‘Better-practice’ Concessions? Some Lessons from Cambodia’s Leopard Skin Landscape
In the context of the global land rush, policy debates are split on the question of state land concessions: are smallholder-centric ‘inclusive’ investment models the only real form of responsible agricultural investment, or are ‘responsible’ concessions possible when it comes to the protection of lo...
Na minha lista:
| Publicado no: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/poldev, |
|---|---|
| Auteurs principaux: | , , |
| Formato: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Idioma: | Anglais |
| Publicado em: |
International Development Policy | Revue internationale de politique de développement
2015
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Acesso em linha: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Resumo: | In the context of the global land rush, policy debates are split on the question of state land concessions: are smallholder-centric ‘inclusive’ investment models the only real form of responsible agricultural investment, or are ‘responsible’ concessions possible when it comes to the protection of local land access? To help move this debate forwards, this paper examines two case studies in Cambodia – an oil palm plantation recently certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and a teak plantation certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) – which we refer to as ‘better-practice’ concessions. These cases reflect efforts to operationalise the Cambodian government’s ‘Leopard-Skin’ policy, which stipulates that concessions be developed around smallholders rather than directly on top of them. We argue that regularisation is not inherently objectionable, but carries risks when carried out on a concession-by-concession basis, because it distances vulnerable land users from the potentially protective effects of the law and defers to localised, and often unequal, relations of authority. The paper thus highlights the challenges that investors and communities are likely to face even when concession developers seek to respect existing local land claims, and suggests that models based on empowered communities with more secure forms of tenure are likely to work better for all parties involved. |
|---|