ARnet Regional Report South Asia 1998

Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD), Bangladesh
Rome, February 1998

INTRODUCTION

This paper reflects the perspective of NGOs on land reform introduced in South Asia. The position of NGOs concerning land reform is complex as NGOs have to locate themselves clearly within the complex power structure involving land tenure, laws, land administration, etc. The demand for land reform is made in the light of historical failure of the Governments to alleviate poverty through land redistribution, protecting soil from degradation, commercialization of lands, etc. This paper is prepared based on surveys of 22 NGOs in Bangladesh, 20 NGOs in Nepal and 7 NGOs in India. These NGOs are working among the poor with an aim of land reform taking place in favor of them..

India and Bangladesh witness the environmental pressure for land reforms immediately after independence while Nepal which was never under direct colonial rule faces the same situation after 1952. South Asian governments basically follow reformist strategies aiming at alterations of the land tenure system and the distribution of land in order to change one particular aspect of the economic environment.

The states played an important role in containing the euphoria for land reform by enacting some tenurial laws without bringing any significant change in the land administration. The enactment of tenurial laws primarily revolve around two types of populism. In the first place, land reform deals with redistributive land reform. The attempts of governments to land reform is based on assumptions that small farms are the most efficient which exhibit higher employment and output per acre. Thus, the laws enacted with a view to redistributing land from holdings above a certain `ceiling' to those which are below the efficient farm size. In the second place, land reform aims at tenancy reform. Tenancy reforms are favored as share tenancy is inefficient in both static (production) and dynamic (saving/surplus utilization/investment) senses. South Asian countries have a common pattern of land reform. Land reform includes attempts at providing greater tenurial rights to share-croppers, imposing a ceiling on land ownership and distributing surplus lands among the landless and poor peasants.

South Asian experience suggests that land reform effects incomes and statuses of the agrarian elite, but the basic structure of wealth and power in the society remains same. The interest of both rural and urban elite is well entrenched in the post-colonial state.

Although many South Asian NGOs are involved in land reforms from seventies, but they are now making renewed effort to develop a comprehensive movement on land reforms and movements. NGOs emphasize the reformative approach of land reform in favor of transfer of land to those who use land more labor-intensively, and produce more crops per year, of higher unit value, and with higher yield-per-acre. NGOs advocate for reform in favor of the poorest of the poor with whom they work. The view of the South Asian NGOs is that the poor's rights in land should be protected and land reform should be done with a view to increasing food and crop production by granting land right and releasing more land to the poor from those who do not invest in land. This will prove to show the efficiency of hard working poor in increasing productivity which in turn will ensure food security and nutritional right.

Land reform in South Asia fails due to of lack of both "political will" and pressure from "the below." Although, NGOs are successful in offering an approach to reach the poor men and women, it is inappropriate to claim that NGOs are bringing a real change in the lives of the poor. NGOs aspiration to deal with the question of land reform came in early seventies and eighties when they started to mobilize the poor for social conscientization. Being close to the poor, they immediately identified that without land reform no significant change could be brought in the lives of the poor. Historically many NGOs have tried to deal with the issues of land rights and reforms within the framework of country's constitution, but such move has created situations for conflict with the power-structure and the elite. NGOs always tried to avoid such undesirable situations without compromising the question of land reforms which they view land reform will ensure the right to land and livelihood of the poor. Over the years, many NGOs have deviated somewhat from their main concern of securing land rights for the poor. They started experiment with alternate models of development like micro-credit, adult education, non-formal primary education, health, etc. The apparent reasons for such deviation is partly related to the confusion of NGOs in dealing with the complexities of land reforms and the time required to create an impact. Importantly, many NGOs thought, they could better contribute in other sectors instead of land reforms which may positively bring changes in the lives of the poor. Such change of priorities of NGOs certainly influenced by many donors whose financial supports are always considered crucial in determining the direction of development.

The present context for working on land reform by NGOs is much more favorable than the past one. Throughout South Asia, governments are being forced for fiscal and political reasons to assume a different stance in facilitating their countries role in development. The prevailing atmosphere of privatization and market reforms and dominance of competitive democratic political system while creating a conducive environment for land reform, it is also removing the possibility of radical land reform in foreseeable future. Moreover, at present in the absence of organized peasant movement, unlike the past, NGOs are in a position to offer alternate organizations for carrying out land reform by involving peasants and the poor. NGOs learn from experience that without agrarian reform involving land reforms, control of common resource management like forests and water bodies, rivers, etc. rural violence, social and political instability will increase; productive skills and efficiency cannot be used in agriculture; land will always be underutilized as it dissuades land owners; peasant's labor will be exploited; government loses significant amount of land tax as land administration is not efficient; government also unrealistically determine land tax; land fragmentation will continue across the region undermining productivity, etc.

