Presentation Mekong Watch Satomi Case studies on individual land titling 29 March 2012
-
Upload
liwg-laos -
Category
Technology
-
view
273 -
download
2
Transcript of Presentation Mekong Watch Satomi Case studies on individual land titling 29 March 2012
12/03/29
1
Land Issues Working Group 29 March 2012
Satomi HIGASHI,Mekong Watch
Preliminary results of the case studies on impacts of individual land 5tling for swidden
land
Background of the survey • Mekong Watch supported rezoning of land and forest in villages which had problems caused by Land Forest AllocaHon Program in Pakbeng District, Oudomxay Province.
• Mekong Watch didn’t support individual land Htling for swidden land.
• However, villagers and local officials asked Mekong Watch to support individual land Htling at the project evaluaHon meeHng in Nov 2011.
12/03/29
2
Case Studies • Purpose: to make
recommendaHons to Pakbeng DAFO about impacts of individual land Htling on swidden farmers’ livelihoods
• Method: making interviews with village authoriHes and villagers with the help of intern students from the Faculty of Forestry, NaHonal University of Laos
• Period: 17-‐18 February and 13-‐27 March 2012
Case Studies (cont.)
• Target villages and interviewees: – Ban Xaixana, Pakbeng District: the village authority and 6 families
– Ban Mokkhe, Pakbeng District: the village authority and 33 families (50% of the village)
– Ban Keo, Nga District: the village authority and 4 families
– Ban Phonhom, Xay District: the village authority and 3 families
– Ban Chom Leng Noy, Pakbeng District: the village authority and about 30 families (50% of the village)
12/03/29
3
Case Study: Ban Xaixana • Kmhmu’, Hmong, Leu, Lao • Main livelihoods: maize,
rice paddy and upland rice • History
– Village consolidaHon – 2004 LFAà Individual land
Htling – 2005 a boom in the
culHvaHon of maize • Land use: Many families had
bought paddy fields and vegetable gardens (including swidden) before LFA was conducted.
Case Study: Ban Mokkhe • 345 people/ 57 houses/ 62
households (Kmhmu’) • Main livelihoods: upland rice
and Job’s tears • History
– 2000 The first LFA was conducted in each village
– 2006 B. Mokkhe and B. Mokkho Noy were merged
– 2007 Individual land Htles were issued for each family
• Land use: some powerful families (“jao kok jao lao”) have occupied large parts of the village agricultural land
12/03/29
4
Case Study: Ban Chom Leng Noy (1) • 731 people/ 81 houses/ 130 households (Kmhmu’) • Main livelihoods: upland rice and Job’s tears • History – 1997 The district banned shihing culHvaHon in a watershed area for a hydropower dam
– 1999 B. Phou Hong Theung moved to the eastern end of the watershed area
– 2000 B. Chom Leng Noy moved to the road side – 2000 The first LFA was conducted in each village – 2006 B. Phou Hong Theung and B. Chom Leng Noy were merged
– 2008 MW supported the re-‐zoning of land and forest – 2011 The village watershed management commiiee asked MW to support individual land Htling
Case Study: Ban Chom Leng Noy (2) • Land Use of Kum Chom Leng Noy
– 3 of 51 families have occupied large parts of agricultural land
– When villagers rent land from other families, they have to pay around 200,000 kip /ha to land “owners”.
• Land Use of Kum Phou Hong Theung – The village authority decides suitable sites
for farming and divides farmland among the families every year according to each family’s workforce.
– Some families have prioriHes in choices of agricultural plots where their members used to culHvate before.
– However, when a family does not have enough labor force to culHvate the plot, the family has to give up the right to culHvate the plot to another family without land rent.
