Topic: land tenure

Biofuel Investments Threaten Local Land Rights in Tanzania

Peter Veit — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:15:23 -0500

This piece originally appeared on the International Land Coalition Land Portal. This full text is available here.

Just a couple weeks ago, Iowa State University (ISU) withdrew from advising the Iowa-based firm AgriSol Energy on its planned land deal in Tanzania. AgriSol Energy is seeking to acquire 320,000 hectares in Rukwa Region for large-scale food and biofuel production.¹ ISU’s role had been to ensure that the for-profit venture be socially responsible and benefit local communities. However, the development of AgriSol’s large-scale farm requires the eviction of 162,000 local farmers – hardly a benefit to the local communities.

In October 2011, work at the jatropha² plantation in Kisarawe District, Tanzania came to a halt when managers of Sun Biofuels, a British company, told more than 300 workers to collect their final paychecks and leave until further notice. The company established the 8000-plus hectare estate in 2008, but is now facing serious financial problems.

These layoffs came on the heels of BioShape, a Dutch company, ceasing operations in November 2009 on its 34,000 hectare jatropha plantation in Kilwa District. BioShape had employed more than 100 permanent staff, and about 700 casual laborers. In February 2010, the company suspended its last field operations and stopped paying salaries to its local employees and, in June 2010, BioShape was officially declared bankrupt

Other biofuel projects in Tanzania are also struggling to sustain their operations, including Swedish Sekab AB, Europe’s largest ethanol company. Despite these experiences, however, the government of Tanzania is considering allocating even more land to biofuel companies such as AgriSol Energy.

Most rural people in Tanzania make a living off their land, including subsistence farming and animal husbandry. When their land is taken—even if properly compensated for their losses—many fall into deeper poverty. New policies and government practices are urgently needed to protect local property rights to land and natural resources.

Read the full text here >>>

Iowa-based Summit Group and Global Agriculture Fund of the Pharos Financial Group, in partnership with AgriSol Energy LLC and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Iowa State University, are developing a large agriculture enterprise in Tanzania. The site encompasses three “abandoned refugee camps”– Lugufu in Kigoma province (25,000 ha), Katumba (80,317 ha), and Mishamo (219,800 ha), both in Rukwa province. ↩
Jatropha seeds contain oil that can be processed into biodiesel. ↩

Threats to Village Land in Tanzania: Implications for REDD+ Benefit- Sharing Arrangements

Peter Veit — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:28:02 -0500

This piece originally appeared in Lessons About Land Tenure, Forest Governance and REDD+: Case Studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America.¹ The full text of the article is available here.

Abstract

REDD+ presents an important opportunity for Tanzania to leverage its forest resources to bring in new capital flows, promote forest management and provide benefits to communities. With a legal framework designed to promote decentralization and more than a decade of experience with Participatory Forest Management, the country appears ready to capitalize on REDD+.

On closer examination, however, villagers face multiple obstacles in securing rights over land and realizing forest benefits. This paper examines five challenges—classification of General Land; recognition of Village Land; recognition of village government; transfer of Village Land to General or Reserved Land; and Participatory Forest Management procedures. Legal ambiguities and contradictions coupled with inconsistent implementation and governance structures pose unique threats to the success of REDD+ in Tanzania. With REDD+ infrastructure yet to be developed, however, opportunities exist for these challenges to be addressed. The current legal and institutional framework needs clarification and strengthening to make REDD+ a success for all Tanzanians.

Read the full article

Naughton-Treves, L. and C. Day. eds. 2012. Lessons about Land Tenure, Forest Governance and REDD+. Case Studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Madison, Wisconsin: UW-Madison Land Tenure Center. ↩

Agricultural Land Grabs Threaten Local Property Rights and Sustainable Development

Mercedes Stickler — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:09:27 -0400

With large-scale agricultural investments on the rise, the rights of local people must be protected.

