The emerging human right to land

International Community Law Review

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 303-334

  De Schutter, Olivier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

access to natural resources; agrarian reform; international human rights; property rights; right to food; right to land

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954795103     PISSN: 18719740     EISSN: 18719732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/187197310X513725     Document Type: Article

References (154)

1. FAO, The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Economic Crises - Impacts and Lessons Learned (2009), p. 11.
2. See UN Millennium Project, Halving Hunger: It Can be Done, Summary Version of the Report of the Task Force on Hunger (2005), p. 6.
3. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, to the UN General Assembly in accordance with Resolution 56/155 on 15 February 2002. U.N. Doc. A/57/356, paragraphs 24 and 30.
4. Eric Holt-Gimenez and Raj Patel, Food Rebellions! Crisis and the Hunger for Justice (2009), p. 112.
5. Michael Courville and Raj Patel, "The Resurgence of Agrarian Reform in the Twenty-First Century", in Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform (2006), p. 5.
6. World Bank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development (2008), pp. 138-139
7. On the situation of this category, see FAO-ILO-IUF, Agricultural Workers and their Contribution toSustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (2005);
8. ILO, Promotion of Rural Employment for Poverty Reduction, International Labour Conference, 97th session, (2008).
9. G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948).
10. Adopted on 16 December 1966, G.A. Res. 2200(XXII), U.N. GAOR, 21st sess., Supp. No.16, U.S. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 UNTS 3.
11. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.12 (1999): The Right to Adequate Food (art. 11), UN doc. E/C.12/1999/5, para. 6.
12. Ibid., para. 15.
13. Ibid,.
14. See in particular Christophe Golay and Ioana Cismas, The Right to Property from a Human Rights Perspective (2010).
15. Lorenzo Cotula et al., The Right to Food and Access to Natural Resources. Using Human Rights Argumentsand Mechanisms to Improve Resource Access for the Rural Poor (2008), pp. 23 and 59 ('The right tofood does not automatically translate into a 'right to land' ⋯ because access to food for all may bein contexts where much of the population depends on access to resources, improving access to naturalresources is likely to be the focus of strategies to realize the right to food').
16. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.12 (1999): The Right to Adequate Food (art. 11), UN doc. E/C.12/1999/5, para. 13.
17. World Bank, Agriculture for Development. World Development Report 2008 (October 2007), pp. 118-119.
18. Cambodia, Halving Poverty by 2015? Poverty Assessment 2006, prepared by the World Bank for the Consultative Group Meeting, Phnom Penh (February 2006), p. 85.
19. Guttal Shalmali, Land and Natural Resource Alienation in Cambodia, Focus on the Global South, (2006), available at http://focusweb.org/land-and-natural- resource-alienation-in-cambodia.html#-ednref13 (last consulted on 10 May 2010).
20. International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD Policy on Improving Access to Land and Tenure Security, Doc. EB 2008/94/R.2, Rome, August 2008, para. 17.
21. Ibid,.
22. Intergovernmental Panel of Experts on Climate Change (IPCC), Synthesis Report 2007: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 3, chap. 1, p. 105. It is estimated that forests store 45 percent of terrestrialcarbon.
23. Lorenzo Cotula, Nat Dyer and Sonja Vermeulen, Fuelling Exclusion? The Biofuels Boom and Poor People's Access to Land (2008).
24. See also Rachel Smolker and others, The Real Cost of Agrofuels: Impacts on Food, Forests, Peoples and the Climate (Global Forest Coalition and Global Justice Ecology Project, 2008)
25. and "Building Resilience: a Human Rights Framework for World Food and Nutrition Security", Reportof the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to the Human Rights Council presented in accordance with resolution S-7/1, adopted by the Human Rights Council on 22 May 2008 at its Special Session onthe global food crisis (A/HRC/9/23, 8 September 2008), paras. 25-34 and Annex II.
26. See Victoria Tauli-Corpuz and Parshuram Tamang, Oil Palm and Other Commercial Tree Plantations,Monocropping: Impacts on Indigenous Peoples' Land Tenure and Resource Management Systems and Livelihoods,Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, sixth session, New York, 14-25 May 2007, Doc.E/C.19/2007/CRP. 6 (7 May 2007).
