GD participant in the 
Central Zone said that, “We are still 
seeing how it will go with the ones that 
are already outgrowing. For now, we 
will continue producing food.” [August 
22, 2018]. Respondents saw the long 
harvest cycle of sugarcane as prohibitive 
to entry, and, coupled with uncertainty 
and small parcel size, as too risky. As 
one GD participant stated: 
A farmer in the South Zone shows off his cooperative-issued 
certificate. Photo: Jacob Patterson-Stein 
We just have one parcel of approximately 1 hectare, so if you take that piece of land for sugarcane how will 
you feed your family? The sugarcane cycle takes 8 to 10 months to be harvested, so in that period of time 
you’ll not have anything to feed. – Female GD respondent, South Zone, August 28, 2018 
Two Category 2 respondents shared concerns about their own capacity to grow sugarcane as part of 
their uncertainty about the outgrowing process. According to a male GD participant: 
To start outgrowing you need to have the conditions created because it is not an easy thing. We would like 
to be outgrowers but there is this matter of conditions and capacity because sugarcane is not as easy as food 
crops because they need special care. – Central Zone, August 22, 2018 
Summary 
Uncertainty about outgrowing among floodplain zone Pilot participants has not changed from baseline. 
Participation in AF-guided activities under the Pilot has not changed GD participants’ engagement with 
land-based investor companies and schemes. This is due to farmer concerns about parcel capacity and 
food security. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 27 
It is too soon to fully assess the relationship between certification, 
outgrowing, and perceptions in the theory of change. 
All GD respondents reported receiving cooperative-issued certificates between May and July of 2018. 
Two Maragra staff noted that the certificates should be helpful in engaging with outgrowers, but it was 
too soon to see any change in the trend of outgrowing. According to a Maragra liaison with the EU 
Project who coordinated with the USAID Pilot: 
Interviewer: Have you seen a change in outgrowing as a result of the project? 
KII respondent: I cannot say that because a certain project takes time until the impact can be seen as 
the project finished few months ago. 
He also stated that the Pilot is part of a long-term relationship: 
The way the farmers look at Maragra, this is a process, but they look at Maragra as partners of the 
future because of the USAID project. – Maragra EU-Project liaison, KII, August 31, 2018 
A Central Zone GD discussant noted that, “To start working with sugarcane we need to prepare first” 
[August 22, 2018], while a KII with a cooperative leader revealed that people are only starting this 
process. 
Conclusion 
More time is needed for potential outgrowers to fully utilize the cooperative-issued certificates to 
engage with Maraga, especially since receipt of the certificates only began in May 2018. For farmers who 
have not previously engaged with Maragra nor have a background in sugarcane harvesting, the one-to￾three months between certificate receipt and evaluation data collection is likely too short to change 
behavior.
Summary of EQ1 Conclusions 
 While engagement with outgrowing appears to have increased since baseline, use of Pilot 
documentation to access outgrowing schemes was limited at endline. 
 The Pilot-provided documentation was perceived as a legitimate and helpful means of obtaining 
future outgrowing benefits. 
 Many beneficiaries continue to express uncertainty about engagement with outgrowing schemes. 
 It is too soon to fully assess the relationship between certification, outgrowing, and perceptions in 
the theory of change. 
EQ2: To what degree have community-level objectives of the AF￾guided activities under the Pilot been achieved, and what explains 
where successes, failures, or unanticipated effects have occurred?
Many community-level objectives under the Pilot appear to have been achieved by endline, though there 
are some clear gaps. Pilot activities (sensitization, land mapping, and provisioning of DUAT titles or 
certificates of proof of DUAT rights) have positively affected land users’ perceptions of tenure security, 
vulnerability to land conflict or disputes, and risk of land expropriation in the Pilot zone in ways that are 
consistent with the theory of change. Still, the Pilot encountered technical and communication 
challenges, including the inability to share data with Government of Mozambique systems and lack of 
follow-up with beneficiaries about DUAT submissions. Many GD participants indicated stronger tenure 
security over their parcels in the floodplain blocks due to Pilot activities and, particularly, to the receipt 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 28 
of cooperative-issued certificates. Pilot beneficiaries expressed confidence that the certificates would 
prove that the land is theirs in the event someone lays claim to their land. 
Key Findings for EQ2 
 AF-guided activities under the Pilot successfully strengthened perceptions of tenure 
security among beneficiaries within the period of study: Participants expressed increased 
confidence in their ability to mitigate or avoid land disputes because of the project’s parcel-mapping 
and land rights certification activities. Women reported greater equity in the strength and potential 
use of the certificates. 
 The Pilot’s provision of documentation faced several challenges, but also improved 
perceptions of economic opportunity, gender equity, and dispute mitigation: Endline 
findings indicate that Pilot activities positively affected land users’ knowledge of land rights and 
perceptions of transparency vis-a-vis land access and land rights in the Pilot zone. GD and KII 
respondents felt the certificates would reduce future incidents of land disputes and enable easier 
resolution of disputes, as the certificates would serve as proof of the holders’ rights to the land. 
 The Pilot’s implementation context coupled with its dissemination process created 
room for confusion at the farmer beneficiary-level: Despite strong outreach to association 
leaders and the organization of multiple village meetings, misunderstandings or communication 
challenges, (e.g., not notifying beneficiaries that applications for DUATs were submitted on their 
behalf) were widely report. 
 There is confusion as to the difference between DUATs and cooperative-issued 
certificates: Many respondents did not differentiate between the Pilot-issued certificate and formal 
government-issued DUAT title documents. This may have implications for sustained tenure gains if 
the cooperative-issued certificates are unevenly recognized in different legal or land dispute 
contexts, or the perceived validity changes over time. 
 The Pilot encountered unanticipated communication and implementation challenges: 
There were gaps in the dissemination of information. Some Pilot participants were unaware that the 
Pilot had ended or were unsure as to where to direct questions. The lack of technical capacity 
within the local cooperative partner coupled with the decentralized floodplain structure led to 
challenges in sustaining local data management. 
Baseline Findings 
At baseline, land users in the Pilot area overwhelmingly had no formal land documentation, either as 
individuals or collectively as a farmer association. Perceived tenure security was low, and ten percent 
(n=13) of GD respondents at baseline had been directly involved in a land dispute. Group discussion 
participants most commonly cited familial, association-leader, and outsider (Mozambican and foreign) 
land disputes and expropriation. Poverty and associated powerlessness, lack of DUAT titles, and the 
presence of uncultivated land held by customary land users were seen at baseline as the key underlying 
drivers of land disputes. Dispute resolution was often attempted via informal processes, and GD 
participants indicated at baseline a widespread mistrust in formal resolution mechanisms. Lastly, baseline 
data indicated that women were more vulnerable to land expropriation than men and commonly 
disenfranchised of their land rights in the Pilot area. Respondents also underlined the critical role farmer 
associations28 play in the Pilot area in upholding customary claims. These account for nearly all land 
28 Farmer associations also help protect against and resolve land disputes, enable greater productivity and food security, and 
disseminate information related to sugarcane outgrowing and Maragra. The baseline data also made clear that Farmer 
associations (1) are typically the initial body to which individuals turn to discuss and resolve land disputes among association 
members or in response to outside encroachment or expropriation threats; and (2) are the main vehicle for conveying or 
transmitting to individual land users in the Pilot zones information related to sugarcane outgrowing, the EU project, and any 
other interactions or issues related to Maragra. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 29 
claims by residents in the Pilot zone and are generally viewed as protecting members from land 
expropriation. Despite this, Pilot zone respondents had weak tenure security owing to land 
expropriation and opaque land allocation and dispossession by powerful elites, local leaders, and 
foreigners. 
Pilot activities were therefore designed to strengthen local tenure security and inform and complement 
Illovo’s efforts to verify and respect legitimate land rights in areas where they operate.29 The Pilot’s 
community-level objectives for participants are supported through community-validated cooperative￾issued certificates30 and include: 
 Enabling participants to have greater protection from land encroachment and outside investors; 
 Enabling greater security of rights to the land for future generations and women; and 
 Facilitating increased economic opportunities, such as by reducing barriers to contracting with 
Maragra to sell sugarcane, engaging in contracts to grow other agricultural projects, and 
obtaining credit. 
Strengthened Perceptions of Tenure Security 
Key Findings: 
 Community-level objectives regarding tenure security were achieved. This is because Pilot 
participants have confidence in the cooperative-issued certificates. 
 There are concerns about whether the certificates could ward off counter claims from DUAT 
holders or government land grabbing. 
Respondents in all GDs (7) had stronger perceptions of tenure security. They indicated that the 
certificate gave them a sense of security and protection against land expropriation because it offers 
proof that the land is theirs. 
As one female GD respondent explained: 
I am a widow and there are people that tried to take my land. So, when the project gave me the 
certificate, it helped me to now stand against future land disputes. – South Zone GD, August 27, 
2018 
KIIs with six association and community leaders and three IP staff also confirmed the strong perceived 
connection between tenure security and receipt of cooperative-issued certificates. According to them, 
this has greatly reduced farmers’ worries about land expropriation and increased their confidence in 
their ability to protect themselves in the event of a competing claim to their land. Two GD respondents 
summarized these perceptions: 
“I remember that in the past there was a lot of confusion and litigation. Someone could come to your 
farm and just claim that it belongs to them, when actually it did not belong them. Now that they came 
to map our lands, anyone can stand on their farm without a fear of having their lands taken.” – GD 
participant, Central Zone, August 23, 2018 
29 See https://www.illovosugarafrica.com/Group-Governance/Group-Guidelines-on-Land-and-Land-Rights. 
30 Cooperative-issued certificates were viewed by the Pilot “as evidence that the process used by the Pilot to validate the rights 
to a particular land parcel has been completed, and that there are no disputes.” 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 30 
“Before we had the certificates someone could come at a given time and say that the land belongs to 
them and you would be at risk of having your land stolen. Now if that occurs, you can show them the 
certificate.” – GD participant, South Zone, August 30, 2018 
The CATI survey also asked respondents whether they feel they could lose their land against their will 
in the next five years. Overall, 26 percent (n=130) said this was impossible or would never happen, 
while 17 percent (n=85) said it was unlikely. Another 27 percent (n=133) were unsure and 12 percent 
of the CATI sample (n=58) said it was likely they could lose their land in the next 5 years. 
The heatmap in Figure 11 shows a relatively low-intensity of perceived threats (more concern is 
indicated by the intensity of the red in each square). Among female CATI respondents, seizure of land 
from outside people or groups are a common source of uncertainty at endline within the context of 
future tenure security. Male respondents expressed strong feelings that their land could not be taken 
away because they have documentation (this appears in the heat map as a dark red square). Male 
respondents reported “Other” reasons, which included natural disasters such as flooding as well as a 
general sense of uncertainty about the future (e.g., six respondents said some variation of “you never 
know what could happen.”) 
FIGURE 11: HEATMAP OF REPORTED LIKELIHOOD THAT LAND COULD BE LOST 
IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND REASON FOR RESPONSE BY GENDER 
Darker regions indicate stronger sentiment 
At the same time, participants in two GDs raised some uncertainty as to whether the certificate would 
protect against authority-facilitated land grabbing, a phenomenon baseline data showed was present in 
the Pilot area. 
“It covers everything, but I am not sure how it can end, when for instance people come from town with 
papers as well from the same land acquired through bribery to government officials.” – GD participant, 
Central Zone, August 23, 2018 
CATI data provide further insight into this uncertainty. Thirty-two percent of female respondents 
believe there are situations in which the cooperative-issued certificate may not assist in securing their 
land rights. As Figure 12 shows, most respondents were either unsure or felt the cooperative-issued 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 31 
certificate would be sufficient for assisting in land disputes or land loss risks. In 19 percent (n=53) of 
cases where CATI respondents said “don’t know,” they noted uncertainty about the distinction between 
cooperative-issued certificates and government-issued DUATs. In another 8 percent (n=22) of cases, the 
respondents who said “don’t know” did not see a distinction at all between DUATs and cooperative￾issued certificates. 
FIGURE 12: RESPONSES BY GENDER TO THE QUESTION, “ARE THERE ANY TYPES 
OF LAND DISPUTES OR LAND LOSS RISKS THAT YOU THINK THIS CERTIFICATE 
COULD NOT HELP WITH?” 
In addition, participants in five GDs alluded to concerns that the certificate may not be sufficient to 
protect against an unevenly interpreted and applied section of the land law on whether land not being 
used productively can be reallocated to others. A small number of participants in these five GDs 
expressed uncertainty over whether the certificate would protect their land claim if they were not using 
the land productively (e.g., leaving it fallow for some time). As one farmer put it, 
“Yes, we are afraid because even if we have certificates the land can be taken away from [us] because 
of not being used.” – GD participant, August 28, 2018, South Zone 
Respondents in three of the seven GDs stated that the government could still take their land even if 
they had a certificate but was not farming the land. One GD participant explained: 
“The government has taught us the land belongs to the government and the farm to the farmer. If 
you’re not farming where you’re supposed to, the government can take it and give it to someone that 
can.” – GD participant, August 21, 2018, Central Zone 
Another pointed out that the government expects land to be farmed: 
“Even when you have the certificate, the government does not allow you to leave it unfarmed. So, the 
lands could be taken away.” – GD participant, August 27, 2018, South Zone 
CATI data provide more insight into concerns about the power of cooperative-issued certificates. 
Among respondents who saw the certificates as being insufficient for certain types of land disputes, 
claims from holders of government-issued DUATs were the most frequent concern (Figure 13). 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 32 
FIGURE 13: PERCEIVED THREATS TO COOPERATIVE-ISSUED CERTIFICATE 
HOLDERS 
Conclusions 
In each GD, participants indicated that their perceptions of tenure security had improved as a result of 
the Pilot’s land mapping process and cooperative-issued certificates. This was largely driven by their 
ability to prove use and combat competing claims. More than half of male CATI respondents and a third 
of female CATI respondents felt the certificates were sufficient for dealing with land disputes and land 
loss risks. There are limits to this sense of security, however. Concerns about government land￾grabbing, voiced at baseline, apparently still exist in the Pilot implementation zone. Widespread 
perceptions of the legitimacy of certificates notwithstanding, anxiety around government land grabbing 
and formal government-issued certificates remains. Respondents may value the certificates for asserting 
rights within the floodplain zones, but also question the broader security conferred given the history of 
land rights outlined in the baseline data. 
The Pilot’s AF-guided provision of documentation faced several challenges, 
but also improved perceptions of economic opportunity, gender equity, and 
dispute mitigation. 
Key Findings: 
 The Pilot achieved community-level objectives in providing certificates, but there were 
individual-level farmer challenges in photographing, mapping, and adapting to weather-related 
issues. 
 GD respondents saw potential economic opportunities in Pilot activities, but there was not a 
strong sense that economic opportunity had changed tangibly. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 33 
 There was an improvement in tenure security (regardless of gender). About half the GD 
respondents felt the Pilot successfully promoted land-related gender equity, but there were still 
concerns around protection of rights for inheritance. 
 The number of disputes increased during Pilot implementation. For women, disputes with 
neighbors were the most prevalent source of conflict. 
Provision of Certificates 
Respondents in five of the seven GDs saw the parcel mapping process as generally smooth and free of 
major problems. Nearly everyone who wanted their land mapped were reportedly able to do so. 
