PROPOSED METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

Research Questions

The Government of the Republic of Moldova considers land consolidation as one

of essential factors for ensuring the economic viability of rural areas. The degree
of fragmentation is regarded often as a major obstacle to agricultural
development, because it causes inefficiencies in production and involves large
costs to alleviate its negative effects. In Moldova’s case the land fragmentation
refers to the existence of a number of spatially separated plots of land, which are
under various ownership and farmed as single units.

In response to Government’s concerns on the high rate of agricultural land

fragmentation resulted from the privatization process, the Rural Investment and
Services Project II (RISP II) launched in August 2007 a pilot land re-parceling
component (LRC) with the objectives to:

(i) assess the feasibility and test the demand of land re-parceling,
having small-scale landowners as the primary target group;

(ii) based on gained experience to develop a methodology to be used at

the national level, including techniques, resource requirements, and
legislative framework;

(iii) evaluate the impact of re-parceling at the local level, including land
markets, agricultural production, and equity.

Focused on landowners with small isolated land plots, the LRP was called to
concentrate on developing and create a range of options related to not only
selling of small and remote parcels but also resulting in parcels consolidated in
convenient locations and shape. It was expected that the consolidation of land
parcels would result in (i) extension of activities by commercial-oriented farmers,
(ii) increase in incomes / remuneration for owners who lease or intend to sell the
land, (iii) increases investments in agriculture.

LRP was implemented in 6 pilot villages involving voluntary, market-based

transactions and extensive community consultations prior to the transactions and
a participatory approach.

The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether, and the extent to which
LRP (i) resulted in consolidation of land plots and changes in land tenure, (ii) led
to improvement of the farming efficiency, (iii) produced expected social effects
within pilot communities, and (iv) created grounds for improving environmental
effect.

This evaluation envisages a multidisciplinary approach involving economic,

environmental, and social factors and will focus on the following research
questions:

(i) consolidation of land plots and changes in land tenure

a. to what extent land re-parceling influenced property structure in

participating communities?

b. to what extent land re-parceling influenced land usage?

 c. how land re-parceling influenced the local land market?

(ii) improvement of the farming efficiency

a. how land re-parceling influenced agricultural production and

production costs?

(iii) social effects within pilot communities

a. to what extent were social safeguards of the project effective?

b. what is the demand for re-parceling among smallholders?

(iv) grounds for improving environmental effect

a. what are the effects of the measures taken to improve the

environment as a result of the re-parceling?

Methodological Approach

The modern theory for evaluation of land re-parceling (consolidation) projects

explicitly recommends that such types of studies have to include economic,
social and environmental evaluation issues comparing the situation before and
after the intervention. To address these questions, we will rely on both
quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods will be used to
measure the project’s impacts and qualitative methods will be used to
understand the factors associated with its success or failure and the likelihood of
sustainability.

The quantitative method will be based on randomized controls design using

difference-in-difference comparisons, i.e. evaluating impact by measuring the
change in outcome indicators at the beginning and after project intervention. We
will compare the performances of key indicators achieved by beneficiaries during
the program with those prior the project. This approach will be based on the use
of the standard model of comprising questions, criteria and indicators. This
method consists of building relational tables of questions, criteria and indicators
(TQCI) for each of the investigating subjects (research questions).

Thus, for this evaluation we propose to use the following research format:

LAND TENURE ANALYSIS

Research Question 1. Has the land re-parceling influenced property structure
in participating communities?
Criteria Indicators

C-1.1. Changes to the land tenure I-1.1. Number of active holdings

structure
C-1.2. Changes in number of active
holdings
C-1.3. Changes in the average are of
active holdings
C-1.4. Changes in the number of
parcels per active holding
C-1.5. Changes in the number of
parcels per farmer
I-1.2. Number of plots per active holding
I-1.3. Average area per active holding
I-1.4. Number of plots per owner
I-1.5. Number of plots per mayoralty
I-1.6. Average size of a plot
I-1.7. Average holding size
I-1.8. Percentage of agro productive
area worked by the owner
I-1.9. Percentage in agro productive
C-1.6. Changes in the percentage of area worked by leaseholders
agro productive area worked by the
owner
C-1.7. Changes in percentage of agro
productive area worked by
leaseholders

