Liza Grandia - Indian Law Resource Center

Missing the Community for the Cadastre
Q’eqchi’ Maya Communities and the Land Administration Projects I and II in Guatemala
Liza Grandia, University of California‐Davis, Associate Professor
Department of Native American Studies D
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, as part of the military‐led counter agrarian reform after the 1954 CIA coup of President Arbenz
Oscar Obando 2009
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 areas
and
CARE (USAID & Austria), KfW, Guatemalan government, IDB, etc....
Peace Accords, 1996
Many diverse commitments to improve Guatemala’s agrarian
situation, including:
1. public financing for land
2. cadastral registry --- > creation of the National Cadastral
Information Registry (previously UTJ)
3. resolution of conflicts
4. credit
5. productive projects
6. infrastructure for rural development
7. training
8. information systems
9. legal reform
10. land taxes
8
• 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 ‐ ???
From the IPP, half day workshops with indigenous leaders
10
ProPetén 2009
Grandia 2009
Ybarra 2011
Hurtado 2009
Zander & Dürr 2011
Grandia 2012
Hurtado 2008, 2011
Alfonso‐Fradejas et al. 2011 Garoz and Gauster Solano 2009 & 2012
Anonymous 2011
Heath, IEG, 2010
Carrera and Carrera, FAO 2012
2011: Petén land study team
Financed by: Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (Governments of Norway and Finland)
World Bank management
•Fernando Galeana
•Enrique Pantoja
•
•
•
•
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
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
2. Community investigation
•Consultation with grassroots leaders in research design
•Community survey (46 villages, 7% contextual sample)
•Participatory mapping
•Focus groups and interviews
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
for policy‐makers
Grünberg, Grandia & Milian 2012
Grandia 2013 with Fundación ProPetén and ACDIP
for communities, without World Bank support
23
Outcomes for Q’eqchi’ and other indigenous communities
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Land grabs Solidification of historic inequities Violation of Peace Accords
Denial of the option of collective tenure
Dispossession of sacred sites, and 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
(2) Solidified historic inequities
(3) In violation of Peace Accords
AFTER
Average parcel holdings 40 ha. in Q’eqchi’ regions compared with 70+ ha. elsewhere
BEFORE (Colonization)
Allotments of 22‐45 ha. in indigenous regions (in grey) compared with 625 ha.+ for cattle ranchers (in red)
26
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.
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.
28
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
F
F
Am
F
F
Af
Am
Af
Am
Af
SsS
Ss
S
Ss
S
Ss
S
NTFPs
Soccer field
Village houses
Ss
S
Ss
SA
S
Firewood collection
Mountains
Swamp
Sacred cave
29
Spring and river
Customary management
Mix of usufruct, communal, & private areas
30
Frontier allotment, FYDEP or INTA
31
Land sales ‐ soon looks like this
32
Even if such community‐driven land use planning were not possible....
33
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
34
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
35
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
Phase II “safeguard” ‐ questionnaire to be carried out by a Spanish‐speaking land engineer
39
Outcomes for Q’eqchi’ and other indigenous communities
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Land grabs Solidification of historic inequities Violation of Peace Accords
Denial of the option of collective tenure
Dispossession of sacred sites, and Fraud
40
Legalized parcels, 68% to date…. 32% still pending, will have to remeasure! (private engineer fees)
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.
42
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
Continuum of “participation”
Top down Consultation Participation Interactive,
Selfinformation (theatrical)
continued mobilization
,
APROBASANK
“social
in exchange for participation
Manipulation
communication”
LAP I and II
material
incentives
if the Bank were to take seriously its safeguards for the collective rights and processes in the demarcation of land
44
Comments: •Liza Grandia: emgrandia@ucdavis.edu
liza.grandia@gmail.com