27. At the time of writing (10 May 2010), this study had not yet been made public. The figures arefrom presentations made by the World Bank, most recently at its annual conference held in Washington, D.C., on 24-25 April 2010: see http://www.landcoalition.org/cpl-blog/?p=5581 (last accessed on 10 May 2010).
28. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, 11 December 1997, entered in force on 16 February 2005; UN Doc. FCCC/CP/L.7.Add.1, 10 December 1997; 37 ILM 22 (1998).
29. "Uganda: Carbon Trading Scheme Pushing People off Their Land", Inter Press Service, 31 August 2009.
30. See generally David J. Kelly, "The Case for Social Safeguards in a Post-2012 Agreement on REDD",6 Law, Environment and Development Journal (2010/1), p. 61, available at http://www.lead-journal.org/content/10061.pdf;
31. Tom Griffiths, Seeing RED: Avoided Deforestation and the Rights of Indigenous Peoplesand Local Communities, (Forest Peoples Program, United Kingdom, 2007);
32. Simone Lovera, The Hottest REDD Issues: Rights, Equity, Development, Deforestation and Governance by Indigenous Peoples andLocal Communities (The Global Forest Coalition, Amsterdam, 2008).
33. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action, Decision 2/CP.3, in Report of the Conference of the Parties, Thirteenth Session, Bali, 3-15 December 2007,Doc. No. FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1 (2008).
34. Ibid,.
35. See, eg, Malcolm Langford and Ujjaini Halim, "Expropriation and Eviction: Grassroots and Human Rights Perspectives on Compulsory Acquisition", Global Land Tool Network Working Paper, September2007, available at www.gltn.org.
36. See, for example, Wei Ge, "Special Economic Zones and the Opening of the Chinese Economy:Some Lessons for Economic Liberalization", 27 World Development (1999/7), pp. 1267-1285.
37. ILO Convention (n° 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (adopted on 27 June 1989, into force since 5 September 1991), Art. 14(1).
38. Art. 14(2) and 14(3).
39. Art. 16(2).
40. Art. 16(3).
41. Art. 16(4).
42. Art. 16(5).
43. Only 20 States had ratified the convention at the time of writing. The list includes not a single AfricanState, and only one country from Asia (Nepal ratified the convention in 2007). See for the table ofratifications http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/ratifce.pl?C169 (last accessed on 10 May 2010).
44. U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/295.
45. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (A/RES/21/2200A, 16 December1966) (993 UNTS 3)
46. and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (A/RES/21/2200A, 16December 1966) (999 UNTS 171).
47. Human Rights Committee, Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand, Communication No. 547/1993,CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (2000), para. 9.7. The Human Rights Committee observed that 'minoritiesshall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their ownculture[, which] may consist in a way of life which is closely associated with territory and use of itsresources. This may particularly be true of members of indigenous communities constituting a minority':General Comment No. 23: The Rights of Minorities (Art. 27) (Fiftieth session, 1994), CCPR/C/21Rev.1/Add.5, August 4, 1994, paras. 1 and 3.2.
48. CERD, Concluding Observations: Guyana, CERD/C/GUY/CO/14, 4 April 2006, para. 16.
49. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mayagna (Sumo) Indigenous Community of Awas Tingni v.Nicaragua Case, judgment of 31 August 2001, Series C No. 70, paras. 151 and 164).
50. For a discussion ofthe case-law of the Inter-American bodies in this area, see Fergus MacKay, "From 'Sacred Commitment'to Justiciable Norms: Indigenous peoples' rights in the Inter-American system", in Margot E. Salomon, Arne Tostensen and Wouter Vandenhole (eds.), Casting the Net Wider: Human Rights, Development and New Duty-Bearers (2007), pp. 371-394.
51. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment of 29 March 2006, para. 128;
52. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Councilv. Kenya, Communication No.276 / 2003, May 2009, para. 209.
53. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, The Social and Economic Rights Action Centerand the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, Communication 155/96 (2001), paras. 42, 54 and 55.
54. Article 21 establishes, inter alia, that: '1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of hisproperty. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall bedeprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility orsocial interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law.'
55. Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 31 August 2001, Series C No. 79, para. 148;
56. Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 29 March 2006, Series C No. 146, para. 120.
57. See Supreme Court of Canada, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 (11 December 1997), paras. 194, 199 and 201.