Participants confirmed that they received certificates in March through July of 2018 and reported few 
issues with respect to obtaining the document.31 Among GD respondents, 53 percent (n=58) said they 
received cooperative-issued certificates through the Pilot. Within the CATI sample, 67 percent (n=192) 
of respondents who participated in the Pilot reported receiving a cooperative-issued certificate. As the 
background section notes, IP data show that 1,757 Pilot participants received certificates. 
Among GD participants, the key challenges or issues were: 
 Individuals could not have their pictures taken on their farms or mapped land because they were 
flooded at the time; enumerators did not return to finish the job (two GDs). 
 Uncommon cases of individuals not being able to obtain the certificate because they had lost the 
necessary voucher to claim the document and were unsure how to follow up (reported in one 
GD). 
 Individuals who had their land mapped and received the voucher to claim their certificate, but 
the certificate had not been issued to them and they were unsure why (reported in one GD for 
some 15 people). 
 Individuals who registered interest in the Pilot and had their land mapped but did not receive 
certificates. It was not clear whether this would happen now that the Pilot has ended (reported 
in one community leader KII, Central Zone). 
 Respondents felt the land parcel cited on the certificate did not accurately reflect the actual area 
of their land since enumerators did not always include in their mapping sections that were not 
cleared (two GDs). In these cases, respondents felt the parcel area represented on their 
certificates was smaller than their actual land holding. 
 Individuals who were absent during the certificate distribution period. It is not clear if they are 
aware that their certificates are still available at the cooperative (reported by one community 
leader KII, suggesting this may apply to some 100 individuals). 
GDs held with Pilot participants further indicated that some people were unable to have their land 
mapped or obtain the cooperative-issued certificate. Respondents in endline GDs mentioned two main 
reasons for the incompletion of the process: 
1. Their parcel was flooded during the mapping and photo process; or 
2. A project team began working in their area, then moved to another block and did not return to 
finish the process with them. 
In both situations, participants appeared to have been told that the project would return to complete the 
process, but this had not happened by endline and they were unsure of the next steps. 
31 Some minor issues were noted, such as a need to re-issue the certificate due to misspellings on the document, but these 
seemed be relatively uncommon and were resolved within the Pilot period. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 34 
Interviews with three IPs noted the occurrence of inopportune rains during key Pilot activities. This 
presented logistical and technical challenges in getting parcels mapped and performing outreach efforts. 
Economic Opportunities
GD respondents saw potential economic opportunities in Pilot 
activities. However, there was not a strong sense that their 
economic situations had already changed. Six KIIs with farmer 
association and community leaders revealed that the certificate 
would enable individuals to engage in outgrowing and food crop 
contracts more easily because farmers would be able to 
demonstrate their land use rights to buyers as well as the size of 
their land. One female KII respondent explained that, “Without 
the paper [i.e., the certificate], I might not find someone to sell to 
as the certificate states that the land where the paper is coming 
from is secure” [South Zone, August 27, 2018]. One GD 
reported unexpected economic opportunity because the Pilot 
process had encouraged association members to map and use 
association land that they had not farmed previously. This 
expanded the association’s area of productive land. 
Potential use of the certificates for loan applications through banks was mentioned by one key 
informant. None of the participants in GDs or KIIs, or Pilot documentation mentioned using the 
certificates to facilitate access to credit or interact with banks. Nor was this part of the Pilot’s 
implementation planning. 
Women’s Land Rights 
In three of the seven GDs, respondents said they felt the cooperative-issued certificate provided equal 
protection to women and men land users. In one of these three GDs, female respondents said the 
certificates had removed the challenges they faced. However, some women still feel vulnerable despite 
feeling more secure with the certificates. For example, female respondents in one GD stated that men 
still tend to inherit a greater share of inherited land relative to their sisters, and they did not think this 
practice would change even with the certificates. Respondents in another GD noted that while the law 
provides equal land rights for men and women, in the past, those rights were often only safeguarded for 
men. As one GD participant explained: 
 “It is a mix for me. They tried to do so [take my land] even now that I have the certificate. Someone 
alleged that the lands belonged to their grandparents, while I was born where she was alleging that and 
never saw someone there.” – Female GD respondent, August 22, 2018, Central Zone 
Association and community leader key informants agreed that Pilot activities improved women’s land 
rights. They believe the certificates improve tenure security for all land users (regardless of gender). 
Also, because there are more female farmers in the Pilot areas and more female members of farmer 
associations, women likely benefited from the Pilot.32
Land Disputes 
As noted earlier, the Pilot produced a stronger sense of tenure security among farmers. However, the 
prevalence of disputes also appears to have changed over the Pilot period. Gender-disaggregated results 
of the CATI survey indicate that women experienced more land disputes than men, both during 
32 This is also supported by the sex-disaggregated data on certificate issuance reported by the Pilot, where 66 percent of 
certificates were issued to women. 
You can tell a buyer that you 
have a certain area that you 
are producing sweet potato 
and with the certificate, I can 
make a contract as it is 
known what can be expected 
in terms of production. So, 
without the certificate, there is 
of course the difficulty as any 
contract is based on the area. 
– Cooperative Leader, KII 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 35 
implementation of and prior to the Pilot. There were 42 female CATI respondents (about 16 percent of 
female respondents) who reported experiencing some sort of dispute, while 35 male respondents 
(about 20 percent of male respondents) reported the same. As Figure 14 shows, the number of disputes 
for female CATI respondents rose from 5 in 2016 to 16 in 2017 once the Pilot started. As shown below, 
the number of disputes increased for both genders in 2017. It is unclear why this increase occurred 
based on field data and documentation. 
FIGURE 14: NUMBER OF REPORTED DISPUTES BY YEAR AND GENDER 
Both male and female CATI respondents who reported a dispute had largely similar experiences. The 
survey asked respondents about the nature of their dispute as a short answer, open ended question, 
with responses back coded to the categories shown in Figure 15. Most disputes were with neighbors 
over boundaries; GD participants suggested this may be remedied through certification. Of CATI 
respondents who reported a dispute, 31 percent of female respondents (n=13) said they had a boundary 
dispute with a neighbor in the past. The most common type of dispute for male respondents was with a 
non-neighbor community member over the right to use a piece of land (cited by 34 percent of male 
respondents). An area of difference between male and female respondents was disputes with 
government authorities. Only six male respondents reported such disputes; four of these took place 
during the implementation of the Pilot. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 36 
FIGURE 15: CATI RESPONDENT DISPUTE TYPES BY GENDER AND PERCENTAGE 
OF RESPONDENT 
Conclusions 
The Pilot has largely achieved its objectives of providing documentation. Respondents who received 
certificates were generally happy with the process, though there appears to be a gap between those 
who received certificates and those who participated in the Pilot and encountered an issue with 
certificate provision. Given the frequency of GD participants unable to obtain their certificate or 
complete the mapping process, the number of participants in this category may be higher than that 
captured by the IP team monitoring data. The evaluation team did not find any evidence among GD 
participants that efforts had been made to address these issues or bridge this gap, particularly as the 
Pilot is over.
Any effect of the Pilot on economic opportunity is speculative at this point, but like engagement with 
outgrowing (EQ1), qualitative data analysis reveals an optimism for future returns. There is some 
indication that Pilot activities helped to overcome some of the gender disparities and stronger 
disenfranchisement of women’s rights apparent at baseline, such the inability to assert use rights. The 
certificates and land rights sensitization conducted by the Pilot could improve broad recognition of land 
rights for women, but this remains to be seen. The fact that some disputes with government officials 
took place during the Pilot’s implementation may suggest that at least some Pilot participants felt 
insecure in their tenure despite their involvement and receipt of certificates. 
The timeframe and implementation context limited the ability of the Pilot 
to follow-through on providing government issued DUATs. 
Key Finding: 
 The Pilot was unable to provide DUATs due to unanticipated implementation, coordination, and 
technical challenges. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 37 
Interviews with four IP staff members noted that the timeframe for the Pilot posed a challenge for 
providing both cooperative-issued certificates and formal DUAT titles. One IP key informant noted: 
I guess the second piece of the puzzle would be the timeframe of the project really leading us to 
conclude quite quickly that getting a full DUAT title was going to be impossible during the timeframe of 
the project and this really quickly steered us to doing the local certification. -- KII, September 11, 2018 
The implementation context was also mentioned as posing certain challenges. Two of the implementing 
partners and a liaison with Maragra described outreach efforts with the Government of Mozambique 
and local officials, including the fact that there was some local resistance to the Pilot activities. As one IP 
explained: 
At various points in the process there were interventions from the mayor and his staff. From the district 
side, the resistance was a little more prosaic, based more on the fact that their technicians didn’t get to 
accompany the process whilst being paid per diems. From our side, the issue is not one about 
participation or getting them involved. They were always invited. In fact, we held specific training sessions 
for them, so they could understand the process, but their interest was really just being able to be paid. --
KII, September 4, 2018 
One IP interviewee noted that coordination between Pilot actors required effort and took time to 
develop. The key informant explained: 
One of the things to note is that this is the first time these organizations have worked together. Illovo 
and the cooperative have obviously worked together, and their interest is obviously sugarcane. There was 
a process to opening Illovo and the cooperatives’ eyes to wider participation. -- KII, September 11, 
2018 
Qualitative data indicate this effort was sensitive to staff continuity. Two interviews with IP staff noted 
that employee turnover on the corresponding private-sector company team required additional efforts 
to sensitize fresh staff and bring them on board with Pilot goals and processes. 
The evaluation team asked association leaders, Cooperative Hluvukani staff, and implementing partner 
staff about the process for submitting Pilot participant applications for formal DUAT titles. The IP staff 
noted that the Pilot faced critical challenges in facilitating this process. As one member of the 
implementation team explained: 
We’ve now got the complete data that we need to process those [DUATs], but that cadastral system is 
not yet geared towards receiving our data, or the bulk of the cooperative data in a quick and easy 
format. So, we’re waiting for that to happen and we’ll proceed with that process. -- Male KII 
respondent, September 4, 2018 
While IPs indicated it would be possible to contact Pilot participants later to provide DUATs, the 
evaluation team found that contact information for participants was incorrect. About 40 percent were 
unreachable via phone based on the listed information. An additional 25 percent of Pilot participants did 
not appear to have any contact information stored for them in IP databases.33 Only one of the key 
informants interviewed during data collection was aware of the process for selecting the initial batch of 
275 Pilot participants for DUAT applications. The other 13 key informants interviewed were either 
unsure or suggested randomization (n=1), selection based on parcel size (n=1), or geography (n=1). 
None of the GD participants were aware of the process for DUAT application and an IP key informant 
explained that no one had yet been contacted about the applications. 
33 This is based on the reported 1,642 beneficiaries reported in Pilot documentation. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 38 
Conclusions
The ability to fully achieve community-level objectives within the Pilot’s short timeframe hinge on the 
Pilot’s novel approach to bringing together multiple actors and creating and issuing a new form of 
documentation for which there is little precedent in Mozambique. The Pilot appears to have made 
substantial inroads, engaging the Government of Mozambique and collecting information from many 
beneficiaries to facilitate their applications for formal DUAT titles through government. However, the 
process of providing formal DUAT title application support appears to have broken down due to 
technical challenges encountered in the transfer of data from the Pilot system to the government’s 
national cadastral data platform. In the end, it was unclear to the evaluation team whether the 
Government of Mozambique had received the beneficiary applications and was processing them in its 
system. The Pilot did not seem to inform participants that DUAT title applications had been submitted 
on their behalf, and interviews suggested that there was no clear plan in place at the Pilot’s end to 
enable follow-up. This fact, coupled with the evaluation team’s observed challenges with the participant 
database, suggest that there may be barriers to connecting Pilot beneficiaries with their formal DUAT 
titles if processed in the future. 
There is confusion around the difference between DUATs and cooperative￾issued certificates. 
Key Finding: 
 Although the Pilot provided documents, it did not clearly explain the details of the cooperative￾issued certificates and how they differ from government issued documents. 
In five of the seven GDs, participants viewed the cooperative-issued certificate34 the same way as a 
DUAT title. When probed on this, they thought the two documents held equal weight in protecting 
their land claims in the floodplain area.35 In three of the GDs, including one where a respondent was 
aware of the difference between the certificates and DUATs, participants said they had too little 
information about DUATs to even know what the differences were. 
In two of the GDs, respondents saw the cooperative-issued certificate as a government sanctioned 
document that held the same legal weight as a DUAT title in managing competing claims to their land. 
According to respondents, the main differences between the two documents was that the government 
DUAT process was expensive and took a long time, while the USAID-supported certificates issued by 
the cooperative were issued very quickly, did not require a cost, and avoided cumbersome bureaucracy. 
A few respondents perceived the DUAT title through government as having greater value, but this was 
not commonly expressed. One GD respondent explained, “I think the difference is that for the 
government DUAT it is very hard to get and there are costs involved while the certificate it didn’t 
involve any money” [Central Zone, August 22, 2018]. 
Respondents were not concerned about their lack of awareness of formal DUAT title applications. They 
believed the Pilot process was aligned with the government and that it was not possible for it to operate 
or for them to receive cooperative-issued certificates without government authorization. This viewpoint 
34 IP sensitization around this issue was that certificates had the same legal weight as a title in terms of defending a person’s 
right to continue to use and occupy a piece of land. 
35 According to Pilot documentation and three IP KIIs, the Pilot aimed to issue certificates of proof of DUAT rights to all Pilot 
participants and facilitate receipt of formal DUAT title documents through the Government of Mozambique for a subset of 
participants. The evaluation team anticipated making some comparisons on tenure security and related outcomes on this basis, 
but this element was no longer relevant for the evaluation with the Pilot’s decision to submit DUAT title applications for all 
beneficiaries. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 39 
was corroborated by community and association leader KIIs. However, the latter demonstrated greater 
knowledge than land user constituents as to the differences between the DUAT title and cooperative￾issued certificate, and generally understood that the project had only intended to submit 200 DUAT 
applications.36 The assumption that Pilot activities were done in collaboration with and authorized by 
Government of Mozambique is exemplified in the following comments: 
“In my view there is no difference as because for the project to be implemented passed and was 
authorized by the government and can even be that the government was the one that asked for this 
project to be implemented here. So, in my view there is no difference.” – GD participant, August 22, 
2018, Central Zone 
“There is no difference because there is nothing that the cooperative does without government knowing. 
The documents are just issued at different levels.” – Community Leader KII, Central Zone 
Three of the seven association and community leader KII respondents reported a perception that the 
DUAT and cooperative-issued certificate work in conjunction or are both part of an overall land 
certification process. One association leader explained: 
“The main difference is that the certificate is a testimony that there was mapping on the parcel and with 
that, you can apply for the DUAT without having to undergo the mapping process. So, the same coordinates 
from the certificate can be used.” – Farmer Association Leader KII, South Zone 
Another association leader expressed a similar conception of supplementary documents: 
“The two documents help. One is the consequence of the other. Having the certificate, consequently I can be 
entitled to a DUAT [title document]. With one I am certified by a government institution while with the 
certificate it is a testimony.” – Farmer Association Leader KII, South Zone 
In terms of potential differences in the validity of the cooperative-issued certificate relative to the DUAT 
title document issued through the Government of Mozambique, KIIs with IPs conveyed that IPs view the 
certificate as meeting the legal requirements to establish DUAT rights to land under Mozambique’s Land 
Act. Respondents in IP interviews noted that they followed processes for establishing customary claims 
set out in the Mozambique Land Act, including a process of neighbor identification and public 
consultation, among others. Whether this document will be viewed equally as the DUAT title under a 
specific type of challenge or legal setting in Mozambique is an open question and likely outside of IP 
manageable interests. As one IP explained, 
“In the final analysis it would be a court that would decide on that issue [certificate validity] in terms of 
the law. I think any objective application of the law would validate the [certificates]. But we’ve yet to 
cross that bridge, so we’ll see what happens.” -- KII, September 8, 2018 
Two IPs indicated that situations that were less certain or could pose a challenge to the validity of the 
certificate could include: (1) if there is a government claim to land that would take precedence over the 
cooperative-issued certificate, or (2) a conflict between the national cadaster and certificate. 
