1 / 36

VIETNAM POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT NEXUS STUDY PHASE II Land resource – Poverty Study in Vietnam

VIETNAM POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT NEXUS STUDY PHASE II Land resource – Poverty Study in Vietnam. Tran Nhu Trung, TECOS. Presentation introduction. Research approach (background, team, objectives, hypothesis, question, methodology) Summary of research activities II. 1 Literature review

harris
Download Presentation

VIETNAM POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT NEXUS STUDY PHASE II Land resource – Poverty Study in Vietnam

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. VIETNAM POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT NEXUS STUDY PHASE IILand resource – Poverty Study in Vietnam Tran Nhu Trung, TECOS

  2. Presentation introduction • Research approach (background, team, objectives, hypothesis, question, methodology) • Summary of research activities II. 1 Literature review II. 2 Dataset establishment II. 3 Case study • Land Law & its expected impact on poverty & environment • Findings from the quantitative analysis & case study • Difficulties & Challenges • Recommendations

  3. II. Research approach Background • Land Law 2003 was passed in July 2003. • In the framework of CPRS 2020. • MONRE believes there is a need for monitoring the impact of (land) policy on poverty & environment • Research implementation proposal by TECOS approved by WB on July 4th 2004 • Contract on 17Jan. 2005. Case study finished on 30 Apr 2005. From now on – analysis & findings

  4. II. Research approachResearch team • TECOS • Tran Nhu Trung – Senior researcher • Nhung – analysis expert • Linh – dataset expert • Quan, Quang – fieldworks, preparation • Hue, Phuong, Linh, Tam, Tuoi: mapping, interview • Average year olds: 26 Years old • Prf. Le Qui Thuc, Prf. Tran Chuong Huyen, Ton Gia Huyen, etc. • WB team • Mr. Jostein Nygard – Program manager • Ms. Claude St Pierre – Research advisor • Mr. Bjorn Larsen – Data advisor

  5. II. Research approchResearch objectives • Analyze the linkages between poverty and environment in association with land management & land use changes in the context of Land Law 2003. Assess the need of environment & impact poverty monitoring system & test options Support Government in improving Land Law implementation & prepare future Land Code.

  6. II. Research approachResearch hypothesis & questions H1: Land use planning (LUP) in land law 2003 will have limited impact due to slow implementation, but has potential impact on poverty & environment. H2: Allocation & transfer of land use rights (LUR) are expected to speed up. This might create both positive & negative to poverty, env. in uplands. More study is needed to understand the problem. Question 1: How is conversion from paddy land to other productive use, from forestland to non-forest use, is currently affecting poor households versus non-poor households? Question 2: Are provisions of the new Land Law, especially LUP, LUR on sloped land, an appropriate and viable answer?

  7. II. Research background introductionResearch methodology 1) Literature review & national interview 5) Study at 176 households 2) Set up a Land, Poverty & Env. Dataset for 610 districts & 64 provinces for quantitative analysis 6) Interview and analysis on local land adm. system • 7) Quantitative analysis on case study database, commune, village & household 3) Three sites selection for case study: Tuyen Quang, Nghe An & Binh Dinh 4) A case study database for quantitative analysis Main findings

  8. II. Research activitiesLiterature review • There has been a number of local research on the relationship of land, poverty, & env. However, findings are very unclear at national level. Case studies took place only in some particular regions in Vietnam. Secure rights on land could play a key role in poverty reduction & env. Protection. Agricultural land allocation might have clear impact on poverty & env. But impact is unclear for forestland and upland area. Land allocation & land registration for communities could be a potential solution for poverty & env. issues related to forestland and upland areas. LUP plays a key role in land management, to implement CPRS. However, LUP is limited at both quality and quantity. Only 36% of districts have LUP. (34% of communes).

  9. II. Research activitiesLand, poverty & env. dataset establishment • A dataset was set up for 611 districts, 61 provinces with five main data groups: 1) general socio-economic data, 2) Topographic & infrastructure, 3) Poverty, 4) Land data, & 5) Environmental data. Sub-contract & data collection from 5 Ministry agencies & 1 agency (MONRE, MARD, GSO, MOT, CEMMA, WB). Data was refined and carefully verified for each logic condition (consistency between sources, validate) All data was archived in Excel file.

  10. II. Research activitiesExample for the dataset

  11. II. Research activitiesCase study • Tuyen Quang for Northern region • Nghe An for Northern Central region • Binh Dinh for Central coastal region • 6 districts • 6 communes • 12 villages • 176 households

  12. Criteria and result for selection of survey provinces

  13. Airborne photos of survey communes

  14. III. Land Law Main issues in the previous Land Law • Slow LUP implementation has created socio issues of so – called hanging plan. Implementation of LUP should become compulsory. LUP has limited quality and normally does not reflect current needs. New, modern approach to LUP could be introduced. Current LUP preparation, implementation & evaluation is rather created in a top-down manner rather than based on needs & practical situation. New land law could fix this issue. There is a delay in actual use of land after land allocation.