Large-scale land acquisitions for agricultural use by both local and foreign commercial entities – often dubbed “land grabs” - are on the rise worldwide. Often touted as a form of economic development, these investments could have profound negative effects on the environment and rural livelihoods if transactions go through without the meaningful participation of affected peoples and due consideration for the many benefits they derive from nature.

Land provides the very platform on which sustainable lives and livelihoods are built. As a result, the land on which people build their homes and organize their communities is directly linked to their quality of life. Seventy-five percent of the world’s poor live in rural areas, and a majority of rural livelihoods depend primarily on natural resources to provide food, fresh water, and a healthy environment, among other benefits. Reliable access to land and the ability to make decisions about land use is therefore critical to rural economies.

The Importance of Recognizing Local Land Rights

In many developing countries, however, local peoples’ rights to land are not recognized or enforced by governments. Often times, governments make decisions about how land and natural resources will be used without consulting the people who depend on those resources for their livelihoods. People who rely on customary or traditional rights are particularly vulnerable to losing their land because there is little or no official documentation of their rights to protect them from their land being taken by someone else. This is a serious problem in Africa, where formal tenure covers only some 2 – 10% of all land.

The Risks and Opportunities of Large-Scale Agriculture Investments

Rising global demand for food and biofuel crops has driven a recent wave of large-scale agricultural investments in the Global South. Following the food price spike in 2007-08, media reports suggest that up to 56 million hectares of land were targeted for agriculture and forestry investments in less than one year, compared with an annual average cropland expansion of 1.9 million ha between 1990 and 2007.

Case studies have found that land transfers of hundreds and even thousands of hectares have been made without due consideration of existing rights or potential impacts on ecosystem services and the livelihoods they support. As a result, these investments may undermine sustainable development in countries already struggling to escape poverty.

In Ethiopia, for example, official government data in five of its nine regions indicate that a total area of at least 1.2 million ha – roughly 8.6% of the country’s cultivated area – were transferred to domestic and foreign commercial entities between 2005 and 2010. Although production data are scarce, media reports indicate that land acquired by Saudi Arabian companies in Ethiopia will be used to produce vegetables, flowers, and rice for export to nations in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Ethiopia is due to receive food aid for 5.7 million people in 2011 from the United Nations World Food Programme.

The size of individual deals can be staggering – in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a Chinese company has reportedly acquired rights from the central government to some 3 million ha of forest land across three provinces where indigenous people and other communities still rely on forests for their livelihood and culture. This transaction represents roughly two-thirds of the entire area in DRC that is potentially suitable for growing oil palm but not yet cultivated.

The scale of these transactions alone makes it even more imperative that the customary rights of local people be recognized and the impacts on existing land uses, especially forests, be considered. Large-scale land acquisitions that ignore customary rights not only risk undermining local livelihoods; illegitimate deals can slow investment implementation, damage company reputation, and even undermine regional stability – as demonstrated by the role that a high profile 1.3 million ha deal in Madagascar played in that country’s 2009 coup.

Governments often justify these transfers by citing their potential contribution to economic growth – however, any gains in national accounts (which to date appear few) risk being greatly outweighed by negative impacts on local livelihoods. Increased investment in agriculture can be used to promote sustainable development through the introduction of new technology and improved management of natural resources using an integrated planning approach. To achieve broad-based economic growth and increased standards of living, however, major agricultural investments must respect customary and traditional rights and mitigate or compensate negative impacts on the ecosystem services that support local livelihoods.

As food production will likely need to double in the next forty years to feed an additional two billion people by 2050, demand for agricultural land is likely to remain high. There is therefore an urgent need for governments, civil society, and the private sector to work together to improve the governance of agricultural investments in ways that are environmentally sustainable and accountable to local people.