36 Ultimately, Pilot IPs submitted 275 DUAT title applications to the Government of Mozambique national system before the 
end of the Pilot. They also submitted the remaining information required for government to process DUAT title applications 
for all remaining Pilot participants before the Pilot’s end. However, incompatibilities between the system the information was 
submitted in and Government of Mozambique’s national cadaster system created technical difficulties for the national system to 
receive the applications. By the time of endline data collection for the evaluation, resolution of these issues was still pending. 
KIIs with IPs indicated that the initial 275 applicants had not been informed that DUAT title applications had been submitted on 
their behalf, and the Pilot’s exit strategy did not appear to contain a clear process for following up on this post-Pilot. It was 
unclear to the evaluation team if or how Pilot participants would be notified in the event their DUAT title application was 
accepted by Government of Mozambique, or how they would be able to follow-up on the process themselves (since they were 
not aware the applications had been submitted). 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 40 
The CATI survey results at endline reflect GD participants’ views on this issue. Of those who 
responded to a question on whether they saw any difference between the certificate and formal DUAT 
title issued by the government, 108 (38 percent) said no. It is important to note that many CATI 
respondents, including 51 percent of females who responded to this line of questioning (n=84), were not 
sure if there were differences between the two. Those who saw no difference said they contain the 
same information and are both issued by the government (in the eyes of the respondents). Those who 
saw a difference between the two documents stated that the DUAT is more secure and trusted (24 
percent); the certificate is free whereas the DUAT is not (12 percent); or there are minor differences in 
the length of the document and information contained within (12 percent). 
FIGURE 10: PERCEIVED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COOPERATIVE-ISSUED 
CERTIFICATES AND DUATS BY GENDER 
Conclusions 
Pilot beneficiaries place strong confidence in the ability of the cooperative-issued certificate to protect 
them against land expropriation. Despite this confidence, however, GD respondents showed little 
understanding of the legal differences between the certificate (a novel land document in Mozambique) 
and the formal DUAT title documents issued directly by the Government of Mozambique. This 
confusion may not pose an issue in the near term, but may disrupt the overall theory of change if 
investors, private sector actors, or locals with formal DUAT titles or a different understanding of the 
local land laws challenge the authority of the Pilot certificates. There may be some eventual risk to 
beneficiaries’ strongly placed confidence in those certificates. 
The Pilot encountered unanticipated communication and implementation 
challenges that limited achievement of objectives. 
Key Findings: 
 There was widespread confusion about how to contact the Pilot or follow-up regarding issues 
with the AF-guided activities under the Pilot. 
 The Pilot encountered unanticipated capacity challenges that affected community-level objectives 
in managing and sharing knowledge. 
Communication Challenges 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 41 
Participants in all GDs mentioned difficulty and confusion around Pilot communication. They were 
unsure whom to contact for follow-up questions about the certificates they received. Farmer association 
leaders reportedly served as the conduit to pass information to and from cooperative and Pilot staff. In 
two cases, participants mentioned that para-surveyors who had worked with the Pilot also served as 
communication liaisons with Pilot staff. In six of the seven GDs conducted, participants noted ongoing 
questions or uncertainties they had about the certificates,37 or were still waiting on follow-up visits to 
finish the mapping and certification process for some of their association members. 
A key question expressed in the GDs was whether the project 
would return to complete land mapping and issue certificates 
for those who had registered interest but who did not have 
their land mapped during the Pilot. 
Interviews with association and cooperative leaders did not 
reveal uncertainty around communication channels. For 
example, one association leader said the Pilot team provided 
weekly updates on the status of the project, what had been 
done, what needed to be done, the potential challenges, and 
how they could coordinate better with the local leader. 
Cooperative leaders also said they disseminated information 
on Pilot activities during community meetings to ensure that 
the information was shared with local community authorities. 
Conceptual and Technical Implementation Challenges 
Interviews with IP staff suggest that adapting standard implementation processes for land rights 
documentation to the floodplain context was challenging. In addition to data transfer issues mentioned 
above, there were also difficulties with technical capacity and knowledge transfer. 
The standard implementation process assumes that households receiving land documentation are part of 
a well-defined territorial unit (e.g., a village). Thus, it is easier to establish membership within the 
community and ensure coverage across all the lands to be mapped. Interviews with IPs noted that, in 
such a situation, it is easier and more relevant to conduct community-level land-use planning steps as an 
input to parcel land mapping and documentation at the level of individuals or households. This is because 
there is often a clear legal or administrative entity associated with this territorial unit, which already has 
certain community-wide responsibilities and can serve as the legal entity to oversee, house, and 
administer the certificate process within the community. This contrasts with the Pilot context, where 
individuals hold land in an area that is not clearly demarcated or tied to specific villages or entities. 
To overcome this difficulty, the documentation and field-based data showed that the Pilot established 
Hluvukani Cooperative as the corresponding administrative entity and aimed to build its capacity to 
serve in the envisioned role as administrator and permanent holder of the certificate process, including 
maintaining and updating into the future the database of landholders and certificates that were issued. 
The IP KIIs revealed that the Pilot initially aimed to design a system that drew primarily on open-source 
software and could eventually be decentralized to the level of a given community, which could then 
control, manage, and update its own data. Pilot staff said they envisioned that the cooperative would 
37 Examples of ongoing confusion or clarifying requests were: “Does the Cooperative-issued certificate expire after a time? If 
yes, it is possible to obtain renewal, and how?” “Will participants be required to pay for any of the certificates after a certain 
period of time?” For individuals who started but were not able to complete the land mapping process through the Pilot: “Will 
the project return to complete the process with them?” “If yes, how will they be notified of the timing for that?” “Will they also 
eventually obtain cooperative-issued certificates?” 
They came last year, I think 
between September and October 
and they said they would return and 
since the project was to end in June, 
they said we would be one the last 
ones to be assisted but the last 
thing we heard was that the project 
had ended. -- GD participant, 
Central Zone, August 24, 2018 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 42 
take over management responsibilities for this platform and future land administration responsibilities 
for the area covered by the Pilot. By the Pilot’s end, IPs concluded that establishing such capacities from 
scratch in a grassroots organization was very challenging, and likely not the most efficient way to 
develop the envisioned land administration platform. These challenges were reportedly related to 
capacity constraints – managing the system requires database administrators (i.e., people with GIS and 
computer skills). Interviews with IP staff also noted that this unexpected technical difficulty was due to 
lack of clarity on how such a database should be integrated within local or national land administration 
systems.
Overall Conclusions 
The endline data suggest that the Pilot’s 
communication activities were strong in so far as 
communicating project objectives and upcoming 
activities to association leaders. This outreach appears 
to have been unidirectional, however, with no real 
upward communication from participants to the 
cooperative and Pilot team once the mapping process 
and issuance of certificates occurred. Although 
interviews with association and cooperative leaders 
and IP staff did not indicate uncertainty around 
communication channels, there was a breakdown in 
communication between the last step of Pilot 
outreach (generally association leaders or 
enumerators) and farmers. This information gap was 
large enough to create confusion, including whether 
Pilot activities were still taking place. The Pilot’s 
attempt to work through the Hluvukani Cooperative 
and the subsequent challenges show that local data 
warehousing was not sufficient in the Manhiça context. 
View of a South Zone GD. 
Credit: Jacob Patterson-Stein 
Summary of EQ2 Conclusions 
 AF-guided activities under the Pilot strengthened perceptions of tenure security. 
 Pilot provision of documentation faced several challenges, but also improved perceptions of 
economic opportunity, gender equity, and dispute mitigation. 
 The context in which the Pilot was implemented limited the project’s ability to follow through with 
providing government issued DUATs 
 There is confusion on the difference between DUATs and cooperative-issued certificates. 
 The Pilot encountered unanticipated communication and implementation challenges that limited 
achievement of key government-issued document objectives. 
EQ3: How well do the AF-guided activities under the Pilot meet 
underlying challenges and the needs of communities with respect to 
participation in or locational proximity to new or existing land-based 
investment schemes? 
By providing land rights certificates, Pilot activities appear to meet one of the key 
underlying challenges and community needs with respect to their ability to participate in 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 43 
local land-based investment schemes. Tenure security is not the only important barrier to 
engaging in outgrowing. Technical skills, capital support, high information uncertainty, and 
high labor needs are also reasons individuals in the Pilot area do not take advantage of 
available land-based investment opportunities. Further, there are broad feelings of tenure 
insecurity outside the Pilot zone that contribute to a general sense of anxiety around land 
use. Tenure security and proof of land claims are necessary but insufficient conditions for land users in 
the Pilot area to effectively participate in available land-based investment schemes in their locality. There 
are broader concerns about household/other parcel tenure security that could influence the decision to 
engage with investment schemes. 
Key Findings for EQ3 
 The Pilot’s mapping and certification activities relieved some concerns about having documentation 
to engage with outgrowing schemes, but underlying technical capacity constraints remain: The Pilot 
may have cleared a pathway for outgrowing (see EQs 1 and 2), but there are underlying financial and 
capacity needs the Pilot was not designed to support. These are still present in Pilot zone 
communities and continue to inhibit engagement with outgrowing. 
 Pilot participants are still broadly insecure about their land rights even as the Pilot addressed tenure 
security concerns in select floodplain zones: GD respondents feel vulnerable about land rights for 
their homes and parcels outside the Pilot zones. 
Baseline Findings 
At baseline, farmer uncertainty over potential sugarcane outgrower benefits was common and there 
were few perceived linkages between formal land documentation and a farmer’s ability to engage with 
Maragra as an outgrower. None of the EU project participants in the GDs had yet harvested their cane 
or received payments from Maragra for the recently concluded growing season (most participants’ first 
year as outgrowers). Respondents in group discussions expected that outgrowing would lead to a higher 
standard of living through sugarcane income. Non-project participants (Category 2) had no relationship 
with Maragra and little expectation of engagement. Non-outgrower GD participants expressed 
insufficient outgrower information or reluctance to move away from food crop production because of 
consumption and income smoothing concerns. Others said ongoing land disputes or insufficient soil 
quality for sugarcane production prevented them from participating. Pilot participants were either 
cautiously optimistic about anticipated livelihoods benefits from sugar outgrowing or had little 
expectation of outgrowing engagement due to concerns about income smoothing or insufficient 
information. 
The Pilot did not relieve underlying technical capacity constraints with 
respect to participation in land-based investment schemes. 
Key Finding: 
 Many respondents reported ongoing technical and financial outgrowing barriers. 
As noted in EQ1 and EQ2, there is little indication that certification activities increased beneficiaries’ 
opportunity to engage as sugarcane outgrowers in the brief time period post-Pilot. Within the scope of 
this EQ, group discussion participants pointed to technical knowledge and skills, capital support, labor 
requirements, and information uncertainties as equally important or larger underlying challenges. One IP 
key informant noted that even with secure tenure and ambition to conduct outgrowing there are 
logistical challenges:
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 44 
It’s a difficult crop not to grow, but to harvest and process. There were timing issues related to when the 
crop was harvested. It needs to be crushed within 24 hours. That means the small outgrower needs to 
be well integrated into the collection of the sugarcane, transport to the facility. Some of the people 
growing sugarcane are quite far from the facility. You have to arrive at the mill at the exact scheduled 
time to be accepted. I think that is a formidable challenge, especially for small holders. – KII, 
September 11, 2018 
Many GD participants are hesitant to venture into outgrowing and are waiting to see what happens with 
those already engaged in it. Of the GD participants at endline who had individual contracts, all had 
started their contract during the year of endline data collection and none had gone through a harvest 
cycle yet. In addition, uncertainty or insufficient information on repayment and related conditions for 
loans from the company to obtain the required inputs for sugarcane farming also served to dis￾incentivize participation: 
We need to sit with Maragra to really understand everything. Now for instance, where the sugarcane 
was planted, we are not able to tell you how much was spent on seed, how much was spent on 
fertilizers, labor, etc. We need to sit down and do a breakdown of all the expenses incurred so that if we 
[receive] a loan we are all clear what it served to pay [for]. – GD respondent, August 22, 2018, 
Central Zone 
The beneficiary selection and targeting processes for the Pilot provide a context for understanding the 
reasons Pilot participants do not currently participate in outgrower schemes. Anyone who had land in 
the six selected floodplain blocks was eligible for participation. Group discussion participants and KIIs 
with farmer association leaders indicated that most of the association members chose to participate in 
the Pilot irrespective of whether their land was considered suitable for sugarcane growing or if their 
existing farmer association preferred to focus on growing food crops. In this context, interest in 
sugarcane outgrowing and land-based investment was not a pre-condition for Pilot participation and, as 
noted above, not all farmers or farmer associations in the floodplain blocks felt they needed to or 
wanted to engage in this activity even if presented with the opportunity. 
Conclusions 
Tenure security is just one of the underlying challenges to engaging with outgrowing and investment 
schemes. The Pilot’s participation approach was not designed to address technical capacity, interest in, 
or budget for outgrowing, so it is unsurprising that challenges remain. Sensitization and documentation 
do not appear to have been sufficient to address community needs with respect to participation in 
investor schemes. 
Pilot participants viewed land rights documentation as a critical need and 
the Pilot successfully addressed this community constraint. 
Key Finding 
 Pilot beneficiaries still experience widespread tenure insecurity outside of the Pilot zone. 
In response to queries at endline about continuing land challenges, GD respondents reaffirmed that 
Pilot-issued certificates addressed the primary land issue they had in the floodplain zone: lack of 
documentation. The perceived benefits of the certificates are outlined in the findings for EQs 1 and 2. 
However, there were other ongoing issues reported in the GDs as well. 
Group discussion respondents mentioned that they were just as insecure about their land in the 
floodplain as the land around their residence and outside the floodplain. Respondents in four of the 
seven GDs mentioned a need to secure those lands as a priority. In each of the four GDs where this 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 45 
was mentioned, discussants requested that Pilot activities be extended to areas outside the floodplain. 
One GD respondent succinctly summarized this point: 
The challenges that currently exist now that we have certificate for our farms now but, since we don’t 
have certificates for our lands at home, we still face the same insecurities we used to face before. – GD 
respondent, GD 5, South Zone 
Conclusions 
Despite the positive reports in EQ2, tenure insecurity outside the Pilot zones remains an underlying 
challenge and concern for Pilot beneficiaries. The sense of broader tenure insecurity coupled with 
previously reported apprehensions about outgrowing suggest that the Pilot did not reduce the 
uncertainty around investment schemes reported at baseline. 
Summary of EQ 3 Conclusions 
 The Pilot’s mapping and certification activities relieved some concerns about having documentation 
to engage with outgrowing schemes. Underlying technical capacity constraints remain, however. 
 Broad tenure insecurity is still an underlying challenge for people farming in the floodplain zone. 
EQ4: What are the lessons learned from the AF-guided activities under 
the Pilot that can inform future application and dissemination of the 
AF to better achieve intended community-level objectives? 
