r
. an
.34».
. x
.2: air... .
an 5
a...» .
.m...ua...u.n..»fi

305?.
2.3:.

2%,,

A:

i ‘
‘1 u

o‘ l

.1" itiflflwm:
égwufimnfim‘w
.. .

an"... ...L....!u

k r. In
”Burt;
3.3.1.2...

4.11)? A.

l
m.

:51 ‘8”.

 

.c .1
it. It...
.a

 

 

 

 

Tfiiifzib
£4 0 0 Q

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE RESPONSE OF U.S.;BASED NON-GOVERNMENTAL
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS TO INEQUITABLE
LAND TENURE IN LATIN AMERICA

presented by

William M. Van Lopik

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Wevelopment

Am»

0
f ' Major professor I

Date ‘7’/‘;2q/CD‘=1

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuo.p65.p. 15

 

THE RESPONSE OF U.S.-BASED NON-GOVERNMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS TO INEQUITABLE LAND TENURE IN LATIN AMERICA
By

WIIIiam Mark Van Lopik

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Resource Development

2002

ABSTRACT

THE RESPONSE OF U.S.-BASED NON-GOVERNMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS TO INEQUITABLE LAND TENURE IN LATIN AMERICA

By

William Mark Van Lopik

Access to land has historically been a contentious issue. This is especially true in
Latin America where unequal landholding patterns are considered to be the most
severe of any region in the world. Although landlessness continues to be a
persistent problem, international non-governmental development organizations
(NGOs) have been accused of not paying much attention at confronting this
issue. This research explores whether the accusations are true or not, and if not,
what are they doing in response to the issue. There are two fundamental
arguments that underlie this research. The first is that access to land is a key
component of rural development if the poor and landless are to improve their
lives. The second is that international NGOs play an important role in contributing

to the development process.

This research examines ten large U.S.-based non-govemmental organizations
currently doing development work in Latin America. Data was collected from
secondary literature sources as well as interviews with key administrators in each
organization. The results of the research indicate that there is no clear
consensus in the type of response that these NGOs give to the issue of access

to land. Some give little to no consideration to land tenure in their development

programming, while others see it as a fundamental component to their work. The
discrepancy often lies in where their funding comes from. The research indicates
that there is a definitive shift in recent years to how these NGOs view their role
as development professionals. They are starting to realize the need to move their
work from the local project level to the broader policy arena where decisions on

land use and land ownership are made.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my Dissertation Guidance Committee, Drs.
Scott WItter, Jeffrey Riedinger, Assefa Mehretu and George Axinn for their time
and support at making the completion of this dissertation research a reality. I
give special recognition to Dr. Axinn who served as major advisor during my last
few years in the Department of Resource Development. He has been an
unending source of inspiration and encouragement to me both professionally and
personally as l have worked on completing my academic studies at Michigan

State University.

I would also like to acknowledge the impact that the poor farmers in El Salvador
have had on my life and academic career. People like Rafael Guzman helped
inspire me to focus this research on a topic that is meaningful to the many

humble and dignified farmers of Latin America.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for their patience and love during the times
when it seemed like I would never finish my studies. My sons Christian and
Rafael have always demonstrated their pride in me even when they have a hard
time explaining to their friends what their dad does for a living. If not for the love,
support, and sacrifices of my wife Susan, my dream of graduation would have

never been realized.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ................................................................ vi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Problem Analysis ................................................................................ 9
Problem Statement ............................................................................. 12
Research Assumptions ...................................................................... 13
Research Objective ............................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 2

DISSERTATION LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................... 16
Relevancy of Land Accessibility to Rural Development ..................... 18
Push for a New Land Reform Agenda from the Grassroots ............... 38
The Role of NGOS in the Land Tenure Debate .................................. 46

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................... 60

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................ 73

CHAPTER 5

RESEARCH FINDINGS FROM ORGANIZATIONAL LITERATURE ............ 117

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS .................... 130

CHAPTER 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... 152

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Top 15 Most Inequitable Countries in the World ............................. 2

Table 2: Population Below the Poverty Line, 1989-1994 .............................. 18

Table 3: Percentage of Guatemalan children with moderate

malnutrition by category of land owned and/or rented .................... 31
Table 4: Government, Donor and NGO Collaboration .................................. 54
Figure 1: Triangulation as a Research Design .............................................. 61

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Research Objective

Introduction

Latin America has been characterized as the most unjust and unequal region of
the world. Statistical surveys indicate that the unequal distribution of wealth is
disproportionately high in Latin America (Table 1). Most recent reports from the
United Nations Development Programme indicate that nine of the fifteen most
unequal countries in world are located in Latin America (UNDP, 2001).

About 25% of the Latin American income goes to 5% of the richest segments of

the population while the poorest 30% receives 7.5% of total income (Chiriboga,

 

2000: 1 3).
Top 15 Most Inequitable Countries in the World
Table 1.

Country Inequality measures: Gini igex
1. Swaziland 60.9

2. Nicaragua 60.3

3. South Africa 59.3

4. Brazil 59.1

5. Honduras 59.0

6. Bolivia 58.9

7. Paraguay 57.7

8. Chile 57.5

9. Colombia 57.1

10. Zimbabwe 56.8

1 1. Guinea-Bissau 56.2

12. Lesotho 56.0

13. Guatemala 55.8

14. Zambia 52.6

15. Mexico 51.9

 

The Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or consumption) among
individuals or households within a country deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of
0 represents perfect equality, a value of 100 perfect inequality.

Source: UNDP, 2001 Human Development Report.

The inequality within Latin America is most pronounced in the unequal

distribution of land and is seen as the underlying basis for the many historical

struggles among the poor. Latin America has the most unequal landholding
pattern of any region in the world and this is cited as one of the principle
impediments to the economic and social development of the region (Clawson,
20002245). There have been many attempts to rectify the unequal distribution of
landholdings. Land reform programs were initiated throughout most countries of
Latin America, but the success of these programs has been arguable and none
have fulfilled their intended goals of distributing the most amount of land to the

most people in an equitable agrarian structure (Thiesenhusen, 1995:159).

In some instances land reform failed because it was implemented by
uncommitted governments that were attempting to appease domestic or foreign
political purposes be it to gain votes from the peasantry or aid from international
agencies. In other instances, fierce opposition from the powerful landed elite
undermined the success of the reforms (Gwynne and Kay, 1999:280). Land
distribution was a highly contentious issue during the 1950s-19803 when both
socialist revolutionary movements and capitalist governments throughout the
world used it as a strategic tool in their efforts to win the political support of
peasant farmers. However, as Cold War ideologies have eroded away and poor
countries have transitioned into more neo-liberal and global economies, the land
tenure debate has received marginal attention. Dorner says that land reforms of
the past are unraveling with neo-liberalism and free trade (Dorner, 199925).
Vandermeer believes that the bold vision for agrarian reform that countries like

Nicaragua had in the 1980’s has all but disappeared and is hardly a serious

proposition in any country in Central America. Therefore, he says that the basic
rural program that would help stem the tide of deforestation - agrarian reform - is

not realistically on the horizon (Vandermeer and Perfecto, 1995:122).

The concentration of land among the wealthy few in Latin America is increasing
and can be seen in several negative social indicators. A composite look at these
indices indicate a need for further consideration of land reform policies:

A. According to the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean, the number of poor living in Latin America was 211 million in 1999
as compared to 203 million in 1997. In 1999, there were more than 77 million
poor people in the region’s rural areas, as compared to 73 million in 1980
(IFAD, 2002). Rural poverty has not abated in spite of the flourishing
economics that the rest of the wand saw in the 19908. In their annual State of
the World Report the World Resources Institute states that rural poverty and
hunger tend to be most severe where land is allowed to be concentrated in
the hands of a few (Brown, Flavin and French, 2000264). These findings
would indicate a direct relationship between the distribution of wealth and
land access.

B. There are increased indices of landless and land-poor farmers in Latin
America due to further concentration of land and a growing population.

The leading cause of rural poverty by far is the lack of access to sufficient
land and low productivity of land use for the peasant population. Inequitable

distribution of land resources is the norm in Latin America where a small

minority of landlords hold a high percentage of the best land and the majority
are crowded onto tiny holdings. There is evidence that large farms are
starting to acquire even more acreage while smaller farms are subdividing. In
Latin America there were somewhat more than 4 million subfamily farms in
1950 and about 8 million in 1980 (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 1989:1211).
Author Andras Corr says that “At the global level the landless in Africa, Asia
(excluding China), the Middle East, and Latin America include 13.3% of all
agricultural households. If we factor in the near-landless into this percent it
balloons to 71. 7% of all Third Wand rural households are landless or near-
Iandless” (Corr, 1999255).

. When the numbers of landless and land-poor peasants in agricultural areas
increases, there is a resulting rise in migration from rural areas to cities,
frontiers, and other countries (Thiesenhusen, 199524). Increases in urban
problems of over-population, traffic, pollution, sanitation, and housing can all
be traced to the expanding rural to urban migration trends as people are
forwd to leave their farms.

. The World Resources Institute recently published their annual report
highlighting the number of significant increases in the degradation of natural
ecosystems throughout the world (WRI, 2000). It is clear that the most
important environmental problems and challenges facing Latin America are
directly or indirectly linked to the inequality of assets and poverty (DeWalt,
200022).

The assumption made in this research is that access to agricultural land and the
reduced concentration of landholdings remains one of the main components for
rural development in Latin America and for the economic and political
mobilization of Latin America’s small farmers. The World Bank’sM
Development Report 2000/2001 report “Attacking Poverty While Improving the
Environment” succinctly states that people are poor because they lack income
and assets to basic necessities. One of the basic assets that the World Bank
identifies is access to land. Land reform is mentioned as a specific method for

allowing the poor access to land (World Bank, 2000234, 92).

Land tenure has different meanings and contexts depending on which part of the
world is examined. It is a debate that is more volatile in some areas of the world
than in others. In Europe and North America it does not take on the same
inflammatory tone that it does in agriculturally based economies like Latin
America and Africa. Industrialized countries normally have more urban-based
employment opportunities to absorb the landless than do less-developed
countries. Moreover, there are significant differences between Africa and Latin
America - two agriculturally based regions. In Africa it is the State which often is
the largest landowner, while in Latin America land is divided up unequally

between the elites and a large underclass.

The genesis of this present form of land structure in Latin America can be best

understood by looking at five historical, economic and political factors.

1. The first factor has its roots in the Spanish colonization of Latin America. The
Spanish crown established “la encomienda” in order to attract Spanish
settlers to the Americas. The settlers were granted large tracts of land that
had been expropriated from the Native Americans. The indigenous people
were then forcibly made to work as indentured servants for the Spanish lords
on land that previously was theirs. “La Encomienda” essentially guaranteed
that the best and richest land would remain in the hands of the elite, and that
a whole culture of poor, landless peasants would emerge over the centuries
(Bower, 2001222). The body of knowledge on the historical causation of
inequitable land tenure regimes is expansive and leaves little doubt that it is a
tragic consequence of European colonization.

2. Another factor is the deeply held economic ideology of “comparative
advantage.” Economists have long held the point of view that Latin America
should base its economy on the production of crops that outside foreign
markets demand. Commodities like coffee, sugar, bananas and cotton were
found to thrive in the tropical environment. These were products that the rest
of the world wanted and it was believed that Latin America should
concentrate on these export commodities and establish their market share. It
was thought that large plantations could grow these crops in a more efficient
manner, so the process of land consolidation was seen as necessary for the
post-independence economic development of Latin America. This policy
however has not rendered the results that it initially promised. Criticism

against the comparative advantage ideology keeps mounting as land scarcity

becomes more prevalent in the region (Brockett, 1998237; Lappe, Collins,
Rosset, 19982111).

. Access to land through government land reform programs has historically
been an extremely contentious issue. Thousands of Latin Americans have
lost their lives either fighting to forcibly acquire a piece of subsistence land or
trying to hold on to the land they have. Land distribution threatens the status
quo and upsets the balance of political and economic power. It implies a
change in power relations in favor of those who physically work the land at
the expense of those who traditionally accumulate the wealth derived from it.
It is because of this dominant power structure among the elite, which controls
the economic, cultural, political and military power, that efforts at land reform
have been relatively unsuccessful. As a result, there is little political will within
to change the balance of power.

. Between 1988 and 1998 net development aid given by the 30 richest
countries in the world fell from 0.33% of their Gross National Product to
0.24%. This is the lowest proportion of aid ever given to low-income or least-
developed countries where 85% of the world’s poor live. The cut in aid has
especially hurt rural areas where 75% of the world’s poor live. Most aid is now
targeted towards urban areas for programs of economic development. Dr.
Michael Lipton, Director of the Poverty Research Unit at Sussex University in
England, says “Current development efforts grossly and increasingly neglect

agricultural and rural people” (IFAD, 2001). Therefore, the development aid

funds that are needed to support agrarian reform programs, land banks, and
land registration programs have become scarce.