WRI at the World Bank Land Conference

WRI is excited to be participating in this year’s Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, April 18-20, 2011, in Washington, DC. Below are several events that feature WRI staff and research:

April 19th 4:00-6:00 PM (panel): Monitoring Land Acquisitions from Different Angles: Is There Scope for Collaboration? - Manish Bapna, WRI Executive Vice President and Managing Director, will chair a panel addressing monitoring land acquisitions with regard to IFC performance standards, lessons learned on participatory monitoring of large land deals, and civil society responses to large-scale land acquisitions.
April 20, 8:00-9:30 AM (panel): Land Tenure in the Context of REDD+ and Climate Change - Fred Stolle, WRI Senior Associate, will present on “Shifting cropland expansion to degraded areas: Experience from Indonesia’s POTICO project.” This panel will also address country-level perspectives on making REDD operational, tenure issues at REDD project sites, and the large-scale acquisition of forest rights.
April 18-20th (exhibit): Focus on Africa: An Interactive Educational Tool on Land Tenure and Property Rights. The Focus on Africa website, a joint initiative of WRI and Landesa, with support by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, aims to inform policymakers and development practitioners on critical land tenure issues. The tool provides land tenure experiences and lessons from six sub-Saharan African countries – Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda. Please visit the site - http://www.wri.org/property-rights-africa/.

For more information about WRI’s participation, please contact Emily Norford at enorford@wri.org or +1 (202) 729-7754.

Whose Amazon Is It?

Ruth Nogueron — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:35:04 -0400

Following the recent violence over natural resource use, Peru has an opportunity to balance economic development with human rights protections.

The tension between natural resource development and the protection of human rights reached a breaking point in Peru this month. In early April, indigenous groups initiated nearly 50 days of protests as a public outcry for laws that violated their right to decide if and how large-scale development happens on their territory. Fatal violence erupted when police and the military attempted to break a road blockade near the city of Bagua, in the northern region of Amazonas and close to the border with Ecuador. The victim count remains controversial. The official death toll is 33, with 24 policemen and 9 civilians killed. Other estimates range from 40 to 250 indigenous people dead.

The government responded to the protests with heavy-handed tactics, calling a state of emergency and calling in the military and national police. (A move denounced by human rights organizations). Also, there has been a national and international outcry at the use of violence by both sides. Public demonstrations and strikes were held in Lima and other cities in Perú, with protests in other major cities around the world. The International Human Rights Commission, leaders of the Peruvian Catholic Church, as well as Peruvian and international NGOs, all made statements calling for investigations and a stop to the violence.

The ingredients for violent conflict have been simmering for several years. The Peruvian government’s aggressive economic development strategy centers on promoting private investment in the natural resources based sectors. Between 2004 and 2009, the oil and gas concessions in the Peruvian Amazon increased their coverage from 15% to 72%. The vast majority of these concessions overlap with indigenous people’s territories, including titled and demarcated communities, communities in process of being titled, territorial reserves and proposed reserves. However, the government did not consult with these indigenous communities before it drew the concession boundaries and awarded the concessions to oil and gas companies.

Adding fuel to the fire is the 2006 US-Perú Trade Promotion Agreement, the free trade agreement (FTA) signed by President George W. Bush and Peru’s President, Alan García. The FTA included a variety of groundbreaking provisions for labor, public participation and consultation, and forest management, which were included after the agreement was re-negotiated in 2007. These provisions were meant to improve forest sector governance and promote legal trade in timber products. The FTA also included language meant to prohibit the weakening of existing environmental laws in both countries.

To make sure the agreement could be certified before President Bush left office in January 2009, the Peruvian Congress granted Peru’s executive branch special powers to enact laws and regulations needed to be in compliance with the FTA. Between February and June 2008, the executive branch used these powers to pass a series of Legislative Decrees meant to attract and facilitate large-scale private investment in the extractive industries, forestry and agriculture in the Peruvian Amazon.

