households, due mainly to the high transaction costs, the limited funds available to
the bank for onward lending, and the uncertainties arising from a lack of transparency in the loan allocation process. This explains why, to a great extent, poor
households have been compelled to turn mostly to informal lenders (Van Le 2012;
Saint-Macary and Zeller 2011).
5.3.3.2 Land Tenure
The definition of property rights over natural resources plays an essential role in the
agriculture-poverty-environment nexus. First, it determines the modalities of access
to resources for farmers, which directly affects their livelihoods. Second, property
rights institutions also define the incentive structure used regarding resource use, so
that well-defined property rights that ensure long-term tenure security and identify
well all the users and beneficiaries of natural resources, can be expected to create
incentives for sustainable use.
In northern Vietnam, after 28 years of collectivization within the agricultural
sector, the state introduced far-reaching reforms and redefined access and use rights
for agricultural land in 1988, 1993 and 2003 (Saint-Macary et al. 2010). Under
these reforms, use rights were transferred to farmers for most agricultural land and
for a proportion of forest land (Cle ´ment and Amezaga 2009), and with land titles
issued to farmers as a way to reinforce claim rights and tenure security.
In Yen Chau district, wealthier households have greater access to agricultural
land (see Table 5.1), and in particular, access to irrigable paddy land is strongly
associated with household wealth. The poor (both in absolute and in relative terms)
not only have lower access to land than other sections of society, but also to
irrigation systems that enable farmers to increase and stabilize yields over the
longer term. No significant difference is observed, however, in terms of farmers’
access to upland area across wealth categories. On average, farmers from the richest
tercile cultivate larger areas with land title than those farmers in the poorer terciles.
Land titles are expected to provide their holders with an incontestable means with
which to claim their rights from the authorities and from neighbors, and hence
ensure long-term tenure security. Tenure security ensures they can reap the future
benefits to be derived from current investments on the one hand, and on the other
burdens them with the negative consequences of short-term mismanagement,
creating incentives for sustainable management practices. Poor farmers cultivating
land under less secure tenure conditions are thus expected to use their resources less
sustainably.
Research analyzing the environmental impact of Vietnam’s land policies has
been carried out by Saint-Macary et al. (2010) and Cle ´ment and Amezaga (2009).
The first study (which is discussed in more detail in Chap. 7) showed that the
frequent reallocation of land titles in Yen Chau has undermined farmers’ trust in
land institutions and discouraged them from long-term soil conserving investments,
such as agroforestry. The second study focused on the land allocation policy
introduced for forested land and highlights the gap between policy intentions and
184
C. Saint-Macary et al.
the bank for onward lending, and the uncertainties arising from a lack of transparency in the loan allocation process. This explains why, to a great extent, poor
households have been compelled to turn mostly to informal lenders (Van Le 2012;
Saint-Macary and Zeller 2011).
5.3.3.2 Land Tenure
The definition of property rights over natural resources plays an essential role in the
agriculture-poverty-environment nexus. First, it determines the modalities of access
to resources for farmers, which directly affects their livelihoods. Second, property
rights institutions also define the incentive structure used regarding resource use, so
that well-defined property rights that ensure long-term tenure security and identify
well all the users and beneficiaries of natural resources, can be expected to create
incentives for sustainable use.
In northern Vietnam, after 28 years of collectivization within the agricultural
sector, the state introduced far-reaching reforms and redefined access and use rights
for agricultural land in 1988, 1993 and 2003 (Saint-Macary et al. 2010). Under
these reforms, use rights were transferred to farmers for most agricultural land and
for a proportion of forest land (Cle ´ment and Amezaga 2009), and with land titles
issued to farmers as a way to reinforce claim rights and tenure security.
In Yen Chau district, wealthier households have greater access to agricultural
land (see Table 5.1), and in particular, access to irrigable paddy land is strongly
associated with household wealth. The poor (both in absolute and in relative terms)
not only have lower access to land than other sections of society, but also to
irrigation systems that enable farmers to increase and stabilize yields over the
longer term. No significant difference is observed, however, in terms of farmers’
access to upland area across wealth categories. On average, farmers from the richest
tercile cultivate larger areas with land title than those farmers in the poorer terciles.
Land titles are expected to provide their holders with an incontestable means with
which to claim their rights from the authorities and from neighbors, and hence
ensure long-term tenure security. Tenure security ensures they can reap the future
benefits to be derived from current investments on the one hand, and on the other
burdens them with the negative consequences of short-term mismanagement,
creating incentives for sustainable management practices. Poor farmers cultivating
land under less secure tenure conditions are thus expected to use their resources less
sustainably.
Research analyzing the environmental impact of Vietnam’s land policies has
been carried out by Saint-Macary et al. (2010) and Cle ´ment and Amezaga (2009).
The first study (which is discussed in more detail in Chap. 7) showed that the
frequent reallocation of land titles in Yen Chau has undermined farmers’ trust in
land institutions and discouraged them from long-term soil conserving investments,
such as agroforestry. The second study focused on the land allocation policy
introduced for forested land and highlights the gap between policy intentions and
184
C. Saint-Macary et al.