There are three main lessons from the AF-guided activities under the Pilot that can inform 
future application and dissemination of the AF: 
1. Timeline: The implementation period for the Pilot limited the time for addressing 
intervention challenges and for fully addressing the theory change. 
2. Communication: In decentralized contexts, such as the floodplain Pilot zones, 
application and dissemination of the AF should account for the entire chain of 
communication and ensure that participants are directly aware of activity benefits 
and details. 
3. Data management: Systems for the analysis, storage, and transfer of data related to 
AF-guided activities need to be designed to consider existing local systems 
integration, local capacity, and future sustainability to fully achieve intended 
community-level objectives. 
Each of these lessons learned are related to findings outlined in the previous three EQ sections, as well 
as from GD and KII data. Overall, GD respondents were happy with the AF-guided activities and 
community objectives. When asked about recommendations for future activities, four of the seven GDs 
mentioned mapping and certification for their home and non-flood zone parcels. GD and KII 
respondents directly or indirectly mentioned lessons learned concerning the three aforementioned 
themes. Still, it is worth reiterating that, as a test of the AF, the Pilot’s activities of mapping and 
certification were limited within the grand sweep of what the AF covers. As one IP key informant put it: 
The vast majority of the Analytical Framework does not focus on issuing certificates to farmers; it’s all 
about risk analysis and consultations. We tested a very narrow part of it that allows Illovo to respond to 
many parts of the Analytical Framework in other ways. – KII, September 11, 2018 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 46 
Timeline Lessons
Group discussion and KII respondents had slightly different perceptions of the timeline. For Pilot 
participants, lessons learned about the timeline include the fact that the actual engagement with 
outgrowing was limited to the period covered by this evaluation. In two GDs, respondents expressed 
sentiments implying that they were unsure as to whether the Pilot was still active or would return to 
finish work that was incomplete. 
The timeline for the Pilot appeared too short given the planned 
activities (particularly submission of DUAT applications using 
cooperative-issued certificate information) and the theory of 
change. As one IP staff member explained, “Given the delays 
and difficulty of completing everything within the project 
timeframe we needed to prepare what we thought was the best 
outcome: an MOU [memorandum of understanding] between 
the parties to continue mutual support and engagement” [KII, 
September 11, 2018]. Another IP key informant noted that the 
MOU itself was difficult to coordinate within the timeframe: 
We drafted that [MOU] as way of pinning down responsibilities and continuing the kind of tasks which 
we envisaged wouldn’t be completed by the end of the project itself. We sent that to Illovo as a draft 
MoU and that disappeared for many weeks into Illovo’s legal department. And by the time it came out, 
in fact most of those things had been superseded. So, it never actually got signed. -- KII, September 4, 
2018 
Based on KII data, the MOU appeared to be a central part of the Pilot’s exit strategy. However, KII 
respondents noted that this was developed midway through implementation and was sensitive to timing 
constraints. As one key informant pointed out, “There is an element of trust there and continued 
support beyond the project scope and beyond the project time period. The working relationships 
between Illovo, Terra Firma, and the cooperative were really strong” [KII, September 11, 2018]. One IP 
respondent suggested that 18 months would have been sufficient to perform all the planned Pilot tasks. 
Another IP KII noted that the timeline to develop systems required to submit applications for DUAT 
titles was never going to occur within the Pilot timeframe. 
Communication Lessons 
As noted above, IP staff held a series of meetings with community members, association leaders, and key 
farmer stakeholders to explain and communicate the Pilot and mapping and certification activities. 
Despite these efforts, it is clear from the GDs that there were misunderstandings about the certification 
process and Pilot itself. For example, in one Central Zone GD, participants said they thought the 
cooperative-issued certificates were only valid for two years. In two GDs, respondents said they initially 
thought the Pilot was going to take their land away. The gap between where IP staff were engaging most 
frequently—Illovo staff, association leadership, enumerator leaders—and farmers created space for 
rumors to circulate and confusion to grow. Lack of clarity among Pilot participants on the distinction 
between cooperative-issued certificates and DUATs is also an example of a gap in the chain of 
communication despite IP staff reporting that this was explained. 
At a beneficiary level, three KIIs and participants in one of the GDs noted that the use of community 
members for enumeration was helpful, even if information was not always conveyed as planned. As one 
GD respondent put it in explaining Pilot engagement: “The people we know are the enumerators which 
are from our local communities. They are the sons of this land” [GD 6, South Zone]. 
It is very difficult to state that 
as of now as you’ve heard they 
still have unfinished work which 
they may return to accomplish. 
We would like them to 
continue with the work. -- Male 
GD respondent, Central Zone
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 47 
While none of the KII respondents noted specific communications-related lessons learned, the confusion 
around DUAT selection for the initial 275 beneficiaries and needs for data management suggest that a 
key lesson learned is to develop a communications plan as part of overall activity coordination. The 
unsigned MOU may have been an initial step, but this was developed midway through implementation. 
Outlining the communication approach at the outset may have avoided some of the confusion reported 
in the previous findings. 
Data Management Lessons 
The Pilot collected data on participants’ parcels and key demographics as part of a database, which was 
shared with the evaluation team. The use and maintenance of this database faced several challenges 
however. One IP KII explained the overall issue in the following way: 
I think the key one [lesson learned] for us is never embark on the collection of data of this nature 
without having a clear idea of how you’re going to maintain that data in the future. And I would say that 
applies even to national level titling processes. Don’t do systems formalization until you’ve got a plan for 
data maintenance and keeping that cadastral system up to date. -- KII, September 8, 2018 
The database was housed with the cooperative at Illovo-Maragra’s estate, but there were issues with 
finding skilled staff to manage, maintain, and analyze the data collected. While trying to transfer data 
from the Pilot database to the national government as part of the DUAT application process, IP staff 
learned that they could not batch upload information from their database to the Government of 
Mozambique, meaning that all data would have to be entered manually, one by one into the national 
cadastral system. As part of the data management difficulties, IP staff noted that there were lessons 
learned about capacity. According to one key informant: 
Toward the end of the project, there really wasn’t anyone equipped to handle that system [the 
database]. It would have been good to have more time to proactively train people to take over this 
system. I think this was a major thing that would have required more time. There were some related 
issues in terms of getting internet connections and a server. Things that are logistically difficult and 
require effort and time that we did not expect to have to deal with toward the end of the project. -- KII, 
September 11, 2018 
Summary of EQ 4 Lessons Learned 
 Timeline: The implementation period for the Pilot limited the time for addressing intervention 
challenges and for fully addressing the theory change. 
 Communication: In decentralized contexts, such as the floodplain Pilot zones, application and 
dissemination of the AF should account for the entire chain of communication and ensure that 
participants are directly aware of activity benefits and details. 
 Data Management: Systems for the analysis, storage, and transfer of data related to AF-guided 
activities need to be designed to consider existing local systems integration, local capacity, and future 
sustainability to fully achieve intended community-level objectives. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The evaluation team recommends the following to USAID. These recommendations are designed to 
help USAID design and implement future land mapping and certification activities as well as link such 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 48 
activities to the private sector to strengthen land tenure security and minimize risks associated with 
large-scale agricultural investments. 
USAID 
Ensure that technology and certification data are compatible with government national 
cadastral systems before the start of activities. Consider requiring IPs to test and confirm 
that Pilot land user and parcel data and technology are compatible with government 
cadastral systems before embarking on Pilot activities. This is critical if the intent is to integrate 
land user, parcel, and/or certification data from Pilot or activity beneficiaries into a national system. Early 
knowledge of such incompatibilities, if present, and the ability to source solutions during activity design 
phase, can contribute to greater likelihood of achieving activity objectives within activity timeframes and 
effective allocation of resources. 
Consider building in longer time frames for Pilot activities to achieve objectives related to 
linkages between certification and outgrower engagement and subsequent improved 
livelihoods. Consider monitoring beyond pilot lifetimes to better understand these 
theoretical and practical relationships. In the case of this evaluation, it was clear Pilot activities had 
reduced tenure insecurity (one of the key initial barriers to outgrower engagement among land holders 
in the floodplain) by way of cooperative-issued certificates of land rights. However, the Pilot timeframe – 
the activity ended shortly after the issuing of certificates and endline data collection – made it difficult to 
glean additional information on important next steps in the Pilot’s theory of change with respect to 
outgrower engagement and livelihoods. There is some indication that the number of outgrowing 
contracts held by Pilot beneficiaries had increased by endline. However, beneficiaries had not completed 
a cane harvesting cycle within the Pilot period and assumptions on livelihoods improvements were 
anticipatory by the evaluation’s end. Ongoing monitoring within the Pilot context should focus on data 
collection to inform how certificates are working to protect land users in the floodplain in the event of 
disputes and to facilitate engagement with investor schemes. 
USAID and Implementing Partners 
Aim for activity planning and objectives that are consistent with government time frames 
to achieve intended results. Since government time frames to issue legal land documents can be 
long, ensure (1) activities are designed with realistic expectations of what is likely to be achieved within 
the activity timeframe and which elements are likely to require continued post-activity support, and (2) 
objective planning, process, and time frames for activity steps take into account this knowledge and 
communicate such time frames to beneficiaries. For this evaluation, there was substantial difference 
between the short Pilot time frame and the much longer time required to process DUAT title 
applications through the Government of Mozambique. In general, land certification activities that embark 
on piloting new innovations with little precedent, as was the case for this Pilot, are likely to experience 
unforeseen challenges and may require longer time frames to find solutions and achieve objectives.
Require a clear exit strategy and well-defined transfer of responsibilities to local land 
administration institutions. Ensure strong attention to a well-communicated exit strategy and 
transfer of responsibilities to local land administration institutions before activity end and, ideally, as part 
of activity work planning. Confirm that the capacity is in place for such institutions to carry out their 
tasks. In the absence of this and, particularly when there are elements of activities that require 
maintenance or follow-up beyond the lifetime of the activity, as was the case for the Pilot, institutional 
and tenure security gains achieved during the Pilot activity may be at higher risk of dissipating after the 
activity ends. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 49 
Consider revising expectations of what can be achieved through a highly decentralized, 
community-led approach to establishing and maintaining a land administration system 
locally. Despite well-placed intentions to establish and strengthen a locally-led effort to oversee and 
administer land certification processes and maintain a local land administration system into the future, 
the institutional and technical capacity of local actors to maintain land registries is often prohibitively low 
and should be determined early on in implementation. USAID and its IPs should consider post-activity 
administrative management at multiple levels. It is possible that efforts for future activities may be better 
placed by maintaining responsibility for such systems within existing national cadaster systems or 
registries, while working to establish and strengthen administrative linkages between locally-created 
and/or locally-led institutions and such national systems. 
Account for the exit and sustainability of Pilot activities. To enhance the success of similar 
activities in the future, pilots should consider building a clear exit strategy and follow-up plan into their 
activity. If understood early in the process, as was the case in this Pilot, that full government certification 
is not achievable within the activity or pilot time frame, USAID may want to consider whether 
submission of the applicant files to government can be regarded as a sufficient endpoint for USAID￾supported tenure formalization activities. USAID and IPs may want to consider the likely risk that such 
applicants may never receive formal documentation where issuance does not occur within the 
implementation timeline and there is not a clear transfer strategy to a capable in-country institution. 
Implementing Partners 
Build and ensure vertical channels of communications between beneficiaries and pilot or 
activity staff. Establish well-functioning upward communication channels for beneficiaries during and 
after the project. When land certification and document types are novel, as was the case for this Pilot, 
beneficiaries will have questions, information gaps, or other issues they may need resolved. Setting up 
accessible communication channels for direct contact between beneficiaries and IP staff should be 
considered for future activities in a decentralized context. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 50 
ANNEX A: EVALUATION SOW 
Performance Evaluation of the Responsible Investment Pilot 
This Statement of Work is for a performance evaluation commissioned by the Land and Urban Office in 
the United States Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and 
Environment (USAID/E3/LU) that will examine the Responsible Investment Pilot. 
1. Pilot Background 
The Analytical Framework for Land-Based Investments in African Agriculture 
As global demand for food, fuel, fiber, forestry, and horticultural products rises, private sector 
companies are increasingly investing in land in developing countries. With the potential benefits of such 
investment come several risks, including land tenure risks, which are associated with acquiring rights to 
land in an environment where land governance is weak, rights are often undocumented, or there may be 
pre-existing claims to land that is offered (often by governments) for sale or lease. Failing to account for 
land tenure risks can lead to displacements or loss of livelihoods for local people and communities, and 
can create significant financial, operational, legal, or reputational risks for the investor (e.g., increased 
media attention for “land grabbing” and protests by local communities). The international business 
community, civil society, and the U.S. and other governments recognize the need to ensure that land￾based investments occur in a responsible and inclusive manner, and in compliance with international best 
practice. 
In 2012, the Committee on World Food Security adopted the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible 
Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security 
(“Voluntary Guidelines”). This international soft law “promotes secure tenure rights and equitable 
access to land, fisheries and forests as a means of eradicating hunger and poverty, supporting sustainable 
development and enhancing the environment.”38 Almost 100 nations agreed to the Voluntary Guidelines. 
To provide practical guidance to private-sector investors regarding how they can comply with the 
Voluntary Guidelines, the U.S., French, German, and British governments, the United Nations Food and 
Agriculture Organization, and the African Union collaboratively produced the Analytical Framework for 
Land-Based Investments in African Agriculture39 (the AF). The AF consolidates existing guidance on 
responsible land-based investment into one succinct framework. The Global Donor Working Group on 
Land endorsed the AF in October 2015, and it remains a useful framework for private investors looking 
to make responsible investments that comply with the Voluntary Guidelines. The AF provides guidance 
for companies to align with international best practices while reducing potential risks to their 
investments. Despite consensus on tenure risks and beneficial mitigation measures outlined in the AF, 
uptake of the AF by the private sector has been minimal. 
The Responsible Investment Pilot 
USAID/E3/LU has tasked the Cloudburst Group (“Cloudburst”), through the Evaluation, Research, and 
Communications (ERC) task order under the Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights (STARR) 
indefinite quantity contract (#AID-OAA-I-12-00030), to Pilot utilization of different components of the 
AF with private sector partners. Known as the Responsible Investment Pilot (the Pilot), this will be one 
38 See: http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/. 
39 See: https://www.growafrica.com/sites/default/files/Analytical-framework-for-land-based-investments-in-African￾agriculture_0.pdf 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 51 
of the first attempts to study how implementation of different components of the AF affects private 
firms’ investment, including investment decision-making and operational planning, and the land rights, 
tenure security, and firm relations in affected communities. Cloudburst is implementing the Pilot from 
approximately December 2016 to March 2018 in Mozambique and Cameroon (the latter was later 
removed from the pilot), with a third country (Kenya) planned for Pilot activities as well. Cloudburst has 
selected a subcontractor, Indufor Group, to implement Pilot activities. Indufor may further subcontract 
with local partners as needed. 
Implementation of the Pilot in each country will focus on different components of the AF’s five stages. In 
Cameroon, the Pilot will primarily span Stage 1 (Tenure Security) and Stage 2 (Participation, 
Consultation, and Negotiations); while in Mozambique, the Pilot activities will mainly cover some 
elements of Stage 1, as well as Stage 3 (Grievance Mechanism – Dispute Resolution) and Stage 4 
(Transparency and Corruption). The AF is applicable at different stages of investment and can be 
adopted midway throughout the investment cycle. 
