Land Acquisitions in Tanzania: strong sustainability, weak sustainability and the importance of comparative methods

Transcription

1 Land Acquisitions in Tanzania: strong sustainability, weak sustainability and the importance of comparative methods April 25, 2012 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty Mark Purdon PhD Candidate Department of Political Science University of Toronto, Canada

2 Introduction Research Question When might large-scale land acquisitions in developing countries be sustainable? Hypothesis Depends on how we define sustainability and the methods we use to assess it Investigated Two Land Acquisitions in Tanzania CDM Afforestation (Green Resources) Biofuel (Sun Biofuels)

3

4 Research Project Methodological Problems One-shot case studies Comparative empirical evaluations lacking, which prevents the identification of causal factors Conceptual Problems Strong or Weak Sustainability (Neumayer, 2003) Differ in their acceptance of whether human capital can compensate for losses of natural capital Strong > Weak in sub-saharan Africa??

5 Land Tenure in Tanzania

6 Land Law in Tanzania: the basics 1999 Land Act and Village Land Act Reserve Land (28%) Forests, National Parks, public utilities Village Land (70%) For use and occupation in accordance with the customary law of the area General Land (2%) Only land that can be leased to foreign investors To use land for foreign investment, land needs to be transferred from Village Land to General Land

7 Land Law in Tanzania: the details Compensation for Land Transfers Villagers are now entitled to full, fair and prompt compensation to any person whose right of occupancy or recognised long-standing occupation or customary use of land is revoked or otherwise interfered with to their detriment for lands transferred into General Land Land Act s.1(1)g &Village Land Act s.3(1)(h)

8 Land Law in Tanzania: the details Competing Definitions of General Land Village Land Act All public land which is not reserved or village land (s.2) Land Act All public land which is not reserved land or village land and includes unoccupied or unused village land (s.2)

9 Methods

10 Project Location Project Developer Green Resources Land Acquisition 1) Mapanda 4,652 ha acquired Started 1997 Project Developer Sun Biofuels (collapsed 2011?) Land Acquisition 8 Villages 18,000 ha acquired Started ) Idete 11,663 ha acquired Started 2000/2001

11

12 (Photo: Sunbiofuels)

13 Comparative Research Design Post-test-only comparative group design Compare the socioeconomic conditions of villages involved in land acquisition project with control village Key informant interviews Detailed household surveys ( 25 households/village) District- & National-level Interviews

14 Biofuel Project Village and Control Pugu FR Ruvu South FR Kazimzumbwi FR Control Mtamba

15 Villages Investigated Project Village Population Households Village Land Afforestation 1 Mapanda 5, ? Luhunga 2, ? Afforestation 2 Idete 4, ? Ipilimo 2, ? Biofuel Mtamba ? Magaruwe ?

16 Food Security

17 Village Food Security Conditions Similar conditions between project villages and controls Afforestation Food security not a concern in project villages nor control Good rains that year But food security had been an issue in the past in some villages Those households who identified themselves as being food insecure tended to have less land and lower crop productivity Biofuel Project Food security was a concern in project village and control Maize crops in particular had suffered Bad drought in the area over Difficult to spot trends because of low sample size

18 Household Food Security Project Village Household Food Security Status Number Afforestation 1 Mapanda Food Secure 5 Sometimes Food Insecure 6 Luhunga Food Secure 10 Sometimes Food Insecure 5 Afforestation 2 Idete Food Secure 20 Sometimes Food Insecure 1 Ipilimo Food Secure 21 Sometimes Food Insecure 3 Biofuel Mtamba Food Secure 2 Sometimes Food Insecure 4 Maguruwe Food Secure 4 Sometimes Food Insecure 12

19 Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mtamba Maguruwe Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mtamba Maguruwe Kg per hectare Crop Productivity 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Afforestation Biofuel Afforestation Biofuel Maize Cassava

20 Why Food Security Not Directly Related to Land Acquisitions? Lands acquired for projects appeared unused and unoccupied Afforestation Unfertile grassland Biofuel Degraded coastal forest Severe problems with illegal charcoal exploitation for Dar es Salaam Link to Ujamaa villagization? But need for future lands?

