A day–by-day view of the Kathmandu conference

the collaboration between ILC and the The Conference which preceded the Assembly of Members and which had as its theme “Securing Rights to Land for Peace and Food Security,” brought together 177 delegates from 37 countries. Fifty of these delegates were from Nepal.

The conference was officially opened by the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Pushpa Kamal Dahal; the Minister of Land Reform and Management, the Honourable Mahendra Paswan; and the Secretary of Land Reform and Management, Dr Keshav Raj Kanel.

Day1 - A message from the Nepali Prime Minister

The Prime Minister lit the inaugural lamp and welcomed delegates, emphasizing the value of this conference for Nepal’s progress on land issues. Read the rest of this entry »

Day1 - Welcome from the Minister and Secretary of Land Reform and Management

The Honourable Mahendra Paswan, Minister, and Dr Keshav Kanel, Secretary of Land Reform and Management, spoke on Nepal’s progress towards land reform. Read the rest of this entry »

Day1 - Welcome from the International Land Coalition

The Director of the International Land Coalition, Dr Madiodio Niasse, welcomed all the delegates, expressed his particular gratitude to the Government of Nepal and emphasized that, in today’s fast-changing world and in the face of globalization, land reform is more relevant than ever.
Read the rest of this entry »

Day1 - Plenary session 1

The first plenary session began with an overview of land issues in Nepal, both from the point of view of civil society and from the point of view of a Nepali farmer leader.
The second half of this first Plenary Session was taken up with two keynote presentations: the first on the need for a new approach to women’s land access, and the second on the prospects for pro-poor land reform, based on historic experience.

• Land Issues in Nepal by Jagat Basnet & Jagannath Adhikari
  
• Address by Baldev Ram, President, National Land Rights Forum, Nepal
  
• Land for Women and the Poor: Need for a New Approach by Bina Agarwal
• Dr Bina Agarwal was interviewed during the conference and gave her thoughts on land reform and the ILC Conference.
  
• One Billion Rising: Land Reform Challenges and Responses in Today’s Context by Roy Prosterman
  
• Dr Prosterman gave his thoughts on the conference, ILC and awareness of land issues in an interview.
  

Day1 - Plenary Session 2

During the second plenary session, facilitated by Liz Alden Wily, Fernando Eguren of CEPES, Peru presented on 21st century agrarian reforms. Responses were provided by Constance Mogale of LAMOSA, South Africa, Erpan Faryadi of KPA Indonesia and Sue Longley of the IUF.

• 21st Century Agrarian Reforms
• Fernando Eguren was interviewed during the conference in Kathmandu.
  Versione Esp
  

Day1 - Plenary Session 3

The third plenary focused on land policies of inter-governmental organizations & bilateral donors.

The roundtable of representatives of donor organisations included Frits van der Waal (Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Jean-Philippe Audinet (IFAD), Lasse Krantz (SIDA) and Jozias Blok (EC). Read the rest of this entry »

Entrevista a Fernando Eguren (Cepes)

¿Qué elementos deben considerarse en el nuevo contexto global para el diseño de reformas agrarias? ¿Qué ha cambiado en los últimos años?

El tema de la tierra ha vuelto a las agendas y constituye un tema más amplio que el de la reforma agraria. Actualente existe una preocupación general por los problemas que acarrea la globalización, ya que estos están empezando a afectar a todos los países no sólo en los espacios rurales, sino al conjunto de la población.

Uno de estos problemas es el cambio climático. Por un lado, este tiene efectos en los ámbitos rurales, en la producción y en los derechos de propiedad sobre recursos naturales.  El cambio climático también afecta la forma en la que se accede y trabaja la tierra, por lo que se deben adoptar modalidades de producción que no sigan agravando este problema. El acceso forma parte de la agenda en torno al problema de la tierra. Los que ya tienen tierra, los que la reclaman y los movimientos que reivindican la tierra, tienen que preocuparse en cómo la van a hacer producir y, en cómo hacer para que dicha producción no empeore la crisis ambiental.