The Pilot includes two main components: 
1. Land tenure due diligence: The Moringa Partnership is a European impact investor that invests in 
responsible agribusiness activities in Africa and Latin America. Moringa wants to strengthen its due 
diligence processes for land-based investments. Indufor will help Moringa adapt the AF to be used by 
the firm to recognize and mitigate risks (in alignment with Stage 1 of the AF). The Pilot will begin by 
assessing prospective investments in Cameroon and may include on-demand technical assistance to 
Moringa in the third Pilot country that USAID and Cloudburst select. 
2. Mapping land rights and creating a grievance mechanism in Mozambique: This component of the Pilot 
will collaborate with Illovo Sugar Ltd. on an existing project site to map outgrowers’ land and set up 
a transparent grievance mechanism for these outgrowers. In Mozambique, Indufor will subcontract 
with Terra Firma, a local consulting company. 
As the prime contractor, Cloudburst will perform contractual oversight of Indufor and may provide 
technical guidance and assistance with due diligence, community engagement, grievance mechanisms, and 
mapping components of the Pilot. Cloudburst will also play a monitoring and data collection role on the 
Pilot, including reporting on Pilot success stories and collecting monitoring data from the participating 
firms through Indufor. Selection of performance indicators for the Pilot is expected in February 2017. 
Indufor intends to conduct a scoping mission in Cameroon in February to assess initial implementation 
challenges and expects the Mozambique Pilot to begin with community engagement and mapping of land 
rights in February 2017. 
2. Development Hypothesis 
USAID believes that if companies appropriately apply the AF as part of their land investment, acquisition, 
and management activities, then private business capacity to identify and understand community tenure 
risks will improve, firms will be more likely to adopt approaches to avoid these risks, and this will 
mitigate risks in affected communities. USAID also expects investor application of the AF to lead to 
more inclusive and positive outcomes for communities affected by land-based investments. At the 
community level, USAID believes that firms’ use of the AF will lead to improved perceptions of investor 
companies, improved relations with and participation in land-based investment schemes, and 
communities having more participatory input over land use and investments than those implemented 
without AF guidance. In turn, USAID expects this will lead to improved tenure security and lower 
perceived risk of land expropriation by community members. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 52 
Figure 1 presents a detailed theory of change (TOC) for the overall Pilot. Each part of the TOC 
presents activities that take place within the context of land practices and the AF recommendations. The 
TOC presents firm outcomes, community outcomes, and crosscutting community-firm outcomes to 
show areas where firm and community activities overlap. For example, firm consultation with 
community members, including vulnerable groups, is an outcome for firms that adjust their community 
outreach efforts as part of the AF, as well as for the community that the firm consults and engages. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 53 
Figure 1: Responsible Investment Pilot Theory of Change
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 54 
3. Existing Performance Information Sources 
USAID/E3/LU has already shared the following documents with the evaluation team: 
 USAID Request for Expressions of Interest 
 Cloudburst Pilot Subcontract Draft SOW 
USAID/E3/LU and Cloudburst will share the following additional documents with the evaluation team via 
email as they become available: 
 All future quarterly project management and progress reports for the Pilot 
 Available monitoring, evaluation, and learning updates, data, and reports 
 Participating firm data and operational information that relate to Pilot activities 
In addition to information provided by USAID/E3/LU and the Pilot implementing partners, the evaluation 
team may need to access other types of secondary data, including administrative information on the 
relevant local municipalities, from a variety of sources. This will likely involve accessing published 
government sources or obtaining the information from Cloudburst staff who are knowledgeable about 
existing data for specific municipalities. The evaluation should also collect and analyze information 
related to land rights in the selected countries, activities to improve land use, issues that may affect the 
outcomes of interest, and other factors exogenous to the Pilot that could influence observed results. 
4. Evaluation Purpose, Audiences, and Intended Uses 
Purpose 
USAID/E3/LU is commissioning this evaluation to examine how the application of the AF affects 
community perceptions and actions as they relate to land management, tenure security, and local 
community views of and engagement with private sector investors. Since implementation of the AF is 
intended to have mutually beneficial outcomes for investor companies and for local communities, this 
evaluation will complement the data collection and reporting that Cloudburst will perform on the 
participating firms’ experiences using the AF, by providing results on the community-level impacts. It also 
aims to contribute to the broader knowledge base on responsible land investment practices and their 
potential to reduce social, economic, and governance risks in impacted communities. 
USAID/E3/LU expects that the community-level results obtained under this evaluation will be 
considered in tandem with the investor-level results that will be the focus of Cloudburst’s Pilot data 
collection activities, to inform overarching areas of interest such as: 
 The likelihood that the AF will garner interest and investors/firms will perceive its utility. 
 The challenges associated with the time and cost of companies to implement these guidelines. 
 The different perspectives of investors in terms of their entry points and interests in using the 
AF as a guidance tool during the investment life cycle. 
Audiences 
Primary audiences for this evaluation are USAID/E3/LU, the Pilot implementing partners, and the private 
sector firms involved with the Pilot. Secondary audiences for this evaluation are other private sector 
firms involved in land-based investment (especially U.S. firms), land sector specialists and 
nongovernmental organizations, and the broader donor community including the United Nations, the 
United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, and the World Bank. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 55 
Intended Uses 
USAID will use this evaluation to inform the design and implementation of future land tenure and 
investment-related activities, and to improve the facilitation of the AF with private sector firms. As one 
of the first evaluations of the AF’s implementation, the evaluation will serve as a tool for USAID, 
Cloudburst, the private sector partners, other donors, and businesses in the land sector to learn about 
how the implementation of different components of the AF affects firms and communities. This includes 
learning contributions on whether and how the AF helps to reduce land tenure risks and facilitates 
positive outcomes for affected communities. The evaluation will serve as a platform for disseminating 
the results to other potential investors looking for ways to improve their due diligence and community 
engagement practices through the AF. 
5. Evaluation Questions 
The evaluation will address the following questions: 
1. How has community participation in AF-guided activities under the Pilot affected how community 
members perceive and engage with land-based investor companies and schemes? (Overarching 
impacts and engagement)
In answering this question, the evaluation may explore lines of inquiry such as: 
a. How do impacts and perceptions differ from previous community experiences with land-based 
investment in or near their community that did not use the AF-guided processes. 
b. Community perceptions of equity, fairness, access, and information availability, particularly with 
respect to land rights recognition, land acquisition processes, and (where applicable) grievance 
mechanisms. 
c. Inclusiveness of the AF-guided activities in regards to decision-making, openness, and 
transparency.
2. To what degree have community-level objectives of the AF-guided activities under the Pilot been 
achieved, and what explains where successes, failures, or unanticipated effects have occurred? 
(Specific impacts)
In answering this question, the evaluation may explore lines of inquiry such as: 
a. How the AF-guided activities have affected community perceptions of tenure security, land conflict, 
risk of land expropriation, and the ability of community members to advocate for their land rights. 
b. Whether and how any particular Pilot or external factors influenced the ability of the AF-guided 
activities to achieve intended community-level results. 
3. How well do the AF-guided activities under the Pilot meet underlying challenges and the needs of 
communities with respect to participation in or locational proximity to new or existing land-based 
investment schemes? (Relevance)
Underlying challenges may include those associated with insecure land tenure, such as overall and within 
community disparities around power and voice, information access, and meaningful representation and 
participation in decision-making. Other challenges may be identified through data collection with community 
members during the course of evaluation activities. 
4. What are the lessons learned from the AF-guided activities under the Pilot that can inform future 
application and dissemination of the AF to better achieve intended community-level objectives? 
In answering this question, the evaluation may address intended community-level results such as: 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 56 
a. Community relations with land-based investors. 
b. Participation of community members in land-based investment schemes in or near their 
communities. 
c. Longer-term potential for improved tenure security and lower perceived risk of land expropriation by 
land-based investment schemes. 
6. Gender Considerations 
In line with USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy and Automated Directives 
System 203.3.1.5, the evaluation will consider gender-specific and differential effects of the Pilot. The 
evaluation team will disaggregate data by gender at multiple points along the Theory of Change diagram 
to analyze the potential influence these effects have on activities and outcomes. If surveys are employed, 
the data will be gender-disaggregated to identify gender differences with respect to access, benefits, and 
outcomes, as well as lessons learned from female community members. This could include looking at 
issues such as how and whether outreach activities included men and women, or how accessible the 
grievance process was to men and women. USAID expects the evaluation team to apply gender￾sensitive methods while conducting interviews to ensure that accurate data are collected. For example, 
if the evaluation team asks about intra-household decision making to learn more about the local context, 
it may be helpful to survey men and women separately. The evaluation team will conduct further inquiry 
on gender themes as they emerge during data analysis. 
7. Evaluation Design and Data Collection Methods 
USAID expects that the evaluation design and methodology for this evaluation will include a mix of 
qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis approaches, where appropriate. The evaluation 
team should consider methodologies that make use of the Pilot implementation timeline and 
incorporate baseline data and endline comparisons, as appropriate and feasible. 
The evaluation team responding to this SOW will prepare a Concept Paper outlining potential 
evaluation design options and associated budgetary implications to answer the evaluation questions. 
Once agreement is reached with USAID on the design options discussed in the Concept Paper, the 
evaluation team will prepare an Evaluation Design Proposal including the detailed methodology on a 
question-by-question basis, drafts of data collection instruments, and sampling approach, getting to 
answers matrix, draft work plan, proposed team composition, and estimated budget. 
Data collection methods for this evaluation are likely to include, but will not necessarily be limited to: 
 In depth interviews: USAID expects the evaluation team to conduct key informant interviews 
with Pilot stakeholders, including community members and community leaders. Interviews with 
USAID staff, Cloudburst and other Pilot implementation staff, and representatives from the 
firms applying the AF may also be required. 
 Focus group discussions: The evaluation team may conduct focus group discussions with 
members of the local community in the study areas. The evaluation team should work to ensure 
a diversity of ages, gender, and income levels for focus group participants and include any 
vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, youth, pastoralists, and indigenous peoples. 
 Household survey: Data collection for this evaluation may require the use of household-level 
surveys that could cover communities affected by the AF-guided activities under the Pilot, as 
well as other communities. The survey would collect information on basic demographics, 
household and individual characteristics, and the outcomes of interest that the evaluation will 
measure. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 57 
8. Data Analysis Methods 
In its Evaluation Design Proposal, the evaluation team responding to this SOW should propose specific 
data analysis methods on a question-by-question basis, including the appropriate mix of methods 
necessary to estimate the primary outcomes of interest. Potential data analysis methods include 
pattern/content analysis and pre/post analysis. The Evaluation Design Proposal should also indicate and 
justify the evaluation team’s proposed sequencing of qualitative data collection. For example, if the 
evaluation team conducts focus group discussions during endline data collection, these data may be 
collected and analyzed in parallel with other data collection methods and only synthesized once data 
from all other sources are available. 
9. Evaluation Strengths and Limitations 
The strengths and limitations of this evaluation will depend on the final design proposed by the 
evaluation team, in consultation with USAID. The final design should reflect a robust approach to 
answering the evaluation questions and contribute to the global knowledge on the AF’s implementation. 
Initial strengths and limitations that accompany any performance evaluation of this type and are 
specifically relevant to this evaluation include: 
Strengths 
 Framework evidence: This evaluation will be one of the first to assess how the introduction of 
the AF affects communities and investors. The results from this evaluation are expected to 
inform future USAID programming as well as add to the global body of knowledge on the use of 
soft law and other guidance to make responsible land investments. 
 Unique perspectives: The qualitative data collection will draw upon unique perspectives that may 
be lost in a broader, quantitative survey. These data will provide USAID, Cloudburst, and other 
stakeholders with insight into perceptions of participating firms, tenure security, and their own 
community. Key details are lost and respondents often satisfice during surveys that rely on 
Likert or other quantified measures of perception. The evaluation design will be able to address 
these limits while aiming to collect diverse perspectives to inform future implementation of the 
AF. 
Limitations 
 Cannot definitively attribute reported impact to the Pilot: While USAID expects the evaluation 
to focus on the community outcomes that arise from private sector firms’ use of the AF, a 
variety of factors affect these same outcomes. The performance evaluation design will not allow 
for a rigorous, counterfactual-based estimation of impact from the Pilot. In its Evaluation Design 
Proposal, the evaluation team should note how its approach will attempt to account for 
confounding factors; however, USAID recognizes that the performance evaluation design will 
ultimately be limited in its ability to mitigate this issue. 
 Implementation scope: The implementation of the Pilot takes place in two, possibly three, 
countries with very different land contexts. In addition, the application of the AF differs in each 
context, with Stages 1 and 2 applied in Cameroon, and some elements of Stages 1, 3, and 4 in 
Mozambique. The laws, firm history, tenure security and governance issues, and social and 
political history of each place is different, but these and other exogenous factors will affect the 
outcomes of interest. Given the broad scope and limited timeframe for Pilot implementation, 
the evaluation’s ability to make comparison between contexts may be limited. To mitigate this, 
the evaluation team will need to ensure that any caveats are clear, that the approach and 
analysis applied is appropriate for the context, and that gaps are noted for future study. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 58 
10. Evaluation Deliverables 
The evaluation team will be responsible for the following deliverables and will provide a final list of 
proposed deliverables and due dates in its Evaluation Design Proposal for USAID’s approval. 
Deliverable Estimated Due Date
1. Concept Paper o/a February 17, 2017
2. Draft Evaluation Design Proposal o/a 30 days following USAID’s concurrence on the selected 
Concept Paper options unless in-country scoping is required
3. Final Evaluation Design Proposal o/a two weeks following receipt of USAID comments on the 
Draft Evaluation Design Proposal
4. Draft Evaluation Report To be proposed in the Evaluation Design Proposal 
5. Final Evaluation Report o/a three weeks following receipt of all comments on the 
Draft Evaluation Report
All documents and reports will be provided electronically to USAID. All qualitative and quantitative data 
will be provided in electronic format to USAID in a format consistent with Automated Directives 
System (ADS) 579 requirements. 
Prior to the submission of the Evaluation Design Proposal, the evaluation team will discuss with USAID 
whether its preliminary dissemination plan for this evaluation indicates other deliverables that should be 
prepared. Such additions as agreed with USAID will then be included in the Evaluation Design Proposal. 
Evaluation Design Proposal 
Prior to implementation of this evaluation, the evaluation team will deliver an Evaluation Design 
Proposal that describes the conceptual framework for the evaluation and the justification for selecting 
this approach. USAID/E3/LU must provide its approval before the evaluation team begins in-country 
data collection. The Design Proposal must at least contain the following: 
 Discussion of the overall approach of the evaluation, highlighting the conceptual model(s) 
adopted by evaluation question and demonstrating a clear understanding of the intervention 
logic of the Pilot. 
 Discussion of the data collection and data analysis methods that will be used to answer each 
question and the limitations for each method. Include the level of precision required for 
quantitative methods and value scales or approach to coding that will be employed for 
qualitative methods. 
 Discussion of how gender analysis will be integrated into the evaluation design. 
 Detail key data sources that will be selected to answer each evaluation question. 
 Discussion of the sampling approach, including area and population to be represented, rationale 
for selection, sampling procedures, sample size (for each unit of analysis), sample precision, and 
confidence and limitations. 
 Discussion of risks and limitations that may undermine the reliability and validity of the 
evaluation results, and the proposed mitigation strategies for each. 
