Usually, neither very large nor very small scale farming increases productivity. There is evidence that family-managed farms increase average production and productivity. In El Salvador, 10 percent of land-poor farmers were provided land, which in turn contributed to increased per capita income of national population by four percent. Land reform has contributed to reduced poverty in some states of India. In China, large farms were broken into family-size units (during 1977-1985), helping thousands of poor families to come out of poverty. These examples are relevant to Nepali society.
There are enormous opportunities to upgrade land-poor farmers into small farmers and improve their food security through land reform. This helps improve their education, health, livelihood and political participation. Land reform is a means for land-poor people to shift from a state of poverty to prosperity.
Land reform is important to correct unjust land ownership and to make present labor and production relations more just. This is instrumental in land-poor farmers emerging from age-long exploitation, suppression, discrimination and creates an opportunity for them to compete in labor market independently. They will be free to produce food for their family and to engage in other occupations freely. This enhances their dignity and improves their access to means of sustenance.
In fact, access to and ownership of land are vital for sustainable livelihood. Human rights like right to food, right to shelter, right to health, right to education, right to water, among others, are associated with land ownership. Since land ownership determines political participation and social status in the Nepali agrarian society, land reform can address inequality, discrimination and eventually poverty. The political parties should thus show a sense of accountability to land-poor people.
Land reform should ensure shelter for all and agricultural land for land-poor farmers. There are 450,000 unregistered tenants tilling other's land but they lack tilling evidence. The Land Act (Fourth Amendment 1997) provided for settlement of tenancy, but due to lack of evidence unregistered tenants could not enjoy benefits. The government has already declared the end of dual ownership of land but dual ownership has not been established for these people. In practice, dual ownership still exists. Moreover, there are still 150,000 registered tenants with proof of tenancy. They are struggling to receive tenancy rights (50 percent tilling land).
Sadly, land reform is not a priority of political parties, or the government. No political party wants the Ministry of Land Reform and Management. The government has not invested in land development. There are degraded lands, public lands, elite-encroached lands and fallow lands that could be developed for land-poor farmers.
Distribution of agricultural land among family members should be stopped. There should be a policy to encourage non-farmers to leave agricultural land and provide them appropriate compensation in cash or kind. Women are key farmers but women's rights over land have been grossly neglected until now. So there should be a policy to register land in the name of both men and women. This will enhance the power of women in family and significantly reduce dependency on men.
We should also stop using agricultural land for non-agriculture purposes. Land use policy needs to be implemented urgently. Approximately, one-fourth land is fallow across the country. Land reform has a great potential to industrialize agriculture by providing land and other agriculture inputs including skills, knowledge and technology to farmers. There could be a policy so that small land holders unable to engage in agriculture could rent out their land to those into agricultural activities. Agricultural cooperatives could provide agriculture inputs, capital for investment and for marketing agricultural produces. So there should be an agrarian reform package including agriculture inputs and finance.
There is growing interest of private sectors on corporate farming. By nature, corporate farming aims for profit and does not address the issues of poverty and social justice. Thus corporate farming further increases hunger, inequality, poverty and adverse environmental effects. Family farming is an alternative. So government, financial institutions and development partners should stop providing subsidy or concessional financing to corporate farmers and maximize support for small and marginalized farmers.
There is no doubt that land reform can reduce poverty and make the country prosperous. But only if there can be land reform under the leadership of farmers. Land reform should keep land-poor farmers, women and marginalized groups at the center. Providing agricultural land to real farmers and shelter for all is fundamental to eliminate poverty and pave the way for sustainable peace. People are waiting for genuine land reform and to rid of poverty. So, political parties and government should not delay this process any more.
The author is a development professional pathakki@yahoo.com
Related story
Challenges galore for new home minister
