Customary Land Rights in

Laos – an overview

Communities, Land, Forest and the

Clash of Big Agri-Business in one of the
Last Frontiers of South East Asian Wilderness

Phetdavan Sipaseuth & Glenn Hunt

JVC Laos
 Lao Peoples Democratic Republic
• Pop. 6 million
• 80% rural subsistence farmers
• 70% mountainous
• Heavily Forest Dependent
population
• Unique Biodiversity
• Large Ethnic Minority
population (33.3%)
• One Party state
• Economic Development based
poverty alleviation strategy
• State run media
• Transparency International
2.0/10 Corruption Index
Source: WFP (151/180)
 Lao Legal System
Interpretation of Laws

Image courtesy VFI-Laos

 Customary Forest Tenure in Lao PDR
z Underlying Principal is that the State sees Forests as National
Property
− Natural Forest and Forest is the property of the national
community (Art 4 Forestry Law 2008)
z Thus communal rights to Land Tenure over Natural Forest and
Natural Resources are extremely weak
z Customary Rights not acknowledged in Law but only in minor
Ministerial Recommendations
z “Community Forestry” removed from 2008 re-writing of Forest
Law.
z Limited Land Tenure through Land Use Planning / Land
Allocation Process
z Village (headman) has final say over land use in the village
 Customary Utilization of Forests
Forest Law (2008)
Article 42. Customary utilization of forests
Customary utilization of forests is the use of forest and forest
products that has been practiced for a long time in accordance with
laws and regulations.

The State allows the use of timber and harvest of forest products in
non-prohibited forests for household utilization without adverse
impact on forest resources, and the environment as well as
reflecting the rights and interest of individuals or organizations.

Customary utilization of forest and forest products shall be

practiced in accordance with a designed plan and with village
regulations and laws and regulations on forests.
 Village level Forest Tenure
Land and Forest Allocation system
− Main forest tenure system for rural communities
− Originally developed in 1996
− Does not provide a legal right to secure land tenure, but
allows use rights provided use takes place according to
laws.
− Predominantly a village control / management tool
− Generally not referred to as a tool to guide concessions
development
− Policy is supported by some companies to allocate land
for plantations development
 Shifting Cultivation
(Customary Low Input Sustainable Agro-Forestry)
z Negatively viewed as major cause of deforestation
since colonial times
z Government Policy is to Stabilize and Eliminate
z Forestry Law (2008) gives government the right to
appropriate “barren forestland” for plantations
development – (Art. 74-76)
− Barren Forestland are the forestland areas without trees caused
by natural or human destruction (Art. 3)
z “Stabilization” policy calls for 3 plot rotation
− Policy widely criticized for contributing to food insecurity
(ADB, 2000; MAF, 2005)
Traditional Long Fallow Shifting
Cultivation System

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Year 8 Year 7 Year 6 Year 5

Impact of Plantations on Shifting
Cultivation Systems
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Year 8 Year 7 Year 6 Year 5

Incroachment
on Natural
Forest
 Industrial Tree Plantations

Two Major Types

z Legitimate Plantation companies
z Logging operations pretending to be plantation
companies
 Illegitimate Plantations
Central Laos – Bolikhamxay Province
2006 Lao World Coconut Plantation

„ 5000 ha concession granted on Rich

Dense Forest
„ Logging of Forest is primary Objective
„ No management of Plantation

Map Courtesy of Luxembourg Development

Where are the coconuts？
 Legitimate Plantation Companies
Industrial Plantations Overview
● Industrial Tree Plantations promoted as both Poverty Alleviation
Strategy, Reforestation Strategy and Shifting Cultivation
Stabilization Strategy.
● Small, Medium and Large Scale Plantations increasing across
the country at the expense of natural forest
● In 2005 there were reportedly 75,000 ha of plantations across
the country (FS2020)
● Forest Strategy 2020 originally proposed to have 500,000 ha by
2020
● Rapid Increase in Chinese and Vietnamese small and medium
sized companies with poor social policies
● Legislative reforms and Infrastructure supported by IFI's and
donors to facilitate FDI
Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture
Sector
Approved Foreign Investment for Agriculture Projects

Year Number of project Investment Value (USD)

