Missing the Community for the Cadastre
Liza Grandia, University of California‐Davis, Associate Professor
Department of Native American Studies
D
Q’eqchi’ Maya Communities and the Land Administration Projects I and II in Guatemala
Petén in relation to Central America & Guatemala
Q’eqchi’ (formerly K’ekchi’) –Guatemala’s second largest Maya group, approximately a million speakers
Petén: state‐sponsored colonization 1959‐1989,
Oscar Obando 2009
as part of the military‐led counter agrarian reform after the 1954 CIA coup of President Arbenz
Deforestation, > 50% forest loss in 30 years of colonization
Led to the 1992 creation of the Maya Biosphere Reserve (1.6 million ha.)
And a broader network of protected areas, leaving 57% of Petén under conservation status and enclosing much of Q’eqchi’ territory
FYDEP cadaster & protected areas established 1990s
Early 1990s: land titling projects across Petén to resolve‐ 40,000 pending colonization claims, &
‐ especially in conflicts with protected areasand
CARE (USAID & Austria), KfW, Guatemalan government, IDB, etc....
8
Peace Accords, 1996Many diverse commitments to improve Guatemala’s agrariansituation, including:
1. public financing for land2. cadastral registry --- > creation of the National Cadastral Information Registry (previously UTJ)3. resolution of conflicts4. credit5. productive projects6. infrastructure for rural development7. training8. information systems9. legal reform10. land taxes
• World Bank‐funded• Land Administration Projects (LAPs) in Guatemala • via the national Cadastral Information Registry (RIC, previously UTJ)
• Phase I ‐ Petén (1998‐2003, but extended to 2007)• Loan $31 million + $5.7 million in counterpart funds
• No Indigenous Peoples Participation Plan conducted ‐ although 40% of the population is Q’eqchi’ and/or resettled Maya refugees
• Phase II – 8 departments, 42 municipalities (2006‐ongoing)• Loan approved December 2006, $62 million• Cursory survey (half‐day workshop) with representatives from 22 Maya
groups
• Phase III and IV ‐ ???
10
From the IPP, half day workshops with indigenous leaders
Grandia 2009
Grandia 2012Zander & Dürr 2011
Hurtado 2009
Ybarra 2011
ProPetén 2009
Garoz and Gauster
Hurtado 2008, 2011
Alfonso‐Fradejas et al. 2011
Solano 2009 & 2012Anonymous 2011
Carrera and Carrera, FAO 2012Heath, IEG, 2010
2011: Petén land study team• Directors• Liza Grandia, PhD, Co‐PI• Jorge Grunberg, PhD, Co‐PI• Bayron Milian, PhD, Field director
• Topical consultants• Laura Hurtado, PhD• Alberto Alonso‐Fradejas, MSc.• Julio Penados, Ing. Agr.• Erick Cotom, Ing. Ind.• Romeo Euler, Ing. Agr.
• Operations• ProPetén Foundation ‐ logistics• Yadira Panti, Eliseo Rax, Alfredo Che, community
organizers
• Advisory council• Norman B. Schwartz, PhD, U. of Delaware• Megan Ybarra, PhD, Willamette U.• Marcus Zander, DED • Susana Gauster, CONGCOOP
Financed by: Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (Governments of Norway and Finland)
World Bank management•Fernando Galeana•Enrique Pantoja
Research themes & project suppositions• Agrarian structure, legalization rates & land sales:
Cadastral measurement and titling would provide land tenure security & stabilize the agricultural frontier.
• Agroecology: Through access to credit and reforestation incentives, Petén’s new property owners would invest in more sustainable natural resource use.
• Municipal uptake: There would be improved regional land use planning, and progressive taxation to discourage idle land.
• Conflicts: An accurate land survey would help resolve latent & active conflicts.• Democratization: As part of the Peace Accord implementation, these
processes have special consideration for women and indigenous peoples.
• Decentralization: They would also contribute both to decentralization and better coordination among agricultural and land agencies.
