All land and forestland in Lao PDR is owned by the State, which in turn is able to grant certain rights of management, use and exploitation to different entities, with the form of rights dependent on the classification of land. The Land Law dictates that a registered land title is the highest form of property right; analogous to ownership. A land title is the only legal document demonstrating permanent land use rights and grants the holder a variety of rights, such as to use the land as collateral, to transfer the land, and to give the land as inheritance. Such land titles can be granted to individuals or families on up to three hectares.

Although customary land rights historically have not been well recognised, they are acknowledged by land and forestry law related regulations. It is hoped that on-going efforts to amend these laws will afford these rights better legal representation and pave the way for community participation in REDD+. Further to this, legislative changes have allowed for customary land rights to be registered through the issuance of Land Survey Certificates, Land Titles, or Land Certificates, with the first titles registered in 2011 (Moore et al. 2012). These can be granted to individuals, organisations or villages. However as they are in the form of ‘land utilisation rights’, they convey more limited rights than the land titles described above and do not allow for holders to sell or lease the land, nor use it as security for loans. Despite the limitations described, the granting of collective titles in this way is a sign of progress in terms of increasing tenure security for communities (Moore et al. 2012). Having said this, the strengthening of customary rights is under consideration in the 2013 reform process, which is expected to result in substantial changes in land and forest legislation, with particular reference to land tenure systems (RRI, 2012).

Some forest land is under village management and classified as “Village Use Forests” (VUFs). The management and use of the VUF is the responsibility of village administration authorities who in turn are able to allocate land to community members. For business operations, land is granted for use via lease or concession. For forestland to be converted to other uses or granted for lease or concession it must be classified as ‘degraded’ or ‘barren’, the definitions of which have been the source of much controversy. Land concessions granted without effective zoning or participation of local communities has led to numerous land pressures and conflicts (GIZ, 2011).

Measures to improve land use planning, allocation and titling, to increase tenure security and local livelihoods and create a more favourable investment climate have been high on the Government’s agenda. In attempts to encourage investment, stabilise shifting cultivation and sustainably manage natural resources, a Land-Use Planning and Land Allocation (LUP/LA) programme has been in place in the country since the early 1990s, however this has not always been met with expected success (Bourgoin and Castella 2011). The programme has been criticised for its limited participation of local communities, resulting in unsustainable land use plans and negative rural livelihood impacts (Lestrelin et al. 2011). In response the Government introduced significant changes to the programme, increasing local participation through a revised Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP) programme, which aims to expand the issuance of titles. As with LUP/LA, PLUP has been hampered by limited funding and capacity and is therefore being conducted predominantly in places with sufficient donor funding and technical support, such as through the Northern Uplands Development Programme. Large parts of the country are also undergoing delineation according to processes established by the former National Land Management Authority (NLMA), now within the Department for Land Use Planning and Development within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE). However, these also have been constrained by poor capacity and lack of funds. The National Socio-Economic Development Plan 2011-2015 states the Government’s target of issuing 1.5 million titles between 2011 and 2015 (USAID, 2013). The above limitations have meant that there has been slow progress in meeting these ambitious targets, with just over 100,000 titles issued in the last six years (Vientiane Times, 2013).

At the subnational level, concerns that implementing REDD+ in the context of land tenure insecurity and weak governance may threaten forest dependent communities have led to attempts to a create a more enabling environment (Moore et al. 2012). For example, land use zoning, planning and titling as well as building local capacity to address the issues of land and resource rights have been carried out as part of the Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area (NEPL NPA) REDD+ project (ibid). While lessons learned from such subnational activities may help inform the national process, it cannot be guaranteed that they will be fully integrated into the national REDD+ framework (ibid). It has therefore been recognised that greater support is needed for communal land titling and the clarification of carbon rights to ensure that the potentially negative social impacts of REDD+ are minimised (ibid).