Research Question 2. Has the land re-parceling influenced the land usage?
Criteria Indicators

C-2. Changes to land use and I-2.1. Area of land under production
production as a result of re-parceling. I-2.2. Area of land devoted to vineyards,
orchards and arable land

Research Question 3. Has the land re-parceling influenced the local land
market?
Criteria Indicators

C-3. Changes to the local land market I-3.1. Number of transactions

as a result of re-parceling. I-3.2. Land price

In addition to the above we will use the metric assessment method1 for land
consolidation projects. The proposed method is based on the use of some metric
parameters that allow performing the analysis of land consolidation works and to
determine the success of a land consolidation project. To use this method we will
develop and integrate a set of indices to measure the effects on plot size, shape,
and productivity. In this study the proposed indices will include criteria regarding
size and number of plots in the pre- and post- consolidation situation in pilot
villages. These indices will be classified as follows: (i) indices on size and density
of plots, and (ii) indices on edge and shape ratio.

(i) indices on size and density of plots will include:

a. number of plots

b. average number of plots per owner

c. average size of plots

d. average size of plots of owners

e. Reduction Index

RI – Reduction Index, P – number of plots in

pre-consolidation phase, and Pc – number of
plots in pos-consolidation phase

f. Consolidation Coefficient

RI – Reduction Index, O – number of land

owners

1
van Dijk (2000), Gonzalez et al. (2006)
 (ii) indices on edge and shape ratio – these are used to measure
agricultural land efficiency.

a. Total Edge (meters) measures the total perimeter of all the plots
in project area

p(i) – plot perimeter

b. Edge Density (m/ha) measures the edge length (m) per unit area
(ha)

A – total project area

The methodological approach for the economic, environmental and social

analysis will be entirely based on TQCI and is described below.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Research Question 4. Has the land re-parceling influenced agricultural
production and production costs?
Criteria Indicators

C-4.1. Changes in the agricultural I-4.1. Product mix (crops and livestock
production by commodity)
C-4.2. Changes to the cost of I-4.2. Total output (in money units)
production I-4.3. Output by commodity (in physical
C-4.3. Changes in farm resources units)
C-4.4. Changes in farm sales and I-4.4. Yields per hectare and per animal.
consumption I-4.5. Labor (family and hired)
C-4.5. Changes in revenue and I-4.6. Purchased inputs, machinery,
expenses farm buildings and investments
I-4.7. Farm sales
I-4.8. Farm consumption of own
products
I-4.9. Farm production costs (itemized)
I-4.10. Sales revenue (by major
categories or total)
I-4.11. Farm net income
I-4.12. Structure of family income (farm
and non-farm components)

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Research Question 5. Has the land re-parceling influenced the environment as
a result of the re-parceling?
Criteria Indicators

C-5.1. Changes in measures taken to I-5.1. Actions taken to improve the

improve the environment environment

SOCIAL ANALYSIS
Research Question 6. Has the land re-parceling influenced the social
safeguards?
Criteria Indicators

C-6.1. Changes in effectiveness of I-6.1. Results on physical relocation

social safeguards I-6.2. Beneficiaries worthiness
 I-6.3. Willingness to participate in the
project

Research Question 7. Has the land re-parceling influenced the demand on

such services?
Criteria Indicators

C-7.1. Changes in attitude towards re- I-7.1. Knowledge of the project

parceling service
C-7.2. Changes in attitude towards the
effects of re-parceling
C-7.3. Changes in conditions that
adversely affect re-parceling
C-7.4. Changes in conditions that
adversely affect farming
C-7.5. Changes on equity
C-7.6. Changes to the income of
beneficiaries
I-7.2. Extent to which households are
satisfied with the procedures
I-7.3. Perception of family well-being
I-7.4. Extent to which farmers are
satisfied with the outcomes
I-7.5. Costs of participating
I-7.6. Agreement among family
members
I-7.7. Situation on irrigation,
mechanization, inputs, marketing
channels, transportation
I-7.8. Impact on the equity
I-7.9. Incomes