5. Agrarian reform has been replaced on the development policy agenda by
global economics and the free market system. Emphasis has now been put on
debt-servicing by means of farm consolidation and export agriculture
(Liamzon, 19962317). Now when the World Bank and US. Agency for
lntemational Development talk of land redistribution it is in the form of
“market-based” approaches to land exchange. They stress the development
of land markets where land is sold and purchased like a commodity. This
strategy unfortunately raises a number of serious questions. The first is
whether this program truly allows the absolute poor and landless opportunity
to participate and is not contingent on their economic status. The second is
whether credit is actually available to them from public financial institutions.
The third question is whether technical assistance and government subsidies
are available for the poor as participants (Lastarria—Comhiel and Melmed-
Sanjak, 199927). Open land markets are effective when all willing participants
have some wealth that allows them to negotiate, but the system breaks down

when there is an ever-widening gap between the economic classes.

Problem Analysis
The land tenure debate is not one that will likely disappear from grassroots
discussion any time in the near future. The mounting issues of environmental

sustainability, urban and international migration, the rights of indigenous groups

and greater economic disparities between economic and social classes will keep
the issue in the forefront. The landless and land-poor masses from the South will
continue to organize as they are in Brazil and the Philippines and speak out on

the issue. Third World advocates and peasant organizations will not let the issue

disappear from the development agenda.

The abatement of land reform discussions among development strategists has
not silenced the voices of the landless and land-poor masses from the South
from speaking out. Farmer organizations, popular groups, Southern NGOs, and
several United Nations specialized agencies such as UNDP, FAO, UNEP and
UNICEF have taken opportunities at conferences, summits, and workshops to
speak up for renewed global efforts for comprehensive land reform programs. At
the NGO Global Forum on Food Security during FAO’s Fiftieth Anniversary
Celebration held in Quebec on October 1995, organized groups from the Third
World unequivocally stated the need for a renewed effort to bring agrarian reform
back to the fore of the international development agenda (Liamzon, 19962322). At
the 1995 Institute for Food and Agricultural Development Conference on Hunger
and Poverty, Southern groups once again placed it at the forefront of the
development agenda. They spoke from their own reality, convinced that land
reform is a key development strategy towards alleviating poverty, environmental

degradation, and democratic disenfranchisement (IFAD, 1995).

In 1997 the Food First lnforrnation and Action Network (FIAN) hosted a conference

10

in Paris that was the kick-off for an international initiative to refocus attention
back on agrarian reform. FIAN built a broad coalition of non-govemmental
organizations and development professionals that seek to bring renewed attention
to inequitable land tenure. At this conference farmers expressed their frustration
with Northern NGOs working in development. They made condemning statements
against Northern NGOs for their lack of movement on agrarian reform. They
explained that farmers are being hurt both by modern agrarian policies as well as
apathy on the part of development organizations and the State. “Peasants are
without allies and neither the NGO’s nor the academics are interested in their
problems” said one participant" (FIAN, 1997216). This is an issue than will not go
away, but rather will become more critical as Third World nations are pushed to
consolidate their landholdings to concentrate on export products in order to meet

the demands of lntemational structural adjustment policies.

Whether these criticisms of Northern NGOs are warranted or not is still unclear.
However, it is clear from the literature that these NGOs have a role to play in the
land tenure debate. Some argue that NGOs have the important role of providing
financial credit and technical assistance to new landowner beneficiaries which
would enable farmers to maintain ownership (Blum, 1996). Others say that NGOs
serve the poor best when they can help them organize to fill the vacuum left by
the breakdown of government programs because of structural adjustment
programs (Paniagua-Ruiz, 199724). Still others say that NGOs have an

advocacy role to play in pressuring those in the larger political arena to pay

11

attention to this issue. There is little doubt that lntemational NGOs can play
crucial roles in movements aimed at approaching more socially and ecologically
sustainable styles of development. The question is whether they are assuming

this role?

Problem Statement

There appears to be a discrepancy between what people from “developing
countries” are asking for and what Northern NGOs are delivering. The poor from
the South accuse Northern non-governmental development organizations of
being disinterested and even resistant to addressing agrarian reform issues in
spite of numerous pleas to the contrary. Bebbington believes this inattentiveness
can be traced to the fact that “NGOs do not look for alternative development
strategies as they once did. They are now involved to a large extent in state-
funded programs” (Bebbington, 19972124). More and more the trend is for the
central government to transfer development funds through NGOs, thus
compromising the neutrality of the NGO. Paula Hoy says bluntly that “...NGOs
now package their projects to satisfy USA ID ’3 requirements, with little thought of
the needs and desires of the intended beneficiaries.” (Hoy, 19982104). These are
serious accusations that are being leveled at the international NGO community, a
community that was supposedly created to benefit the poor, not ignore them.
There is an underlying concern that development NGOs are either being co—
opted by government policies which they feel beholden too, out of touch with the

real needs of the poor, or that their work is misunderstood.

12

Perhaps NGOs are concerned about access to land assets for the poor, but are
supporting more indirect and less antagonistic means of dealing with the issue.
Maybe they have come to the very rational understanding that continued financial
support and permission to work in a country requires them to take a more low-
key and less visible approach to dealing with land issues. These less formal
initiatives may involve quietly advocating for more govemment-supported land
reform programs, pushing for policies and laws that clearly define land rights,
providing legal assistance to the poor, providing credit for land purchases,
protecting women’s rights to own land, organizing communities for land
acquisition, and assisting in the development of more open land markets. Land
reform programs involving extensive expropriation of land from the wealthy elites

may now be seen as ineffective and inappropriate in today’s world.

Research Assumptions

There are two foundational assumptions that underlie this research. The first is
that access to land is a fundamental component of rural development if the poor
and landless are to be strengthened and improve their socio—economic status.
The second is that lntemational non-govemmental organizations and their global
networks play an important role in contributing to the development process and

the shaping of policies on poverty issues. (UNDP, 2000: p.79)

Research Objective

l3

This research will examine ten large U.S.-based non-governmental organizations
currently doing development work in Latin America. Data will be collected from
two data sources:

1. Data collected from secondary literature sources. These sources would
include printed materials that each organization normally makes public
such as annual reports, country reports, progress reports of programs,
IRS 990 financial statements and publicity materials.

2. The second source of data will come directly from one to one
interviews with key administrators in the ten pre-selected

organizations.

The data will be utilized to provide insight into the development strategies of

these organizations. There are four basic questions that the acquired data will be

used to explore:

1. Do these organizations consider access to land as an important development
strategy for the rural poor?

2. Do they undertake programs that can directly and/or indirectly lead to land
access for the poor?

3. Do these organizations provide funding for land access initiatives?

4. To what extent do these organizations see land access programs as too
politically volatile or simply inappropriate for development organizations to be

involved in?

14

The results of this research will be useful in gauging the perceived
“inattentiveness” of this sizeable segment of the international development
community to the land access issue. Additionally, the results will help determine
the extent of the perceived discrepancy between what the rural poor are pleading

for and what lntemational NGO’s are delivering.

15

CHAPTER 2

Dissertation Literature Review

16

The literature sources reviewed for this research fall into three broad
perspectives. The first body of literature that is examined supports a key
assertion made in this research - that access to productive land is indeed a
relevant development issue. The body of knowledge corresponding to this theme
is broad, comprehensive, and much of it relatively recent. A notable example of
the current relevancy of this topic is that the World Bank in March 2001
sponsored a global email conference in which they solicited suggestions and
feedback from academics and practitioners in regard to the Bank’s market-based
land reform initiatives. Participants from around the world weighed in on the
importance of land and property policy to economic development. Although the
discussion was lively with participation from all over the wond, it was dominated
almost exclusively by economists. Literature cited in this research seeks to

expand the discussion far beyond the confines of economics.

The second perspective considered in this review pertains to the recorded
petitions and pleas emanating from the grassroots level for reconsideration of
land tenure issues. Land-poor and landless people from Latin America have
been making their voices heard in the past ten years in a very public, articulate
and organized fashion. The body of literature that exposes the efforts of Southern
non-profit organizations, tamer groups, and peasant organizations to bring the

land issue into open debate is briefly reviewed.

17

The third body of literature that is incorporated into this research is that pertaining
to the organizational behavior of lntemational development non-profit
organizations (NGOs). There is a limited, but important literature base that
explores the function and role of NGOs in facilitating either the direct or indirect

acquisition of land resources for the poor.

A. Relevancy of Land Accessibility to Rural Development

The relevancy for land tenure as a development issue is simple — the landless
and land poor are its main focus. This is the segment of society that has
empirically been shown to be the poorest and most vulnerable segment of
society. In spite of the increasing urbanization of Latin America, poverty
continues to be most severe in rural areas (see table 2).

TABLE 22 Population below the Poverty Line, 1989 — 1994 (in percentages)

 

Country Rural Urban Total
Colombia 31 8 18
Ecuador 47 25 35
El Salvador 56 43 48
Guatemala 72 34 58
Peru 65 40 49
Nicaragua 76 32 50
Dominican Republic 30 11 21

 

Source: World Bank, World Development Report 2000/1, New York: Oxford University Press,
2001, pp.280-1, Table 4.

Authors Sadoulet and de Janvry write that the reason for the high incidence of

poverty in rural areas is quite plain. They say “the leading cause of rural poverty

18

by far is the lack of access to sufl‘icient land and low productivity of land use for
the peasant population. Inequitable distribution of land resources is the norm in
Latin America where a tiny minority of landlords hold a high percentage of the
best land and the majority are crowded onto tiny holdings” (de Janvry and
Sadoulet, 1989:1211). Therefore, if development policy holds the alleviation of
poverty as an objective, then land tenure must be taken into consideration. The
redistribution of agricultural land can benefit the rural poor in many ways, some

of which are explored more in-depth below:

1. Peasant Mobilization

One of the foundational components of rural development is its emphasis on
building capacity in local organizations. Land reform programs have shown to be
effective stimulants for peasant mobilization. In Chile, the reforms by Presidents
Frei and Allende led to the political participation of many more peasants than
ever before. Political enfranchisement and participation in civil society was
actually at its highest point in Chile during the time of greatest land-reform activity
from 1970—1973 (Kay and Silva, 19922292). Kay argues that agrarian reforms
have promoted social stability and made major contributions to the
democratization of society. He claims that historical evidence indicates that
peasant participation in civil society is much enhanced during times of agrarian
reform. Many peasants, especially when granted a land title, felt that only then
had they become citizens of the country. By weakening the power of landlords

and other dominant groups in the countryside, agrarian reforms encouraged the

19

emergence of a greater voice for the peasantry in local and national affairs (Kay,
1998:20). Agrarian reform can provide the stimulus for the peasantry to organize
into various kinds of trade unions, grassroots organizations, and cooperatives,
such as producer, marketing and credit associations. This ultimately enables
them to become better integrated into the broader national economy, society and

polity (Molano, 2000).

Grindle is one who takes issue with this claim. She acknowledges that reformist
measures might lead to greater rural mobilization, but that there are formidable
obstacles to this kind of mobilization and the situation could get much worse for
rural peasants before it gets better. The rural poor have faced major impediments
to the mobilization of widespread and aggregate reformist organizations. Over
the decades the state has become sophisticated in learning how to intimidate,

threaten, co-opt, and disperse these organizations (Grindle, 19862192).

However, the social-political integration of former peasant movements is
currently evident in the countries of El Salvador and Nicaragua. In the 1970’s and
80’s peasant mobilization in these two countries took the form of armed
insunections with the F SLN (Nicaragua) and the FMLN (El Salvador). The
mantra of both of these revolutionary groups was that of equitable land
distribution. Although the wars were devastating for each country and did not
achieve their complete goal of equitable land redistribution, at least one important

result some out of each conflict. That being that today both of these former

20

guerrilla groups are now legally recognized political parties in their respective
countries. They have created a plurality in the political process that never before

existed.

2. Positive Response to Environmental Degradation

The process of land concentration and accumulation by large landowners has
pushed subsistence farmers off fertile agricultural lands. Painter says “the crucial
issue underlying environmental destruction in Latin America is gross inequity in
access to resources “(Painter and Durham, 199529). Hecht echoes these
sentiments from her work in Amazonia when she says “it is ludicrous to describe
environmental degradation as only a function of demographics. Rather the
situation is due to the extraordinary maldistribution of land” (Hecht 19852679).
This “maldistribution of land” is often attributed to the negative effects of
agricultural modernization. Agricultural modernization, with its focus on
mechanization and land consolidation, displaces the traditional agricultural
farmer onto inferior land, where they are obliged either to work as part-time wage
laborers to support their families or abandon their plots completely and migrate to
the city. Modemization has also failed to absorb the surge in population growth in
the '60's and '70s (Thiesenhusen, 1995220). This leaves the landless with

basically three options when confronted with the loss of their land.

