1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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