Date post: | 12-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nathan-summers |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Can Collective Property Right Protection Measures be an Inclusive Alternative:
The Case of Community Land Delimitation (CLD) Initiative in Mozambique?
Hosaena Ghebru (1), Raul Pitoro (2), and Sileshi Woldeyohannes (1)(1) International Food Policy Research Institute – IFPRI; (2) Michigan State University - MSU
Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty Washington, DC
March 23 – 27, 2015
Background• There were successive efforts which were
culminated with Land Policy (1995), Land Law (1997), and Land Law Regulations (1998)
• Some of the salient features: Gov’t owns land; All have Use Right; Communities entitled to Certificate
• Main objectives of the Mozambique’s Land Policy: security of land tenure; participation in decision making; and benefit sharing
In 2009, the MCC provided more than US$61 million to fund a five-year project
The Community Land Initiative (iTC) – established in 2006 by a group of six donors (DFID, Netherlands, SIDA, Irish Aid, SDC, and DANIDA)
GESTERRA (Capacity Building for Land Management and Administration in Mozambique) program supported bythe Netherlands and Swedish Embassy in Maputo
Community-investor Partnerships supported by IFAD
Background: Mozambique Land Projects
Background• The Community Land Delimitation (CLD) :
is a legally defined PARTICIPATORY process which involves
Community Sensitization
Community Consultation
Community Map Description
Community Land Mapping (Cartogram) production
Land Map Validation by neighboring community
Issuance of Community Land Certificate
Objective of the Study• To develop an evaluation framework that
helps to assess the impact of community land formalization in Mozambique
• Specifically, the study attempts to assess the CLD process with respect to: Its adherence to the legally defined procedure
Improving communities’ land administration and management
conflict resolution and prevention
Methodology and Data• Methodology: Descriptive Analysis
• Data: The study uses community-level Community Land Delimitation survey
conducted in September 2014
comprehensive community-level questionnaire was administered
94 communities were surveyed
secondary data collected from different
NGOs involved in the CLD Process
Government Offices
Findings based on
Secondary Data
Between 2006 and 2013 659 communities were delimited
about 35 million hectares of land
413 CLDs were made by the Community Land Initiative (Iniciativa de Terras Comunitárias-iCT).
2,802 Land Law dissemination workshops were conducted
Summary of CLDs in Mozambique from 2006 to 2013 by regionProvince
# of delimitations
Total area delimited (ha)
# of Land Law dissemination workshops
# of land conflicts reported
# community land mgt. councils created
NIASSA 148 3,431,879 171 19 36C. DELGADO 43 364,119 43 77 84NAMPULA 77 675,378 153 18 418ZAMBEZIA 181 1,853,528 81 94 171TETE 9 3,984 1,053 71 85MANICA 41 15,600,000 889 54 87SOFALA 62 3,756,982 157 18 55INHAMBANE 16 8,461,690 158 35 92GAZA 58 516,609 75 72 69MAPUTO 24 45,975 22 176 43Total 659 34,710,144 2,802 634 1,140Source: Author's compilation based on MINAG (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010b, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)
Between 2006 and 2013 No stable trend observed in CLD Process
The major causes of land conflicts vary by period and region
In the initial period, land conflicts were related to land access in the Central and Northern regions
In the later period, land conflicts were related to land use in all regions of the country
Negative association was observed between delimitated area and the number of land related conflicts
Findings based on Secondary Data Figure : Number of community delimitations and the corresponding area
Source: MINAG (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010b, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)
050
100
150
200
250
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Communities delimited Area delimited in '00,000ha
Findings based on Secondary Data• Before 2010, little has been done both in
terms of number of
seminars conducted to disseminate the land legislation and
the number of participants
• The largest number of outreach seminars were in 2011
997 meetings with 12,009 participants
The % of female participants was only 37%
Findings based on Secondary Data Figure : Dissemination of Land Law
Source: MINAG (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010b, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)
0500
1,0
00
1,5
00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Disseminition seminars Male participants ('10 units)Female participants ('10 units)
Findings based on
Community Level Survey
Findings from CLD Communities• In the CLD survey,
94 communities were surveyed
CLD process was introduced in 60 % of the communities
Several NGOs were involved in several of communities’ CLD process
iTC (Community Land Initiative)
ORAM
OLIPIA
Forum Terra
Etc…
Reasons for Initiating CLD process
Other reason
Investors' intent of land acqusition
NGOs' economic intiative
Private-Community land confilct
0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
11%
23%
47%
75%
Of the total CLD communities surveyed, in 74 % the Community Land Management
Committee (CLMC) was established
71 % sensitization phase completed
95 % delimitation phase completed
62 % demarcation phase completed
62% acquired Certificate
Only 2% have an approved business plan
Findings: Reasons for the Halt of CLD Process
Only in 32 % attempts were made to restart the process
NOGs Left Conflit Resolved Investors Changed Mind
Conflit Intensified CLC Dsisolved0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%44%
30%
15%
22%19%
Findings from CLD Communities• In 67 % of the CLD communities, issues with
the bordering communities were raised during the CLD processes, and the issues were
Border disputes (77%)
Lack of bordering communities’ involvement (9%)
Bordering communities were not aware (29%)
• 78 % of the issues were resolved through Certificate and approved map (32%)
District gov’t resolution (39%)
Mutual agreement (39%)
Findings from Non-CLD Communities• Non-CLD communities have limited
awareness
Findings from Non-CLD Communities• Only 8% of the non-CLD communities were
offered CLD services from NGOs
• Only 6% of the non-CLD communities attempted to contact NGOs
• Among the reasons given for not contacting NGOs,
Lack of fund (7%)
Lack of awareness(76%)
Lack of consensus within community(21%)
Findings: Involvement of Non-CLD Communities in CLD Process
Findings from Non-CLD Communities: WTP• All non-CLD communities surveyed are willing to
partake in NGOs initiated CLD process
WTP for CLD process Observations Mean
How much is the WTP of the community per each household?
90 MT (Metical) per hh at one time 33 48%
90 MT per hh at three installment 16 50%
A subsidized price of 45 MT per hh 11 64%
Man days of free labor per hh 19 32Source: Authors' computation from community survey 2014
Conclusion
62 % of the CLD communities have completed the CLD process and acquired CERTIFICATE
The major reason for initiating CLDs was private-community land conflict, and land related disputes are still the first most common disputes
Results suggest positive impact of the delimitation process on land conflicts
Conclusion
There are cases where later phases of the CLD process were started without the completion of earlier phases
All non-CLD communities are willing to partake in NGO initiated CLD process
Non-CLD Communities also have some degree of WTP for CLD processes
Policy Implication• The CLD process is worth continuing as
it is the best way to tackle the private-community and inter-community land conflicts
communities are willing to partake in and contribute for CLD processes
• Efforts should be made to keep the participatory nature of the CLD process. In this regard, emphasis should be given
For completion of all the phases of CLD process
Specially, to involve bordering communities
• Efforts should be made to link the CLD process with Development Initiatives
Obrigado!
27
qualquer pergunta?