Otro problema es el de la (in) seguridad alimentaria, lo cual ha pasado de ser una preocupación nacional a ser una problemática de dimensión internacional. Esto se ha dado por el incremento en los precios de alimentos y por la constatación de que se están utilizando cada vez más suelos para agro combustibles. Las proyecciones demográficas señalan que para el 2050, el incremento en las necesidades de alimentación van a requerir no sólo un incremento en la productividad, sino también en la priorización de la producción de alimentos.

La concentración de la propiedad de la tierra, también constituye un serio problema que ha tomado mayores dimensiones con el fenómeno de la globalización. Existen diversos países que ,por distintas razones -ya sea por negocios o por asegurar la seguridad alimentaria-, han empezado a comprar o a acceder a tierras en países a menudo muy pobres.

Otra tendencia de la crisis es el desarrollo de un mercado internacional especulativo de tierras. Esto, sumado al desarrollo de industrias extractivas, pone en grave tensión los derechos sobre la tierra de las comunidades que habitan sobre estos recursos.

Así, vemos que la problemática de la tierra constituye un tema más amplio que el de la reforma agraria. Sin embargo, es importante señalar que se trata de un punto clave porque acarrea justicia distributiva y contribuye a lograr la democratización de las sociedades. El desafío es incrementar la producción y asegurar una distribución de los ingresos entre aquellos que se benefician de las reformas.

Todos estos temas fueron abordaos durante la Asamblea de la Coalición Internacional por el Acceso a la Tierra (ILC) en Nepal. Creo que la ILC tiene una gran responsabilidad al tratar el tema del acceso a la tierra, especialmente en el contexto actual. Cuando esta organización se creó, estaba más focalizada en el tema del acceso como vía para aliviar la pobreza en las zonas rurales. Hoy, sin haber abandonado este foco de atención, el tema de la tierra es de interés de sectores más amplios de la población. Esta temática se ubica, en muchos casos, por encima de los intereses particulares, ya que ahora se trata de un problema que afecta al conjunto de la humanidad. Es importante que al interior de la ILC se trabajen sinergias entre las distintas instituciones y organizaciones que la conforman.

Fernando Eguren was interviewed during the conference in Kathmandu

AN INTERVIEW WITH FERNANDO EGUREN DURING THE ILC CONFERENCE, NEPAL

What elements should be considered in the new global context for a drafting of agrarian reform?
What has changed in the last few years?

The issue of land is back on the world’s agendas and is now a broader theme than that of agrarian reform. There is now a general preoccupation with the problems of globalization, especially as they are beginning to affect all countries, and not only rural areas but the entire population.

One of these problems is climate change. On the one hand, climate change affects rural environments, production and rights to natural resources. Climate change also affects the way in which the land is worked, and it is necessary to adopt methods that won’t aggravate the situation. Access is only one aspect of the problems related to land. Those who already have land, those who lay a claim to it and movements which demand it must concern themselves with how they are going to make it productive and how to make this productivity less damaging for the environment.

Another problem resides in food insecurity, which has gone from a national concern to a problem of international dimensions. This has been caused by the incremental rise in food prices by the mere fact that more and more land is being used for biofuels.  Demographic projections predict that by 2050 the rise in food demand will require not just an increase in productivity but also a prioritization in the production of food.

The concentration of land ownership also creates a serious problem that has taken on greater dimensions with the phenomenon of globalization. Several countries for various reasons – either as an investment or to ensure their own food security – have begun to buy or take over lands in much poorer countries.

Another tendency of the crisis is the land speculation. This, added to the development of extractive industries, creates serious tensions between land rights and the communities who live on those resources.

Thus, we can see that access to land constitutes a much broader issue than just agrarian reform. Nevertheless, it is important to note that land is still a key element because it is a question of distributive justice and contributes to the democratization of societies. The challenge is to increase production and ensure that there are concrete benefits from reform.

All these issues were touched upon during the General Assembly of the ILC in Nepal. I believe that the ILC has a great responsibility to address the issue of land access, especially in today’s context. When this organization was created, it focused more on the issue of access to land as a way to alleviate poverty in rural areas. Today, without having abandoned this focus, the issue of land is of interest to many other sectors of the population. This issue is much greater than the interests of the individual as it is a problem that concerns all of humanity. To address this, it is important that within the ILC various synergies are created between institutions and organisations that make up this organisation.

