Uso inapropriado da tecnologia no serviço de saúde

The survey of nine municipalities in Madagascar found that households most commonly demanded a certificate as protection against disputes and as a guarantee of transmission of land to children (Burnod, Andrianirina et al. 2014; see Table 7.1.). Widman (2014) also identified these as dominant reasons in the municipality of Soavinandriana in the region of Itasy. Some 8.2 percent of the households declared feelings of insecurity, the same percentage as those who had applied for a certificate (Burnod, Andrianirina et al.

2014). The authors do not explain this relationship, and it remains unclear whether, for instance, the awareness-raising campaigns have affected people’s perception of tenure security and associated this with the certificates.

196

Table 7.1. Reasons to demand a certificate in nine municipalities of Madagascar⁵⁴ 82.2% to be sure that nobody contests rights

43.4% to secure the rights for children 23.6% to secure parcel delimitations

The research in Ankazomiriotra enables us to indicate some factors that motivate farmers to apply for a certificate, such as the opportunity to receive proof from the state that one was the incontestable holder of a parcel. The certificate was seen to procure a stronger legal position in the case of disputes.

People trust that when it is certified it is official. They are confident. To our knowledge no one will dare touch this land if it is certified. [...] The certificate is much more valuable than the bill of sale because it is official, and it comes from above.

Interview with a farmer (PEA 012), 04.06.2016 To my knowledge, if two people argue over a parcel, automatically the one who does not have a certificate will lose because even if it happens, in court the certificate will prevail. If the state did it, it works.

Interview with a farmer (PEA030), 14.06.2016 The main motivation is the fear of land conflicts. Because if there are people who want to take over the land, the owners will not be able to do anything without an official proof of their ownership.

Interview with a farmer (PEA 048), 08.07.2016

Most often several motivations were associated together as indicated by the case of Bodo.

Bodo is a woman in her mid-thirties living with her husband and three children close to the centre of Ankazomiriotra. She is engaged in commercial and agricultural activities and can be considered as being part of high-income households of the municipality. She had recently bought a parcel of land some two kilometres away from her home. She would like to raise pigs on the land. She had already made petits papiers on the transaction but found that the certificates provided a stronger assurance for her ownership of the parcel. She was worried that if she does not certify the land, someone can contest her presence, or the state can ultimately take the land back. With the certificate she sought to guarantee the transfer of the parcel to her children and ensure that they are recognised as owners later even if not living in the zone anymore.

She was very well informed of the certification process. She had already certified the housing plot, was thinking of asking for certificates on parcels on tanety as this had recently been re-authorised in the municipality and had a pending demand for a title. The demand for a title had been made in 2013 and coordinated by a private

54 Respondents were able to choose more than one option.

197 operator. She was still waiting for the final decision of the state land service.

Ultimately, she would like to title the certified land as well. In her view, the title provides the strongest security.

Extracts from an interview with Bodo (PEA003), 04.05.2016

Compared to titles, farmers associated certificates with the proximity of services to home, quicker processes and cheaper procedures. These benefits were also highlighted by the proponents of the dominant policy narrative. Indeed, the titles would have cost farmers millions of Ariary with processes that might have remained uncompleted unless advanced with bribes.

It takes several years [to title land] and requires millions of Ariary because the file is sent to Ambositra, comes back to Antsirabe and then it goes to Antananarivo and then they place the boundary marker. After that, it is totally secure. But if you do not boost it, it will not be over. But if you boost by giving money it is faster.

Interview with a farmer (PEA002), 03.05.2016 Therefore, some farmers, like Bodo in the above story, thought first of applying for a certificate and then seeking to transfer it into a title. They had an impression that passing by the certification process would be easier than asking for a title directly. However, according to the local land office, only 18 cases had come up by April 2016 where the holder of a certificate had requested to transform it into a title.

Different rationales determined the choice of parcels to be certified, and these are strongly linked to perceived sources of tenure insecurity. Some farmers told of starting with larger parcels and leaving smaller ones for later, to maximise the added value of the certificates.⁵⁵ Burnod, Andrianirina et al. (2014) also found that larger parcels are more likely to be certified.

I have made efforts to certify medium sized plots but small areas I have not yet done because it requires money

Interview with a farmer (PEA004), 01.06.2016 Others based their decision on the mode of acquisition of the parcels, prioritising purchased parcels. Burnod, Andrianirina et al. (2014) also note that farmers prioritise certifying parcels that have been purchased, then those that have been inherited or claimed through rights of occupancy, and finally gifts. Boué (2013) had observed in Faratsiho that when the parcels had been purchased from someone outside the family circle, they were more likely to be certified. This indicates that there is greater social recognition and trust inside families, requiring less statutory recognition. Yet, when

55 The fees of certification in Ankazomiriotra were the same up to one hectare.

198

explored from another angle and as mentioned in section 7.1.1, family members might avoid formalising inheritance to avoid activating latent conflicts. Indeed, certification of tenure rights could be interpreted by other family members as an act of individualism, redefining intra-family relations and reducing options in terms of parcels and crops (Burnod, Andrianirina et al. 2014).

