• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Presentation Mekong Watch Satomi Case studies on individual land titling 29 March 2012
 

Presentation Mekong Watch Satomi Case studies on individual land titling 29 March 2012

on

  • 428 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
428
Views on SlideShare
428
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Presentation Mekong Watch Satomi Case studies on individual land titling 29 March 2012 Presentation Mekong Watch Satomi Case studies on individual land titling 29 March 2012 Document Transcript

    • 12/03/29 Preliminary  results  of  the  case  studies  on  impacts  of  individual  land  5tling  for  swidden   land     Land  Issues  Working  Group   29  March  2012   Satomi  HIGASHI,Mekong  Watch   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. 1
    • 12/03/29 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)   2
    • 12/03/29 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   3
    • 12/03/29 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. 4
    • 12/03/29 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. 5
    • 12/03/29 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”.   6
    • 12/03/29 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.   7
    • 12/03/29 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:  satomi@mekongwatch.org   8