First, they can migrate to the cities and try to find work in the informal sector.

Increasing numbers of landless or land-poor in agriculture, coupled with high

21

population rates have created a torrent of migrants to the cities and other
countries (T hiesenhusen, 199524; Danaher, 19952100). The homeless and
unemployed populations of urban areas have swelled so rapidly that the infra-
structural capacity of the cities are overloaded and cannot handle the increased
housing, sewage, water, and crime demands. Many cities in Latin America are

now facing critical environmental issues.

The second option a landless farmer has is to move to a piece of open land.
They may migrate further into the frontier areas of the country, move unto
marginal and unwanted land, or squat on someone else’s land until they are
removed. Dorner and Thiesenhusen argue that deforestation is done by farmers
through their farming practices and also through migration and its relation to land
tenure and deforestation. They claim that land tenure problems are often root
causes - or play an important mediating role - in deforestation whether peasants
are located in situ, in sending, or in receiving communities. They also claim that
agrarian reform that would distribute some land presently used in extensive
agriculture among the rural poor might prevent further migration to the forest
frontier and the subsequent destruction of trees. (Dorner and Thiesenhusen,
1992226). Sometimes landless farmers such as in Guatemala are moved or
enticed by the national government to move to a frontier region. This process of
colonization is basically designed to provide an expedient safety valve by the
government in dealing with the growing landlessness in other areas of the

country. The decision to colonize the rainforest is thus made for political, not

22

ecological, reasons (Manz, 19952110). Other authors make the important point of
saying that ensuring secure land tenure for indigenous peoples may be one of
the most important ways of conserving tropical forests. On the other hand,
conferring security of tenure on colonists actually acts like a magnet for outsiders

wishing to clear land for agriculture (Pearce and Warford, 19932122).

A World Resources Institute report further states that “the real causes of
deforestation are poverty, skewed land distribution (due to historical pattems of
land settlement and commercial agricultural development), and low agricultural
productivity “ (WRI, 198523). The linkage between land tenure and environmental
degradation was powerfully spelled out by former Sandinista National Park
Service Director Lorenzo Cardenal when he said:
“There is no environmental problem in Central America that is not connected
to profound social, economic and historical factors - precisely because the
history of the subcontinent has been marked by the progressive deterioration
of the environment. The environment has been transformed by the pattems of
land use that began in the era of the Spanish conquest, continued through the
colonial era, and continue today with system of imperialist domination. Many
ecologists look at environmental problems in the abstract, without analyzing
the deep roots of the origin of the problem. We hope to demonstrate that the
factors which have brought about the environmental crisis in Central America
are precisely the same factors which have brought about the social and

political crisis in the region. It is impossible... to study the classical

23

environmental problems of the region, such as deforestation, without at the
same time studying and interpreting the factors which produce poverty, the
misery, the social iniquity... Therefore, we have come to the rather
untraditional conclusion for ecologists that one of the principal environmental

problems for Central America is land tenure” (Weinberg, 1991293).

A third option a famer has is that of tenant taming. This is when a farmer rents a
piece of land and pays either a fixed cash rate or a portion of their harvest in rent.
In many cases the farmer is most likely taming on very marginal land that is
prone to severe soil erosion and rainfall runoff. Even though runoff may be great
and the farmer knows that his/her farming practices are debilitating the soils
productivity, helshe has little incentive to practice any fom of soil conservation if
the land is not theirs. Research by Seligson in El Salvador found the major
disadvantages of tenancy to be:

1. Land is of inferior quality, often why it is rented out.

2. Insecure tenancy constrains a famer to invest in land.

3. Renters are less likely to obtain credit.

4. Renters tend to be more abusive of the land they rent (Seligson, 1994220).
Numerous studies have shown a direct correlation between land ownership and
adoption of conservation practices (Russell, 19912334; Ervin, 19862105; MAG,
19892114). Fusch says that “lack of security of tenure will ultimately lead to a
decline in soil fertility and an increase in soil erosion” (Fusch, 19912348). Soil

erosion not only reduces soil fertility and crop productivity, but it also causes

broad problems in the siltation of river beds, irrigation canals, and hydroelectric

24

reservoirs, as well as flooding in the lowlands.

Extensive research by Stonich in Honduras showed that short-tam contract
renters who had insecure tenure on small plots tended to exhibit the poorest
conservation practices. They tended to grow mostly annual crops, to farm the
worst and steepest property, to burn crop residues, and to clear the land of all
trees. In contrast, small-holders who owned their properties farmed intensively
but preserved trees, constructed rock-wall barriers to prevent erosion, and
followed other soil conservation measures (Stonich, 19892289). Further research
by Bonnard in Honduras somewhat disputes the findings of Stonich. She says
that it is not individual private land rights and land title that promote investments
in land, but rather “perceived ownership.” She says that the famers considered
themselves to be the owners of the land if they 1) have used a plot for an
extended period of time; 2) purchased or inherited a plot regardless of the type of
land; 3) possess some form of documentation; 4) installed fences or planted
trees, both of which imply the farmer has expectations of long-tem land use.
(Bonnard, 19952136). Her research also showed that adoption of improved soil
management practices decreased as farm size increases. This would support the
notion that redistribution of land from large landowners to small-holders would

increase the adoption of conservation practices on the land.

3. Raises Farm Income and Labor Levels

25

Income levels are found to be higher among famers who own their own land as
compared to landless and land-poor tenant famers. Seligson’s research in El
Salvador after the 1980’s land reform program indicated that renters and
sharecroppers only earn one—half the per capita income of small farm owners
(Seligson, 1994248). Other researchers point out that the efficient utilization of
labor per unit of land (measured in terms of person-days per year and the
number of working people per unit of output) tends to be lower in large estates
than in small holdings (El-Ghonemy, 199925; Eckholm, 1979225). New work by
Rosset of Food First give evidence that the cost of creating a job in the
commercial sector of Brazil range from two to twenty times more than the cost of
establishing an unemployed head of household on farm land through agrarian
reform. They also found that land reform famers in Brazil have an annual income
equivalent to 3.7 of the minimum wage, while still landless laborers average only

0.7 of the minimum wage (Rosset, 200127).

Not only is there more intensive use of labor per unit of land, but it is also argued
that the labor is of better quality. Rosset says that when it’s a farm family whose
future depends upon maintaining the productivity of that soil and that piece of

land, they naturally take better care of it (Rosset, 2000).

Another study by Jackson in El Salvador found that the income from farmers who

rent is lower than the average industrial worker, while small farm owners have

about the same income as those in industry (Jackson, 1993247). This would

26

imply that a rural small farmer would not have the same economic incentive to
migrate to an urban area as a landless farmer would. All of these studies would
indicate that land ownership and the amount a person owns has a direct
relationship on family income, while the income of the landless is far below

national income averages.

A comprehensive study by McReynolds on the land reform program of El
Salvador during the early 1980’s found that famers with smaller holdings
employed more person—days per hectare than those with larger ones, and not
only did they employ more person-days per hectare, but they also employed a
higher proportion of these persons on a pemanent basis. He found that the
amount of labor employed per hectare increases as the size of holding
decreases. He explains the reason for this relationship as being:
1. Small famers are less likely to have access to or need for labor-saving
technology.
2. Labor is cheaper than technology, which often requires a capital
investment that the small tamer cannot afford.
3. Smaller famers tend to be less educated and have less access to the
technical assistance, which would help them understand how to use it.
4. Many small fams in El Salvador are on rocky hillsides that are difficult
to access with machinery such as tractors and ploughs (McReynolds,

19982464).

27

4. Deterrent to Violence

Lack of access to land has often been the catalyst to political conflict. The

revolutionary movements in Mexico, Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua,

Colombia, and Cuba all had their roots in the unequal distribution of land. Noted

author Samuel Huntingtion says that:
“Where the conditions of land tenure are equitable and provide a viable
living for the peasant, revolution is unlikely. Where they are inequitable
and where the peasant lives in poverty and suffering, revolution is likely, if
not inevitable, unless the government takes prompt measures to remedy
these conditions. No social group is more conservative than a landowning
peasantry, and none is more revolutionary than a peasantry which owns

too little land or pays too high a rental (Huntington, 1968: 375).

Land reform has been used as a political tool by govemments to deter violence
while it is happening or being threatened. This argument for land reform as a
deterrent to violence has even been espoused from some very conservative
sources. Rabkin writes in the National Review that:
“Experience backs up common sense. Any twentieth-century historian
familiar with land reform can attest that in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, and South
Korea) and Latin America (Mexico, Bolivia, and Venezuela), once a
substantial number of the landless poor acquire their own farms, the
likelihood that revolutionaries will secure a base of popular support in the

countryside diminishes appreciably. In many parts of the world, no more

28

rapid and effective means exists of depriving Marxist guerrilla forces of

grievances to exploit” (Rabkin, 1985236).

Research by Prosteman and Riedinger found that when the number of landless
peasants reaches over 25 percent of a countries’ population, the chance of
political conflict is high (Prosterman and Riedinger, 1987224). The thought being
that people who have access to their own land are less likely to risk it in a
revolution or feel the need to do so. Further study by Seligson in El Salvador
supports this idea. He found that in 1971 15.8 percent of the economically active
national population were landless and 10.1 percent were tenants for a total of
25.9 percent. However, in 1991 government figures showed that 10.4 percent of
this population were landless and 6.5 percent tenants for a total of 17 percent
(Seligson, 1994238). These percentage rates and dates correspond very closely
to the beginnings of the civil war in El Salvador in the 1970’s and the winding

down of the war in 1991.

The state of Kerala in India is sometimes touted as an example of where equity
of Iandownership can be a deterrent to political unrest in spite of extreme
poverty. This state of over 29 million people is considered to be the poorest in
India, yet it maintains one of the highest standards of living in the country in
terms of education and health. Cristobal writes:

“there seems to be no social unrest due to a mass poverty that’s

incongruously co-existent with, a high standard of living. Observers credit this

29

phenomenon to the success of three policies, of which, a generous minimum
wage is one. The other two are subsidized prices of commodities and a land
reform program that handed property to 1. 5 million former tenants, whose

crops shield Kerala from absolute destitution” (Cristobal, 1998).

5. Improves Nutritional Status and Agricultural Productivity
The common notion held in the North is that small fams are primitive and
unproductive, and that bigger is better. This is often the argument given against
the redistribution of large-landholdings into small-tam holdings. However, there
are many land policy researchers who dispute this claim and go as far as to say
that large fams actually undemine the food security of a country. Susan George
states in her 1984 book lll Fares the Land that:
“To predict levels of hunger and malnutrition in any country, one need look
only at the degree of land concentration, the circumstances of tenancy,
and the proportion of landless laborers. The more unequal the holdings,
the more insecure the tenancies, the higher the proportion of landless

people, the greater the incidence of hunger will be” (George, 1984: 7).

Research both in Guatemala and Honduras support George’s point that
nutritional status is directly related to land availability. A study by Valverde
showed that the incidence of children with moderate malnutrition was 2.3 times
greater in farming families owning and/renting less than 2 manzanas than in

those with a total access to more than five manzanas (see Table 3).

3O

Table 32 Percentage of Guatemalan children (families of famers) with moderate
malnutrition by category of land owned and/or rented.

 

Category of land owned % of children with
and/or rented n moderate malnutrition

0 - 1.9 manzanas 37 38

2.0 - 4.9 manzanas 74 31

> 5.0 manzanas 36 17

(1 manzana = 0.7 hectares

 

Source: Valverde et al. 197724;

Additionally, work by Susan Stonich in Honduras found that there was a close
relationship between access to land and nutritional status - of all undernourished
children under 60 months of age, 70 percent belonged to landless families and
15 percent to families with access to less than 2 hectares (Stonich, 1995276). In
El Salvador there are troubling indicators that show a decline in the production of
domestic food crops such as corn, sorghum and beans. The problem is attributed
to an increase in soil erosion and resulting decrease in soil productivity. Most of
the basic grains grown in El Salvador are grown on hillsides which have a greater
than 15 percent slope and are therefore particularty susceptible to erosion (Barry
and Rosa, 199528). They are grown on hillsides by tenant farmers who have
been displaced to erosion-prone areas by a growing re-concentration of
landholdings by the rich. Large landowners have laid claim to the most fertile
areas of the country for the production of export crops. The problem once again

rises that there is no incentive to practice hillside conservation without secure

3]

tenure to the land.