Research Question 8. Has the land re-parceling influenced the ability of Local
Council’s secretaries to carry out certain notariallike duties?
Criteria Indicators

C-8.1. Changes in the ability of Local I-8.1. Ability of Local Council’s

Council’s secretaries to carry out secretaries to carry out certain
certain notariallike duties as a result of notariallike duties as a result of training
training received in the project received in the project

Research Question 9. Has the land re-parceling influenced local

socioeconomic factors ?
Criteria Indicators

C-9.1. Changes local socioeconomic I-9.1. Local socioeconomic factors which

factors which influence LRP’s success influence LRP’s success

The qualitative method will be used to enhance the quantities findings through
providing a better understanding of stakeholders perceptions and priorities for
the processes that may have affected project impact. This approach will be used
to describe the following impact issues:

• Relevance - the coherence of project objectives with identified needs

and priorities and to the appropriateness and realism of the project
setting

• Effectiveness - the extent to which the project objectives have been

achieved

• Efficiency - considerations in a comparative prospective of the

project against existing accepted norms
 • Sustainability - the capability of the project to continue to produce
effects after its completion

Evaluation Phases

Clarifying Evaluation Objectives. Clear objectives are essential to identifying

information needs, setting output and impact indicators as well as constructing a
solid evaluation strategy to provide answers to questions posed. Although the
TOR stipulates explicitly the objectives of the study, the evaluation still has to
address not only the project impacts, but also aspects of project operations and
targeting. That is why we proposed the partition of the research questions into
specific subcategories. In addition, a special Matrix of Analysis will be designed
and its proposed structure is given below:

• Research questions

• Indicators

• Methodology of collection

• Sources of information

• Responsible for data collection

Exploring Data Availability. Before launching, any new data collection

activities assessing what data exist is a first important step. Various types of
information related to the study are already available and will be studied within
this impact evaluation:

• Terms of references

• Project’s quarterly and annual progress reports, and technical

reports

• Relevant documentation from national/local partners and other

donors

• Legal texts and political commitments pertaining to the project and

land consolidation in general

• Governmental national and sector policy documents

• Relevant policy and planning documents from national/local partners

and other donors

Data Development. It is eminent that reliable data are essential to produce a

high-quality report. Within the proposed impact evaluation we propose the
following data collection instruments:

• Quantitative data

a. approaches: face-to-face structured interviews

b. instruments: special designed questionnaires. In addition to

questionnaires, there will be used direct observations during the
face-to-face interviews
 • Qualitative data

a. approaches: focus-group interviews, semi-structured or informal

interviews, textual and anecdotal data, direct observations, and
data analysis

b. instruments: focus-group interview matrix, key-questions

guidelines for interviews of local public authorities, public sector
and other relevant for community development institutions.

• Sampling

As TOR states the study shall cover six pilot communities and three
communities as control group. According to TOR, the total sample
will include:

Number of
Community Raion beneficiar Sample
ies
Busauca Rezina 578 58
Sadova Calarasi 240 24
Bolduresti Nisporeni 1270 127
Calmatui Hancesti 430 43
Opaci Causeni 240 24
Baimaclia Cantemir 150 15
Total sample 291
Control group: 3 communities 50 interviewees per 150
Total sample 441

• Analysis and reporting.

The data analysis will be based on two main techniques:

a. Statistical methods. Based on collected questionnaires there will

be created the main database.

b. Content analysis. This technique will be used to analyze data

drawn from interviews, observation and documents. For a better
information reading data will be classified in special categories
taking into consideration the needs for cross-referencing.

Evaluation Team

With the purpose of a more effective impact assessment accomplishing we well

make two groups of consultants:

• International/National level experts’ team. This group will consist of

1 international and 4 national consultants with a substantial
experience in evaluation studies and assigned with responsibilities
linked to task performing management and collection of information
from national level entities, study preparation and report writing;
• Field team. This group will consist of nine field-operator teams (one
team per community) of two consultants each. Three regional level
consultants will supervise three local teams each - their main
responsibilities will cover direct supervision of the fieldwork,
fieldwork guidelines, data quality review, and preparation of field
information in required formats for the national level experts’ team.