Cutting the web of interests: Pitfalls of formalizing property rights

Meinzen‐Dick, Ruth; Mwangi, Esther

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.06.003

Cited by 201 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many traditional and indigenous rural communities manage their resources in common but their -bundles of rights‖ over such resources can be socially differentiated and regulated by customary practices and community institutions. Members of a common property regime can also hold full or partial private property rights over farming and grazing lands, which in some cases may be transferable to third parties, depending on legal and customary provisions [18].…”

Section: Conceptualizing Tenure and Propertymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rights to Land, Forests and Carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica

Corbera

Estrada

May

et al. 2011

Forests

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land tenure and carbon rights constitute critical issues to take into account in achieving emission reductions, ensuring transparent benefit sharing and determining non-permanence (or non-compliance) liabilities in the context of REDD+ strategies and projects. This is so because tenure systems influence who becomes involved in efforts to avoid deforestation and improve forest management, and that land tenure, carbon rights and liabilities may be linked or divorced with implications for rural development. This paper explores these issues by looking at tenure regimes and carbon rights issues in Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. It is effectively shown that complex bundles of rights over forest resources have distinct implications for REDD+ design and implementation, and that REDD+ strategies in selected countries have to date failed in procedurally addressing land-use conflicts and carbon rights entitlements and liabilities. OPEN ACCESSForests 2011, 2 302

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing Tenure and Propertymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rights to Land, Forests and Carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica

Corbera

Estrada

May

et al. 2011

Forests

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of low productivity of their farms, U gandese women usually produce for domestic consumption and men produce for the market in Uganda. Moreover, where women's subsistence production has become part of commercial chains as for example exportable fruits and vegetables, their traditional control mechanisms on the land may be lost by the formalization of (Western style) property rights (Howard and Nabanoga 2007;Meinzen and Mwangi 2008).…”

Section: Gender Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Gendered Agro-Commodity Approach

Nakazibwe

Pelupessy

2014

JWSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, they require, besides political will, considerable capacities on the part of the involved state authorities -capacities lacking in many of the countries affected by large-scale foreign investments in land (see also Li 2011;Pedersen 2011). As a consequence, local elites outside the state institutions or certain skilful groups often benefit disproportionately from land titling processes, while claims and rights of the less wealthy and powerful are infringed upon (see also Meinzen-Dick and Mwangi 2008;Sawyer and Gomez 2008;Cotula et al 2006). Since wealth and power disparities are essential constituents of property regimes, even participatory approaches cannot always avoid 'elite capture' or other types of struggles within local communities.…”

Section: Approaches That Recognize Pluralism and Their Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land Grabbing, Investment Principles and Plural Legal Orders of Land Use

Locher¹,

Steimann²,

Upreti³

2012

The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, foreign direct investment in land, also termed 'land grabbing', has increased significantly in developing countries. In response to growing concerns about its detrimental impacts, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Bank and other multilateral organizations have come forward with two proposals, namely the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (FAO 2012, FAO guidelines), to protect people's rights, and the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and Resources (FAO et al. 2010, RAI principles), to make such investments more responsible. One of their central tenets is that investors and host governments respect local people's existing property rights over land by formalising them in a transparent and participatory manner. The article challenges the two proposals -and thus much of the recent land grab debate -from a legal pluralism perspective, by showing that they do not adequately consider the existence of plural legal orders over land and the dynamics of power and everyday practices inherent in property relations. Referring to empirical evidence from Tanzania, Nepal, and Kyrgyzstan, we raise three fundamental concerns about the formalization of property rights. First, we demonstrate that the recognition of customary rights is a very complex and delicate endeavour, which risks neglecting existing property claims and rights. Neither of the proposals addresses this in a satisfactory way. Second, we understand that formalization by state intervention is sometimes necessary, but in those circumstances we cannot recommend the centralist approach of formalizing property rights, as proposed in the RAI principles. In many contexts, this approach has resulted in adverse effects for local communities rather than strengthening their rights. Third, a more rights-based vision as brought forward by the FAO guidelines still bears the risk of reinforcing unequal local power structures. Yet, this vision leaves it to local communities to decide whether their land should become a marketable good to outsiders or not. However, the introduction of such a property regime requires fundamental changes in governance. This cannot be addressed adequately within the framework of guidelines alone. Instead, more long-term strategies for the protection of customary rights are required. Thus, from an analytical perspective, a moratorium on 'land grabs' would be most appropriate. From a more pragmatic perspective though, we acknowledge the FAO guidelines and -to a much lesser extent -the RAI principles as more immediate efforts to reduce negative effects of 'land grabs'. However, investors and host governments should not mistake these guidelines as guarantors of ostensibly harmless land acquisitions. Finally, this article concludes that employing a legal pluralism perspective is very helpful in gaining a more holistic understanding of potential effects and proposed me...

show abstract

Cutting the web of interests: Pitfalls of formalizing property rights

Cited by 201 publications

References 18 publications

Rights to Land, Forests and Carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica

Rights to Land, Forests and Carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica

Towards a Gendered Agro-Commodity Approach

Land Grabbing, Investment Principles and Plural Legal Orders of Land Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About