Need to test tenure security perceptions and related drivers of key longer-term outcomes. Although the evaluation captured changes in investment and productivity, questions around perceptions of tenure which were supposed to drive investment were not included with the exception of willingness to let the land lay fallow. It was unclear why investments increased and what was driving behavior change and related investments. For an understanding of what is driving changes in tenure and related investments, more questions on the level and drivers of tenure security should be included in baseline and follow-up data collection instruments, as well as assumptions detailed within project logic frameworks. Similarly, the evaluation was unable to provide information on why labor market difference occurred in 2011 but did not continue in 2015—was it due to low issuance of land certificates and relatedly lower tenure security or something else? Exploring what is driving or constraining investment decisions is key. In later evaluations and logic frameworks, tenure security has been flagged as a key interim outcome and MCC has requested that detailed questions on perception of tenure, including concerns of losing land and related drivers of land conflicts are included.
Lesson Learned