land tenure sustainability: the case of family land in tobago sunil lalloo and charisse...

LAND TENURE SUSTAINABILITY: THE CASE OF FAMILY LAND IN TOBAGO

Sunil Lalloo and Charisse Griffith-CharlesThe University of the West Indies, St. Augustine

Classifying Tenure arrangements in Trinidad and Tobago

Formal Informal

Registered Unregistered

RPO Title

Deed

Registered Trust

Unregistered Deed

Successive Title

Unregistered Trust

Squatting on State Land

Squatting on Private Land

Family Land

Certificate of Comfort

Adverse Possession

Deed in the name of a deceased antecedent

Land tenure sustainability

• Basis of justifications for state support, formalisation and recordation.

• Assessed over the short, medium and long terms.

• A function of several variables

Common-pool resources – the Literature

• Agrawal, 2003 – summarised and added to Ostrom (1990); Baland and Plattaeu (1996); and Wade (1994).

• Griffith-Charles, 2004 – Specifically dealt with land tenure sustainability

• Barnes, 2009 – Tenure ‘resilience’

Agrawal (2003)• 36 Critically enabling conditions for tenure sustainability.

• 10 key variables:1. Sizes of the resource and group.2. Definition of boundaries3. Social and cultural norms4. Leadership and interdependence 5. Level of poverty6. Level of dependency on the resource by the group7. Level of demand8. Simplicity, applicability and enforceability of governing rules9. Accountability and transparency10. Effects of the external environment

Griffith Charles (2004)

• 5 prevailing variables for land registration sustainability:1. The prevailing tenure type and the perceptions

and governance practices within family land.2. The associated costs of transactions3. System awareness and observability 4. Complexity5. Enforcement

Barnes (2009)

• Variables determining fundamental identity and structure of land tenure:

1. Group membership2. Governance3. Resource Rights

Relevance to Caribbean’s family land

• Family land tenure sustainability is a function of the following variables:1. Parcel size2. Level of rights activation3. Ability to function alongside formal systems

(objective tenure security); 4. The perception of tenure security (subjective)

Variables cont’d

5. The existence and resolution of disputes.6. Land use practices and productivity7. Ability to alienate the parcel (in parts or whole)8. Ability to create economic opportunity (and

access credit)9. Perspectives on the social and cultural retention

of the tenure10.Perspectives on formalisation (privatisation vs

formalisation of de facto governance)

Methodology

• Tobago is delineated into 7 parishes administratively

• Two-stage cluster sampling done in 2 rural parishes

• Simple random sampling done in 2 urban parishes

• Total sample size: 308 parcels sampled – 190 family land cases.

11

ANALYSES

Testing sustainability indicators for Family land

Parcel size – family land parcels

Parcel size – private tenure

Active use of land rights

Objective tenure security

Subjective tenure security – Family land How secure are you that you will not be ejected?

Total Parish insecure secure very secure neutral

St. John Count 5 33 26 1 65

% 7.7% 50.8% 40.0% 1.5% 100.0%

St. Andrew Count 0 3 21 0 24

% .0% 12.5% 87.5% .0% 100.0%

St. Patrick Count 5 11 16 0 32

% 15.6% 34.4% 50.0% .0% 100.0%

St. David Count 1 21 47 0 69

% 1.4% 30.4% 68.1% .0% 100.0%

Total Count 11 68 110 1 190

% 5.8% 35.8% 57.9% .5% 100.0%

Subjective tenure security – private tenure

How secure are you that you will not be ejected?

Total Parish insecure secure very secure

St. John Count 2 11 12 25

% 8.0% 44.0% 48.0% 100.0%

St. Andrew Count 1 2 33 36

% 2.8% 5.6% 91.7% 100.0%

St. Patrick Count 3 8 26 37

% 8.1% 21.6% 70.3% 100.0%

St. David Count 2 7 19 28

% 7.1% 25.0% 67.9% 100.0%

Total Count 8 28 90 126

% 6.3% 22.2% 71.4% 100.0%

Comparison – subjective tenure security

How secure are you that you will not be ejected

Total Tenure insecure secure very secure 7

Family Land Count 11 68 110 1 190

% 5.8% 35.8% 57.9% .5% 100.0%

Private Tenure Count 8 28 90 0 126

% 6.3% 22.2% 71.4% .0% 100.0%

Total Count 19 96 200 1 316

% 6.0% 30.4% 63.3% .3% 100.0%

Conflicts - sources

Conflict resolution Frequency Percentage

peacefully through negotiation 17 54.8%

Overseer of land arbitrated 3 9.7%

Third party arbitrated 2 6.5%

family members arbitrated 1 3.2%

court resolved 5 16.1%

Other 3 9.7%

Total 31

Land use

• 40% the parcels were covered by residential housing by 50% of the total area or more.

• In cases where there was actual cultivation, less than 20% of the parcel was used for this agricultural practice.

• In the family land investigated, over 30% of the lands were unutilized by 70% or more

Land Economy

• Only 22 of the family land cases (11%) reported that they earn a percentage of their income from the land itself

• 2 of these reported that the utilization of the land was their sole source of income

Intention to alienate? – No – Why?

Need for access to credit

PerspectivesTenure retention• 65% preferred family lands to remain under

customary holdings, 35% felt there were too many conflicts.

System to formalise• 60% preferred a self-governing system; 10%

preferred the state to have this responsibility; 30% would opt for a joint system

Is Family land sustainable?

• Short term – subjective tenure security

• Medium term – Provides supplement to household income

• Long term – Prevents fragmentation and landlessness, but leads to wasteful and unproductive land use.

LAND TENURE SUSTAINABILITY: THE CASE OF FAMILY LAND IN TOBAGO

Need to know more?

Sunil Lalloo; Charisse Griffith-CharlesEmail: sunil.lalloo@gmail.com Skype: sunil.lalloo