21st Century Agrarian Reforms

Fernando Eguren outlined the land reforms that took place in Latin America during the 1960s and 1970s. They had positive consequences, eliminating the landowner class and providing peasants with the status of citizens. Rural markets expanded and land was distributed to collectives which were quickly subdivided into small family farms. Nevertheless, rural poverty was not eliminated, in part because land distribution was not followed up by adequate support policies. Later, neoliberal policies undermined positive gains from land reform as governments granted concessions to extractive industries and dedicated land to biofuel production. Socio-economic inequalities grew and democracy took a step backward. Today’s land reform scenario is more complex as international companies avoid the stigma of the ancient haciendas and indigenous peasant movements claim the land in the name of cultural identity.

Ecological concerns are also increasingly important: the rapid decline of the natural resource base and global warming clearly show that “business as usual” is no longer sustainable.

In response, Erpan Faryadi highlighted the ideological confrontation inherent in land reform, and the political nature of the struggle for land and natural resources. He stated that, although “business as usual” is unsustainable, governments have not recognized this and continue to ally themselves with investors, even those whose practices are environmentally destructive. He noted the new trend of foreign purchase of agricultural land in developing countries, and suggested that increasing concentration of land could lead to violent agricultural revolution by peasants deprived of resources in the 21st century.

Constance Mogale felt that inappropriate Western models of development disregarded African agrarian models. She criticized the assumption that Africa has enough land and only needs the transfer of technology, as the indigenous people are still marginalised by rich elites. She also emphasized the problem of poor salaries and working conditions for agricultural labourers. She noted that land reform movements are treated as obstacles to modernization, and called for a change in thinking.

Sue Longley described new challenges for agrarian reform, in a context in which agriculture relies on migrant workers with no land rights, where multinational companies give up control of production while increasing control higher on the value chain, and where biofuels are changing the type of crops grown. In such a context, land rights may be transferred without benefitting small farmers; she cited an example where Dole had distributed plantation land, resulting in outsourced risks of production for Dole, rather than improved incomes for the new farm owners. She stated that IUF was interested in identifying a common agenda of smallholders and rural labourers.

Some of the remarks from the floor focused on the connection between land rights and mass struggle: some equated land reform with revolution, while others said violence became the means of struggle where civil society was weak. Participants considered the role of elites in resisting land reform and promoting greater land concentration. The session concluded with a call to address the question of land reform in a global context which transcends national borders and to develop a fresh set of concepts of land rights in the 21st century.

Dr Prosterman gave his thoughts on the conference, ILC and awareness of land issues in an interview

AN INTERVIEW WITH ROY PROSTERMAN, MAY 2009How do you think this gathering of people has progressed the issues of access to land around the world?

Very much, both in terms of substance and process. A great deal of good has been accomplished – bringing together entities focused on land tenure, seeing who else is engaged and networking. Communication is extremely important for both public and private actors as well as NGOs. Bringing together the whole community in such a way is an opportunity for substantive dialogue.

It is also important to follow up on a conference such as this, and ILC is doing this. ILC can become a clearinghouse for members and for those beyond its membership who are interested in land rights – through publications and inviting feedback on development on the country and sub-country level. The ILC can become a land reference.

It is also important to make sure this happens not just at AoMs but on an ongoing basis, channelling information for regional feedback, through mutual updating. Members should also provide inputs into the formulation of programmes

This meeting offers a golden opportunity for such follow-up with both the public and private sectors and to make ongoing use of such networking.

How do you think this meeting can contribute to change in Nepal?

