Consultant: Endline Evaluation for Improvement of Land Governance for Refugees and Host Communities Project (Phase II)

Endline Evaluation for Improvement of Land Governance for
Refugees and Host Communities Project (Phase II)

(to be carried out in West Nile, Terego district, Uriama Sub-county)

1. Background information
1.1 Introduction

ZOA with funding from GIZ has implemented a fifteen-month land rights project which will
come to an end on the 31st January 2024. This project builds on achievements during
Phase I that was implemented from September 2020 to November 2022. Both Phase I & II
targeted communities of West Nile, Terego district, Uriama sub-county. Phase I was
implemented as a pilot project for land rights in the refugee context and contributes to the
GIZ RELAPU (Responsible Land Policy in Uganda) programme which is part of the Global
Project Responsible Land Policy and belongs to the special initiative One World No Hunger
(SEWOH) of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
(BMZ). Phase I was affected by delays related to COVID-19 and hence Phase II was
proposed and approved to continue the work in Uriama subcounty, to further raise
awareness about land rights among the different communities, and follow-up on the use
of the tenancy agreement between host and refugee communities.
Therefore, implementation of “Improvement of land Governance for refugee & host
community” covers a period of 41 months (September 2020 to February 2024). The endline
evaluation will cover both phase I and II of project implementation.
It is against this background that ZOA seeks consultancy services to conduct an endline
evaluation aimed at measuring the impact the Improvement of Land Governance for
Refugees and Host Communities Project has had and to provide an update on general
performance indicators for the whole implementation period. The consultant should also
provide a distinction between Phase I and II by assessing the effectiveness and
sustainability of strategies adopted at each phase of the project using the OECD DAC
criteria.

1.2. Project deliverables

Overall objective:

Access to land as a key prerequisite for poverty and hunger reduction in rural areas has
improved for certain population groups, especially women and marginalized groups, in
selected partner countries.

1.2.1. Outcome: Improved access to land for host communities and refugees in Terego
District, West Nile
1.2.1.1. Outputs:
✓ Strengthened institutional framework and processes for inclusive land governance in
Terego district.
✓ Strengthened community-based formal/informal mechanisms for land conflict
prevention and resolution.
✓ Increased land use security among refugees and host community Commented [A'LZN1]: This seems a duplication from the next
output which seems complete. So I think you can delete this one.

2. Purpose of the endline Evaluation
Overall, the purpose of this evaluation is to assess the extent to which the project has attained the outlined objectives and identify key learnings to inform similar interventions in the future.

Specifically, the evaluation aims to:

➢ Assess the extent/level to which the project has improved access to land security for host and refugee households in Uriama sub-county through provision of CCO, promotion of alternative dispute resolution, and access to land registration information.
➢ Determine the strength of the institutional framework and processes for inclusive land governance in Uriama sub-county.
➢ Evaluate the effectiveness of community-based formal/informal mechanisms for land conflict prevention and resolution within project intervention areas.
➢ Evaluate the impact of land security approaches systems adopted/promoted by the project in Uriama sub-county.
➢ Assess the involvement or participation of civil society bodies in the formulation and implementation of responsible land policy.

2.1.1. Evaluation questions
2.1.1.1. Impact and Effectiveness questions:
➢ To what extent has the project improved access to land for among host communities and refugee household?
➢ To what extent has the project caused an increase in land utilization after issuance of certificate of customary ownership and tenancy agreements?

2.1.1.2. Inclusive land rights governance: ➢ What is the level of strength of institutional frameworks (DLB, ALC and customary leaders among others) in promotion of inclusive land governance in Uriama sub-county?
➢ How effective is the process on inclusive land governance in Uriama sub-county?

2.1.1.3. Conflict prevention, resolution, and mediation:
➢ How effective are the community based formal & informal mechanism for prevention of land related conflicts?