2001 13 18,616,250
2002 6 13,988,000
2003 16 17,321,800
2004 19 75,704,017
2005 21 17,352,240
2006 39 458,578,711
Source: Committee for Planning and Investment 2007
 Management of Concession areas
• Plantations have been promoted in Laos by Donor community and GoL
without first creating sufficient regulations regarding village land tenure and
company land acquisition processes
• Both central, provincial and district levels of government have the ability to
grant land concessions to private investors
• Different line ministries and government agencies are able to grant land
concessions
• However there is no coordination between these different actors, nor any
one agency monitoring or mapping concessions areas.
• The result is a chaotic system with overlap of company prospecting areas
and a scramble for land by companies
• Still today no one knows how many hectares of plantation concession have
been granted or actually planted in Laos. A Donor agency is undertaking a
full survey in 2 Provinces (Vientiane / Luang Nam Tha) and privately
estimates that throughout Laos there could be as much as 2 million ha of
concession already granted (8% of total land area).
 Land Acquisition at the
Local Level
• The central problem with Plantations in Laos is a problem of land
acquisition.
• Companies and villagers are competing for land with the best
soil.
• Despite the high level of dependency of villagers on forest
resources, all forest land is regarded as property of the state.
• There is not yet a legal forest land tenure system in place for
forest dependent villagers.
• Land acquisition does not take into account shifting cultivation
systems, in fact it actively seeks to eliminate those systems
through plantations development.
• Promoters of plantations state that only degraded land is used for
plantations development, however...
 Land Acquisition at the
Local Level
• Some cases of companies paying local government staff to
undertake negotiations with villagers to acquire land, leading to a
situation where companies are represented by government staff
and independent government oversight is missing.
• Villagers have very limited rights over forest land and are
sometimes manipulated to accept plantation developments
• Village level forest management systems are rarely used as a
tool to delineate land for plantation concessions.
• Generally stated that plantations should be on barren forestland
or degraded forest.
• Widespread Confusion about what constitutes “degraded forest”
- fallow fields, degraded in whose opinion?
 Land Use Planning and Land
Allocation Programme
z LUPLA process developed in 1996 through SIDA
z One of the main objectives to Stabilize and Eliminate Shifting
Cultivation
z Policy heavily criticized for impoverishing farmers in mountainous
areas (ADB, 2000; MAF, 2005)
z Does provide formal recognition of village boundaries and gives
villagers limited use rights over forest lands and forest resources
z LUPLA is primarily seen by the government as a tool to manage
village forest use – Not as a tool to manage government forest
planning, or provide secure land tenure
 Conservation Forest

Map Source: NLMA / MAF Plantations Workshop, Feb 2007

 Impacts from Land Concessions
z Environmental - Loss of natural forest and biodiversity
z Social – Loss of access to natural resources
− Loss of agricultural and forest lands
z Upland rice farming plots
z Timber and Non-Timber resources lost
− Food, Medicines, Income Generation, Housing

− Loss grassland for buffalo grazing

− Increase in conflict with neighboring villages over
natural resources
z No compensation for loss of natural resources
z Ethnic minority populations are particularly vulnerable
 Stakeholders in Land Issues
z Gov of Laos
− Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
z Traditionally managed anything to do with forests
z Long History of Implementation of LUPLA
z Long History Shifting Cultivation Elimination policy
− National Land Management Authority
z Newly Established Department under Prime Minister's
Office
z Has taken control of land titling and aspects of land
management from MAF
− NGO’s have effectively utilised both ministries to
bring land issues to the national agenda.
 Stakeholders (2)
Donors
− GTZ – Main donor on land issues, very vocal,
pushing for reforms around communal forest tenure
and revision of LUPLA process to address multiple
short comings. Actively engaging and working with
NGOs. Also promoting private land ownership in
rural areas.
− JICA – Also heavily involved in Forest Issues for a
long time. Actively engaging NGO's. JICA also the
main Donor behind REDD.
− ADB – Heavily promoting industrial plantations and
commercial crop production with little regard for
forest / land tenure issues. Does not engage
NGO's.
 Stakeholders (3)
NGO's
- Only a small number of NGOs working directly on land issues,
however there is now a broad understanding within NGO
community about problems with land concessions
- Land Issues Working Group
- Formed in 2007
- Formalized Working Group working on land issues under the
umbrella of the INGO Network of Lao PDR.
- Actively highlighting land issues and promoting land tenure /
customary rights in Lao PDR.
- MicMac / MakPhet Group
- MicMac has been around for a long time, recently revived around
working on land issues. MakPhet also a relatively new group
working on land issues.
 Stakeholders (4)
Private Industry
− Oji Paper – (Japan [80,000 ha]) First of the large pulp
companies to enter Laos. Wary of NGO's, but some staff willing
to engage NGO's at private level. Company says it wants to
improve the tenure system to avoid conflict.
− Grassim Birla – (Indian [50,000 ha]) Some contact with NGO
through certain staff.
− Stora Enso / Burapha – (Swedish / Finnish) trying to undertake
more participatory approach to land acquisition.
− Multiple Smaller operations from neighbouring countries – little
or no contact, inability of NGO's to engage with these
companies – general disregard for communal forest usufruct
rights.
− Lao Coffee companies – losing smallholder farmers to rubber
plantations, potential allies.
 Stakeholders (5)
Communities
- Large number of diverse and uncoordinated ethnic
minority groups
- Little awareness of laws and rights surrounding
concession agreements
- Lack of avenues to successfully appeal forest / land
conflicts with powerful interests
- Difficulty to talk openly about land conflicts
 Lessons Learned
z With strong networks between NGO's (and some key
donors), NGO's have been able to work well with both
the MAF and NLMA to highlight the problems with land
concessions and bring land issues to national agenda.
z Having good case studies has allowed us to be able to
contribute towards national policy review around land
tenure issues (Concessions decree, Forestry Law,
LUPLA review), to offer suggestions and promote land
tenure as an issue.
 Recent Changes in
Communal Land Tenure
z NGOs have been advocating for stronger land tenure
system over village forest area and highlighting
impacts from land concessions.
z May 2007 Prime Minister announces moratorium of
land concession.
z August 2007 National Land Management Authority
decree No 564 introduces concept of communal or
collective land title.
z Presently MAF designing new LUPLA system with
much stronger focus on land tenure security including
communal land titles.