Nepal was chosen specifically because it poses one of the greatest challenges to access and rights. The government takes land reform issues very seriously. There must be a recognition of the “do no harm” principle. If, within a context of tenant farming there is no compensation and confiscatory measures are taken, these intentions are announced beforehand and the tenants are immediately evicted by the landlords. Such discussions as have taken place at this conference should alert government officials to such a risk. Nepal’s vibrant NGO community with its grassroots contacts can give feedback on such potential evictions before they happen. Such are the lessons that can be learned in such conference settings and from other members. Countries can learn ways of designing programmes that can help avert such a result and do it in such a way so as to provide net positive benefits.  We should never underestimate the importance of comparative perspective. Much can be learned from others. The ILC conference is a great contributor to such exchanges.

What is the one outstanding land issue that emerged in discussions during this conference?

It is important to create universal recognition of the vital importance of pro-poor land reform and the evolution of new ways of addressing the issues. There is now a widespread recognition of WAL, of small plot approaches, of formalising land reform and identifying where it is helpful or not. This is a product of ILC conferences.

How much awareness do you think there is at present of land issues?

There is a tendency on the part of foundations and foreign aid programmes (underfunded in general) to think narrowly of those who are already on the land. There is little awareness of landlessness. There is also a lack of awareness of the legal dimension of land rights and land security. This should feed other agricultural policies such as diversification and productivity.

A “wake up call” is needed. It is not just about providing seed or marketing of produce but also access and security that are important. A large proportion of the population has no land security and this is not acknowledged. As a product of the conference: there should be a plea to government aid programmes and foundations to think more broadly. Who gets the benefits? Will they reach the rural poor? How can the rural poor be included in programmes, not just on the household level but also in the recognition of rural women.

One Billion Rising: Land Reform Challenges and Responses in Today’s Context by Roy Prosterman

Dr Roy Prosterman of the Rural Development Institute in the USA described the successes and failures of different types of land reforms over the past 50 years. Land-to-the-tiller programmes had succeeded in South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam but failed or backfired, spurring evictions of tenants, in India, Pakistan and Philippines. He noted lessons for Nepal, as a country contemplating land-to-the-tiller reform. Reforms to redistribute untenanted holdings to agricultural labourers and the rural poor had fewer successes (in Mexico and Bolivia) and many failures. He pointed to the importance of giving beneficiaries the choice between individual or large-scale farming, and of making projects replicable. Dr Prosterman presented micro-plots as an alternative to larger scale reforms, particularly where these are not economically or politically feasible: micro-plots of 300-400 square metres can supplement existing livelihood strategies, improve nutrition and income, and provide women with land rights.

Dr Prosterman noted two promising ‘new’ areas for improving rights: strengthening tenancy rights and formalising women’s land rights. However, he recognised that, in many contexts, formalisation may create as many problems as it solves – erasing secondary rights and encouraging corruption.

In conclusion, Dr Prosterman emphasized the importance of moving beyond drafting good laws to successful implementation, stating that well-designed and well-implemented laws could help a billion landless and near-landless rural poor rise out of poverty over the next two decades.
Read presentation

Dr Bina Agarwal was interviewed during the conference and gave her thoughts on land reform and the ILC Conference

AN INTERVIEW WITH BINA AGARWAL, NEPAL, APRIL 200

What are some of the most important issues concerned with land rights today?

In recent years there has been a demographic shift to the small female farmer. This is not a gender issue but an economic issue. It is the reality of farming today.

Two issues come together: it is not just about equity but about productivity and is a key to reviving agriculture in South Asia. We should think of women who work on the land as farmers and not as farm wives. But we must also be aware that reaching female farmers is different. There are still obstacles of inheritance, obtaining credit.

How do you think women can organize themselves to be more productive?

If everyone is given land, this is not viable. The production unit should not necessarily be the ownership unit. We should look more closely at the possibility of contract or group farming. A group of farmers can negotiate and be a bargaining unit for better terms of insurance, legal advice, etc. Groups can also deliver more efficiently because of their shared skills and the shared risk. The notion of viability should not be dependent on what you own. Ownership could be in groups and lead towards viable production. We should build on the idea of self-help groups. An idea to keep in mind is “own what you want but pool it” to strategize and empower.

This is an issue of conceptualization but to be viable we need to know how much is required by the family unit for its own subsistence, taking into consideration the context of their farming (for example, the productive output of irrigated vs un-irrigated land). For the poor a land-based existence does not exist. Most families are multi-occupational.