The argument is also made that hunger in the world is not the result of a lack of
food, but rather because more than half a billion rural people in the Third World
are landless, or do not have sufficient land to grow their own food. They are thus
denied access to land and the necessary purchasing power by which to grow or
buy food (Kimbrell, 2000235). It is interesting to note the food security differences
between Bangladesh and Taiwan. Bangladesh has just half the number of people
per cultivated hectare than has Taiwan. Yet Taiwan does not have starvation and
malnutrition to the extent that it is found in Bangladesh (Gebremedin, 1997220). It
is important to note that Taiwan went through a comprehensive land reform
program in the 1960s and Bangladesh has not had any significant land reform

initiatives.

Most recently noted Peruvian economist Hemandc de Soto wrote that capitalism
has failed in most of the world and five-sixths of humanity remain desperately
poor because they lack legal property. He says this “explains why citizens in
developing and former communist nations cannot make profitable contracts with
strangers, cannot get credit, insurance, or utilities services: They have no
property to lose. Because they have no property to lose, they are taken seriously
as contracting parties only by their immediate family and neighbors. People with
nothing to lose are trapped in the gmbby basement of the precapitalist worid” (de

Soto, 2000256). Feder espoused a similar conceptual framework in 1987 after

32

considerable work in Thailand. His study revealed that titled famers utilize
significantly higher quantities of variable inputs and obtain higher crop output per

unit of land than famers that had no title to their land (Feder, 1987226).

Perhaps some of the most comprehensive research on the positive productive
effects of small fams over large farms has been done by Peter Rosset of the
Institute for Food and Development Policy. He presents research from both
Northern and Southern countries that demonstrates that small farms have the
advantage of being “multi-functional” — more productive, more efficient, and
contribute more to economic development than large fams. He says that small
famers can also make better stewards of natural resources, conserving bio-
diversity and safe-guarding the future sustainability of agricultural production

(Rosset, 1999).

Rosset makes the argument that we must think more in terms of total output
versus yield. It is assumed that large mono—culture farms produce a larger yield,
but research shows that small fams actually have a greater total output. Total
output is the sum of everything a small farmer produces: various grains, fruits,
vegetables, fodder, animal products, etc. Rosset cites eight reasons why there is
a greater total agricultural output on a small farm as compared to a large:

a. Multiple cropping - famers pmctice inter-cropping, have several

plantings, and leave no idle land.

33

. Land use intensity — tend to use their entire parcel. Clawson backs this
point up by saying that production of food in Brazil would increase
almost twelve-fold if large—holders would use the same proportion of
their land for taming as do Brazil’s small-holders (Clawson, 19992234).
. Irrigation - more efficient on small fams.

. Output composition - mono-culture agriculture is land extensive, small
tams are labor and resource intensive.

. Labor quality — quality of the labor is much better when a farm is
worked by a family rather than hired labor. When it's a farm family
whose future depends upon maintaining the productivity of that soil

and that piece of land, they naturally take better care of it.

Labor intensity — small famers tend to invest more labor in their land,
thus making it more productive. An earlier study of Brazilian farms by
Thiesenhusen and Melmed-Sanjak showed that tams of less than 50
hectares employed 71 percent of total farm labor. Vlfith only 12 percent
of the country’s farmland, these small famers produced about half the
value added in farming. (T hiesenhusen and Melmed-Sanjak,
19902398).

. Input use — small tams tend to use more inputs per unit of land and
those inputs are more likely to be non-purchased inputs like manure and
compost rather than agro-chemicals.

. Resource Use -Small fams are more committed to sustaining their

natural resource base through their labor intensive practices such as

34

manuring, limited tillage, ridging, terracing, composting organic matter,
and recycling plant products into the productive process, enhance soil

conservation and fertility (Rosset, 199926-7).

The argument for small tams as compared to large farms based upon total
agricultural output over the long-term is a strong one. It is a model that has great
potential to achieve broad-based economic development at the rural level. It is
also a model that can facilitate the conservation and restoration of diminishing
environmental resources in many developing countries. It is a fundamental
component to the argument that the poor need access to good quality land in

order to rise out of poverty.

6. Promotes strong community and family dynamics

Most debates on the pros and cons of redistributive land reform are couched
within the rubric of agricultural economics. Rarely is there mention of the spiritual
and familial ties that small famers have with their land. Rarely is the debate seen
as a justice issue rather than a social/economic issue. However, this non-
quantifiable dimension of the land debate should not be overlooked because it is
often the element that sparks the emotional passion to the whole controversy.
May in his book, The Pmr of the Qnd: A Christian Case for Land Reform, makes
the point that land has a spiritual dimension to it for poor famers. He says “for
the rural poor, land - soil for cultivation and territory for living - is promise and
salvation, identity and divine presence, sustenance and power over their own

lives. It always means security, because their "portion" is still understood as

35

inheritance, not as a consumer item" (May, 19912107).

In 1997 the Vatican produced a landmark document which clearly spelled out the
church’s position on land reform and the high priority it places on it as a means of
overcoming poverty. The document made the strong statement that “ The social
teaching of the Church is very clear that agrarian reform is one of the most
urgent refonrrs and cannot be delayed: ‘in many situations radical and urgent
changes are therefore needed in order to restore to agriculture - and to rural
people — their just value as the basis for a healthy economy, within the social
community’s development as a whole” (PCJP, 1997215). The document also
mentions another attribute of land reform that other proponents have not
mentioned — that land reform creates family-sized fams and contributes
considerably to strengthening the family by developing its members’ capacities

and sense of responsibility.

Protestant authors such as Calvin DeWIt also emphasize the moral and spiritual
side of land reform. He writes ...”responding to the biblical requirements for
responsible and just stewardship of land and Creation means that food needs to
be produced locally to supply local peoples and communities. Land tenure should
not deprive occupants of the land from exercising their stewardship
responsibilities, neither should it deprive them of the means to hold their lives
and families together” (DeWItt, 1996243). He equates a deprivation of land to the

prevention of a person to practice their God-given responsibility of being good

36

stewards and caretakers of the earth and their families.

The moral and spiritual dimensions of land tenure are not usually considered
within high-level development discussions, but are aspects that I would contend

to be highly relevant to this discussion.

7. Contributes to the comprehensive development of national economy
There is a growing literature base that links land reform to the total welfare of the
national economy. Much of the content of this literature is based on careful study
of the highly successful economies of several East Asian countries and the role
that land reform played in their historical development. The economic success of
countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China is often thought to be a
result of their export-oriented economy. However, many authors have cited land
reform as the pre-condition to their growth. Each country instituted
comprehensive and radical land reform, resulting in agricultural sectors that
consisted predominantly or exclusively of small fams (Korten, 1990275; Adelman
and Morris, 1982212; Monsod, 1999; Dorner, 199926). Reliable estimates from
South Korea (a private-property based economy) show that the incidence of
absolute poverty in rural areas diminished rapidly from 60 per cent before re-
distributed land refom to 9.8 per cent after the reform (El-Ghonemy, 199929).
Although land reform without other economic supports such as credit and
technical assistance is certainly not a one-time cure-all for poverty. There is

strong evidence from many other countries of the direct relationship between

37

inequality and poverty. But clearly a more equitable distribution of resources and
assets would provide a solid base for a broader development strategy that
maximized employment and economic opportunities of all sorts, and that over
time allowed for self-sustaining national economic progress (Daly, 19962222;

Navarro, 1995; Eckholm, 1979241; Bebbington and Thiele, 19932xviii).

B. Push for a New Land Reform Agenda from the Grassroots

While the first portion of this chapter examined some of the arguments made by
development professionals on the relevancy of the land reform debate to the
development agenda, in this section I will look at what people at the grassroots
level are asking for. Particular attention will be given to the proceedings of
international summits, conferences sponsored by the United Nations, objectives

of landless peasant movements, and other authors from Southern countries.

As mentioned before, since the 19803 discussion of agrarian reform and land
reform virtually disappeared from the international development agenda. However,
since the mid-1990s it has received high priority among many people’s
organizations (POs) and NGOs in Third WorId countries who have been attempting
to restore it as a development priority and policy imperative. The dwindling interest
in pursuing agrarian reforms in the mid-1980s was largely the result of a shift in the
development ideologies of major Western countries and international institutions.
The policies of Ronald Reagan as US President and of Margaret Thatcher as the
British Prime Minister, brought a radical move towards economic growth and

support for market forces, especially large business interests, while also reducing

38

government intervention, except in order to assist big business. Support was
focused on liberalization of trade, the promotion of export crops, and related
policies. Debt-servicing by means of farm consolidation and export agriculture
halted the agrarian reform movement. Governments were forced to veer away from
rural development programs that included agrarian reform, to those designed to
expand the production of export crops to service external debts. This left little
incentive in which to actively pursue agrarian reform. As economic globalization
began to widen and deepen with its ensuing consolidation of lands by corporations
(especially Transnational Corporations), there was all the more reason to abandon
agrarian reform programs and replace them with agro-business ventures that
specialize in high-value export crops (Liamzon, 19962317). However, it was not only
governments who lost interest in agrarian reform, but also aid agencies and
development scholars. Sobhan writes in 1993 that:
“Multilateral agencies, once in the vanguard of the intellectual movement
for land reform, now mention such proposals for reform not at all or in
highly qualified small print on the penultimate pages of their reports.
Scholars who once staked their reputations on the need for agrarian
reform have moved on to advocate targeting development at the poor; or
to more fashionable issues of gender and sustainable development.
Votaries of agrarian reform have been reduced to a fringe group of

romantic throwbacks left over from the 1950s and 60s” (Sobhan, 199323).

39

A notable example of the erosion of support for agrarian reform within Latin
America came in 1994. This was when the PRI government in Mexico rendered a
very controversial decision of abolishing communal lands (ejidos). This was a
repeal of Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution that originally established the
ejidos system of land ownership. The article was originally designed after the
Mexican Revolution to make land available to villagers and protecting communal

land holdings from privatization (Colatosti, 2001224).

In spite of this seeming lack of support at higher governmental levels, there is an
ever-expanding network of voices at the grassroots level calling for more
attention to be given to land reform. At the NGO Global Forum on Food Security
during the UN. Food and Agriculture Organization's Fiftieth Anniversary
Celebration held in October 1995 in Quebec, private organizations and NGOs,
particularly from the Third World, strongly stated the need for a renewed effort to
bring agrarian reform back to the fore of the lntemational development agenda
(Liamzon, 19962322). Since that meeting FAO has continued to focus on the land

issue, principally because rural populations have demanded that it remain as a high

agenda priority (UN FAO, 2000).

Other United Nations initiatives have also taken up land tenure issues. In May of
2000 the UN Commission on Sustainable Development met and reiterated their
position that access to land and security of tenure as being one of their top

priority areas. The input of famers, trade unions, indigenous peoples, NGOs,

40

and industry representatives was solicited through a “multi-stakeholder dialogue”
prior to the meeting. The session proved successful in that it ”encouraged
governments to develop and/or adopt policies and implement laws that
guarantee their citizens well-defined and enforceable land rights and promote
equal access to land and legal security of tenure, in particular for women and

disadvantaged groups” (UN NGLS, 2000).

In June of 1996 the second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements
(Habitat ll) met in Turkey with the participation of 171 UN. members states. The
purpose of the conference was to map out an approach to the development of
human settlements in an urbanizing world. Two of the key commitments they
agreed upon were the importance of providing security of tenure and equal

access to land (UN NGLS, July, 2000).

A similar plea was voiced that same year at the IFAD (lntemational Fund for
Agricultural Development) Conference on Hunger and Poverty held in Brussels,
Belgium. Close to one thousand participants represented diverse stakeholders
who addressed the issues of rural hunger including inter-governmental
organizations, international financial institutions, NGOs and other civil society
organizations. One of the points brought out in the conference was that six in ten
households in the Third World work the land. One-quarter of them - 100 million
households - do not own the land they work on. Among the rest, land distribution

often continues to be highly unequal. The conference resulted in a call for the

41

revival of agrarian reform on the national and lntemational agenda as a
necessary condition for empowerment and sustainable development for the poor.
They stated that access to land and secure land rights are of central importance
in determining living standards. Reforms targeted at improving the condition of
the rural poor must address the issue of rights to land and to land use. In the
absence of land refoms, even rapid agricultural growth will not significantly
reduce rural poverty and hunger. On the other hand, where land is distributed
more evenly, agricultural growth tends to be more rapid, and the fruits of that
growth better distributed. Participants asked IFAD to assist the emerging
coalition to identify, disseminate and support the replication of successful

experiences in land redistribution, titling and inheritance rights (IFAD, 1995).

In 1997 another major conference was sponsored by FIAN (FoodFirst
Infomation and Action Network) lntemational and We Campesina. This
conference was the kick-off for an international initiative to bring agrarian reform
back on the development agenda. This campaign has as one of its targets - the
NGO’s. The campaign seeks to educate NGO’s on the link between access to
land and the right to food. It also seeks to lobby and work for the financial support
of agrarian reform programs. Participants at the conference made some
condemning statements against NGO’s for their lack of movement on agrarian
reform. They pointed out that the tamer is hurt by both modern agrarian policies
as well as the apathy on the part of development organizations and the state.

