Most of the land reforms of recent decades have followed an approach of “formalization and capitalization” of individual land titles (de Soto 2000). However, within the privatization agenda, benefits of unimproved land (such as land rents and value capture) are reaped privately by well-organized actors, whereas the costs of valorization (e.g., infrastructure) or opportunity costs of land use changes are shifted onto poorly organized groups. Consequences of capitalization and formalization include rent seeking and land grabbing.

The rise of urbanization and development in Cambodia in recent years has led to a dramatic increase in land prices, with particularly high values for land in the capital city of Phnom Penh. Some government officials have benefited from the high price of land by unlawfully granting land title to private developers in exchange for compensation. Once these officials have granted land title to developers, they forcibly evict from the property existing residents, who mostly come from poor and marginalized communities. There is rampant corruption at every stage of the "development" process.

In the early 20th century, the scientific management of Myanmar’s natural forests under the Myanmar Selection System (MSS) was world-renown.1 By the 1970s, the MSS began to break down. Today, the application of scientific forestry in the country has been marginalized. Timber remains a significant source of revenue, although relatively less for the national Myanmar government as multi-billion dollar oil, gas, hydropower and other energy related contracts surge.

The Land Law of 2001 was a landmark statute intended to strengthen and protect the rights of ordinary Cambodian landholders. A land titling programme (LMAP) was initiated soon afterwards, with extensive World Bank and donor support. The land occupied by the community of Boeung Kak, in the heart of the capital was excluded from this process, despite evidence of prior residence going back decades. Instead it was classifi ed as having “unknown status” by the LMAP, as “state land” by default, and as a “development zone” by authorities.

ABSTRACTED FROM THE SUMMARY: Land-grabbing is occurring at a significant extent and pace in Southeast Asia; some of the characteristics of this land grab differ from those in regions such as Africa. At a glance, Europe is not a high profile, major driver of land-grabbing in this region, but a closer examination reveals that it nonetheless is playing a significant role. This influence is both direct and indirect, through European corporate sector and public policies, as well as through multilateral agencies within which EU states are members.

The report documents how affected communities have lost their livelihoods because of land grabbing by national and international business corporations. Local communities have not been consulted and they have received little or no compensation for their loss. The communities have been evicted from their land and have faced systematic human rights violations.

Debates and critiques around land policy often focus on the neo-liberal agenda of formalising land as alienable property, most notably through land titling schemes. Sometimes these schemes are posited against alternatives such as land reform and community land holding under common property arrangements. Claims and counter- claims are made for land titling as a means to boost smallholder security in the face of involuntary or otherwise unfair alienation of land sometimes under the rubric of land grabbing.

The main objectives of this study are to produce an overview of existing information related to land issues and governance of indigenous communities and to assess the impact of economic land concessions on the livelihoods of indigenous communities in the northeast of Cambodia. The study generated the following research questions in order to respond to these objectives: 1. What is happening in terms of land acquisition and land governance practices? 2. What are the consequences for indigenous peoples, in terms of livelihoods as well as agricultural systems and socio-cultural practices? 3.

In recent years the Lao government has provided many foreign investors with large-scale economic land concessions to develop plantations. These concessions have resulted in significant alterations of landscapes and ecological processes, greatly reduced local access to resources through enclosing common areas, and ultimately leading to massive changes in the livelihoods of large numbers of mainly indigenous peoples living near these concessions.

ABSTRACTED FROM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This paper seeks to add to the growing literature on land concessions by examining a recent, high-level concession as a means of understanding three aspects related to concessionary investments: (1) the process by which concessions are awarded and implemented; (2) the intricate relationship between land use, land tenure, and land ownership in the face of concessions; and (3) the way in which village and household livelihoods are impacted due to such massive land use and ownership changes.

Community forests (CFs) in northern Burma have been gaining momentum since the mid-2000s, spearheaded by national NGOs, mostly in response to protect village land from encroaching agribusiness concessions. While the production of these new CF landscapes represents the material resistance against state-sponsored rubber, in effect it produces contested state authority by formalizing control of former customary swidden hills under the Forestry Department.

ABSTRACTED FROM THE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Housing, land and property rights issues affect men and women differently; hence these issues are not gender-neutral and require a gender equality analysis of the problem. While equal rights between men and women are enshrined in the 1993 Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia (the Constitution) and in a number of national laws, in practice women are still subordinate to men.