NGO movements in Nepal, India and Bangladesh suggest that South Asian NGOs are not yet clear about their perceived objectives in land reforms. However, there is an unique consensus among NGOs that land reform is the precondition for sustainable development and the question of land reforms should not be bypassed. What appears is that NGOs are clearly involved in following areas of activities concerning land questions.

First, NGOs are engaging themselves with policy advocacy. The aim of advocacy of these NGOs is to redress the fraudulent practices and also follies and anomalies inherent within the land management system. For this purpose, NGOs from the very beginning are engaging the cross section of population in different training, workshops, convention on land issues and land rights, helping the poor share cropper for accessing to land, realization and reclamation of land from the Land Mafia and grabbers, etc.

Second, they are involved in mediating conflicts on land mitigation. On many instances they are helping the poor with laws and legal knowledge aid. Lastly, they delimit their activities in areas where they have open access with absence of well defined property rights and access to the resources determined by the state.

NGOs may play more proactive role in areas like land recording system to provide a check and balance method by ensuring community and peoples participation; oversee the land registration and mutation process; involve actively in mediating role in land settlement disputes and solve locally; NGOs can assist government to assess realistically the formulation and implementation of land revenues and reform; land management and taxation policies, etc. NGOs feel for developing a regional NGO network that may bring benefits of land reform for ensuring social equity and justice, food security, family welfare, etc.; integrating and balancing ecology, environmental conservation, etc.; and protecting women's rights, rights to indigenous people and culture and minority population.

A real land reform will bring equality, economic development and harmony in community and society. Land reforms will certainly contribute more than 80% cases and litigation in the region. Societies in South Asia are increasingly witnessing the increase of violence of all types: gender violence, killing, extortions, etc. The roots of these violence lie in the inability of the government to carryout land reform. Thereby, the main problems of land reforms are the control of political power by inefficient bureaucracy and rural elite; their alliance effectively dissuades any effort of land reform; the relative difficulties of NGO movement to organize the poor for social mobilization from the below; the past land reforms were always politically negotiated; the reduced public expenditure inhibits government's capacity for land reform; and increase of population and corresponding decrease of land sizes result in less availability, productivity of land and food insecurity.

The landscape South Asia contains one-fourth of world population and majority of them are forced to live in poverty with hunger despite their tremendous potential to grown and live with human dignity. NGOs are working with these huge population and they are contributing significantly. Given this context, the need for South Asian NGO network is becoming necessary as NGOs are in a position to complement the efforts of government for land reform. NGOs know from their experiences that the grassroots participation for land reform has its own limitations.

The poor people at grassroots level are weak, isolated and they lack knowledge on land laws, controlled by landed gentry and power elite, on occasions affected by internal conflicts, etc. In many areas, problems are more acute because of conflict between new landless people and the old landless. However, despite all weaknesses the poor have tremendous repository of local and indigenous knowledge pertaining to land management which is practical and less expensive. But, one must take into consideration that local knowledge is vulnerable to outside influence. There also remains a major problem of interpreting local knowledge and finding a pattern. Exploring and interpreting indigenous knowledge and activities are time-consuming and it is difficult to draw clearly defined lessons to local communities in other areas. They have mechanism for solidarity. The solidarity is eroding because of market influence and other factors, but local knowledge is historically built on check and balance mechanism. Thereby, the needs for social mobilization aiming at land reform is felt since the state do not support sufficiently the poor's initiatives. In such a situation, popular pressure from the below for mobilization was always helpful as it creates room for maneuvering and negotiation.

NGOs and government can complement each other in land reform. Taking cue from West Bengal, India and experience of other societies, we may look forward to allocating the role of government who can concentrate in actual implementation work; and NGOs in cooperation with the local bodies of government and civil society can supervise all aspects of land management. This will lessen government cost on land management and improve its image. At present NGO movement is not very strong concerning land related matters. NGOs' involvement in land reform may create tension among the government's land management officials. An enabling environment for sustenance of land reform is required to built up. NGOs are adopting a pragmatic approach, instead of romantic one, keeping in mind the problematic reality of wider social and political context, and also problems of accessing to decision-making structure. NGOs are also concerned on how to highlight, protect and strengthen the past gains from land reform. This cautious approach would then allow NGOs to work with a long-term perspective on land reform with an emphasis on monitoring and evaluating the process of change. It will also enable to construct a perspective on regional, national and local resource management for securing the rights of small farmers and the poor. Thus, to have a strong NGO movement, we urge for developing a comprehensive NGO perspective for land reform to homogenize NGO movement in South Asia; and a simultaneous recognition to heterogeneity for emphasizing a regional and national particularism among NGOs for setting a direction for land reform.