 Summarized evaluation methodology in a matrix that contains for each evaluation question: 
measure(s) or indicator(s), data collection method(s), data source, sampling approach, and data 
analysis method(s). 
 Timeline showing the key evaluation phases (e.g., data collection, data analysis, and reporting) 
and specific deliverables and milestones. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 59 
 Responsibilities and qualifications of each evaluation team member for each evaluation phase. 
 Discussion of logistical considerations for carrying out the evaluation, including specific 
assistance that will be required from USAID, such as providing arrangements for key contacts 
within the Mission or government. 
 Detailed estimated budget. 
Draft Evaluation Report 
The draft evaluation report must contain at least the following: 
 Executive Summary: This section should be up to five pages in length and describe the purpose, 
project background, evaluation design and methodology including the evaluation questions, and 
key findings, conclusions, recommendations, and lessons learned from the evaluation. 
 Background: This section will provide a brief description of the Pilot that highlights its scope, 
development hypothesis, and activities undertaken, as well as other relevant activities taking 
place in the Pilot intervention areas. 
 Methodology: This section will detail the methodology and related research protocols 
undertaken in conducting the evaluation, including the relevant data collection and analysis 
methods, sampling approach, and related challenges or limitations encountered during the 
evaluation and mitigation approaches employed. 
 Findings: This section will present findings collected from the evaluation relevant to each 
evaluation question. The evaluation findings must be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and 
data and not be based on anecdotes, hearsay, or the compilation of people’s opinions. The 
findings must be specific, concise, and supported by the quantitative and/or qualitative evidence 
analyzed through scientifically plausible methodologies. Sources of information used in arriving at 
the findings must be properly acknowledged and listed in an annex. 
 Conclusions: The evaluation report will present evaluation conclusions that are interpretations 
and judgments based on the findings described and must logically follow from the gathered data 
and findings and be explicitly justified. If necessary, the evaluation team will state its assumptions, 
judgments, and value premises in presenting a conclusion so that readers can better understand 
and assess them. 
 Recommendations: This section will concisely and clearly present recommendations that are 
drawn from specific findings and conclusions provided in the report. The recommendations 
must be stated in an action-oriented fashion and be practical, specific, and with defined target 
audience(s). 
Final Evaluation Report 
Following receipt of USAID’s comments on the draft evaluation report, the evaluation team will prepare 
a final version that incorporates and responds to this feedback. The final evaluation report should 
contain the same sections as noted above for the draft evaluation report and should also include: 
 References: This section should include a list of all documents reviewed, including background 
documentation and records of technical data application and decision-making. 
 Annexes: These may include, but are not limited to, the evaluation statement of work, 
instruments used in conducting the evaluation, any statements of differences received, as well as 
other relevant sources of information. 
11. Team Composition 
In its Evaluation Design Proposal, the evaluation team will propose a staffing plan for this evaluation 
including specific positions and CVs for proposed individuals to serve in those positions. USAID/E3/LU 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 60 
encourages the use of local personnel on the team, as feasible and appropriate. Evaluation team 
members will be provided with USAID’s conflict of interest statement that they will sign before 
conducting any field research. 
General qualifications and roles anticipated for core evaluation team are listed below. Local survey 
research firm(s) with experience in the conduct of household surveys at the household level and/or 
qualitative data collection may also support the evaluation team, as necessary. 
Core Evaluation Team 
USAID expects that the core team for this evaluation will include a team leader who has relevant prior 
experience in the land sector, familiarity with USAID’s objectives, approaches, and operations, and has 
served on evaluation teams, preferably as team leader. Other proposed team members should have the 
technical qualifications identified for their respective positions. Illustrative position descriptions are 
provided below, although the evaluation team is free to propose a different configuration: 
Team Leader 
The team leader will be primarily responsible for the quality of the evaluation design and its execution. 
This is not anticipated to be a full-time position. Key qualifications expected for the Team Leader 
include: 
 Graduate degree, preferably a Ph.D., in a relevant economic development field. 
 Demonstrated ability to gather and integrate both quantitative and qualitative findings to answer 
evaluation questions 
 Demonstrated experience managing multinational teams and producing high-quality and timely 
reports for USAID or similar audiences. 
 Sound knowledge of land tenure, governance, and security issues. 
Evaluation Specialist 
The evaluation specialist will be actively engaged in efforts to oversee and ensure the quality of data 
collection activities, ensure that data codebooks are clearly written, and that all data collected can be 
properly transferred to USAID. The individual should have a graduate degree in a relevant social 
science field, and may be a host country national. The individual will have sufficient previous experience 
with evaluations and other types of relevant studies. Gender analysis experience is also desirable. This 
is not anticipated to be a full-time position. 
Home Office Support 
Home Office support will be provided by the firm(s) that will be implementing this evaluation, as 
required, including quality assurance, research support, administrative oversight, and logistics. 
12. USAID Participation 
The desirability of USAID participation in evaluation activities such as data collection will be considered 
in consultation with USAID and the evaluation team, and any specific roles and responsibilities of USAID 
staff will be described in the Evaluation Design Proposal. 
13. Scheduling and Logistics 
The following Gantt chart provides an illustrative overview of the preliminary estimated timeframe for 
the evaluation and key deliverables. The Evaluation Design Proposal will include a detailed schedule and 
proposed delivery dates. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 61 
Illustrative Evaluation Timeline 
Tasks 
Implementation of 
THE PILOT
CY 17 CY 18
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Concept Paper
Scoping trip (if necessary)
Evaluation Design Proposal
Baseline Data Collection (if necessary)
Baseline Data Analysis and Report (if necessary)
Oral Presentation of Baseline Findings (if 
necessary)
Endline Data Collection and Analysis 
Endline Report
Draft Evaluation Report
Oral Presentation(s)
Final Evaluation Report
The evaluation team will be responsible for all logistics, including coordinating all travel throughout the 
region, lodging, printing, office space, equipment, car rentals, etc. USAID, Cloudburst, Indufor, Moringa, 
Illovo, or other local partners will provide support as appropriate to set up initial meetings with key 
stakeholders with any local government stakeholders or private sector partners. 
14. Reporting Requirements 
The evaluation report will follow USAID guidelines set forth in the agency's Evaluation Report 
Template40 and How-To Note on Preparing Evaluation Reports41 as well as the Mandatory Reference for 
Automated Directives System 201 on USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. 
The Final Evaluation Report should not exceed 30 pages, excluding references and annexes. The 
evaluation team will deliver a copy of the final evaluation report to USAID’s Development Experience 
Clearinghouse (DEC) within 30 days of approval of the Contracting Officer’s Representative to post it 
on the DEC. 
All members of the evaluation team should be provided with USAID’s mandatory statement of the 
evaluation standards they are expected to meet, shown in the text box below. 
40 See http://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation-report-template
41 See http://usaidlearninglab.org/library/how-note-preparing-evaluation-reports
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 62 
Data Management 
The storage and transfer of data collected for this evaluation will adhere to the requirements laid out in 
ADS 579.42 The evaluation team should also follow applicable Institutional Review Board guidance on 
data security and confidentiality. Final datasets are expected to be submitted to USAID in a format 
consistent with ADS 579. 
15. Estimated Budget 
The evaluation team responding to this SOW will provide illustrative budget information associated with 
proposed design approaches in the Concept Paper and will then deliver a detailed estimated budget in 
its Evaluation Design Proposal, for USAID’s review and approval prior to commencing implementation 
of the evaluation. 
42 See http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/579.pdf 
MANDATORY REFERENCE FOR ADS CHAPTER 201
CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT 
Pursuant to 201.3.5.17, draft evaluation reports must undergo a peer review organized by the office 
managing the evaluation. The following criteria should serve as the basis against which the report is 
reviewed. To help ensure a high-quality evaluation report, these criteria must be included in the 
evaluation Statement of Work to communicate to evaluators USAID’s quality criteria. 
 Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to 
objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. 
 Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and 
succinctly. 
 The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of 
the most critical elements of the report. 
 Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the 
evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with 
USAID. 
 Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. 
 Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention 
to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, 
unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). 
 Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on 
anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. 
 Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or 
qualitative evidence. 
 If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed 
for both males and females. 
 If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be 
action-oriented, practical, and specific. 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 63 
ANNEX B: ENDLINE KII INSTRUMENTS 
Introduction and Consent 
Prior to all KIIs, the following consent statement should be read out loud to each respondent: 
Hello and thank you for agreeing to talk with us. My name is [name of interviewer]. Together with me is [name]. 
We work with a group of research organizations in the United States, including Management Systems International 
and NORC at the University of Chicago. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
hired us to conduct an independent evaluation of its Responsible Land-Based Investment Pilot project in Manhica 
District, which is a partnership with Illovo/Maragra and mapping and documenting land rights in some of the 
recently rehabilitated blocks in this area. 
The aim of this discussion is to learn about your experiences with this project and on land and land-based 
investment opportunities, such as farming sugarcane as an outgrower. Our role here is to ask questions and listen 
to your opinions and experiences. We will be recording this discussion so that we can make sure we accurately 
note what you are telling us, and not forget anything that was said. Your identity will be kept confidential and it will 
not be possible for you to be identified in our study report. If you would prefer we take notes and not use the 
recorder, please let us know. Please note that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers in this discussion. We 
would like everyone to share their experience and give feedback, either positive or negative. 
Your participation is completely voluntary and you can choose to not answer any question or stop participating at 
any time. You are not obligated to answer any question that you are not comfortable with. This discussion will last 
approximately 1 hour. The information you give will be stored safely for the duration of the project and shared 
anonymously with USAID. 
If you have any questions about the study, you may contact ___, on this phone number: ____ 
 (Read if more than one respondent in KII): We ask that everyone here respect each person’s privacy and 
confidentiality, and not repeat what is said during this discussion. But, please remember that other participants in 
the group may accidentally share what was said. 
 [START THE RECORDER TO GET VERBAL CONSENT] 
Do you agree to participate in today’s discussion? 
[IF THE RESPONDENT SAYS “YES”, CONTINUE DISCUSSION] 
May we begin? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 64 
The following information should be collected for each KII respondent: 
1 Name of respondent 
2 Type of respondent  Farmer association leader 
 Farmer cooperative leader 
 Community leader 
 Maragra liason 
 EU-project liaison 
 IP staff member or extension agent
3 Agency or Institution 
(if applicable)
4 Respondent title or position
(if applicable)
5 Locality name 
6 Date of interview 
7 Interview location 
8 Interviewer
9 Note taker
10 Start time
11 End time
12 Interview duration (minutes)
13 Language of interview
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 65 
KII Protocol 1: RLBIP PE 
This guide should be used for KIIs with community leaders, farmer association leaders, and farmer cooperative leaders. 
We would like to talk with you about your experiences with the USAID Pilot project to map and document land 
rights here in [Project block], implemented during 2017-2018. 
1. Do you remember this [USAID Pilot] project? By what name do you know this project? 
2. Can you briefly describe what it did? 
3. Did you play any direct role in the implementation of any activities for this project? If yes, please 
describe. 
A. PROJECT PARTICIPATION AND OUTPUTS ACHIEVEMENT 
Land Mapping and Certification of DUAT rights through the Cooperative 
1. Were you directly involved in activities to map individual parcels of land used here in this block 
mapped and verified individual’s rights to the land through the USAID pilot project? Did you have 
your own land parcels individually mapped here, as part of that process? 
a. Probe: How many parcels did you have mapped? Are these all of the parcels that you have in 
this block? If not, what was the reason to only map some parcels and not others? 
b. Probe: In your experience, was everyone who wanted to participate able to, or were there 
some people who have land in this block who were not able to participate in having their 
land mapped? Why? 
c. Probe: Did you encounter any challenges with respect to pilot land-mapping and verification 
activities by the project? What are some examples? How were these resolved? 
2. Did you receive a certificate of your DUAT rights to land in this block, issued through Hluvukani 
cooperative? 
a. Probe: When did you receive this certificate? Was it for all of the parcels that you had 
mapped? 
b. Probe: In your experience, was everyone who wanted to receive this document able to? If no, 
why not? 
c. Probe: Are you aware of any challenges that people encountered with respect to receipt of 
this cooperative-issued certificate? What are some examples? How were these resolved? 
Support for Formal DUAT Title Application 
3. Are you aware that the project also supported applications for formal DUAT title documents issued 
through government, for project participants. If yes, were you involved in this process? 
a. Do you see any differences between the cooperative-issued certificate and the formal 
DUAT document issued through the government? (please explain) 
b. Do you see the cooperative issued certificate as sufficient to defend land rights? Is it the 
same as the DUAT title issued through government? 
c. Probe: For those people who are aware of this support (if any): , how many have receive the 
DUAT title document from the government of Mozambique? If not, when do you expect to 
receive this document? 
Participation Challenges or Unanticipated Effects 
4. ASK IF NOT ALREADY ADDRESSED THROUGH DISCUSSION ABOVE: Were there any activities 
implemented or promised by the project that were not done in the end? Which ones? How do you 
think this could be improved on in future? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 66 
a. Additional follow-up: Were there any activities that people could not participate in? Which 
ones? What were the reasons? How do you think this could be improved on in future? 
5. In your experience, were there any specific constraints or challenges that limited the potential for 
the project to achieve its objectives, especially for: 
a. Strengthening tenure security for land users in this block? 
b. Reducing conflicts between local communities, outgrowers and Maragra? 
c. Expanding economic opportunities for farmers in this block? 
Probe: If yes, what were they? How could these be improved on in future? 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR FARMER ASSOCIATION LEADERS: 
6. How many members are in your farmer association, approximately? 
7. What percentage of members would you estimate participated in the USAID project? 
8. What percentage of project participants from your association would you estimate are women? 
9. (If gender proportion is skewed) Why do you so many more [women / men] participated in this 
USAID project? What were the reasons? 
10. For people from your association who chose not to participate, and in your experience in general, 
what do you think were the main reasons? 
B. TENURE SECURITY 
In previous visits, we learned about some of the common types of disputes over land in this block, the different 
ways they are sometimes resolved, and different types of challenges for men and women who have land here. 
1. Do you think the cooperative issued certificates will help to protect the land rights of people who 
have land in this block, over time? 
a. Probe: In what ways? Against what types of threats? 
b. Probe: Are there any types of land disputes or land loss risks that you think this certificate 
could not help with? Why? 
c. Probe: Is the situation different for women land users and men? How? 
2. In your experience, have the project activities helped to expand economic opportunities for land 
users in this block? 
a. Probe: Why or why not? 
b. Probe: In what ways? Can you give me some examples? 
c. Probe: Is the situation different for women land users and men? How? 
3. In your view, what are the biggest challenges that continue to exist with respect to land rights and 
use of land in this block? 
a. Probe: Are these challenges different for women land users and men? If yes, how? What are 
the reasons for this? 
C. TARGETING AND INCLUSIVENESS 
1. Do you know how people were selected to participate in the USAID pilot project? 
a. Probe: Do you think the right people were selected to participate in this project? Why? 
b. Probe: For people who chose not to participate in this pilot project, what were the reasons 
why? 
2. Do you think the most important land issues were addressed through this project? Are there any 
other land challenges or issues that you think are important to address in order to strengthen 
tenure security for land users in this block: 
3. What about to reduce conflicts between local communities, outgrowers and Maragra? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 67 
4. Do you have any general recommendations on how the implementation of a similar type of project 
could be improved on in future, if at all, to achieve its objectives? 
