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.
  

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