Transcript The Malawi Community-Based Rural Land Development Project

THE MALAWI COMMUNITYBASED RURAL LAND
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
1
Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources
August 4, 2008
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 4land
poor and food insecure
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
Total project cost
Destination districts:
Machinga, Mangochi,
Balaka, Ntcheu
Co-finance from Malawi
Government
Project rating
US$ 27.8 Million and
US$27 million from IDA
US$0.8 Million
7
Moderately satisfactory
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
Land acquired (ha)
15,000
8,222
33,750
18,254
Group titles
transferred
450
153
Trust deeds
registered
Average Land
prices
450
299
Initially
MK 8,000/ha
After 4 years
MK 18,000/ha
Maize yield
Prior to
resettlement: 962
kg/ha
After resettlement
9
2,269 kg/ha
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
Access to education, health,
markets is worse than in origin
areas
Improving
Beneficiaries working with
surrounding communities
Districts slow in providing
10
Exit Strategy launched and
managed by districts.
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 good
Impact on beneficiaries is high and
sustainable
Poor 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
11
Future fiscal cost
Fairly high
Donor support
Many donors still skeptical
LET THE DEBATE START!
12