Much attention has been paid to two of the more contentious decrees–Legislative Decree 1064 and Legislative Decree 1020. Decree 1064 removes previous requirements for companies to negotiate with a community prior to moving in, and it reclassifies communal land rights as subordinate to individual and private ownerships, giving favor to individuals, companies, and settlers who invade indigenous territories. Decree 1020 outlines a plan to regulate investment in the Amazon, but protesters say it frees roughly 60 percent of Peru’s forests for potential development.

As with the oil and gas concession awarding process, indigenous communities were not consulted on the content of the decrees. This is despite the fact that Peru has signed onto several international conventions and declarations that commit the government to providing specific protections to indigenous peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent on development activities that would threaten their territory or way of life.

Community Engagement & Natural Resource Use

WRI’s 2009 report, Breaking Ground: Engaging Communities in Extractive and Infrastructure Projects recommends 7 principles to help companies adapt to the changing rules of natural resource extraction by more effectively involving communities in project decision-making:

Prepare communities before engaging.
Determine what level of engagement is needed.
Integrate community engagement into each phase of the project cycle.
Include traditionally excluded stakeholders.
Gain free, prior and informed consent.
Resolve community grievances through dialogue.
Promote participatory monitoring by local communities.

Read the full publication here.

Last year, after public protest and indigenous peoples’ demonstrations called the decrees into question, a special investigative Commission created by the Peruvian Congress found the decrees to be unconstitutional. When debate in the Congress on the Commission’s findings was blocked and formal spaces for dialogue appeared to be ineffective, indigenous communities took to the streets to protest.

Since the events in Bagua, the Congress has repealed the controversial decrees, and President Garcia has recognized the lack of consultation and declared that it is time to start over again.

The government has set up a national working group made up by members of the executive branch, the presidents of the regional governments of the Amazonian States, and 10 indigenous representatives. The working group is tasked to prepare a sustainable development plan for the Peruvian Amazon. While the Minister of Foreign Relations has said that Peru has the support of the U.S. Government and Congress to find negotiated solutions to improve the laws, the U.S. itself has said or done very little about the situation.

An unprecedented opportunity for Peru

The “new start” offers the government an unprecedented opportunity to put effective measures in place to protect all of its citizens from the unintended negative consequences of development, and make sure that they receive its full benefits through a participatory process.

At the national level, the government needs to make sure that laws and policies:

Provide information: Give citizens adequate access to clear and accurate information about planned development, and that citizens are given an opportunity to understand the full implications of development. The government should conduct analysis and provide maps that show the location of indigenous territories and the overlaps with possible conflicting land uses for example, oil and gas concessions or forest and mining concessions.
Allow citizen participation: Give citizens formal opportunities to participate in credible decision-making processes to ensure sure that their views and opinions are reflected in final decisions.
Provide access to justice: Give citizens access to effective forms of justice so that if they have a grievance, they don’t feel they need to take the law into their own hands.

Finally, companies operating on indigenous territory should also play their part. Since the majority of oil and gas concessions in the Peruvian Amazon overlap indigenous territories, those operating in these concessions should have a policy regarding indigenous peoples, and an effective policy on community engagement and free prior and informed consent.

Protected Areas and Property Rights: Democratizing Eminent Domain in East Africa

Peter Veit — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:35:38 -0400

Protected areas are a traditional means for pursuing wildlife management and have become increasingly central to conservation strategies in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. In East Africa, the future of biodiversity rests largely on the security and sustainability of the protected estate. Government degazettement (the transfer of land out of the protected estate into other public uses or into the private domain) and private challenges to the public exercise of eminent domain are growing threats to protected areas in East Africa.

Considerable attention has focused on whether or not to degazette protected areas. Less attention has focused on the procedures by which land is acquired and protected areas are established. When governments acquire private property in a compulsory manner, transfer land from the private to the public domain, and place public land into protected areas they must balance the public good of park conservation with the public good of secure property rights. This report argues that protected areas will be secure when codified procedures for acquiring land and establishing parks are implemented and enforced. Further, the public will accept these designations as legitimate when they have been established through democratic (i.e., transparent, inclusive, accountable) processes.