There should be a merit to owning land but it should not be the only livelihood.

What are your impressions of the ILC conference in Kathmandu?

It certainly has been an opportunity to learn and to chart out a common framework. By this I mean not an approach but a broad understanding of strategic coming together. The historic context and the moment are one in which we should rethink the larger economy. For example, in India there is enormous growth in the urban and service sectors and less people are dependent on the land.

The baggage of received knowledge among the poor is that the State will take your land if you say anything. Through conferences such as these we must create the conditions to come together without fear.

Land for Women and the Poor: Need for a New Approach by Bina Agarwal

Dr Bina Agarwal of the University of Delhi noted the aptness of Nepal, “where land reform is in the making,” as the site of the conference. She drew attention to the feminization of agriculture throughout South Asia: “Men are moving out of agriculture leaving women behind.” At the same time, little land is held by women. She argued that empowering women makes agriculture more efficient and drives growth.She called for two conceptual shifts: viewing women as farmers rather than farm wives, and distinguishing between production units and ownership units. She proposed that land reform target groups. Although many past experiences of collectivisation have failed through coercion or top-down management, Dr Agarwal identified six principles that can help collectives succeed: voluntary participation, small size, socio-economic homogeneity, participatory decision-making, checks and balances within the group and fairness in the distribution of proceeds. Bottom-up collectives, she said, improve women’s access to land through markets and allow them to pool their labour and skills. Women organized in groups also gain status and bargaining power. The creation of land trusts can help women’s collectives retain land by preventing its transfer to male relatives.Participants from the floor debated the conditions under which collectives could help women gain access to land. Some pointed to successes in community forestry in Nepal; others were skeptical, citing examples where men had  taken over women’s land when they recognised its value. Yet others suggested that cultural factors and existing institutions could play a role in determining success.  Another criticism was that, while some women might gain land through collectives, self-help-based solutions can undermine the cause for land reform by reducing the burden on the State to enact reform. Dr Agarwal responded that improving women’s access to land does not eliminate the need to improve their access through the State and inheritance.

Address by Baldev Ram, President, National Land Rights Forum, Nepal

The President of the National Land Rights Forum and a member of the High-Level Land Commission, Baldev Ram, spoke from the heart: he saw political changes in Nepal as being very superficial  and as not reaching the landless. “We are demanding health, education and right to livelihood. To get all these rights, we need the land.” He shared realities from the district where he lives, where many families live in poverty in huts even while large tracts of arable land lie fallow. Baldev Ram said that, although Nepal was now a republic, the old mentality still persists. He called on government to continue its efforts to collect data on land ownership and landlessness as a basis for policy action. He thanked Nepal’s development partners from abroad for their support, but pointed out that technical programmes to modernize agriculture will not create change in Nepal, so long as land is not provided to the landless.
Read presentation

Land Issues in Nepal by Jagat Basnet & Jagannath Adhikari

After the optimism voiced during the opening session, Jagat Basnet, Director of CSRC Nepal, and Dr Jagannath Adhikari, an independent researcher, gave some sobering statistics: 10% of the rural population is absolutely landless and over half of the rural population is functionally landless – lacking sufficient land to meet subsistence requirements. In a country with little arable land and where 5% of the wealthy hold 37% of arable land, absentee landlordism, unregistered tenancy and sharecropping have been critical factors leading to declining productivity.
Jagat Basnet expressed skepticism of the State’s interest in real land reform, stating that the focus thus far had been only on land administration. Efforts made by governments since Nepal’s 1951 land reform had failed to transform Nepal’s feudal structure or to reduce its food deficit. He concluded that land reform in Nepal requires a community approach and not market-led liberalism, and called for protection of the real tillers of the land in the new Constitution.
Dr Jagannath Adhikari spoke of the impacts of global processes including globalisation, climate change and foreign direct investment on land access in Nepal. He made a case for new policies to emphasize food self-sufficiency, to develop an integrated approach to land, water and forest resources, and to ensure that FDI in land does not damage poor people’s livelihoods.
Read presentation