Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Incentive structure of land acquisition & allocation VN


Published on

Paper present at "Land Governance for Equitable and Sustainable development" on 8-10 July 2015, Utrecht.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Incentive structure of land acquisition & allocation VN

  1. 1. Incentive structure of land acquisition and land allocation in Vietnam Dung T. Ngo & Thang N. Tran Hue University of Agriculture & Forestry Utrecht, 9 July 2015
  2. 2. Outline Legal context of LA&A Roles of local governments Case studies Forest allocation Resettlement Forest contract
  3. 3. Rationale Vietnam: rapid change from central-planning  market economy (1990s) Land acquisition: Industrialization: agr. land to factory, storage Urbanization: housing, infrastructure Land allocation: decentralize state-land management to different stakeholders
  4. 4. Legal context Constitution 1992, 2013: land and natural resources under public property, managed & represented by State Land use rights: allocated/ leased to individuals and organizations by the State State delegates to province: land ownership, land management regime
  5. 5. Four cases of land acquisition: 1. National defense/ security purpose (Article 61); 2. Socio-economic development for national/ public interest (Art. 62); (purpose vs. compensation) 3. Violations of land law (Art. 64); 4. Termination, voluntary return, risks of threat (Art. Three decision-making levels:  National Assembly: highly national benefits  Prime Minister: offices, infrastructure, electricity, water service… at national level  Provincial Council: provincial infrastructure, housing, forest conservation, etc.
  6. 6. Steps of land acquisition Step 1 • Request for land acquisition by the investor Step 2 • Announcement on location, time, reasons Step 3 • Submit investment plan including S/EIA Step 4 • Submit compensation plan, resettlement, feedback Step 5 • Prepare land dossier and submit for land acquisition Step 6 • Conduct compensation, resettlement plan Step 7 • Implementation of land acquisition and site clearance Step 8 • Hand-over in field and contract
  7. 7. Analytical framework (Ostrom, 2005)
  8. 8. Case #1: Forest land allocation
  9. 9. Forest allocation = the State assigns forest areas to villages, groups, or individual households for 50-year period with most property rights Key actors Duties State forest enterprises (SFE) Allocate forest to local people Forest Protection Dept. (FPD) Facilitate allocation procedures: forest inventory, local meetings Local people (groups, households) Group formation, forest inventory, forest boundary
  10. 10. Stakeholder Allocation to Perceived Benefit(s) of Allocation Perceived Cost(s) of Allocation State Forest Enterprises Individual Reduce forest protection duties Less benefits from timber extraction Group Forest Protection Unit (district level) Individual - Reduced protection duties - Direct payment from SNV - Less direct benefits from sanction - High time and effort in allocation (forest inventory and demarcation) Group - Reduced protection duties - Direct payment from SNV - Effort in allocation (but lower than for household allocation) Local People Individual - Forest products - Red book for long term investment and loan from bank - Rationale for sanction - Integrated other land uses (plantation, NTFPs) - Time and effort in management - Protection cost is higher if allocted patches are in remote area. Group - Forest products - Red book for long term investment and loan from bank - Rationale for sanction - Receive larger areas of natural forest - Transaction costs associated with penalty agreement, harvest approval - Investment to generate incomes from degraded forest
  11. 11. Findings SFE: reluctant to return rich forests for allocation; delayed in process FPD: highly active due to benefits and conservation purpose Local people: Interested in rich/medium forest and barren land; Not interested in degraded forests (high cost for conservation) Roles of local governments (district, commune):
  12. 12. From areas vulnerable to natural disasters From industrial zone/city development From hydropower plant, reservoir construction Case #2: Resettlement stories
  13. 13. Before vs. After resettlement Case studies in 5 villages of Huong Tra district, TT Hue province
  14. 14. Findings Actors: local government – hydropower companies - resettlers Infrastructure, school, water, electricity: improved Livelihood option: decreased Land access: Limited, insufficient for agr. production; Roles of local government: District/commune: not influential, just followed provincial’s decision
  15. 15. Case #3: Forest protection contract Context: Implementation of PFES in Lam Dong province; Main actors: Forest fund – Local government – local groups for forest protection contract Assessment of stakeholders’ participation: legal framework – capacity – implementation
  16. 16. Payment for forest environmental service (PFES) in Vietnam Payment for forest environmental services Provincial Fund Central Fund entrusted payment for ESES providers ES usersEnvironmental services
  17. 17. Findings Legal framework: Robust and rationale for participation in PES Insufficient clearance & dissemination Time pressure for PES implementation Capacity: District, commune staff: sufficient training in procedures but not facilitation skills; Knowledge of local people on their rights in PES: limited Fund management: insufficient in enforcement of violation Implementation Budget collection: effectively due to state gov. support in pilot Forest protection: somewhat limited due to payment < opportunity costs for commercial plantation (rubber, coffee) Long-term vision: possible if carbon credit, land ownership function well.
  18. 18. Lesson learnt & discussion Legal framework: very important for monitoring, conflict solving (land rights, acquistion procedures, compensation) Participatory decision making process: legality, capacity, practice Civil society & NGOs: capacity building, monitoring, transparency, funding Benefit sharing mechanism: simple, transparent, consensus Local governments: effectively only when they consider as local actors (i.e. attached with local people’s benefits) THANK YOU