58. Section 25(7) of the 1996 South African Constitution provides that '[a]person or community dispossessedof property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practice isentitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitableredress.'
59. See South African Constitutional Court, Alexkor Ltd and the Republic of South Africa v. The Richtersveld Community and Others, (CCT19/03) [2003] ZACC 18; 2004 (5) SA 460 (CC); 2003 (12) BCLR1301 (CC) (14 October 2003), para. 62
60. Richtersveld Community and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another, 2003 (6) BCLR 583 (SCA), para. 18.
61. According to Article 17 UDHR: 'everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in associationwith others' (Art. 17(1))
62. and 'no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property' (Art. 17(2)).
63. As noted by Lorenzo Cotula, this provision includes both individual and collective property ('alone as wellas in association with others'). See Lorenzo Cotula et al., The Right to Food and Access to Natural Resources, supra, p. 24.
64. On this provision, see above, text corresponding to notes 13-14.
65. See Lorenzo Cotula et al., The Right to Food and Access to Natural Resources, supra, p. 28 (in favor of areading of Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights as extending its protectionto customary tenure).
66. See, however, Case CCT 11/00, Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboomand Others, 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (judgment of 4 October 2000) (finding, after families had illegallyoccupied land because they wanted to flee from intolerable conditions in a shack settlement, that theauthorities had been acting in violation of the right to housing as defined in the Constitution 'in that[they] failed to provide for any form of relief to those desperately in need of access to housing'); andECtHR (GC), Öneryildiz v. Turkey (Appl. No. 48939/99) judgment of 30 November 2004 (in a case inwhich the applicant complained about the destruction of his house erected illegally in slums surroundingIstanbul, nearby a rubbish tip, the Court notes that "the concept of "possessions" [protected underArticle 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights] has an autonomous meaningwhich is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classificationin domestic law: the issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, ⋯may be regarded as having conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by thatprovision" (para. 125);while the Court refuses to consider 'that the applicant's hope of having the landin issue transferred to him one day constituted a claim of a kind that was sufficiently established to beenforceable in the courts, and hence a distinct "possession" within the meaning of the Court's case-law'(para. 126), nevertheless "the applicant's proprietary interest in his dwelling was of a sufficient natureand sufficiently recognised to constitute a substantive interest and hence a "possession" within the meaningof the rule laid down in the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1" (para. 129)). These judgmentssuggest that even where a person has established herself illegally on a given area, she may,depending on the context and particularly on the alternatives available, be protected from forcible removal.
67. Klaus Deininger, Land Polices for Growth and Poverty Reduction (World Bank, 2003), pp. 115-16;
68. Klaus Deininger and Songqing Jin, "Tenure Security and Land-Related Investment: Evidence from Ethiopia", 50(5) European Economic Review (2006) 1245-1277;
69. World Bank, Agriculture for Development, supra p. 138.
70. See however, for a more sceptical view, Frank Place and S.E. Migot-Adholla, 'The Economic Effects of Land Registration on Smallholder Farms in Kenya', 74 Land Economics (1998)360-373 (based on household and plot data in four Kenyan sites, the authors note that titling was pursuedto improve security of tenure, but that the impacts on productivity were minimal; they concludethat resources would have been better spent on infrastructure and improvement of market opportunitiesfor farming).
71. Manpreet Sethi, "Land Reform in India: Issues and Challenges" in Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform (2006), p. 77.
72. Camila Roulmin and Julian Quan (eds.), Evolving Land Rights, Tenure and Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa (2000), p. 38.
73. See in particular H. de Soto, The Other Path: the Economic Answer to Terrorism (1989)
74. and H. de Soto, The Mystery of Capital: why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, (2000).
75. For example, in Thailand, wealthy, politically connected elites within communities have used their influence to register the 'unoccupied' lands of the poor and indigenous groups. Rebecca Leonard and Kingorn Narintarakul Na Ayuttahaya, "Thailand's Land Titling Program: Securing Land for the Poor?",in Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform (2006), pp. 134-135
76. The existing customary rights of indigenous groups were not recognized by colonial systems, whichallowed settlers to register and claim ownership over land already occupied and in use. See African Ministerial Conference on Housing and Urban Development, Innovations in Africa: Pro-poor Land Approaches (2005), p. 2.