“Peasants are without allies and neither the NGO’s nor the academics are

42

interested in their problems. It seems that the powerful have perpetuated a
stereotype of peasants that invites such insensitivity” (FIAN, 1997216). This
statement was also interestingly affirmed by noted British economist Michael
Lipton who writes, “ There is almost no area of anti-poverty policy where popular,
even professional, opinion is so far removed from expert analysis and evidence

as land reform” (Lipton, 1996262).

The conference was clear in stating that agrarian reform is not just the
redistribution of land, but is rather a new holistic development strategy. It means
an alternative development model and a redistribution process of control of
economic resources. It implies the realization of human rights, education, access
to resources, social justice, citizenship, democracy and sustainability.
Participants were quick to point out that food and access to land are a universal

human right as stated in two important documents.

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in article 17
that 3) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others, b) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property (UN, 1948).

2. Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the lntemational Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights makes it clear that the human right to
food is an international right (UNHCHR, effective January 3, 1976).
In December of 2000 the lntemational Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural

Development was held in the Philippines. As was the case in the other

conferences, a consensus emerged on the positive contribution that more equal

43

access to land and other assets has in fighting poverty. Equity of land assets also
helps to ensure sustained growth and stewardship of the natural environment. It
was widely agreed that meaningful reform must involve a significant
transfomation of property rights and ensure access to the means to make
agriculture more productive and sustainable. It must address the needs of those
who work on the land including tenants, marginal famers and landless workers -
men and women alike - and be set in the context of a healthy balance between

agricultural and industrial development (ICARRD, 2000).

The outcry over land rights has certainly not been confined to conference rooms
and organized meetings. Peasant landless movements composed of landless
peasants, small famers, farm workers, rural youth, and peasant women have
organized and become significant voices on several national arenas. Two of the
most noteworthy of these groups are the Landless Workers Movement (MST) in
Brazil and the Philippines Peasant Movement (KMP). Both of these national
movements rose out of a popular response to the great concentration of land in
the hands of a few landowners ((ISLA, 1999). They have taken militant positions
in demanding agrarian reform that “will abolish all toms of feudal and semi-
feudal exploitation and will implement a free and equitable distribution of land
resources to the tillers” (Philippines Peasant Movement, website). There is
enough infomation on the actions and history of these landless movements to

write a complementary thesis to this one.

Besides the Peasant Workers Movement in Brazil, there are many other efforts
going on in Latin America where people and popular organizations are asserting
their rights for usable land. Hundreds of individual land occupation campaigns
across the Americas are involved in one form or another of land occupation for
the landless. Ander Corr in his book No Tresgssigg: Sguatting. Rent Strikesggg
Lang Struggles Worldwide documents the success of many of these campaigns.
He argues that the neo—liberal policy of agricultural modernization is creating an
increase in land concentration among large landowners and foreign agribusiness
corporations. Individual campaigns to combat this trend will only succeed it
extensive interconnections between social movements, civil society actors, and
non-governmental organizations are built and each campaign is supported by a

global coalition of advocates for agrarian reform. (Corr, 19992196).

An important study by economist Rehman Sobhan supports the strengthening of
broad-scale movements, but would actually go further in advocating for a more
“radicalization” of land reform efforts. He compares land reform programs in Latin
America and Asia and comes to the conclusion that a successful agrarian reform
program must be comprehensive and egalitarian. He says that if a country really
want to eliminate rural poverty and accelerate all-round economic development,
then there is no alternative to a radical agrarian reform. This is the type of reform
which redistributes land widely enough to incorporate the bulk of the landless and
land-poor in its scope and which thereby totally eliminates the current as well as

any potential new dominant class in the countryside (Sobhan, 19932138).

45

Riedinger supports this view by pointing out in a recent paper that all notable
land reforms throughout the world have not been voluntary, rather compulsory.
That is, the land has been forcibly confiscated from wealthy landowners by
revolutionary governments or by the power of eminent domain exercised by

democratic or authoritarian governments (Riedinger, 200024).

The points to be made in the first two sections of this chapter have been to
demonstrate that access to land is a rural development issue and is worthy to be
addressed as such, and, secondly, access to fertile agricultural land is a current
and still very pertinent issue among the millions of landless and land-poor who
live in the majority of the countries throughout the world. The last section will look
at some of the current literature that calls for international NGO’s to take a lead in

working towards alleviating this problem.

C. THE ROLE OF NGOS IN THE LAND TENURE DEBATE

l have thus far looked at what the literature says about the essentialness of land
acquisition to a comprehensive rural development program and what rural
peasants are asking of the development community. Attention now will be given
to literature sources which address how NGOs have contributed to the land

reform process and what potential lead roles they can play.

During the past few decades NGOs have increased in number, size, and scope

and have established themselves in pivotal positions in social, economic, and

46

political landscapes across the globe. According to the mmok of lntem_a_tiona_l
Aggjations, the total number of internationally recognized NGOs is well over
16,000. The 1994 Human Development Report estimates that there were about
50,000 local NGOs operating in the South (Fernando and Heston, 199728). In
Central America it was really after the triumph of the Sandinista Revolution in
Nicaragua in 1979 that NGO efforts expanded greatly, both nationally and
internationally. Of seventy-one NGOs in Honduras identified in 1992 as having or
having had agricultural projects, 64 per cent were formed after 1980. In El
Salvador the percentage was even higher (Rodriguez, 1991; Kaimowitz

et al.1992).

A massive influx of development assistance from foreign governments

and NGOs, stimulated by the regional crisis, financed the NGOs' expansion in
Central America. Donor support for NGOs went from almost nothing in mid-
1970s to an estimated 200 million dollars a year in 1987. Many new NGOs were
created or came to the region whose primary interest was gaining access to

these funds (Bebbington and Thiele, 19932182).

In general terms lntemational NGOs play a significant role in the rural
development efforts of many countries in the South. Government foreign aid
agencies such as the United States Agency for lntemational Development have
recognized this and have increasingly channeled more and more of their bi-

lateral aid to poor countries through international NGOs. Currently about twenty-

47

nine percent of US. official (or government) aid is currently administered by
NGOs (Hoy, 19982109). If people like Senator Jesse Helms of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee have their way, the US. government would funnel
the bulk of all of its development/relief aid through faith-based NGOs and do
away completely with US. AID (Nichols and Slavin: 2/20/01). It is unfortunate,
however, that despite the fact that the livelihoods of the majority of people in
developing countries depend on agriculture, today less than one-sixth of all aid
resources supports agriculture. Instead, international aid tends to favor the urban

sector, where the poorest do not live (Hoy, 199828).

Much multi-lateral aid such as what comes from the World Bank and the Inter-
American Development Bank is also channeled through national and
international NGOs. Multilateral and bilateral aid agencies are beginning to favor
NGO implementation where possible because they believe that NGOs have

a more legitimate and effective relationship with popular organizations than does
the state, and therefore a greater ability to reach the poorest sectors of the
population (Bebbington and Theile, 1993250). This collaboration between
government and development NGOs however does have its share of critics. An
article appearing in The Economist pointed out that the reason why NGOs are
growing so rapidly is because Western governments are financing them. The
article asserts that this is more a matter of privatization than it is of charity and
that NGOs are becoming sub-contractors for governments. Governments prefer

to pass aid through NGOs because it is cheaper, more efficient—and more at

48

am’s length—than direct official aid (Economist, 2000). Some critics also suspect
that some aid received by U.S.- based groups is used to propagate western
values, often organized to promote particular goals...rather than the broader goal

of development.

Other critics see a more sinister and conspiratorial side to the growth of NGOs in
the Third World. They see NGOs as community-level agents of capitalistic neo-
liberalism that try to diffuse social discontent from imperialism. They accuse
NGOs of emphasizing projects not movements and that they "mobilize" people to
produce at the margins but not to struggle to control the basic means of
production and wealth; they focus on technical financial assistance of projects,
not on structural conditions that shape the everyday lives of people. Their
ideology and practice diverts attention from the sources and solutions of poverty
(looking downward and inward instead of upward and outward). An article in the
Monthly Revifi states that “there is a direct relation between the growth of social
movements challenging the neo-liberal model and the effort to subvert them by

creating alternative toms of social action through the NGOs” (Petras, 1997210).

Other crities say that NGOs have become effective and efficient at implementing
projects at the micro level, but have failed to address broader systemic issues
that create poverty because this has not been the domain of their work. There is
a feeling that they must be more action-oriented towards challenging

development programs and policies that impoverish the already poor and not

49

spend all their energies in implementing projects. (Bebbington, 19972122; Bhasin,
199126).

In spite of the critics, it is clear that NGOs are having a significant impact upon
rural development policy both in influence and funding. At the opening of the 53rd
Annual Department of Public Infomation (DPI)INon-Govemmental Organizations
(NGO) Conference of the United Nations the following remarks were given by
Ambassador Theo-Ben Gurirab (Namibia), President of the 54th session of the
General Assembly. “NGOs must be active in galvanizing govemments into
action.” These remarks were made to an approving crowd of 1,800 NGOs from

60 countries (Remson, 200022).

The question is often raised on whether NGOs have a role to play in land reform
and what kind of role should that be? This next section seeks to respond to that
question based upon the literature. NGO experts Edwards, Hulme and Wallace
assert that NGOs are starting to integrate micro- and macro-level actions into
their projects. They say we are starting to see a shift from development as
delivery to development as leverage. This shift has major implications for NGOs
as far as their organizational structure, fundraising, and relations to others
(Edwards, Hulme, Wallace, 2000210). This shift is no more evident than among

the work of NGOs in the land reform issue.

50

The whole notion of advocacy is one approach cited by many authors by which
NGOs are well placed to leverage for land reform. Edwards says that advocacy
can take a variety of toms - from careful research and policy advice, to
parliamentary lobbying, to public campaigning and development education - the
overall goal is “to alter the ways in which power, resources, and ideas are
created, consumed and distributed at a global level, so that people and
organizations in the South have a more realistic chance of controlling their own

development” (Edwards, 19932164).

Ghimire presents a strong case for the need among peasant groups to form solid
alliances with external institutions like NGOs and development agencies when
dealing with the land reform process. The basis for these alliances lies in the fact
that land reform is a legal process requiring information and resources that often
only lawyers and other legal aid experts can provide to peasant groups. Land
reform is also a political issue and thus the support and leverage that
marginalized rural populations can gather from external allies will better enable
them to get the attention of authorities and powerful landowners. Fisher says that
the proliferation of NGOs may provide the only possible, albeit long-tam, way of
undemining power monopolies. Their increased presence make it difficult for
governments to ignore them (Fisher, 1998219). Ghimire argues for an
international solidarity movement on land reform when he says:

“Outside alliances and support are crucial to peasants and other

marginalized mral groups during the land reform process. Political

51

mobilization, leadership development, organization of land acquisition
actions and protests, networking, and influencing the media, political
parties and government land policies are important but often beyond the
means of peasants without the assistance of more powerful outsiders.
Rural groups also benefit from external assistance in the identification of
land for redistribution, selection of beneficiaries, acquisition of titles,
prevention of eviction of tenants by landowners, improvement in wages for
agricultural labourers and negotiation with landowners or government
departments. Outside support is similarly critical in resolving land conflicts
among the rural poor themselves, as well as across tenurial classes, and
in ensuring that the beneficiaries of land reform have access to essential

agricultural inputs and support services” (Ghimire, 1999).

Some writers point out that the ability of NGOs to publicly advocate and influence

policy coincides with a shrinking and decentralization of national governments.

Structural adjustment policies imposed on many debt-laden countries in Latin

America have fomd national governments to greatly reduce their spending for

agrarian reform initiatives and to aggressively begin privatizing government

services and adopting open market policies. This has left a gap in the agricultural

support network that many small-holder famers were once receiving. Small

famers are exposed to a lack of access to financial services, insurance,

intomation, and technical change and high transaction costs in accessing

markets (de Janvry, Key, Sadoulet, 1997). However, a key phenomena in Latin

52

American agriculture today is the (mainly successful) efforts of NGOs to fill the
gap between the declining public mechanisms for supporting agriculture and the
private systems created to organize productions and distribution (Paniagua—Ruiz,
1997). This vacuum has created space for NGOs to create partnerships with the
government, to assist in public policy design and implementation, and to become
advocates of human rights and environmental protection. Governments are
actually beginning to see the value of collaborating with NGOs to address long-
standing issues of poverty in their country. Bebbington and Thiele say that these
linkages will become more frequent and effective In the future. They also say that
more radical and progressives NGOs should respond to this window of
opportunity of working with the government. If they do not, the more opportunistic
organizations and the private sector will occupy these new relations with
government, gain influence over decision and policy-making, and ultimately grow
to the extent that they marginalize other NGOs who do not grasp this opportunity
(Bebbington and Thiele, 1993:57,144).

