LAND REGISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Tarcisius Kabutaulaka
 |
| Avuavu Secondary School, Tasimauri, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands. Photo: Julian Maka'a |
There is a push by the current government, supported by individuals, development partners and corporate entities, to record and register customary land.
It is driven by the perception that customary land tenure impedes economic development, and land recording and registration will reduce land disputes and engender development.
But, will land recording and registration reduce disputes and enhance economic development? The simple answer is, ‘yes’ and ‘no’.
Land recording and registration does not always reduce land-related disputes or engender economic development. The process of registration can create conflicts as groups compete to legitimize their stories and claim to land. It could also result in the multiplication of claimants and landowning groups.
For example, in 2005 three groups claimed ownership of the land where the Buala mini-hydro was built. By 2015, it had grown to thirteen groups. Similarly, when the land identification process for the proposed Tina Hydro project on Guadalcanal started in 2008, there were 27 land groups. It has since been reduced to four “core land tribes” – forced by the state process to consolidate the groups.
Furthermore, there are many disputes over registered land. Those who felt that they had not been fairly represented in the registration process often choose to take their grievance outside of the judicial system because of the indefeasibility of the registered titles, as provided for under the Torren system. There are examples of this around the country, especially in relation to logging, and returned alienated land.
There are however cases where the land recording process was peaceful. The Ministry of Lands Housing and Survey’s pilot project at Naro on West Guadalcanal has, so far, been peaceful.
It should also be noted that the assumption that land registration will automatically lead to economic development is not always true. There are cases where land has been registered, but there is no economic development. A classic example is Auluta on Malaita where 10,250 hectares of land had been registered, converting it into perpetual estates (PEs) held by the Commissioner of Lands (CoL). The CoL subsequently transferred 6,875 hectares (67%) to landowners from the East Kwara’ae and East Fataleka regions who were registered as PE title holder. There are similar cases around the country.
But there are also cases where land registration has enabled large-scale economic development projects. A classic example is the Guadalcanal Plains Palm Oil Limited (GPPOL). However, this has a long history that has not always benefited landowners. In recent years, land groups have worked with the investor to establish a benefit-sharing mechanism where they have a 20% equity share in the company, rather than just being recipients of land rental.
It should also be noted that a bulk of the current income-generating industries in Solomon Islands are located on customary. That challenges the view that customary land cannot be economically productive.
So, the issues are complicated and need to be thought through carefully, rather than simply pushing for land recording and registration. Furthermore, it is useful to note that land codification is neither new, nor unique to Solomon Islands. It has a long history in Europe. Elsewhere in the world, it is associated with colonialism and capitalism. Solomon Islands needs to learn from others’ experiences.
In the Pacific Islands, Guam, Hawaiʻi, and Fiji have had extensive land registrations. Guam is a complicated story, having had two colonial powers – Spain and the US – that introduced different land registration systems. It is now an unincorporated territory of the US and the US military controls over nearly 30% of the island’s total land area.
In Hawaiʻi, the Great Māhele (1845–1855) saw the creation of freehold titles that could be transferred through fee simple arrangements. Following this, much of Hawaii’s land was bought by the ‘Big Five’ US companies involved in plantations. Over time, most indigenous Hawaiians have become landless.
In Fiji, the veitorogi vanua (1880–1940s) led to the codification of land, the establishment of the vola ni kawa bula, the registration of mataqali as the landowning entity, and the establishment of the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) (now, iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB)). Here, while the mataqali has ownership rights, the power to manage land – determine lease arrangements, rental prices and how land rents were shared – is vest in the state, through the TLTB.
I hope this adds to your tok stori with relatives, friends and colleagues. It doesn’t answer all the questions, but hopefully triggers conversations.
Whatever you do, stay grounded
~ # ~
Comments
Post a Comment