|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
A case in which I was personally involved as Project Manager of the ODA/DFID sponsored Bangladesh Tea Rehabilitation Project comes to mind. The whole of the Bangladesh tea industry at that time (mid 80s - early 90s) had no legal rights to the land on which they were producing and manufacturing tea. Many thousands of rural poor, including vulnerable ethnic minorities were employed and their incomes more often than not related to output (weight of tea plucked). Little investment in tea meant incomes on the decline - livelihoods at risk. At that time all tea estates survived by using annual crop hypothecation loans from the Bangladesh Krishi (Agriculture) Bank. The Bank recouped their loans direct from tea sales at auction. During the lifetime of the Project some loans were available for longer-term investment in both crop and factory but the big question was: how was the industry - and therefore the livelihoods of thousands of rural poor - going to produce collateral for long-term investment and growth once the project was no longer there? After much lobbying and with the support of the Bangladesh Tea Board, the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Lands/Lands Commission and DFID it was possible to gain long-term leaseholds for a small number of 'safe' tea estates. These estates used their leases as collateral and have thrived, production increased and rural households/communities are now assured of a reasonable livelihood. The model appeared to work. Ten years later I find the trend has continued and the majority of tea estates now have long-term leases. I do realise this not dealing with small-holder land rights but the idea of leasing, with clauses prohibiting the re-sale of leases, rather than direct ownership may in some instances be an avenue worth exploring. Footnote: It is good to see DFID continue to be committed to land rights issues for the rural poor in Bangladesh through support to a land-rights based NGO, Samata! John Woolner Managing Director PMTC International Limited -----Original Message----- From: Adam Folkard [mailto:<address removed> Sent: 17 May 2004 02:15 To: James BISCOE; <address removed> Subject: Re: ASSETS As James Bisco and Czech Conroy point out the asset issue is a key one. I am sure you are all aware of the work done by H. De Soto on this and the process difficulties faced by the poor in gaining such legal title (see the Mystery of Capital). There are clear policy opportunities here and much work has already been done in this regard. It would be interesting to see what the results of such work has been and to what extent gaining legal land title has actually aided the poor reduce their vulnerability. In S. E Asia there are (to some extent justifiable) fears that land titling can actually increase poor households risk by making them more vulnerable to the loss of such land becuase they now legally own it (as opposed to more traditional user rights) and can thus sell it. Recent work on poverty in the Mekong delta by AusAID suggests that landsales are increasing and that landlessness is the major economic source of poverty. What are other experiences in this regard ? Thanks Adam Folkard James BISCOE <<address removed>> wrote: Czech Conroy has commented on the availability of assets to the rural poor. An asset which most have some of is land. Would assisting farmers to have formal title of some degree to their land not be a good means of enabling the already available asset to become more economically productive and to attract investment into its conservation and enhancement thereby reducing both economic and agricultural risk together? Thank you James Biscoe 15/5/04 0845hrs Adam Folkard GMS Development Consultant
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.