Research conducted by Adams looked specifically at the benefits and
disadvantages of increased collaboration in agrarian reform between the

government - donors- and NGOs. (see table 4)

The advocacy role that NGOs play in promoting land reform sometimes puts

them in a adversarial position with the government. NGOs played an active role

in the land refoms of Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Although these

53

land reforms accompanied social revolutions in which insurgent political forces
seized state power with wide popular support. NGOs, nevertheless, played an
important peripheral role as catalysts to politically mobilize and organize the

rural landless and near landless (Barraclough, 1999235). Peasant mobilization
seems to be the key component shared by all successful land reform programs in

Latin America.

There certainly are ethical questions an NGO must confront if it decides to take
an adversarial role against the government. If it becomes too adversarial, it runs
the risk of government repression and being expelled from being allowed to
function in rural areas or even in the country. This is why many NGOs have

opted to work within the existing agrarian stmcture and concentrate their work

Table 42 Government, Donor and NGO Collaboration

 

From the government’s perspective:

 

Benefits: Disadvantages:
- Better delivery of supporting - Govemment’s services shown

services to rural communities to be inefficient by comparison
. More intomation available from the . NGOs mobilization work promotes
grassroots political instability
- More interaction with rural - Demand for government services arising from
communities participatory approaches increases beyond the
- Enhanced cost effectiveness capacity to meet it; too much focus on politics
I More monitoring and control of and not enough on poverty alleviation; NGOs
NGOs lack competence in socioeconomic/livelihood

projects; NGOs compete with government for
donors’ funds

- NGOs reluctant to adhere to
routine monitoring; unaccountability of NGOs

 

 

 

 

54

 

From the donor’s perspective:

 

Benefits:

Better delivery of supporting
services

to target group, in contrast to poor
performance and high—cost public
agencies.

NGOs seen as a better means of
creating general awareness of the
need for sustainable development
and agro-ecology

 

Disadvantages:

NGOs are as reluctant as government to adhere
to routine monitoring; unaccountability of NGOs
regarding use of funds; NGO involvement
complicates disbursement and creates
administrative burdens for donor office; difficulty
in arbitrating between national NGOs
lnnovativeness of NGOs constrained by service
contracts

Donor accused of interfering in domestic politics

 

 

 

' Stress of NGOs on good
governance,
democracy and participatory
methods.
From the NGO perspective:
Benefits: Disadvantages:

Improved access to government
policy formulation

Access to more funds to pay for
NGO personnel, training and
operational costs.

NGOs obtain access to more
funds for poverty alleviation land
reform and rural development.
Opportunity to improve government
services by providing training.
Opportunity for scaling up
operations.

 

Co-option by governments and greater
bureaucratic controls

Unreliability of funds routed through
government channels; bureaucratic delays;
tension between NGOs seeking funding;

loss of autonomy and independence;
domination by foreign technical assistance staff;
loss of credibility among clients and a tendency
to maintain existing social and political

conditions.

NGOs become implicated in government’s
scandals, especially from govemment-initiated
NGOs (GRINGOS); cost and profligacy of
consultants (local as well as foreign) funded
by the donor

Government acquires the NGOs’ methods,
dilutes and discredits them

Relegation of NGOs to mere delivery activities

to the detriment of the NGOs’ wider programs

 

Source: Adams, 2000:31-2

on technical assistance, credit assistance, creating agricultural markets, and food

distribution. NGOs that do chose to tackle the more systemic causes of rural

poverty and address macro-level issues Barraclough would call “progressive

NGOs” and says they definitely have an important role to play. He says:

55

 

“Progressive NGOs and committed lntemational organizations can play
important roles as catalysts in helping grassroots peasant and landless
movements organize and press their demands for land. They can help
through research focused on the livelihood and sustainable development
problems of the rural poor. They can provide valuable technical
assistance, material resources and legal aid. They can facilitate the use of
modern communication technologies by peasants and others struggling
for reform. They can publicize violations of socio—economic and

human rights, corruption and other abuses suffered by the poor. They can
advance land reforms through advocacy at all levels. But their roles will
always be auxiliary to what must be fundamentally a domestic political
process. The main actors in bringing about and consolidating genuine
land reform must always include the landless and near landless, together
with their political allies and the state. Well-intentioned NGOs and
international organizations can help. They can also hinder if they fail to
take into account the complex social dynamics that land reform implies”

(Barraclough, 199924 7).

The legitimacy for northem-based NGOs to be involved in advocacy, policy

fomulation and decision-making on rural development issues lies in the fact that

historically they have been well-connected with the poor at the grassroots level.

By having a foot in the North and afoot in the South, NGOs are in a good

position to link the micro and the macro levels, using their experience in the

56

South to infom their advocacy and policy work in the North (Hudson, 2000290;
Fisher, 1998297). Some advocate that northem-NGOS should step aside from
their work at the project level and let their Southern counterparts assume that
role, while they should assume the equally important role of shaping their own

governments’ foreign policy and educating their fellow citizens. (Hoy, 19982109).

There is very little justification in the literature on the need for NGOs to be directly
involved in the purchase of land for distribution to tenant famers. The direct
acquisition of land seems to be an activity that is felt best left to the government,
basically because inequitable land distribution is such a grandiose problem that
only an institution the size of a federal govemment could deal with it. Secondly,
because land acquisition can potentially be a very controversial area. Therefore,
donor agencies have chosen to distance themselves from the land acquisition
process and have put their support behind physical infrastructure and welfare
facilities for settlement (such as wells, clinics, and access tracks) , or for on-fam
development (Adams, 200123). Nevertheless, there are a handful of small
northem-NGOs that make funds available either as loans or grants for the
purchase of land. The AGROS Foundation based in Seattle provides loans for
famers in Central America to purchase land, while the NGO Grassroots
lntemational based in Boston provides financial assistance to the Landless

Workers Movement in Brazil for the acquisition of land.

Besides the direct acquisition of land for the landless, Fisher presents a rather

57

comprehensive list of many indirect means by which an NGO can use to possibly

facilitate more equal access to land.

Organizing land invasions

Sit down strikes, public heckling, road blockades, mass fasting, filling up jails
Lobbying the government to protect land from developers and influence policy
Neighborhood petitioning

Contacting individual acquaintances in government bureaucracies

Building ties to opposition parties

Holding local demonstrations

Building horizontal and vertical federations

NGO members becoming political candidates

Advocacy for human rights and environmental policies

Advocacy networking to influence sustainable development. The grassroots
tribal movement in Latin America, supported by NGOs and international
networks, has been successful at challenging the very heart of inequitable
land tenure based on violent encroachment

Mass advocacy and protest

Mediators for infomational exchange

Brokers between local communities and sub-national governments (Fisher,
1998: 82,126)

In spite of all the potential interventions that international NGOs could potentially

be involved in both directly and indirectly in assisting the rural landless access to

land, there is still a lot of frustration among many development experts on the

lack of movement in regards to this issue. I think it is fair to say that William

Thiesenhusen speaks for many when he asks “how much worse does rural

poverty have to become for lntemational donors to take positive action in

ameliorating the conditions that cause it? If donors do nothing and local elites

58

and policymakers likewise are mute, the irony is that rebelling peasants (witness
Mexico and Brazil) may interrupt the pattern of growth that has so recently begun

again in the area” (T hiesenhusen, 199622).

59

CHAPTER 3

Dissertation Research Design

60

The research design of this study is based on the methodological process of
triangulation. It is a process by which two or more different measuring
instruments are used to examine the same variable. It allows a researcher to look
at a given variable from two different vantage points. Social science researchers
Singleton, Strait and Strait say that “the key to triangulation is the use of
dissimilar methods or measures, which do not share the same methodological
weaknesses - that is, errors and biases” (Singleton, Strait and Strait, 19932392).
The advantage of trying to minimize errors and biases is that it increases the
confidence level in the end results of the research. The World Bank relied heavily
on triangulation in the fomulation of the data contained in their most recent
World Development Rgmrt 2000/1. World Bank researchers admitted that “given
the open-ended and flexible nature of participatory assessments, it is important
that all the information and analysis generated is verified or triangulated’.
Triangulation is an iterative process and should be continuously sought during

discussions with different groups of people” (World Bank, 1999).

The Literature Review set the foundation for this research. That foundation is
that the poor and other development professionals are advocating that NGOs
have a role and an obligation to be working on helping the landless and land-
poor gain access to land. Two separate research instruments are used in this
study to gauge the level of responsiveness among 10 major NGOs to this

position. These instruments consisted of gathering information and data from

existing literature sources and interviewing key organizational informants. By

61

examining these two diverse data sources, a reliable picture was developed of
the responsiveness of each organization in regards to the requests of the rural

poor in Latin America (see Figure 1).

./A\.

A = Requests from the poor and other development professionals for
NGO involvement in land access issues.

B = Face-to—face interviewing and telephone interviews with key
infomants from selected organizations

C = Existing infomation and data gathered from organizations

Figure 1: Triangulation

 

Organizational Selection Process

Prior to conducting research on each individual organization, a selection process
was established that helped detemine which ten lntemational development
organizations would be examined. The ten organizations that were ultimately
selected for this study were not selected from a random sampling and do not
pretend to represent all the U.S.-based Non-Govemmental Organizations
(NGOs) currently encouraging development in Latin America. This study is
strictly an examination of ten of the largest and most influential organizations
currently participating in rural development work in the region. It is assumed that

these organizations set the tone for a large percent of the development strategies

62

currently being practiced in Latin America.

The following six criteria were followed which were necessary in winnowing down
the dozens of non-profit organizations based in the United States who are

working at the lntemational level.

1. Contact was made and membership lists acquired from both AERDO
(Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations) and
lnterAction (the American Council for Voluntary lntemational Action). AERDO
is a professional forum for non-profit Christian agencies engaged in relief and
development work at the international level. AERDO has a membership of 46
organizations who are all based in North America. lnterAction is a diverse
coalition of more than 160 US-based relief, development, environmental and
refugee agencies working in more than 100 countries around the world. The
membership lists of these two broad network associations contain the web
sites, addresses, telephone numbers, and contact people for all of the major
U.S.-based NGOs currently working outside of the United States. This first
step was helpful in identifying a master list from which to start from.

2. From this master list of over 200 organizations essential financial infomation
was gathered on each individual organization. This infomation was generally
found in the organization’s annual report. Each organization was then
numerically ranked according to the size of their operating budgets. The top

30 organizations were detemined and retained in the process of paring the

63

list down to ten.

. From this list it was then detemined which ones had on-going work in Latin
America This infomation was found on the web site and annual reports of
each organization. The number of countries that each organization worked in
was not as important as having a definitive presence in a Latin American
country.

. The key premise for this study is that equitable access to land among the
rural population is an important component to rural development. It was then
decided that interviewing NGOs that make no reference to “development” in
their promotional materials as one of their organizational goals would be
inappropriate. It would be unfair to hold them to a perceived development
standard when they make no claims of practicing development work. Many of
these organizations concentrate their work on relief and direct assistance
programs often under the guise of child sponsorship programs. Although the
effectiveness and appropriateness of these types of working strategies for
bringing about long-tam sustainable benefit to their target populations might
be questioned, that is not within the scope of this particular study. This
process eliminated several large and well-known organizations like
Samaritan’s Purse, Christian Children’s Fund and Children lntemational.

. It was then decided that it would be appropriate to investigate only NGOs that
were working directly or funding work in rural areas, whether that be in
programs of agricultural production, food security or natural resource

conservation. Once again, only those organizations in which land issues

might be relevant to their development work were chosen to be interviewed.
This process eliminated two additional prominent organizations, Mercy Corp
and Save the Children. These organizations were eliminated from the study
after having telephone and written correspondence with representatives from
both organizations. This correspondence revealed that lntemational
agricultural initiatives are not at all part of their development agenda in Latin
America and that an interview with them would produce no substantive
dialogue.

. Twelve organizations were then left after this process of paring-down and
selected for possible interviews. Even though the target number was ten,
twelve were selected with the realization that 1 or 2 of them may either be
resistant or unavailable for an interview for a variety of reasons. Once these
organizations were selected, efforts were made to contact them to find out if
they would be willing to participate in the research and if so, who might be the
most appropriate person in the organization to meet with. Subsequently all
organizations that were approached were mceptive to the idea of participating

in the study.

Keyolnformant Selection Process

The process of detemining who might be the most knowledgeable and

appropriate person to meet with in each organization was somewhat arduous,

especially if there had been no previous personal contact or relationship with the

organization. Four basic tactics were used in detemining the appropriate

infomant within the organization. In each case it was the organization itself that

65

made the final detemination based on the infomation given to them regarding

the objectives of the research.

