This presentation outlines questions on different aspects of tenure and tenure security that were included in village surveys for CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+. The results give an impression of how secure land tenure is in the various communities/countries surveyed. This presentation was given during CIFOR’s Annual Meeting 2012, which was held on 1–5 October at the headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia.

1. Research options for studying
tenure security
Anne M Larson

2. What are the components
of security?

3. Tenure security
 Assurance versus content of rights (Sjaastad and
Bromley, 2000)
• Ex. Weak rights, temporary rights
 Security as perception
• But what if people don’t perceive a
threat?
 Security/ insecurity as combination
• Presence or absence of conflict
• Perception
• Potential threats:
- Exclusion rights and capacity to exclude
in practice

4. GCS REDD Village Survey
Questionnaire

5. Area in conflict
Is any of the land in the village under
dispute?
1=yes; 0=no. If ‘no’ end this section.
If the answer to question 2 is 1 (yes):
What is the total area of village land
under dispute?
Indicate the amount in hectares.
‐8= does not apply (no land under
dispute); ‐9=respondent does not know
If the answer to question 2 is 1 (yes):
Please explain the nature of the dispute.
‐8= does not apply (no land under
dispute); 9=respondent does not know

6. Perception of security
Introduction:
We are going to ask you some questions about tenure security
over land in the village…
Define security:
By tenure security, we mean your confidence that the
households in this village will continue to be able to use, at
least for the next 25 years, the land and forests you now
use and benefit from...

7. Perception questions
 Q. Please give us your opinion, as a
community, on the issue of tenure security
with regard to specific land tenure areas in
the village. [Definition here]
 Q. Please explain the main reasons for
insecurity.

9. Exclusion rights
Introduction:
We want to know about your ability to exclude unwanted
users of your village lands and resources. We realize there
may be outsiders who you welcome into your community,
but here we are going to focus only on people or companies
you would like to prevent from using your forest resources.

10. 1. In general, does the village have the right to decide who
can and cannot have access to your local forests?
Read options 0-2 out loud, leave 3 for when needed; Select all that apply.
If the answer is 0 (no), go to question 6
0 = no
1 = yes, by customary law
2 = yes, by formal/statutory law (national or local)
3 = other (explain)__________________________________
2. In the area(s) where you have this right, although not all
outsiders are unwanted, are you usually able to exclude
unwanted outside users as needed?

11. 3. If you are not always able to exclude all unwanted
outsiders from the area(s) where you have the right to do
so, why not?
Select all that apply
1 = the state does not respect our right to say no
2 = we cannot control the borders of the forest
3 = community members permit access without village
consent
4 = some users have customary rights to the same forest
5 = there are no effective sanctions
6 = we have no external support or funds for this
7 = some outsiders are relatives of village residents
8 = some outsiders are very poor people
9 = other____________________________________

12. 4. Are there any forest users external to your village who are
currently using any of the forests, with and without
permission?
1=yes ; 0=no. If yes, fill Table 8C. If no, go on to section
8D.

14. Results: conflict and insecurity
 List 1
• List 1.1
• List 1.2
 List 2
 List 3

15. Results: Exclusion rights
and practice
( ( (
)*++,- ./(0 1. &. (
)*++,- ./( ;,/*/(" <(%1 .(&*-1 % =( )*++, -. /(
%1 */(# /. (*/( )*++,-. /( ?" %, +(
0*%1 (% 1. ( 5$ # 67 .& (8(9:( 0 *% 1(3# && .$ %(
>& "1 *7 *% .4 ( #$ , 7+. (%" (
& *- 1% (% "( .2% .& $, +(# /.( $# 6 7 .& (" <(
!" # $% &' ( 5$ # 67 .& (8 (9("< ( . 23+#4 . (
.23+# 4. ( ! # /%" 6A( B "& 6, +( "< (<" & ./%/( @*++,- ./(*$ (
3#/%" 6 ,& '( +,0 ( % 1 "/. (0*%1 ( . 2%. &$ ,+(#/. &/( /, 6> +.!
" # %/*4. &/( 5$ #6 7 .& (8 (
+, 0( 3# && .$ %( 5$ # 6 7. &(8 (9: (
5$ # 67 . &(8 ( 9:(
.2 %. &$ ,+(# /.: (
9:(
!" #$%&' ( )'*+ +, -' ( )'*+ +, -' ('*., -' (( '*./ , -' 0 '*) 0, -' 1'*( /, -' ( .'
2# 34 "5 56 ' . '*(7 7, -' . '*(7 7, -' ('*(8 , -' 1'*07 , -' 1 '* (7 7, -' ('*( 8, -' .'
9#6 $#6 %# ' : )'*/ ., -' ( /'*8 ., -' 0'*:7 , -' (( '*)) , -' 8 '*. ), -' 1'*( ., -' : 0'
;6 < 56 4=%#' ( /'*/ 0, -' ( 8'*+ 0, -' 1'*(0 , -' (+ '*/7 , -' 0 '*: +, -' +'*) 7, -' : 7'
>%4 ?6 #3 ' ) '*(7 7, -' 7 ''*7, - ' ) '*( 77 , -' :'*07 , -' 7'*7 , -' 7'*7, -' )'
! * Some villages selected both
Note: Includes all project sites except Berau, Indonesia and Peru
Source: Sunderlin et al., 2011 and village survey database