21

22 Economic Benefits

23 Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Mapanda Luhunga Idete Ipilimo Household Occupation: Afforestation 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Third Secondary Main 20% 10% 0% Agriculture Livestock Individual Subsistence Tree Planting Entrepreneur CDM Forest Project Retail Shop Business Labour - Skilled Labour - Unskilled Tea Plantation Religious Leader

24 Mtamba Maguruwe Mtamba Maguruwe Mtamba Maguruwe Mtamba Maguruwe Mtamba Maguruwe Mtamba Maguruwe Mtamba Maguruwe Mtamba Maguruwe Household Occupation: Biofuel 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Household Occupation: Biofuel Third Secondary Main Agriculture Charcoal Subsistence Entrepreneur Labour - Unskilled Retail Shop Labour - Skilled Teacher Business

25 Compensation

26 Land Compensation Mapanda Afforestation Idete Biofuel HH Area Value HH Area Value HH Area Value n ha Th. USD n ha Th. USD n ha Th. USD Lands Acquired 4,652 11,663 8,211 -Unproductive Land $29-64 $ na -Productive Farmland $89 $223 $2,841 -Degraded Forest na na Unknown HHs Compensated $ $ $220 Unaccounted Lands 4,191 $ ,444 $ ,497 $2,230

27 Village Interpretations: CDM Afforestation MAPANDA We had the right to say No [to the project]. [The company] would not have come if we said No. IDETE We could have said No. No one can restrict us from saying No but we accepted because it is our land. At the time [we] weren t very aware of land issues. That s why we just give the land. But we re more aware [now]. It s like the village was exploited. That if the company compensated for individual who is having small land, what about the village who owns the whole land? Everyone was informed and everyone accepted There is benefit to the community in general. I am happy because [the company] has assisted [us]to improve [our] livelihood. Welfare has changed since the company, especially salaries but the salaries are not enough. But at least the people have a place to get income, unlike before.

28 Village Interpretations: Biofuel MTAMBA [We] had that chance to say, No. But you know who put this issue on the table? It was a MP in our country. As a MP, they are assumed to be working for public good So if they say something, everybody says, Ok, it's good. We cannot object. And that's what happened [They] are like forcing us to agree. That we are just told, you are just cutting trees, taking charcoal. So you take this company and other villages have already agreed, just agree and you'll get employed... But actually, it's like we were not wanting. [The Village Council] just told us We are giving them that place. Nothing else, so we had to agree

29 Grievances

30 Afforestation Low wages Grievances Delays in providing agreed social services Communication and distance to the planting sites Biofuel Project Water access Burial sites Levels of Compensation

31 Afforestation Low wages Grievances Delays in providing agreed social services Communication and distance to the planting sites Biofuel Project Water access Burial sites Levels of Compensation Moving Forward? Village awareness FSC certification Competition Sun Biofuels Bankruptcy?

32 Conclusions

33 Food Security Strong Sustainability Largely unrelated to land acquisitions Driven by local climate Significant amounts of land not used for agriculture nor grazing in villages investigated Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services Biodiversity concerns about both projects Concerns about water Afforestation conservation measures Biofuel irrigation: sum-zero or collaboration between company and village

34 Weak Sustainability Provision of direct economic benefits tends to legitimize low compensation rates Extent of employment benefits associated with the afforestation projects saw little controversy surrounding land transfers Controversy about compensation Rules on compensation unclear and have raised expectations Unreasonably low compensation expose villagers to considerable risk should projects fail No legal recourse should project fail

35 Take Home Message Much of the controversy surrounding land acquisitions in these cases has involved issues of weak sustainability rather than issues of strong sustainability Is this generalizable?

36 Policy Recommendations 1) Clarify the definition of General Land and compensation for unused Village Land 2) Provide legal recourse for the return of village land if investment projects fail 3) Allow villagers the right to enter into contractual relations with foreign investors directly

37 Is the Carbon Market Failing? the moral limits of climate change policy Asante sana!! This research has been made possible with funding from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Environment for Development Tanzania initiative (EfD-Tanzania) Mark Purdon PhD Candidate Department of Political Science University of Toronto