The first tactic, which proved most effective, was to contact a previous personal
acquaintance within the organization. The objective of the research was
explained to them and they were asked if they could recommend an appropriate
person in the organization. Then, when making the second contact it could
always be mentioned to them that their name was acquired from a colleague
within the organization. This seemed to add a measure of credibility to the
request. The unfortunate asmct to this tactic was that in many cases no previous

contacts had been made in the organization.

A second tactic used was to go directly to the organization’s web site on the
lntemet. Some of them would identify the names of the executive dimctor and
program directors along with contact infomation. However, in most cases the
contact infomation for the organization would be their fundraising and/or
promotion’s department which were disconnected from the field operation of

organization’s programs.

A third tactic used was to ask a known key informant in one organization it they
could refer the researcher to their counterpart in another organization. In a
couple of instances it was discovered that people had previously worked at one

time in a counterpart organization and could easily provide a name to contact.

66

The fourth tactic was one used if no prior contacts existed in the selected
organization. This was to call the organization headquarters and talk directly with
the receptionist. Helshe would then be asked if they could fonlvard the call to
either the Latin American program department, the food security program or the
agricultural program. This process usually led to a series of conversations with

support staff before talking with the appropriate person.

In each case it was not the Executive Director who was identified as the most
appropriate person to talk with and program support staff were found to not have
the necessary knowledge in the subject area to wanant an interview. In all
instances it was either a departmental head or Latin American field staff who

were selected as the organizational representative.

Once the potential key informants were identified, a brief letter of introduction
was sent to them that would identify the interviewer, how their name was
acquired, the purpose of the study, how long it might take for the interview, and
some suggestions for possible dates to meet. This letter was the initial attempt at
gaining access to the person. The design of this letter was based upon writings
by Singleton, Strait and Strait on effective procedures to gaining access and
consent of a potential survey respondent. They mention that the objective of a
introductory letter is to help in:

1. identifying the researcher and survey sponsor

2. communicating the general purpose and importance of the study

67

. showing how the findings may benefit the individual or others

. explaining how the sample was drawn and the importance of each
respondent’s cooperation to the study

. assuring individuals that they will not be identified and that their
responses will be kept confidential and will be combined with those of
others for data analysis purposes

. explaining that the questionnaire will take only a few minutes to fill out
or that the interview will be enjoyable and will be held at the
respondent’s convenience

. promising to send respondents a summary of the study’s findings.”

(Singleton, Straits and Straits, 19932271)

In each case this letter was sent to all prospective survey respondents by

electronic mail which helped expedite the response rate in setting up interview

appointments.

Once a time was set for the interview, a “Written Consent Form” was sent to

each prospective interviewee prior to the actual interview. This form had been

previously approved by the Michigan State University Committee on Research

Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). The one-page consent form briefly:

explains the research

gives an estimate of subjects time for the interview

68

- lets the subject know that participation is voluntary and that they can
withdraw from the research without penalty

. states that all infomation is held in confidentiality and the subjects
identity will be anonymous

- gives the name and contact person of UCRIHS in case the subject has
any concerns or questions

- asks pemission to audio tape the interview

Each subject was asked to read over the consent form and sign and date it if

they were in agreement with it. A copy of the form is found in Appendix 1.

Design of Survey Instrument

As mentioned in the ”Literature Review” chapter, there has been little past
research done on the role of NGOs in relation to the acquisition of land. The
intent of this study was to gather initial infomation on the topic. For this type of
research it was evident that a survey interview was the best type of research
instrument to be used. An interview is considered the best way to acquire
preliminary data in an area in which little research has been done, in order to
generate an hypothesis (Singleton, Strait and Strait, 19932259). The interviews
were partially structured, designed for getting responses to some specific major
questions, while allowing the interviewer the freedom to probe beyond the

answers to these questions.

69

The interview followed a series of twelve open-ended questions. The open-ended
question, as opposed to the close-ended, has the advantage of putting very few
words in the mouth of the respondent. The open-ended question is more
effective in revealing his/her own definition of the situation, whatever it is

(Phillips, 19712138).

Face to Face Interviewing

Face to face interviewing has one strong advantage over all other types of
methods for data collection. That advantage is the high response rate. This may
be attributed to the attractiveness of being interviewed and the novelty of the
experience. It may also be attributed to the fact that the importance and
credibility of the research are conveyed best by a face-to-face interviewer when
the researcher can show identification and credentials (Singleton, Strait and
Strait, 19932261). A secondary advantage of an interview is that an interviewer
can ask for clarification from the respondent and be more probing in acquiring an
answer from a respondent. The opportunity to clarify the many terms associated
with land issues like land reform, land ownership, land registration, land
accessibility, land tenure and agrarian reform proved especially useful in this

research.

The biggest disadvantage of conducting face to face interviews was that of costs.

Each organization interviewed was located in a different locale and in almost all

instances in a different city. The one advantage that helped cut costs was that all

70

the organizations that were subsequently interviewed were located in the eastern
United States and therefore several could be visited during each trip.

In three instances a telephone interview was conducted rather than a face to face
interview. One was done because the interviewee came down ill on the day of
the face to face interview, one was done to save on costs and the expressed
preference of the respondent, and the third was due to a scheduling conflict
between the interviewer and interviewee. However, telephone interviews are also
considered an effective method to gather infomation because of their high
response rate. Their disadvantage was that it took a little longer to establish trust
and rapport with the respondents, although in each instance the conversation

ultimately lasted longer than the face to face interviews.

Protest of the Survey Instrument

A pretest of the survey instrument was conducted prior to using it on the previously
selected organizations. The pretest was done with a small U. S.-based development
organization that has agricultural work in Latin America. The organization is one in
which the researcher has previously worked for and has numerous colleagues. The pretest
was available in gauging the time of the interview, setting the appropriate order and
relevancy of the interview questions, and helping the interviewer become comfortable
with the process. The agency representative who was interviewed knew that it was a

pretest and offered helpful feedback on the interview experience.

71

Collection of Organizational Literature Sources

The second leg of the triangulation process (see Figure 1) was the collection of
secondary literature sources from each selected organization. This was not a
difficult task because for most of them the production of written promotional
material constitutes a significant amount of their staff time and budget
expenditures. Annual reports were collected from each organization as well as
IRS I-990 Foms, country project reports, organizational newsletters and
brochures, project proposals, and home office correspondence with field staff.
After some of the interviews the researcher was encouraged to correspond
directly with field staff. This proved helpful in gaining additional information
beyond what the home office representative had offered. This material was
helpful in providing a context to each interview and for either supporting or
refuting what was said during the interview with the organizational representative.
Relying solely on either the interview or the organizational literature would have
not provided adequate information to gauge their perspective and behavior on
land issues, however, combining the two data sources proved essential in

gaining a full picture.

72

CHAPTER 4

Research Findings

73

Eleven organizations were ultimately selected for an interview as part of this
research, with the understanding that one of them may be dropped due to
unforeseen circumstances. This proved to be absolutely the case as the
interviewing process unfolded. The eleven organizations that were chosen based
upon the selection criteria outlined in chapter 3 of this study were as follows:

1. WInrock lntemational - home office based in Washington, DC.

2. Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) - based in Silver
Springs, MD.

World Relief Corporation (VVR) — based in Wheaton, IL.

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) - based in Baltimore, MD.

CARE USA - based in Atlanta, GA.

World Vision - international program offices based in Washington, DC.
Lutheran World Relief (LWR) - based in Baltimore, MD.

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) - based in Philadelphia, PA.
.Oxfam America- based In Boston MA.

10. Church World Service (CWS)— based In New York, N. Y.

11.Plan lntemational (Pl) - based In Providence, RI.

repossess»

Representatives from each of these organizations were individually interviewed.
However, Lutheran World Relief was later dropped from the study due to the fact
that on the day prior to the interview the assigned representative became very ill
and was given a lengthy medical leave of absence. l was able to interview one of
the program assistants at LWR who graciously gave of their time, but found that
this person did not possess full knowledge of the organization’s programs and
could not adequately answer all the questions. There were three interviews that
were not conducted face-to-face but rather by telephone. One of these was with

the representative from Catholic Relief Services who is based in Guatemala. We

74

held the telephone interview on a day that she happened to be in the Baltimore
office of CR8. The other was with the representative from CARE who suggested
that we do the interview by telephone rather than in-person. The third was with
Plan lntemational for the reason that on the day that l was in Providence for the

interview the representative had a family emergency and had to cancel.

The following is a brief summary of the responses that each organization gave to

the open-ended questions that were posed to them during the interview.

Question #1
The first question asked of each organization was a simple one. “How long have
you been working in Latin America?” It was posed in order to gain some historical

perspective of their level of time and financial commitment to the region.

Responses

All ten organizations said that they had been working in Latin America for over
ten years, with seven of them having been in the region for over 25 years. They
all felt that this level of longevity allowed them to develop a deep level of
knowledge of the region as well to establish a high level of credibility among

people in the host country.

75

Question #2

The second question was designed to find out the manner by which each
organization worked in Latin America. I wanted to know if they were funding
organizations, direct project implementers or a combination of the two. The
question asked was “does your organization work directly in development

programs or do you work through national partner organizations?”

Responses

Eight of the organizations specifically mentioned that they work with partner
groups by funding them, providing organizational capacity-building, collaborating
with them, consulting with them and even forming them. The term “partner group”
was viewed somewhat differently by all organizations. Some classified their
partner groups as local churches, local government ministries, national
organizations, and local development NGOs. All ten organizations admitted that
originally they began their work as direct aid providers, but have changed their
methodologies as they have witnessed the advancement of indigenous technical
and institutional capacities throughout Latin America. However, one organization
raised concerns that their “partnerships” are becoming increasingly more like a

subcontracting relationship at the local level.

World Vision is an exception to the other eight in that they are direct

implementers of development programs. This is primarily due to the fact that they

are the type of child-sponsorship program that collects donated funds for direct

76

assistance to specific children and the communities in which they live. The
relationship that World Vision might have with these communities could last 10-
15 years. This long-tam commitment requires them to be the implementers of

direct aid projects.

The American Friends Service Committee on the other hand is neither a funding
organizations nor direct aid implementer. They work through Field
Representatives who do organizing at the grassroots level and Quaker
lntemational Affairs Representatives who are involved in national policy work.
The Field Representatives work as catalysts in building up indigenous
organizations from the ground level and helping them become self-sustaining by

helping them look for funding from other donors.

Question #3

This question was “how do you establish the development priorities of your field
work?” The intent of this question was to understand at what level each
organization incorporates all potential stakeholders into the development
planning process. I wanted to get a sense of whether the development priorities
of the organizations’ were established in a highly centralized manner in the home
office, or if it was a decentralized process with input gathered from all relevant
participants including the “beneficiaries” of the prescribed program. As mentioned

before in this research, poor rural famers are begging for a place at the table

77

where development strategies designed to “help” them are discussed. Have

these organizations created a place for them at the table?

Responses

There were a wide variety of responses to this question with the most popular
being that development priorities are established through an iterative process of
dialogue between partner organizations, outside consultants, international NGO
staff, community members and government officials. These groups are regularly
brought together for large-scale meetings that were referred to as “partner
summits” or “world-wide assemblies.” At these meetings the development priority
of the organization as well as their working relationship with each partner group
were defined. However, there were some notable exceptions to this means of

development prioritization.

Winrock is basically a subcontracted organization for large funding institutions
like the United States Agency for lntemational Development. They bid on
contracts that require outside agricultural expertise. Therefore it is the funding
organization not Winrock that decides what the field priorities are for each
country based upon the assessed needs along with consultation from
beneficiaries. Winrock may also work as the implementers of bi-lateral aid

between the US. and Latin American countries.

78

World Vision says that it works with local communities in helping them identify
their own needs. They have an established criteria for detemining which
communities they will work in, after the community is selected they work with
Iowl leaders using the Participatory Research Assessment method to identify

community needs.

World Relief, Care and American Friends Service Committee (AF SC) rely heavily
on the expertise and local infomational networks of their in-country field staff to
assess and detemine their development priorities. AFSC refers to this as a
“process of discernment” and it allows each country office the autonomy to
respond to issues in their region based on their capability to respond in the local

context.

Question #4
The fourth question was a continuation of the third question. It was posed in
order to find out exactly “what are your current development priorities and

strategies of your work in Latin America?”

Responses

The responses to this question were as far-reaching as the individual
organizations themselves. Each one had a slightly different focus, some with
principle directives emanating from the home office in the United States and

some leaving the development priorities and strategies up to the local or regional

79

office in Latin America. The following is a quick summary of the Latin American

foci of each organization.

1. ADRA concentrates its efforts on community-based development activities
and disaster preparedness and response. Their community-based
development includes a wide range of activities leading to improved
health, economic, and social well-being and self-reliance. ADRA’s
portfolios are food security, economic development, primary health,

disaster response, and basic education.