12/03/29
5
Preliminary results of the case studies: Differences in land use system
• Land occupaHon and land rent – Some families in the villages had occupied lands before LFA was
conducted. (B. Mokkhe, B. Xaixana, B. Phonhom and Kum Chom Leng Noy of B. Chom Leng Noy)
– On the other hand, villagers in some other villages had been using agricultural land communally. (B. Keo and Kum Phou Hong Teueng of B. Chom Leng Noy)
– The villagers in the first group rent out land one another. Those in the second group do lending and borrowing unless money is involved.
• Access to cash-‐crop markets – Villagers in B. Xaixana and B. Phonhom have access to cash-‐crop
markets (ex. Maize, sesami, galangale etc.). – Villagers in B. Phonhom and B. Keo are planHng rubber trees under
contract with private companies. – B. Mokkhe and B. Chom Leng Noy do not have access to markets of
cash crop and upland rice faming is the main livelihood.
Preliminary results of the case studies: Good results of individual land Htling • In Xaixana village, individual land Htling promoted the developments of paddy and maize fields, which have contributed to the increase of food producHon and the expansion of cash income opportuniHes. (In the long run, there is a concern of soil degradaHon of corn fields.)
• Under the LFA, previously landless farmers in Xaixana and Phonhom villages received farmland.
• A household in Keo village will obtain an alternaHve site due to the construcHon of a health post in their Htled land.
12/03/29
6
Preliminary results of the case studies: NegaHve impacts of individual land Htling • Shortening of shihing culHvaHon cycle (ex. 9-‐10 yearsà 3-‐4 years in B. Keo)
• All the villages except Phonhom village where shihing culHvaHon was abandoned, the decrease of farmland and soil degradaHon were problemaHzed.
• In Mokkhe village, the rent has risen aher the LFA. • In Mokkhe and Xaixana villages, even aher LFA, local magnates ignored others‘ land property rights.
• In Phonhom village, land purchase by the wealthy families created new landless farmers.
Preliminary results of the case studies: ExpectaHon and anxiety about individual land Htling
• Case of B. Chom Leng Noy – DAFO: “InternaHonal Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) will start a new development project in Oudomxay. By combing IFAD’s project and individual land Htling, agricultural producHvity will be increased and villagers can get income from their land”
– A vice-‐chief of the village: “If we get individual land Htling, we can borrow money from banks with low interests”
– Chief of the village: “villagers are using land together. Even when swidden land is far or soil is not good in quality, the condiHons are the same for all villagers. If land were to be owned individually, it is quite likely that villagers compete over farmland nearer and/or beier in quality. It would damage cooperaHon among the villagers”.
12/03/29
7
Conclusions (tentaHve) • In the areas which have access to markets of cash crops other than upland rice, individual land Htling tends to improve the agricultural producHvity.
• On the downside, it someHmes results in intensifying land conflicts and buying up by local magnates.
• In the areas where upland rice is the principal crop, individual land Htling ohen causes negaHve impacts on villagers‘ livelihoods, such as through the decrease of farmland and shortening of the culHvaHon cycle.
• In some cases where individual land Htling has entailed no land conflict, the system is simply ignored.
Key RecommendaHons (tentaHve) • There are few merits of individual land Htling in areas where upland rice culHvaHon is the main livelihood for villagers. It could shorten the cycle of shihing culHvaHon and cause conflicts on land.
• Detailed assessment on villagers’ land use system prior to implementaHon of land use planning needed.
• Merits and risks of individual land Htling should be explained to villagers before issuing land Htles.
• Communal land Htling should be considered in villages where lands are not occupied by individual families and villagers are using land collecHvely.
12/03/29
8
Discussions • Under what kind of situaHons individual land Htling could be promoted?
• Is it possible to issue CLT for swidden land? If so, what kind of condiHons should be required? What kind of obstacles could exist? – Would renHng land be allowed in communal lands? – Would it be allowed for some individual families to plant perennial crop or fruit trees in communal lands?
– Is it possible to issue CLT for villages which have some groups using land in different way?
• Others?
Thank you!
Contact: [email protected]