Revealing the hidden effects of land grabbing through better understanding of farmers’ strategies in dealing with land loss

TitleRevealing the hidden effects of land grabbing through better understanding of farmers’ strategies in dealing with land loss
Annotated RecordAnnotated
Year of Publication2015
AuthorsSuhardiman D, Giordano M, Keovilignavong O, Sotoukee T
Secondary TitleLand Use Policy
Volume49
Pagination195-202
Key themesAgriculturalModernization, CivilSociety-Donors, Dispossession-grabbing, FDI, Policy-law
Abstract

This article examines changing contexts and emerging processes related to “land grabbing”. In particular, it uses the case of Laos to analyze the driving forces behind land takings, how such drivers are implied in land policies, and how affected people respond depending on their socio-economic assets and political connections. We argue that understanding the multiple strategies farmers use to deal with actual land loss and the risk of losing land is crucial to understanding the hidden effects of land grabbing and its potential consequences for agricultural development and the overall process of agrarian transformation. From a policy perspective, understanding the hidden effects of land grabbing is critical to assess costs and benefits of land concessions, in Laos and elsewhere, especially in relation to current approaches to turn land into capital as a policy strategy to promote economic growth and reduce poverty.
URLhttps://data.opendevelopmentmekong.net/dataset/eff28aa4-8301-4e00-9423-83224d4bdfea/resource/af80b7ca-abf2-4193-b012-13bee5db9f41/download/1-s2.0-s0264837715002495-main.pdf
Availability

Available for download
Countries

Laos
Document Type

Journal Article

Annotations

Overall relevance: 

This article disaggregates farming households according to socio-economic assets, land holding composition and political connections, to analyse the differential impacts of – and diverse strategies to cope with – land grabbing in Laos. This examination of the differential livelihood responses of farmers in dealing with the effects of land grabbing adds considerable nuance to discussions on how turning land into capital and people into labourers has led to rural impoverishment. In particular, it shows that while land loss has costs for all farmers, those with higher status, wealth and political connections are able to better protect their assets and take advantage of new income opportunities than poorer households of lower status.

Key Themes: 
  • Agricultural modernisation: key ideas and debates relevant to land tenure security - The policy of turning land into capital and farmers into labourers through the concession system is often justified by the government of Laos as necessary in order to “develop” and “modernise” Laos. However, the research finds that household strategies to cope with land dispossession, including finding off farm employment, while often helping to minimise the worst of the impacts, have not improved household food security nor increased household income.
  • Civil society and donor engagement in land issues - While many donor programs aim to improve land governance through law reform, this article shows how the State uses formal law and legal processes to justify land appropriation for production of rubber through the use of concessions. On the other hand, farmers facing land expropriation from companies/the State tend to avoid the use of legal procedures (e.g. land titling) to resist actual or threatened land loss.
  • Land dispossession/land grabbing - The case study in the article shows that farmers at risk of dispossession have different capabilities/resources/political capital to negotiate the terms of land dispossession. Comparatively wealthy farmers with large landholdings who had previously invested in growing rubber were able to negotiate with the company and the Army Academy (under the Ministry of National Defense) to a temporarily extend their land use rights on land under rubber cultivation. This group of farmers was also better positioned than others to negotiate compensation for lost land/ rubber investments with the company than poorer/lower ranking households. Even so, the article shows that even the better off households who could continue farming experienced loss and faced new financial risks, thus increasing their vulnerability.
  • FDI and land access: economic land concessions, contract farming, short term and long term renting - A main plank of the Lao government’s agricultural development strategy since the early 2000s has been to promote foreign direct investment as the major source of funds to turn land into capital and move from subsistence-based to market-oriented agriculture. While this has mostly occurred through land concessions, contract farming has also been promoted by the government as a means of establishing partnerships between investors and farmers geared at sharing responsibilities and benefits. However, the article points to the blurring of boundaries between land concessions and contract farming in Laos, particularly when external capital interests secure control over land and/or labour in the case of the latter.
  • Land policy and land law - The article provides a good example of the importance of in-depth village level studies to understand the diversity of local level impacts – and responses to – national land policies such as economic land concessions in order to better assess the costs and benefits of such policies. Particularly revealing in this village level case study, is that the government’s land concession policy and the contract farming policy that adversely incorporated farmers into plantation schemes has reduced rather than improved household food security, particularly for poorer farmers. This stands in direct contravention to the Lao government’s policy of improving household food security through agricultural development.
Research basis: 

The research is based on an in-depth case study of a village in Laos. The data, collected through interviews and a survey of 80 randomly selected households, links farming households’ characteristics (e.g. socio-economic assets, land holding and social/political capital) to strategies pursued to cope with actual or potential land loss at the household level. Fieldwork was conducted in May 2014 and complemented with secondary data including land concession agreements and maps from government agencies.