• ‐‐ > Institutional lessons learned
1. Methodology: Institutional
• Integration of historic & contemporary cadasters
• Sample of the General Property Registry
• Land use change (satellite imagery)
• Data collection from banks and municipalities
•Consultation with grassroots leaders in research design•Community survey (46 villages, 7% contextual sample)•Participatory mapping•Focus groups and interviews
2. Community investigation
El Limón
La Cobanerita
El Mango
Orthophotos of land sales
3. over 2012: vetting results
– Advisory council– Public forums (4) with government, university, & civil society in both Petén & the capital
– Two government comment periods
– QER (Quality Enhancement Review)
– WB management
23
Grünberg, Grandia & Milian 2012
for policy‐makers
for communities, without World Bank support
Grandia 2013 with Fundación ProPetén and ACDIP
24
Outcomes for Q’eqchi’ and other indigenous communities
1) Land grabs 2) Solidification of historic inequities 3) Violation of Peace Accords4) Denial of the option of collective tenure5) Dispossession of sacred sites, and 6) Fraud
24
1. Land sales ‐ 46% of small holders, sold or been forced to sell within 5 years of close‐of‐project
foreclosures (credit), cattle, narcos, African palm, etc.but also poor explanation of inheritance procedures
26
BEFORE (Colonization)
Allotments of 22‐45 ha. in indigenous regions (in grey) compared with 625 ha.+ for cattle ranchers (in red)
AFTER
Average parcel holdings 40 ha. in Q’eqchi’ regions compared with 70+ ha. elsewhere
(2) Solidified historic inequities
(3) In violation of Peace Accords
3. Denial of collective title to lands
– 4/5ths of Q’eqchi’ communities held and governed their lands according to customary principles when they arrived to Petén, prior to interactions with state land agencies
– but were told by project technicians that they had to survey the land immediately and “the title has to be in someone’s name” and villages councils didn’t have legal standing.
28
Community tenure (not “communal” per se
– Not “communist,” but a collective system of land allocation
– With profound ecological and social logics: protection of elderly and women headed households; and highly productive because land is for those who farm it.
29
A
A A
A A A
A A
A
Am
Am
Am
SsS
SA
NTFPs
Soccer field
Village houses
Firewood collection
Mountains
Swamp
Sacred cave
Spring and river
F
FF
F
SsS
SsSSs
SSsS
SsS
Af
Af
Af
30
Customary managementMix of usufruct, communal, & private areas
3131
Frontier allotment, FYDEP or INTA
32
Land sales ‐ soon looks like this
33
Even if such community‐driven land use planning were not possible....
34
At a minimal level, sacred places should be protected, according to the Peace Accords
Caves,forest groves (e.g. copal incense trees and cacao), cairns,mountain,springs,boulders,church site,etc...
Every Q’eqchi’ village will have one or more sacred, ceremonial places
35
For historic and geographical reasons, Q’eqchi’ spiritual practices are distinct from the western highlands
Q’eqchi’ ceremonies conducted by egalitarian councils of four elders
Carried out in forested places and village caves
Western highlands:Ceremonies held by ritual specialists (“Maya priests” or day keepers) on open altars or archaeological sites
38
39
Phase II “safeguard” ‐ questionnaire to be carried out by a Spanish‐speaking land engineer
40
Outcomes for Q’eqchi’ and other indigenous communities
1) Land grabs 2) Solidification of historic inequities 3) Violation of Peace Accords4) Denial of the option of collective tenure5) Dispossession of sacred sites, and 6) Fraud
Legalized parcels, 68% to date…. 32% still pending, will have to remeasure! (private engineer fees)
42
Remedies for Phase I, Petén• Allow indigenous communities to reconstitute their lands
under customary governance or to create by‐laws regulating the sale of village lands.
• Provide legal support to communities negotiate and re‐acquire access to their sacred sites that were privatized by the LAP I.
• At the very least, give every community a copy of their cadastre at the end of this multimillion dollar process.
Phase II Recommendations• Place a moratorium on all current and future land administration
projects (including rumored Phases III and IV) to allow for time, reflection, and real informed consent among Guatemala’s majority indigenous population about the long term consequences of land titling.
• Conduct a holistic inventory of different types of communal & sacred lands.
• Develop methodological processes that give communities real decision‐making processes in land use planning and take advantage of the flexibilities of GPS technology as the start, not the end of integrated agrarian development
8
44
Manipulation Top down information
“social communication”
Consultation(theatrical)
Participation,
in exchange for material
incentives
Interactive, continued
participation
Self-mobilization
Continuum of “participation”
APROBASANK
LAP I and II if the Bank were to take seriously its safeguards for the collective rights and processes in the demarcation of land
Comments: •Liza Grandia: [email protected]@gmail.com