Quantitative surveys found that farmers certify land that is most valuable in terms of food security and subsistence (Boué 2013; Burnod, Andrianirina et al. 2014). According to Burnod, Andrianirina et al. (2014), the perception of tenure insecurity was also highest on these parcels. For farmers in Ankazomiriotra, land is valued in terms of food production, cultural links and to guarantee the livelihood of future generations. Yet, economic value and paying for the certificate matter as well. According to the local land office, certificates were requested mainly for parcels in the bas-fond and those close to the centre (these have the highest economic value). The bas-fond parcels are also held by well-established middle-income and wealthy families.

The decision to apply for a certificate is finally based on the distance at which the parcels were located from the homesteads to protect against encroachment from neighbours.

This was, for instance, the case for Bodo, whose land was not close to home. She could not exercise direct control over it or develop extensive relationships with the neighbours to mitigate tenure insecurity and thus sought statutory guarantees. Boué (2013) also observed that land further away might be certified first to reinforce appropriation and avoid disputes. She also found that relations with neighbouring owners and conflicts were determinants of certifying parcels (ibid).

These observations suggest that by certifying land, farmers aimed to mitigate some potential sources of tenure insecurity. The certification targeted parcels where tenure security was relatively low: those where continuous presence is not possible; those for which there is least social recognition; and those less guaranteed by trusting social relations. Farmers also targeted parcels where the potential losses are highest, either in terms of food security or economic value. Indeed, Burnod, Andrianirina et al. (2014) observed that the probability of feeling insecure increased when the food security value of the parcel increased; when it had been acquired through use or donation; or when the owners did not originate locally. This indicates some limits in the customary practices

199

to secure tenure, especially in cases where people are less integrated and engaged in the local community relations. The value of the certificate thus lies in the fact that it comes from an authority and can serve as protection against disputed claims (Sikor and Lund 2009). However, some farmers also recognised that this security is relative. The state can always take back the land if it wishes, regardless of whether it is certified or not, but the certificate should at least increase the possibility of compensation.

The interviews with farmers in Ankazomiriotra indicate that the demand for a certificate was not only based on a voluntary, rational choice to consolidate and secure one’s holding. There was a sense of obligation in the stories of some farmers where certification was felt to be imposed by the state, particularly in the fokontany that had taken part in the Kara-Tany Malaky process, where more consistent awareness-raising had been conducted. Farmers explained that municipal and fokontany leaders had asked them to apply for certificates and that otherwise they might risk losing their land if a dispute was raised:

They said it is mandatory. The certificate is mandatory.

Interview with a farmer (PEA012), 04.06.2016 There were also rumours that outsiders or the state could appropriate non-certified land.

I am afraid because in the countryside the land is very expensive and the agents at the local land office are raising awareness, the officers have said that it is a duty to make [an application for the] the certificate and that I must secure my land because we do not know what will happen afterwards, we must make [an application for] a certificate.

Interview with a farmer (PEA004), 01.06.2016 We do not [know] whether the state will take back the land or not, but it has put it in place and we do what it asks us to do because the land is the basis of our life and we must follow the instructions of the state.

Interview with a farmer (PEA019), 07.06.2016

Here and in the earlier story of Bodo, we can see that some farmers sought to certify the parcels to seek protection from the state. Bodo’s fear of state expropriation stemmed from a case where the former President Ravolamanana appropriated some land in the region for his own business, and from a more recent example presented in the media that land is required for investment.

200 They spread publicity that it is necessary to certify land and that what will not be certified will be taken away by the municipality. The President of the Republic has already taken, during the Ravalomanana regime, he took part of the land in this region. I heard on TVM [Television Madagascar] that they are going to take back 200 hectares per province and that is why people want to certify the land.

Interview with Bodo (PEA003), 04.05.2016 Boué (2013) also observed in Faratsiho that there were rumours of the possibility of the state taking uncertified land. These rumours were linked to earlier experiences of state expropriation.

Based on my experience in Ankazomiriotra, I argue that these fears not only stem from historic cases but also from the awareness-raising messages disseminated during the certification, encouraging farmers to certify land to protect themselves against probable outside threats without there being a concrete pressing need. By doing so, they had also created doubt about local social relations and customary practices of securing tenure.

Hence, the way awareness-raising messages are interpreted can itself create a feeling of insecurity among some farmers:

Since my arrival until now, there has been this trust, but recently they have said that we must certify the land, declare it, there will be people from outside who will arrive, but I think these are lies. But before, this confidence reigned but today this confidence decreases, and we start to make papers at the municipality and the state land service.

Interview with a farmer (PEA035), 20.06.2016

The increased feeling of insecurity can be interpreted as a side-effect of awareness-raising. Following Olivier de Sardan (1995), it is about the inadaptability of the technico-scientific knowledge of certification packaged in awareness-raising messages to local cultures and systems of meaning. The farmers then draw from these sets of knowledge and systems of meaning to make sense of the world and circumstances they are facing (ibid).

If the awareness-raising campaigns conducted at the beginning represented a certain push factor towards the certification, the example provided by other farmers and the impact of early experiences should not be neglected either. A farmer who played a central role in a fokontany served as an example to others. He was among the first to apply for a certificate. Some farmers then followed his example, while others preferred to wait to evaluate the usefulness and the value for money of the certificates, especially if they had had previous negative experiences.