  15. III. Land Law Main issues in the previous Land Law • Land registration is slow in 1/ urban areas, 2/ upland areas and 3/ on forest land. A proper way for forestland registration is needed. Land allocation made by un-authorized adm. level. New Land Law could clarifyresponsibilities, mandate & duty for each adm. level. More informal than formal land registration has been made in practice. Land registratio is still a bureaucratic process. The land registration process and its institutional arrangements & technical aspects could be modified in the new land law.

  16. III. Land Law Intended changes from Land Law 2003 • Continue to consolidate entire people ownership on land. New land use classification system to support shift in land use from agriculture to industrial & services. Reform land financial system with administrative tools combined with economic tools. Control strictly the conversion of land use purpose from paddy land, agr. land to residential use; agr.use to non-agr. use; protection forest use, special – use forest to other use. Clarify and strengthen mandate, duty and responsibility for each land management level. Decentralize land management activities.

  17. III. Land Law Main changes in Land law 2003

  18. III. Land LawMain changes in Land law 2003 Eg. Clearer in duty, mandate, responsibility for LUP preparation & implementation (article 19 Land Law & article 28 Degree 181).

  19. III. Land Law Main changes in Land law 2003

  20. III. Land Law Hypothesis:Impact of Land Law 2003 to poverty & env. From Land Use Planning aspect 0: no impact; + less impact, +++ more impact

  21. III. Land Law Hypothesis:Impact of Land Law 2003 to poverty From Land Allocation aspect 0: unclear impact; + less impact, +++ more impact

  22. III. Land Law Hypothesis:Impact of Land Law 2003 to poverty From Land registration aspect 0: unclear impact; + less impact, +++ more impact

  23. IV. Quantitative analysis & case studyFindings 1:There is no correlation between forestland allocation and poverty, env. Because: • Poverty & env. is question of how forestland is actually used. • The reason is not a question of legal change (allocated of land titles on forestland) but the confidence of the household on forestland use. • Too many parties are involved in forestland decision-making: household, commune, district, province, State forest enterprises.

  24. Evidence for findings 1 • Contrast in forestland allocation between districts, communes, villages – no correlation. • Tuyen Quang: Na Hang & Ham Yen districts have the same % allocated forestland but forestland was only used for poverty reduction in Ham Yen. – Picture of orange plantation • Nghe An: People do not know what to cultivate on the forestland they have – Tam Thai, Lang Yen communes – Picture of forest area without cultivation. • Binh Dinh: Whether household receive forestland or not, they keep their customary rule, slash & burn remains prevalent.

  25. Evidence for findings 1 Orange plantation in Nam Luong village, Phu Luu Commune and Ham Yen District – Tuyen Quang Orange plantation

  26. IV. Findings 2:There is very limited impact of land registration to poverty & env. in upland areas • Because: • Role of secure poverty rights in rural poverty reduction & env. relates more to the perception of security than to legal land title. • No market, less investment in these areas. • LTC is seen as evidence of collateral rather than fully legal land title for local people.

  27. IV. Findings 3: Modern LUP is a win-win situation for poverty and environment Because: • The participatory from local people in LUP preparation remains very limited in practice. • Lack of coordination with other stakeholders: MARD, SFE, etc. • Still complicated procedures for LUP preparation & implementation. In some districts, land officers admit they do not understand LUP guidelines both in old & new land law.

  28. IV. Findings 4: Land policy implementation needs appropriate local capability Because: • District land officers have shown up limitations in understanding Land Law 2003 • Communal/Village officers need appropriate knowledge/skills for land policy implementation • Villages is not an administrative unit in system, but it plays a key role in land use/management. Village leaders have very strong influence in their locality.

  29. IV. Findings 5: Land adm. activities are considered as administrative work rather than tool for land policy implementation. Because: • There is pressure to complete land allocation, land titling in near future. • In contrast, Land Administration must be used as a tool to implement land policy (the use, value and ownership of land) rather than seen as a number of ha of land allocation & or number of LTC issued. • Land reports from province, district – only report statistic numbers.

  30. V. Difficulties & challenges • Diversity in VN, different regions differ in legal & conditions for land & poverty issues. • Even though, 3 selected provinces are representative for their socio-economic region, but are not enough for a whole picture of VN. • At the beginning of research, both low land and upland are targets but in implementation only issues of upland were examined. • Data availability: • National level: inconsistency between sources, especially land data inside MONRE • Local level: lack of data, no data for village • Forestland data: Forest # forestland – no data available • Legal issues in research – overcome

  31. VII. Recommendations • Urgent need for a monitoring system for land, poverty, & environment. • A simplified method for LUP preparation & implementation at communal & district level could be developed. • Clarified the role/decision making process in forestland. It would be better to have only one instead of several agencies as is currently the case. • The capability of commune & villages could be a key factor for land policy implementation. • More study on the role of village in land use matters (others) could be considered.

  32. VIII. Acknowledgement • WB staff • MONRE staff: Ms. Minh Ha, Ms. Hong & Mr. Thang • Case study provinces: Tuyen Quang, Nghe An, & Binh Dinh • Households whom research team has met • All researchers who shared time to discuss with research team: • Prof. Dang Hung Vo • Mr. Ton Gia Huyen • Graham, …

More Related