D. INVESTOR COMPANY ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN (SUGARCANE) 
OUTGROWER OPPORTUNITIES 
1. We are interested to learn about the ways that the cooperative-issued certificate can help 
individuals to become outgrowers with Maragra (not as collectives through the association, but 
through individual contracts). In your opinion, can this certificate can help farmers with this? How, 
specifically, or in what ways? 
2. For those who are not engaging as an outgrower with Maragra, what are the main reasons why? Can 
you give us some examples of the challenges faced, or other reasons, here in this block? 
a. Probe: What are the main requirements for participation? 
b. Probe: Do you think women are more challenged to participate than men? Why? 
3. Do you think the USAID pilot project activities and the project-issued certificates will make it easier 
for people to become outgrowers for Maragra in the future? Why or why not? 
a. Follow-up: Do you yourself have an individual outgrower contract with Maragra? Since 
when? How many harvests have you had so far? Did you need to show or provide a 
cooperative-issued certificate to anyone, in order to obtain this outgrower contract? 
E. CONCLUSION
Thank you for sharing your experiences with us today. Is there anything that you want to add, or would 
like to ask us? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 68 
KII Protocol 2: RLBIP PE 
This guide should be used for KIIs with Maragra liaisons and implementing partner staff. 
We are here to talk with you about your experiences with the USAID Pilot project to map and document land 
right, implemented in several floodplain zones during 2017-2018.
1. [for Maragra liaisons and other non-IPs only] Please briefly describe your main responsibilities 
with Maragra and/or the EU project to provide support for sugar cane outgrowing in this area. For 
how long have you held this position? 
2. When did you first become involved in activities related to the USAID pilot project? 
3. Did you play any direct role in the implementation of any activities for this project? Please describe 
your main roles or responsibilities. 
A. PROJECT PARTICIPATION AND OUTPUTS ACHIEVEMENT 
Land Mapping and Certification of DUAT rights through the Cooperative 
 Were you directly involved in activities to map and verify rights to individual parcels of land used 
in any of the blocks through the USAID pilot project? Could you please briefly describe your 
role? 
 In your experience, was everyone who wanted to participate able to, or were there some 
people who have land in this block who were not able to participate in having their land 
mapped? Why? 
 Did you encounter any challenges by pilot participants or interest land users, with respect to 
pilot land-mapping and verification activities by the project? What are some examples? How 
were these resolved? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: What is the total area of land mapped through the project? Is it possible to 
share a breakdown by block with us? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: Our understanding is that several land users in the block were not able to 
complete the mapping or certification process before the Pilot ended. From an implementation 
perspective, what were the main reasons that land mapping could not be completed for some 
individuals who registered interest to participate? 
 Was there any process that the project use to inform participants about next steps, when 
mapping could not be completed for any who registered interest? 
 Does the project have a follow-on plan, according to your knowledge? What steps were taken 
to inform participants of the exit strategy and any follow-on plans, if any? 
 Could you estimate about how many people who were interested to participate in the pilot 
were not able to complete the process during this initial pilot period (through June 2018)? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: Are there any ways you think this process could be improved on in future? 
 Were you involved in activities to prepare and issue the certificates of DUAT rights to land for 
pilot participants, issued through Hluvukani cooperative? Could you please briefly describe your 
role? 
 Were you involved in any sensitization and information dissemination processes that the project 
conducted on the cooperative-issued certificates? If yes: 
 How did the project explain what the cooperative-issued certificate is to pilot participants? 
What was the structure through which information was channeled? 
 Were any potential limitations of this document highlight for participants, for example in terms 
of the document’s utility or perceived validity to resolve competing land claims? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 69 
 Does the project-issued certificate expire? If yes, when? If yes, how was this communicated to 
participants? 
 Are there any costs to participants required to keep their certification in future? If yes, what are 
those costs? How was this communicated to participants? 
 In your view, was the sensitization process for participants effective? Are there any ways you 
would improve on this in future? 
 In your experience, was everyone who wanted to receive this document able to? If no, why not? 
 Are you aware of any challenges that people encountered with respect to receipt of this 
cooperative-issued certificate? What are some examples? How were these resolved? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: What is the total area of land certified through the project? Can we have a 
breakdown by block? 
Support for Formal DUAT Title Application 
 According to our understanding, the project also supported applications for formal DUAT title 
documents issued through government, for project participants. Were you involved in this 
process? If yes, what were your experiences with this process, in general? 
 In your view, what were the major challenges experienced by the pilot with respect to this 
process, if any? Are there any ways you think this process could be improved on in future? 
 Do you see the cooperative issued certificate as sufficient to defend land rights for land users in 
the pilots blocks, in the event of competing land claims? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: What was the total number of DUAT title applications submitted to 
government of Mozambique through the pilot? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: What process did the pilot use to inform participants of this, and 
communicate information about how they may follow-up on their applications, if any? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: If a DUAT title is eventually issued by government for a given pilot 
participant, how will the participant be notified? What contact information did the project 
provide for this? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: Will participants be required to pay any fee to obtain the document? 
 [Pilot IPs only]: In general, given the long anticipated time frame for government to review and 
potentially issue a DUAT title, what was the project’s exit strategy on this, given that the pilot 
would likely come to end before DUAT titles would likely be issued by government? 
Selection Criteria, Participation Challenges and Unanticipated Effects 
1. [Pilot IPs only]: What selection criteria did the pilot employ to select beneficiaries for parcel 
mapping, and for provisioning of DUAT certificates? 
a. For the initial set of some 200 (according to our understanding) DUAT title applications 
submitted to government, before a decision was made to submit applications for all pilot 
participants, what were the criteria used to select those initial 200+ parcels / land users for 
DUAT support? 
 In your experience, what were the main specific constraints or challenges that limited the 
potential for the USAID pilot project to achieve its objectives on each of the following, if any: 
 Strengthening tenure security for land users in this block? 
 Reducing conflicts between local communities, outgrowers and Maragra? 
 Expanding economic opportunities for farmers in this block? 
Follow-up Probe: How could these be improved on in future? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 70 
 [Pilot IPs only]: How many farmer associations did the Pilot work with directly in the Central 
Zone? In the South Zone? Across all blocks in total? 
a. Do you know why those particular farmer associations were chosen to participate in the 
pilot? Were there associations that wanted to participate, but were not able to? If yes, what 
were the main reasons why? 
b. How many farmers associations operate in the Central Zone (irrespective of pilot 
participation)? In the South Zone? Across all blocks in total? 
B. TENURE SECURITY 
In previous visits, we learned about some of the common types of disputes over land in this block, the different 
ways they are sometimes resolved, and different types of challenges for men and women who have land here. 
1. Are there any types of land disputes or land loss risks that you think the cooperative-issued 
certificate could not help with? Which ones, and why? 
a. Probe: Is the situation different for women land users and men? How? 
2. In your experience, have the project activities helped to expand economic opportunities for land 
users in this block? 
a. Probe: Why or why not? 
b. Probe: In what ways? Can you give me some examples? 
c. Probe: Is the situation different for women land users and men? How? 
3. In your view, what are the biggest challenges that continue to exist with respect to land rights and 
use of land in this block? 
a. Probe: Are these challenges different for women land users and men? If yes, how? What are 
the reasons for this? 
C. TARGETING AND INCLUSIVENESS 
1. Do you think the most important land issues were addressed through this project? Are there any 
other land challenges or issues that you think are important to address in order to strengthen 
tenure security for land users in this block? 
2. What about to reduce conflicts between local communities, outgrowers and Maragra? 
3. Do you have any general recommendations on how the implementation of a similar type of project 
could be improved on in future, if at all, to achieve its objectives? 
D. INVESTOR COMPANY ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN (SUGARCANE) 
OUTGROWER OPPORTUNITIES 
1. We are interested to learn about the ways that the cooperative-issued certificate can help 
individuals to become outgrowers with Maragra (not as collectives through the association, but 
through individual contracts). In your opinion, can this certificate help farmers with this? How, 
specifically? 
a. From Maragra’s perspective, what is the benefit to the sugar estate to encourage individual 
outgrowing? 
b. If individuals are already farming sugarcane through a collective process with their farmer 
association, on collective land, what is their incentive to switch to outgrowing as an 
individual on their own parcel? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 71 
c. [For EU Project and Maragra liaisons only]: What has been outgrowing trend before and 
since the USAID pilot began? Is it possible to obtain an estimate on how many individual 
outgrowers, by North, Central and South zones, did Maragra gain over past year? Does 
Maragra have a target number of individual outgrowers they would like to bring on, which 
would constitute being ‘at capacity’ so to speak? 
2. For those who are not engaging as an outgrower with Maragra, what are the main reasons why? Can 
you give us some examples of the challenges faced, or other reasons, from your perspective? 
a. Probe: Do you think women are more challenged to become sugarcane outgrowers than 
men? Why? 
3. Do you think the USAID pilot project activities and the project-issued certificates will make it easier 
for people to become outgrowers for Maragra in the future? Why or why not? 
a. In your experience, how / in what ways is the process of verifying land claims embedded in 
Maragra’s process to contract individuals with land in the floodplain zones as individual 
outgrowers? Has this process changed since the cooperative-issued certificates were 
distributed? How? 
E. CONCLUSION
Thank you for sharing your experiences with us today. Is there anything that you want to add, or would 
like to ask us? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 72 
ANNEX C: ENDLINE GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL 
Introduction and Consent 
The Moderator should read the following consent script prior to the start of the group discussion: 
Hello and thank you for agreeing to talk with us. My name is [name of interviewer]. Together with me is 
[name]. We work with a group of research organizations in the United States, including Management 
Systems International and NORC at the University of Chicago. The United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID) has hired us to conduct an independent evaluation of its RLBIP pilot 
project in Manhica District, which is a partnership with Illovo/Maragra and is mapping and documenting 
land rights in some of the recently rehabilitated blocks in this area. 
The aim of this discussion is to learn about your experiences with this project, and on land and land￾based investment opportunities, such as farming sugarcane as an outgrower. Our role here is to ask 
questions and listen to your opinions and experiences. We will be recording this discussion so that we 
can make sure we accurately note what you are telling us, and not forget anything that was said. Your 
identity will be kept confidential and it will not be possible for you to be identified in our study report. If 
you would prefer we take notes and not use the recorder, please let us know. Please note that there 
are no “right” or “wrong” answers in this discussion. We would like everyone to share their experience 
and give feedback, either positive or negative. We ask that everyone here respect each person’s privacy 
and confidentiality, and not repeat what is said during this discussion. But, please remember that other 
participants in the group may accidentally share what was said. 
Your participation is completely voluntary and you can choose to not answer any question or stop 
participating at any time. You are not obligated to answer any question that you are not comfortable 
with. This discussion will last approximately 1 hour. The information you give will be stored safely for 
the duration of the project and shared anonymously with USAID. 
If you have any questions about the study, you may contact ___, on this phone number: ____ 
[START THE RECORDER TO GET VERBAL CONSENT] 
Do you agree to participate in today’s discussion? 
 [IF YES, CONTINUE DISCUSSION] 
May we begin? 
[Facilitator: Remember to fill out the FG participant form and note-taking form for each GD 
conducted].
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 73 
GD Participant Registration Form: 
Focus Group Respondent Category: 
 Sugarcane outgrowers in block (EU project beneficiaries); 
 Other farmers in block (EU project non-beneficiaries); 
 MIX of above
Moderator: _______________________ Note-taker: _____________________ 
Start time: ___ :___ AM/PM (circle one) End time: ___ :___ AM/PM (circle one) 
USAID Pilot Block name: Locality Name: Date: AUG Day: ____ Year: 2018
Partici
pant 
Main Occupation 
(farmer, shopkeeper, teacher, etc) 
Gender 
(M/F) 
Age Marital Status (Married, 
Single, Widowed, Divorced) 
Education level 
completed 
# of parcels held in 
block (#) 
Sugarcane outgrower? (EU 
project beneficiary) (Y/N) 
USAID Pilot participant? (Y/N) 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
Comments on any aspect of the GD: 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 74 
This guide should be used for all GD respondent categories. 
We would like to talk with you about your experiences with the USAID Pilot project to map and document land 
rights here in this block, implemented during 2017-2018. 
1. Do you remember this [USAID Pilot] project? By what name do you know this project? 
2. Can you briefly describe what it did? 
A. PROJECT PARTICIPATION AND OUTPUTS ACHIEVEMENT 
Land Mapping and Certification of DUAT rights through the Cooperative 
1. How many people here in the group had individual parcels of land that you use here in this block 
mapped and verified through the [USAID pilot project], since May 2017? (May I see a show of hands?) 
a. Probe: Were all of the parcels that you use in this block mapped, or only some of them? 
Why? 
b. Probe: Was everyone who wanted to participate able to, or were there some people who 
have land in this block who were not able to participate in having their land mapped? Why? 
c. Probe: Did you encounter any challenges with respect to participation in the pilot land￾mapping and verification activities? What are some examples? How were these resolved? 
d. Follow-up for any part of ongoing challenges or issues mentioned: Did you follow-up with anyone 
for help with that? Do you know who to contact to get more clarification or information on 
that issue? 
2. As part of the project activities, did anyone here in the group receive a certificate of your DUAT 
rights for land in this block, issued through Hluvukani cooperative? (How many people? May I see a 
show of hands?)
a. Probe: When did you receive this document? 
b. Probe: Was everyone who wanted to receive this document able to? If no, why not? 
c. Probe: Did you encounter any challenges with respect to receipt of this cooperative-issued 
certificate? What are some examples? How were these resolved? 
d. Follow-up for any part of ongoing challenges or issues mentioned: Did you follow-up with anyone 
for help with that? Do you know who to contact to get more clarification or information on 
that issue? 
Support for Formal DUAT Title Application 
3. Is anyone here aware of activities by the USAID project to support applications for formal DUAT 
title documents issued through the government, for your individual parcels of land in this block (not 
for the farmer association as a whole)? (How many people? May I see a show of hands?) 
a. Probe: Do you see any differences between the cooperative-issued certificate and the formal 
DUAT document issued through the government? (please explain) 
b. Probe: For those people who are aware of this support (if any): , how many have receive the 
DUAT title document from the government of Mozambique? If not, when do you expect to 
receive this document? 
Participation Challenges or Unanticipated Effects 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 75 
4. ASK IF NOT ALREADY ADDRESSED THROUGH DISCUSSION ABOVE: Were there any activities 
promised by the project that were not done in the end? Which ones? How could this be improved 
on in future? 
a. Additional follow-up: Were there any activities that your household could not participate in? 
Which ones? What were the reasons? How do you think this could be improved on in 
future? 
B. TENURE SECURITY 
In previous visits, we learned about some of the common types of disputes over land in this block, the different 
ways they are sometimes resolved, and different types of challenges for men and women who have land here. 
Now we would like to discuss a bit more with you on issues of tenure security over land that you use here. 
1. Are you comfortable leaving your land in this block unfarmed (fallow) for a long period of time, 
without worrying that someone else may try to claim it? (May I see a show of hands?)
a. Probe: For how many months/years would you feel comfortable doing this? 
b. Probe: Has your views on this changed at all in the past year? Why? 
c. Additional follow-up for groups with a mix of individuals who did and did not receive a 
cooperative-issued certificate, be sure to probe additionally for people who do not have the 
certificate: “for those of you here who did receive the certificate, do you agree with what’s 
been said, for your own parcels? Do you have anything else to add?” 
