Post on 30-Dec-2015
description
transcript
THE MALAWI COMMUNITY-BASED RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTMinistry of Lands and Natural Resources
August 4, 2008
1
LANDLESSNESS IN THE MIDST OF IDLE LAND
• About 11 percent households are landless or near landless.
• 917,000 ha of estate land, of which 600,000 ha idle
• Why?– Many estates were never put to full use– Others lost their viability when smallholders were
allowed to grow tobacco – the “estates crisis”• The land market is not transferring the land
to other users– Smallholders have no money to buy it– Few of the estates are suitable for investors
2
WHY NOT REVOKE THE LEASES
• While the leases are renewable, owners are unlikely to fulfill the development conditions for renewal
• Many owners have not paid their land rent• Many leases are about to, or have already expired• Government could take the land back and return
it to the chiefs of the surrounding communities– Would the land be encroached before the chiefs take
control of it? – Would the chiefs allocate the land to the land-poor and
food insecure?– Would there be resistance from the leaseholders?– Would it scare international investors?
• Government will need to think about this option
3
BUT WHY PAY PEOPLE TO MIGRATE, WHEN THEY DO SO SPONTANEOUSLY?
• About 5 percent of rural households have migrated from another district (Integrated Household Survey 2004/05)
• 5 districts attracted tobacco tenant workers who remained after landlords abandoned the estates– Clearly part of the problem took care of itself– But only few estates were resettled in this manner– We know little about how well off they are, and whether they
have security of tenure–
• There are also other rural-rural migrants• However, on average, these migrant households remain
land poor and food insecure 4
MAIN CONCLUSIONS
• The problem of landlessness in the midst of idle land has not been solved – By acquisition of the land by former tenants– By spontaneous migration– By the land market– By reverting estates back to customary land
• Therefore the CBRLD Pilot Project was designed to develop and test an alternative approach
5
THE CBRLDP MODEL
• Similar programs exist in Brazil, Central America• Communities form themselves into groups and
are trained to look for land, acquire it and resettle themselves
• They get a grant of 1050 US dollars to buy the land, cover resettlement costs, and other startup costs in the new location
• They negotiate prices, with assistance from project
• Their move and peaceful integration is facilitated by community-based Project Management Committees, Chiefs, Headmen, Community Oversight Committees and project staff
6
PILOT PROJECT HISTORY, SCOPE AND COST
Effectiveness date July 1, 2004
Origin districts: Machinga, Mangochi, Mulanje, Thyolo. Balaka & Ntcheu just included in 2008
Destination districts: Machinga, Mangochi, Balaka, Ntcheu
Total project cost US$ 27.8 Million and US$27 million from IDA
Co-finance from Malawi Government
US$0.8 Million
Project rating Moderately satisfactory
Anticipated closing date
June 30, 2010
7
COSTS INCLUDED IN THE GRANT
• Land, including fees, taxes etc (less than 30 % of total grant)
• Resettlement cost and resettlement allowance
• Food• Farm Development grant for
– Inputs, labor, tools, etc.• Community infrastructure (including water)• Housing materials
8
Objective Target To date (August 2008)
Groups resettled 450 358
Households resettled
15,000 8,222
Land acquired (ha)
33,750 18,254
Group titles transferred
450 153
Trust deeds registered
450 299
Average Land prices
Initially MK 8,000/ha
After 4 yearsMK 18,000/ha
Maize yield Prior to resettlement: 962 kg/ha
After resettlement2,269 kg/ha
Household income 4,500 MK/month 7,300 MK/month
9
Rumors hurt the project Resolved
Slow implementation Resolved
Government co-finance Resolved
MOLNR institutional capacity Improving
Land titling and surveying Improving
Monitoring/evaluation delayed Improving
Water supply highly inadequate Significantly improved
Extension and Natural Resources Management
Improving
HIV and AIDS prevention & treatment
Improving
Access to education, health, markets is worse than in origin areas
Beneficiaries working with surrounding communitiesDistricts slow in providingExit Strategy launched and managed by districts.
Social conflicts Very few, mostly resolved
Land tax rate raised But collection suspended at auction floors while estate sellers to the project pay.
Land law drafted But not yet passed
10
IS THE PROGRAM READY FOR SCALING UP?
Political will Mainly at local and district levels
Public knowledge Inadequate
Operational and fiduciary Procedures
Fully ready
Impact evaluation In progress
Likely poverty impact Poverty targeting is goodImpact on beneficiaries is high and sustainablePoor relatives left behind also benefit
Likely economic returns Higher than expected at appraisal
Environmental and social impacts
Marginal
Does land remain available Even in project districts land price rises have been very modest
Future fiscal cost Fairly high
Donor support Many donors still skepticalWorld Bank support unlikely unless land policy issues are resolved
11