77. On the manipulation of titling schemes in favor of the elites and the risk of replication ofexisting inequalities, see also Saturnino M. Borras Jr. and Jennifer C. Franco, "Contemporary Discoursesand Contestations around Pro-Poor Land Polices and Land Governance", 10 Journal of Agrarian Change (2010) 19.
78. World Bank, Agriculture for Development, cited supra, p. 138.
79. See e.g. Rebecca Leonard and Kingorn Narintarakul Na Ayuttahaya, "Thailand's Land Titling Program: Securing Land for the Poor?", in Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform (2006),p. 134;
80. Celestine Nyamu Musembi, "De Soto and Land Relations in Africa: Breathing life into dead theories about property rights" in Saturnino M. Borras, Jr., Cristobal Kay and Edward Lahiff (eds.)Market-Led Agrarian Reform: Critical Perspectives on Neoliberal Land Policies and the Rural Poor (2008).
81. - 2 AC [1921] 399 (PC), at 402-404.
82. World Bank, Agriculture for Development, cited above, p. 139.
83. See also Klaus Deininger and Gershon Feder, Land Institutions and Land Markets, Policy Research Working Paper 2014, World Bank Development Research Group, 2-6 (1998).
84. Statement by Centre for Minority Rights Development to the 41st Session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Examination of State Party Report on Kenya, Nov. 3 2008.
85. Chambi Chachage, Prospects and Pitfalls of Legal Empowerment of the Poor in Tanzania: Some Key Observations (2006), p. 10.
86. Ibid., p. 65.
87. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs,Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, paras. 132-133.
88. See also Saramaka People. v. Suriname,Judgment of 28 November 2007, para. 86 (finding that "the Court's jurisprudence regarding indigenouspeoples' right to property is also applicable to tribal peoples because both share distinct social, cultural,and economic characteristics, including a special relationship with their ancestral territories, that requirespecial measures under international human rights law in order to guarantee their physical and culturalsurvival").
89. See, in particular, Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1990).
90. Ibid., chapter 5.
91. Willem Assies, "Land tenure, land law and development: some thoughts on recent debates", 36 Journalof Peasant Studies (2009) 573-589.
92. At p. 6.
93. Ana Palacio, Legal Empowerment of the Poor: an Action Agenda for the World Bank, revised draft,March 2006, p. 18 ('Formal land titles in some African countries did not bring the expected benefits ofhigher income and investment because indigenous tenure was already sufficiently secure under customarylaw').
94. See William Assies, "Land Tenure and Tenure Regimes in Mexico", 8 Journal of Agrarian Change(2008) 55.
95. See Susana Gauster and Ryan Isakson, "Eliminating Market Distortions, Perpetuating Rural Inequality:an Evaluation of Market-Assisted Land Reform in Guatemala", 28(8) Third World Quarterly (2007)1519-1536.
96. This reportedly has occurred, for instance, in Thailand: see Rebeca Leonard and Kingorn NarintarakulNa Ayuttahaya, "Thailand's Land Titling Program: Securing Land for the Poor?" in Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform (2006), pp. 139-141
97. This idea was initially formulated in those precise words by Christopher Woodruff, "Review of de Soto's The Mystery of Capital ", 39 Journal of Economic Literature (2001) 1215-1223, at p. 1218, although Palacio does not cite him.
98. This assertion seems to be based on Erica Field and Maximo Torero, Do Property Rights Increase CreditAccess Among the Urban Poor? Evidence from a Nationwide Titling Program, Harvard University and Group of Development Analysis, and International Food Policy Research Institute, Working Paper,2006, although again Palacio does not provide a reference. It might be added that where private lendershave extended credit to small farmers based on grants of title, they have done so at terms highly unfavorableto smallholders, or have simply ignored smallholders in favor of commercial farmers.
99. See Michael Courville and Raj Patel, "The Resurgence of Agrarian Reform in the Twenty-First Century", in Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform (2006), pp. 46-49.
100. Ana Palacio, Legal Empowerment of the Poor: an Action Agenda for the World Bank, revised draft, March 2006, pp. 18-19.
101. Ana de Ita, "Mexico: Impacts of Demarcation and Titling by PROCEDE on Agrarian Conflicts and Land Concentration", CECCAM/Land Investigation Action Network (2003), p. 2.
102. Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor, Making the Law Work for Everyone, vol.II:Working Group Reports (2008), p. 117, note 109.
103. John W. Brice, Renee Giovarelli, et. al, "Land Law Reform: Achieving Development Policy Objectives",World Bank Law, Justice, and Development Series (2008) 126-128.
104. Ana Palacio, Legal Empowerment of the Poor: an Action Agenda for the World Bank, revised draft,March 2006, p. 16.
105. See, for the example of India, Klaus Deininger, Songqing Jin, and Hari K. Nagarajan, "Efficiencyand Equity Impacts of Rural Land Market Restrictions: Evidence from India", World Bank PolicyResearch Working Paper Series (2006), p. 3013.
106. African Union, Declaration on Land Issues and Challenges in Africa, Assembly of the African Union,Thirteenth Ordinary Session, Doc. Assembly/AU/Decl.1(XIII), pp. 1-3, Jul 1-3, 2009.
107. AU-ECA-AfDB, Land Policy in Africa: A Framework to Strengthen Land Rights, Enhance Productivityand Secure Livelihoods (March 2009).
108. Id., at Sec. 2.3, 2.7.3
109. Id., at Sec. 2.7.2, 3.4.3, 3.5
110. Id., at Sec. 3.6
111. Id., at Sec. 4.1
112. UN doc. E/1998/22, annex IV.
113. UN doc. A/HRC/4/18, annex I.
114. Ibid., para. 21.
115. Ibid., para. 25.
116. D. Fitzpatrick, " 'Best Practice' Options for the Legal Recognition of Customary Tenure", 36(3)Development and Change, pp. 449-475
117. FAO, Land Policy Development in an African Context: Lessons Learned from Selected Experience, LandTenure Working Paper 14, (2009), p. 46.
118. COHRE, Tenure Insecurity and Inequality in the Cambodian Land Sector (2009), p. 24.
119. Klaus Deininger, Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction: Key Issues and Challenges Ahead,UN/FIG/PC IDEA Inter-regional Special Forum on the Building of Land Information Polices in theAmericas (2004), p. 27 ("[F]ormal documentation is not crucial where customary tenure systems providesufficient security to facilitate the level of investments and land transactions that are relevant for theprevailing economic environment . . . Community-based approaches whereby a whole area is demarcatedand internal administration of land rights is left to the community" may constitute an alternative toindividual titling).
120. Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Monica Di Gregorio and Stephan Dorn, Decentralization, Pro-poor Land Policiesand Democratic Governance, CAPRi Working Paper No.80 (2008), p. 20.
121. FAO, Mozambique's Legal Framework for Access to Resources: The Impact of New Legal Rights andCommunity Consultations on Local Livelihoods, LEP Working Paper 28, (2006).
122. Lorenzo Cotula et al., The Right to Food and Access to Natural Resources. Using Human Rights Argumentsand Mechanisms to Improve Resource Access for the Rural Poor, FAO Right to Food Unit and IIED,(2008), pp. 23-24
123. A/57/356, para. 30.
124. K. Deininger and H. Binswanger, "The Evolution of the World Bank's Land Policy: Principles,Experiences and Future Challenges", 14(2) The World Bank Research Observer (1999), pp. 247-276, atp. 248.
125. David Palmer, Szilard Fricska, Babette Wehrmann, "Towards Improved Land Governance", FAOLand Tenure Working Paper 11, (September 2009), p. 31.
126. On the inverse farm-size productivity relationshipand scale effects in agriculture, see A. Banerjee, "Land Reforms: Prospects and Strategies", MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Department of Economics Working Paper Series, Working Paper99-24, (October 1999), pp. 1-5;
127. K. Deininger and H. Binswanger, "The Evolution of the World Bank's Land Policy: Principles, Experiences and Future Challenges", 14(2) The World Bank Research Observer (1999) 247-276, at pp. 251-252;
128. V. Penciakova, "Market-led Agrarian Reform: a BeneficiaryPerspective of Cédula da Terra", LSE Working Paper Series N° 10-100, (March 2010), at p. 7
129. Quan, J.(2006), cited supra, at pp. 40-41;
130. S.M. Borras, C. Kay and A.H. Akram Lodhi, "Agrarian Reform andRural Development: Historical Overview and Current Issues", ISS/UNDP Land, Poverty and PublicAction Policy paper n°1, (2007), p. 1.