2. Are you comfortable being away from your land here in this block for a long period of time without 
worry that someone else may try to claim it? (May I see a show of hands?)
a. Probe: For how many months/years would you feel comfortable doing this? 
b. Probe: Has your views on this changed at all in the past year? Why? 
c. Additional follow-up for groups with a mix of individuals who did and did not receive a 
cooperative-issued certificate, be sure to probe additionally for people who do not have the 
certificate: “for those of you here who did receive the certificate, do you agree with what’s 
been said, for your own parcels? Do you have anything else to add?” 
3. Are there any types of land disputes or land loss risks that you think this certificate could not help 
with? 
a. Probe: Against what types of threats? Why? 
b. Probe: Is this situation different for women land users and men? How? 
4. What are the biggest challenges that continue to exist for you with respect to land rights and use of 
land in this block? 
a. Probe: Are these challenges different for women land users and men? If yes, how? What are 
the reasons for this? 
C. TARGETING AND INCLUSIVENESS 
1. In your experience, how were people selected to participate in this project? 
a. Probe: Do you think the right people were selected to participate in this project? Why? 
b. Probe: For people who chose not to participate in this pilot project, what were the 
reasons why? 
2. Do you think the most important land issues were addressed through this project? Are there 
any other land challenges or issues that you think are important to address in order to 
strengthen tenure security for land users in this block? 
a. What about to reduce land conflicts between local communities, outgrowers and 
Maragra? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 76 
D. INVESTOR / COMPANY ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN (SUGARCANE) 
OUTGROWER OPPORTUNITIES 
As the last part of our discussion, we would like to talk briefly on your interactions and experiences with the sugar 
estate. 
 How many people here in this group are participating as a sugarcane outgrower for Maragra, as 
an individual contract (not with your farmer association on collective association land)? Since 
when did you obtain your contract? How many sugarcane harvests have you had so far? 
 Follow-up: In general, what sorts of benefits do you expect to receive? 
 Follow-up: Did anyone here need to show or provide a cooperative-issued certificate to anyone, 
confirming you as the land owner, in order to get the outgrower contract with Maragra? 
 Do you think the USAID project activities and the cooperative-issued certificates can make it 
easier for people to become outgrowers for Maragra? Why or why not? 
 Probe: For those who are not engaging as an outgrower with Maragra, what are the main 
reasons why? Can you give us some examples of the challenges faced? 
 Probe: Do you perceive any changes in how you engage with Maragra, as a result of any of the 
pilot activities? In what ways? If not, why? 
E. RECORDED RESPONSES 
No. Question # of 
hands 
YES
# of 
hands 
NO
1 How many people here had your land in [block name] mapped through the [USAID pilot project]?
2 How many people here received a cooperative-issued certificate that validates your rights to the 
land you use in this block? (This is different from a formal DUAT title issued by the government)
3 How many people here in this group are aware of support from the USAID pilot project to apply 
for a DUAT title for the land you use in [block name]? (formal DUAT title issued by government)
4 (of the hands YES in #3 above) How many people here in this group have received an official 
DUAT title for the land you use in this block, through the pilot project application support?
5 How many people here are comfortable leaving your land in this block unfarmed for a long period 
of time, without worrying that someone else may try to claim it?
6 How many people here are comfortable being away from your land in this block for a long period 
of time without worry that someone else may try to claim it?
F. CONCLUSION
We’ve learned a lot from you and thank you for sharing your experiences with us today. Before we 
leave, is there anything else you would like to add about the project, or would like to ask us? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 77 
ANNEX D: ANONYMIZED RESPONDENT LIST 
GD 
# 
Date Block Name Locality Name Respondent 
Category 
Main 
Occupation 
M/F Age Marital 
Status 
Education 
Level 
# of 
parcels 
held in 
block (#)
Outgrower?
(Y/N) 
USAID 
Pilot 
participant? 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer M 72 Single 4 4 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer M 76 Married 2 4 Yes Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer M 69 Married 2 3 Yes Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 29 Married 12 3 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 67 Widow 1 3 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 47 Single 8 3 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Married Did not study 3 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 30 Widow 8 2 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Widow Did not study 3 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer M 53 Married 2 4 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer M 81 Married 2 3 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 60 Widow 2 4 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 66 Single 5 1 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Married 3 1 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Widow Did not study 4 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 69 Single 2 6 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer M 56 Married 8 2 No Yes 
1 21/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer M 66 Single 7 1 No Yes 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 78 
GD 
# 
Date Block Name Locality Name Respondent 
Category 
Main 
Occupation 
M/F Age Marital 
Status 
Education 
Level 
# of 
parcels 
held in 
block (#)
Outgrower?
(Y/N) 
USAID 
Pilot 
participant? 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer F 25 Single 9 3 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer F 36 Single Did not study 3 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer F 24 Married 10 3 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer F 28 Single 7 2 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer M 29 Married 8 3 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer M 26 Single 7 2 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer M 33 Married 12 3 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer M 29 Married 7 2 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer M 28 Married 9 1 No Yes 
2 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Malhajane Category 2 Farmer M 21 Married 8 4 No Yes 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer M 38 Single 5 1 No No 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer M Don’t 
Know Widow 3 3 No No 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer M 43 Married 2 2 No No 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer M 54 Married Did not study 2 No No 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer M Don’t 
Know Widow 2 1 No No 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer F 75 Widow 4 2 No No 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer F 55 Widow 5 1 No No 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Married 2 1 No No 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica 
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer F 63 Single Did not study 2 No No 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 79 
GD 
# 
Date Block Name Locality Name Respondent 
Category 
Main 
Occupation 
M/F Age Marital 
Status 
Education 
Level 
# of 
parcels 
held in 
block (#)
Outgrower?
(Y/N) 
USAID 
Pilot 
participant? 
3 22/08/2018 Manhica
Municipality Manhica Sede Category 2 Farmer F 69 Widow Did not study 2 No No 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer M 38 Single University 1 No No 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Widow Did not study 3 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 43 Married Did not study 2 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 54 Married Did not study 2 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Widow Did not study 2 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 75 Widow 3 1 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 55 Widow Did not study 2 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Widow Did not study 1 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 63 Married Did not study 1 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 69 Widow 2 2 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 47 Married 4 2 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 50 Married Did not study 1 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 59 Single Did not study 2 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 64 Widow 3 2 No Yes 
4 23/08/2018 Cambeve Manhica Sede Category 1 Farmer F 50 Widow 2 2 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer M 58 Married 5 7 Yes Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer M 53 Married 4 11 Yes Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer M 63 Married 4 1 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 36 Married 5 8 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 42 Married 7 5 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 45 Married Did not study 3 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 53 Married Did not study 1 Yes Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 60 Married 2 2 No Yes 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 80 
GD 
# 
Date Block Name Locality Name Respondent 
Category 
Main 
Occupation 
M/F Age Marital 
Status 
Education 
Level 
# of 
parcels 
held in 
block (#)
Outgrower?
(Y/N) 
USAID 
Pilot 
participant? 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 61 Married 4 1 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 48 Married 4 2 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 46 Widow 2 2 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 44 Married Did not study 1 No Yes 
5 27/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 56 Married 6 4 No Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer M 83 Married 3 1 No Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer M 75 Married Did not study 1 No Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 43 Married 10 1 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 48 Single 3 1 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 37 Single 6 1 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 40 Single Did not study 1 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 52 Married Did not study 1 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 57 Single Did not study 2 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 52 Married 4 1 No Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 64 Single Did not study 1 No Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 42 Single 5 1 No Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 59 Widow 1 2 Yes Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Married Did not study 2 No Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 38 Single 5 3 Yes Yes 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 81 
GD 
# 
Date Block Name Locality Name Respondent 
Category 
Main 
Occupation 
M/F Age Marital 
Status 
Education 
Level 
# of 
parcels 
held in 
block (#)
Outgrower?
(Y/N) 
USAID 
Pilot 
participant? 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 47 Single 4 1 No Yes 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 38 Single 3 1 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 50 Married Did not study 1 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 65 Married Did not study 2 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Widow Did not study 3 No No 
6 28/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 2 Farmer F 50 Widow 5 1 No No 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Widow Did not study 6 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 44 Married 9 1 No Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 63 Married 1 2 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 38 Married 1 2 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 36 Married 2 2 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 38 Married 3 1 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 54 Married 4 1 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 69 Widow 4 1 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer F 32 Married 12 1 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer M 72 Married 8 1 Yes Yes 
7 30/08/2018 Munguine 
South Munguine Category 1 Farmer M 32 Married 1 1 Yes Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 51 Married 4 3 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 46 Married 4 4 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 77 Married 1 5 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 68 Married Did not study 5 No Yes 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT PILOT 82 
GD 
# 
Date Block Name Locality Name Respondent 
Category 
Main 
Occupation 
M/F Age Marital 
Status 
Education 
Level 
# of 
parcels 
held in 
block (#)
Outgrower?
(Y/N) 
USAID 
Pilot 
participant? 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 51 Married 6 6 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 47 Married 5 7 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer F 46 Married 4 8 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer F 38 Married 4 5 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer F Don’t 
Know Widow 3 5 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 48 Married 4 5 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 50 Married 4 6 No Yes 
8 30/08/2018 Martins Manchiane Category 1 Farmer M 56 Married 7 8 No Yes 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 83 
ANNEX E: ADDITIONAL LINES OF EVALUATION 
QUESTION INQUIRY 
To help parse the achievements, outcomes, perceptions, and long-term prospects for applying the AF, 
the evaluation team applied the following conceptual considerations to the four overarching EQs. These 
additional lines of inquiry under each EQ also guided the team’s data collection approach and analysis at 
endline. 
EQ 1: 
 Project achievements (Certification/Titling): What was the extent of parcel mapping, land 
certification, and DUAT titling that was achieved under the Pilot activities, in terms of individuals 
participating and area of land mapped within the Pilot zones? 
 Inclusion: Were there any challenges encountered by potential beneficiaries with respect to 
participation in the Pilot land-mapping and certification activities, and how were these resolved? 
 Project achievements (Access to Outgrowing): To what extent did the Pilot activities enable 
greater access to or participation in company outgrower schemes, for land users in Pilot zones? 
 Investor engagement: How have the Pilot activities affected land user perceptions of and 
engagement with land-based investment opportunities? In what ways? 
 Investor engagement: How do impacts and perceptions differ from previous community 
experiences with land-based investment in or near their community that did not use the AF￾guided processes (if applicable)? 
EQ 2: 
 Land Rights: In what ways has implementation of the Pilot activities affected land user knowledge 
of land rights and perceptions of transparency with respect to land access, allocation, and 
confirmation of land rights, in the Pilot zone? 
 Tenure Security and Disputes: How have the Pilot activities (sensitization, land mapping and 
provisioning of DUAT titles or certificates of proof of DUAT rights) affected land users 
perceptions of tenure security, vulnerability to land conflict or disputes, and risk of land 
expropriation in the Pilot zone? 
 External Factors: What Pilot or external factors negatively or positively influenced the ability for 
the Pilot activities to achieve intended results related to sensitization, mapping, provisioning of 
DUAT titles or certificates, land use and land-use opportunities, and perceptions of tenure 
security, vulnerability to land conflict/disputes, and land expropriation risk? 
 Targeting: Did Pilot activities reach intended targeted populations, and key sub-groups of 
interest?
o What targeting and selection criteria did the Pilot employ to select beneficiaries for 
parcel mapping, and for provisioning of DUAT titles and certificates of proof of DUAT 
rights? 
 Titling: Did tenure security and agricultural livelihoods outcomes, ability to resolve disputes, and 
eligibility for participation in ongoing or new agricultural opportunities differ for project 
beneficiaries who received DUAT titles relative to those who received only the project-issued 
certificates?
EQ3: 
 Participation: In the context of the Maragra Pilot project, what are the primary reasons that land 
users do not participate in outgrower or other land-based investment opportunities with the 
estate? To what extent were Pilot activities able to address these barriers? 
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 84 
EQ4: 
 Location (Participation): What are the level of participation of community members in investment 
schemes in or near their communities, and channels for engagement with land-based investment 
firms? 
 Effectiveness: What is the effectiveness of cooperative-issued certificate vs. the certificate 
together with a DUAT title, to achieve tenure security and outgrower participation goals?
 Longer-term Potential: What are the long-term opportunities for improved tenure security and 
lower perceived risk of land expropriation through implementation of AF-guided activities by 
land-based investment schemes?
ENDLINE REPORT – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE LAND-BASED INVESTMENT 
PILOT 85 
ANNEX F: EVALUATION TEAM PROFILES 
Team Leader – Dr. Lauren Persha 
Dr. Persha is a land tenure, evaluation, and livelihoods specialist with more than a decade of experience 
designing and leading mixed qualitative and quantitative research and providing technical evaluation 
expertise across land tenure, smallholder agriculture and rural livelihoods, local institutions, governance, 
and natural resource management sectors. She has led multiple impact or mixed methods performance 
evaluations of multi-sectoral development projects, most of which integrate large-scale household 
survey data with qualitative data. Dr. Persha has extensive experience with qualitative research design 
and data collection to complement quantitative evaluation results. This includes research and 
instruments design and analysis methods to enable gender-disaggregated impacts and understand how 
and why impacts differ for key vulnerable groups in each study context. 
Dr. Persha holds a PhD in Environmental Science from Indiana University and is currently a Senior 
Research Scientist at NORC at the University of Chicago. She was an Assistant Professor in the 
Geography Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 2011-2016. Her earlier 
development practitioner experience includes five years of project implementation with a UNDP-Global 
Environment Facility alternative livelihoods and forest conservation ICDP in East Africa. Her research 
has been published in journals such as Conservation Biology, Forest Policy and Economics, Global 
Environmental Change, and Science, and in 3ie’s Impact Evaluation Report series. 
Local Evaluation Specialist – Belmiro Miguel Nhamithambo 
Mr. Nhamithambo has been designing, managing, and implementing monitoring and evaluation systems 
and conducting project evaluations since 2007. He has experience on various projects including good 
governance, HIV/AIDS prevention, gender-based violence prevention, food security through nutrition 
and agriculture, orphan and vulnerable children, and natural disasters emergency response programs for 
various donors including USAID, IFAD, DANIDA, CIDA, DFID, IOM, MOFA, MCC, Danish Embassy, 
Oxfam Novib, and Erik Thune´s foundation. 
Mr. Nhamithambo has developed, managed and implemented databases to track the flow of information 
within complex, geographically dispersed projects, placing a specific emphasis on data quality. He is 
responsible for assisting with translation, logistics, and facilitating interviews. Mr. Nhamithambo provided 
local context and subject matter expertise as well as assistance with implementation fidelity monitoring. 
Mr. Nhamithambo has an MBA from the Cela Open Institute in Madrid, Spain. 
Evaluation Coordinator – Jacob Patterson-Stein 
Jacob Patterson-Stein holds a Master’s Degree in International Development Policy and has over five 
years of global work experience in survey design, quantitative analysis, and designing and implementing 
impact and performance evaluations. He has technical knowledge of different experimental and quasi￾experimental evaluation methods, as well as practical experience managing the execution of these 
evaluations. Mr. Patterson-Stein is proficient in qualitative analysis techniques and software. He has 
conducted research on intra-provincial agricultural trade in Indonesia, studied the effects of foreign 
direct investment globally, and analyzed small business lending trends in the United States. Mr. 
Patterson-Stein is primarily responsible for overseeing and coordinating the execution of the evaluation 
design, ensuring efficient and timely reporting, developing and ensuring the timely submission of 
deliverables, and monitoring the fidelity of the evaluation design. 
U.S. Agency for International Development 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20004