131. Klaus Deininger, "Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction", World Bank Policy Research Report, (2003).
132. See also Keith Griffin, Azizur Rahman Khan and Adrien Ickowitz, "Poverty and the Distributionof Land", 2(3) Journal of Agrarian Change (2002) 279-330, AT p. 315 (showing that thereverse is also true: in countries with rapid growth, the likelihood that redistributive land reform willhelp reduce rural and even urban poverty).
133. Julian Quan, Land Access in the 21st Century: Issues, Trends, Linkages and Policy Options, LivelihoodSupport Programme (LSP) Working Paper 24, FAO, (2006), p. 6 (based on Deininger (2003), citedsupra
134. R. Sabates Wheeler, "Asset Inequality and Agricultural Growth: How are Patterns of AssetInequality Established and Reproduced?", World Development Report Background paper on asset inequalityand agricultural productivity (2005)).
135. M.R. El-Ghonemy, "Land Reform Development Challenges of 1963-2003 Continue into theTwenty-first Century", Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives, (2003/2), p. 40.
136. Veronika Penciakova, "Market-led Agrarian Reform: a Beneficiary Perspective of Cédula da Terra",LSE Working Paper Series N° 10-100 (March 2010), at p. 8.
137. Julian Quan, Land Access in the 21st Century, at p. 12 (with additional references).
138. Ibid., at p. 3.
139. M.R. Carter, "Designing Land and Property Rights Reform for Poverty Alleviation and Food Security",Land Reform, Land settlement and Cooperatives, FAO, No.2 (2003).
140. K. Deininger and H. Binswanger, "The Evolution of the World Bank's Land Policy: Principles,Experiences and Future Challenges", 14(2) The World Bank Research Observer (1999) 247-276, at p. 256.
141. For a more systematic review of the justifications of land reform, see M Cox, P. Munro-Faure,P. Mathieu, A. Herrera, D. Palmer, and P. Groppo, "FAO in Agrarian Reform', Land Reform, Land settlementand Cooperatives, FAO, No. 2 (2003), p. 13 (noting that "The adoption of a process of land reformhas usually been justified by one or more of the following reasons: (1) presence of highly unequal distributionof land assets; (2) large tracts of land with low farming intensity; (3) exploitative labour relationson large estates; (4) extensive landlessness and/or very small uneconomic units; (4) extensive land conflicts(squatting, land invasions, etc.); (5) collapse of large state, collective and cooperative farms, anddemands for privatization and/or restitution of land; (6) extensive rural poverty").
142. S.M. Borras, C. Kay, and A.H. Akram Lodhi, Agrarian Reform and Rural Development: Historical Overview and Current Issues, ISS/UNDP Land, Poverty and Public Action Policy paper n°1, (2007), p. 4.
143. Compiled by the author on the basis of the FOA Gender and Land Rights Database: http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights (accessed on 19 May 2010).
144. Earlier international references are the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development(WCARRD) in 1979 and the Peasants' Charter.
145. ICARRD 2006/3, Art 29, pp. 7-9.
146. ICARRD 2006/3, Art 30, pp. 10-11.
147. FAO, "Towards Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and otherNatural Resources" , Discussion Paper, November 2008, Art. 40, p. 4.
148. World Summit on Food Security (WSFS 2009/2), Final declaration, Art. 18.
149. Committee on World Food Security, 35th session, 14, 15 and 17 October 2009, Reform of theCommittee on World Food Security - Final Version, FAO doc. CFS: 2009/2 Rev. 2.
150. Cox, M., Munro-Faure, P., Mathieu, P., Herrera, A., Palmer, D., Groppo, P., "FAO in AgrarianReform', Land Reform, Land settlement and Cooperatives, FAO, No. 2 (2003), p. 25.
151. On these various reasons, see M. Cox et al., cited supra, p. 2 ;
152. S.M. Borras, C. Kay, and A.H. AkramLodhi, "Agrarian Reform and Rural Development", cited supra, p. 11.
153. World Bank, Agriculture for Development, cited supra, p. 142.
154. Amartya K. Sen, "The Right not to be Hungry", in Ph. Alston and K. Tomasevski (eds.), The Rightto Food (1984), p. 69, at 70-71.