2. Winrock’s institutional priorities are to work in agriculture, natural
resources management, clean/renewable energy and leadership training.
Most of their work in Latin America focuses on market-based production
systems. The markets may be local, national or international markets.
They say that this is what major donors want and what they will fund.
Examples of this are organic high-quality coffee and cacao. More
specifically, in Nicaragua they are working with USAID helping famers
who were adversely affected by Hurricane Mitch. They help them establish
producer associations, improve crops, and open up new markets. In Peru
they are working in alternative development helping famers move from

planting coca leaves to other types of commercial crops.

3. World Vision has three main global priorities that they label “sustainable

transfomation and development.” They are:

80

a. Helping communities identify and meet basic needs. These needs
may relate to food security, the environment, education, micro-

enterprise development and health.

b. Empowering people to be agents of development in their own
community. This entails educating people on their rights,
community organization and mobilization, and justice/peace
building.

c. Demonstrating a Christian witness.

Their current focus in Latin America is on natural resource management,
agricultural production of food security, and the environment. Nomally
they focus on child welfare issues, but now realize that they cannot ignore
the family and community in which the child is growing up.

World Reliefs Latin American priority is Nicaragua with their Sustainable
Agricultural Program. This program focuses on building level curves, live
barriers, alley cropping, green manuring, planting leguminous plants and
brush, and reforestation. The health program is also integrated into their
agricultural work through nutritional programs and establishing family
gardens. In earlier years WR concentrated on providing agricultural
technical assistance, now they concentrate on providing marketing
assistance. This may involve the construction of metallic silos,
fementation and drying structures for coffee and cacao, storage centers,
planting non-traditional commercial crops such as spice trees, fruit trees

organic coffee, cacao and forestry species. They have also established a

81

Famer Supply Store that promotes a full range of products and post-
harvest management structures. They believe that a competitive market
will benefit everyone whether they own their own land or not. They also
provide assistance by looking for marketing opportunities in the US for
the commercial crops such as spices, cacao and organic coffee that the
famers are growing.

. The current plan for Latin America of Catholic Relief Services focuses on
issues of social justice, human dignity and human rights. The
manifestation of this plan is interpreted differently in each country. Each
individual country develops its’ own strategic plan every 5 years. The plan
is based on the socio-economic data of the country. Each country office is
to look at its major social justice issues and respond to them. For
example, in Guatemala the major issue is land tenure and the unequal
distribution of wealth. Nicaragua and Honduras on the other hand are still
in the post-Mitch mode. Emphasis there is on citizen participation, local
development planning, and use of budgets in distributing the aid coming
into the country. In Brazil their role is to support the community organizing
activities that the local church is already doing in helping people acquire
title to their land.

. Church World Service says that it is learning to take a global approach to
development and seeing that it also has something to do with human
rights, civil society, street children, etc. Their development priorities vary

according to time and the issues in each region. They are trying to break

82

down the old notion that “if you do not give me money, then I cannot
work.” They want people to identify their own resources, tools, and local
technology. They are continuing to try to distance themselves from
“bringing technology” to communities and encouraging them to use
traditional and appropriate technology. One example given was a shift
from promoting tractors to animal draft power. Modernization theory is
seen as something that creates dependency. CWS admits that the
learning curve has been an arduous process for their Board of Directors to
give up some of the control of the projects and put responsibility into the
hands of national groups. Changing the mentality from “doing for“ to
“responding to” was a difficult choice, but proven to be cheaper and more
successful. CWS puts much attention on the idea of cross-fertilization
between projects within and outside of countries. When people share with
others what has worked and what has failed, there is a coming together of
ideas and strategies. CWS believes that it is important to always work with
communities rather than individuals. Through community they are able to
get at questions of human rights, civil society and security. There is great
potential when working with communities.

. CARE has established global organizational priorities, but each country
office also has the autonomy to respond to issues in their own region
based on their capability to respond in the local context. The global
“sectoral foci” of CARE are: basic health, reproductive health, agriculture,

natural resources, small economic activity development, and girls

83

education. They also have several cross-cutting themes in the
organization such as: working with and through partner Organizations,
gender equity, and diversity. They use the “livelihood security framework”
as one of their key analytical tools in looking at local contexts. They are
also beginning to experiment with a “rights-based approach lens” when
they do their analysis of context. Country offices then must adapt these
sectoral focuses and cross-cutting initiatives to the local context and
decide which ones are most appropriate. Each country has the right to
focus only on particular sectors of the organization. Country offices are
also responsible for detemining the geographic focus within the country.
Part of this is due to the fact that CARE basically lives on project
proposals that invariably have a specific geographic focus.

. In the Amazon Oxfam’s assistance has been geared towards helping
communities gain legal rights to their land. They do this by providing legal
expertise, filing the correct documents, conducting land surveys and
everything else required by the government to gain legal title. Many of the
indigenous communities in which they work are those impacted by
extractive industries. They help communities negotiate with these
industries on where, how, and when the resources will be extracted. They
also help them develop mitigation and compensation plans. They even
might help them fight to keep the companies out. This method of working
has not threatened their legal ability to work in these countries because

they work through local and national NGOs and therefore do not take

84

highly visible roles. In Central America their main entry point was working
with tamer groups in resettlement projects during and after the wars (El
Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala). They are now more focused on helping
famers and farmer organizations with the vertical integration of their
agricultural products. They help farmers to not only control production, but
also in the processing, sale, and marketing of their products. Oxfam
focuses much more on economic development in Central America than in
Andean South America. In the last couple of years they have focused a lot
on relief efforts after Hurricane Mitch and the earthquakes in El Salvador.
They are involved in rehabilitation projects that focus on re-building while
thinking about how to avoid future catastrophes (ie, not building on a flood
plain or below deforested hillsides).

9. AFSC recently did a six-month exploratory study in Central America on
what the pertinent issues there currently are. Land tenure was identified
as an issue that they need to be focusing their resources on. Although the
study named in general terms land as an important issue along with many
other identifiable needs, it was really the home office in Philadelphia who
decided that AF SC needed to focus on land because others were not.
Others avoided it because it is a very big and politically volatile subject
and one that is frankly dangerous to get in to. AFSC says that there is a lot
of talk now within organizations about land distribution without referring to
it as land reform, they call it “market-assisted land reform.” Many efforts

are going on in mapping property lines and reexamining the whole land

85

registry system. Emergency situations in Honduras and El Salvador have
really brought this to a head as intemal refugees are looking to buy land,
but there is no real assurance that the land they are buying has a secure
title and will never be challenged in court in the future. AFSC claims that
there is a lot of money available for people who want to get involved in
land tenure, but people are afraid of getting involved.

10. Plan lntemational (Pl) has developed five organizational “Domains” which
define the scope of their work as a child-sponsorship organization.
Projects and activities from each Domain are integrated to address the
multiple and interrelated areas of a child’s need. These “domains” are as
follows:

a. Growing Up Healthy — Ensuring that children have the means
and the knowledge to grow up healthy. Pl does so by promoting
and strengthening responsive, sustainable community-managed
primary healthcare systems that encourage changes in health-

related behaviors and attitudes.

b. Learning - Pl seeks to ensure that children, adolescents and
adults acquire basic learning and life skills in order to contribute

to the development of their communities.

c. Habitat — Pl seeks to create safe and healthy environments for
children. They do this by promoting and strengthening the

organizational, technical and resource capacity of children,

86

families and communities to focus and act upon children's

environmental habitat needs.

(I. Livelihood - PI works at ensuring that a families improved
financial position leads to increased economic and social benefits
for their children. PI seeks to enlarge the productive opportunities
and increase access to resources for families and communities,

and to strengthen their technical and managerial capacities.

e. Building Relationships - Pl strives to increase understanding and
unity among people of different cultures and countries, and to
promote the rights and interests of the world’s children through

child-centered development.

Question #5

A growing trend among many development organizations working in Latin
America is to put more of their focus and resources on urban poverty through
economic development and micro-credit programs. This question was asked to
assess the value that each participating organization placed on working with the

rural poor. “Do you or your partner organizations work with the rural poor?”

Responses

All ten organizations responded that working with the rural poor is one of the

main focus areas of their organization.

87

Question #6

This question begins to narrow the focus of the interview specifically towards the
access to land issue. It gets at the fundamental basis of the research in exploring
the organizational perspective toward land. The question is “Do you believe that
non-profit development organizations have a role to play in assisting the landless

and near-landless access to agricultural land? It so, what might that role be?”

Responses

Nine out of ten respondents said that NGOs definitely had a role to play in
responding to landlessness among poor famers. Only WoiId Relief was unsure
how to answer the question because they had not really thought about what this
role might be. Some organizations were quite adamant about the need for NGOs
to be involved in this issue. The AFSC representative went so far as to say that if
NGOs do not see a role they can play on land issues, then “I would be hard-
pressed to see them justify their role in any activity. Why separate out land fiom
all the other social issues?” He says a lot depends on the motivation of the NGO,
is it to acquire government and donor funding or do they have a sense of calling
to do what is right? He says that land is such a fundamental issue in Central
America that everybody should be involved in it - including NGOs. Both Winrock
and ADRA said that NGOs can play a significant role in helping small farmers
make their land more productive. They can do this by concentrating their efforts
on technology transfer, strengthening local infrastructure, market development,

and capacity-building among local tamer associations. They said that the types

88

of efforts that bring in those capacities and provide capitalization of the land

make land-titling efforts more effective.

Both CARE and Catholic Relief Services mentioned that only recently have
NGOs started to realize a role for themselves in regards to land access. The
motivators for this change in perspective stem from some of the criticism that the
international development organizations have received both internally and
externally. The criticism is that poverty continues to rise at the global level in
spite of their best efforts. The CARE representative stated frankly “If all we do is
deliver social services, what impact will we really have on poverty?” and “If all we
do is build local capacity and local organizations, what impact will we really have
on alleviating poverty?“ CARE has come to the realization that development is a
bigger ballgame than just assuring people adequate access to quality social
services and that they need to be able to play at, have influence on, or at least be
cognizant of the micro and macro level issues. The land issue is certainly one of
those policy level debates that need to be grappled with at the broad level. It is
the kind of issue that no individual organization can adequately address, but that
possibly the collective NGO community would have enough weight and wisdom

to get national government, private sector and aid agencies to pay attention to.

Plan lntemational, World Vision and Oxfam all characterized the anti-poverty

work of relief and development organizations as enabling the poor to maintain

and acquire resources. Land and water were described as the real asset base of

89

the poor, so their whole livelihood is based upon access to these resources.
However, when tenants must give one-third to one-half of their crops over to the
land owner in the form of rent-payment, it becomes clear that they will never
really get out of their poverty situation until they own their own land. Additionally,
landless tenants have no collateral by which they can acquire a bank loan, so
they are forced to borrow from money-lenders who charge extremely high
interest rates. These issues all rise up because people do not have access to

land.

The representative from Church World Service had a different perspective in
saying that NGOs do have a role to play, but that they do not assume that role for
selfish motives. He claims to have approached other U.S.-based development
agencies with the idea of purchasing land for the poor instead of pouring money
into development projects. He saw that loans were not available to the landless
and even if they were successful in acquiring a loan — the debt would be
insurmountable for them. All the agencies rejected his idea. He speculates that if
you allow people to buy land and do their own thing - then they will no longer
need outside help and development workers would be out of a job. He says
development agencies need to do something to justify their presence. He
wonders whether all this development work is fundamentally a control and power
issue where those from the West can exercise control by questioning, evaluating,

and disbursing money.

90

Question #7

This question was designed to move the interview from talking about access to
land in the general sense to inquiring specifically what each individual
organization is doing in regards to the subject. The question posed was “does
your organization consider access to land an important issue for the rural poor? If
so, what kind of programs or projects are you currently involved with in Latin

America pertaining to land access?”

Responses

1. The famers that Winrock works with generally have access to well-
established agricultural land. They have obtained the land through the
titling initiatives of other governmental or private institutions, or they have
access simply through open access or traditional ownership noms.
Winrock’s role is not to be involved in land titling or registration because
ownership in and of itself does not develop a dynamic land market until
the land is productive. Making it productive by concentrating on
technology transfer, strengthening local infrastructure, market
development, and capacity building among local tamer associations is

what they see their role as being.

2. World Vision is involved in advocacy programs that help people acquire

land. They believe people need to know their rights so that they know how

to fight for equal land distribution. If the land is locally controlled their

91

advocacy focuses at that level, it it is controlled mostly by the government
- then they take their advocacy to the national level. They have found that
land ownership is critical if a farmer plans on doing any long-tam

investment on their land.

. Plan lntemational admits it is doing a lot in the area of land tenure in some
geographical pockets around the wand, but in other areas they are not
doing nearly enough. The only difference between these pockets of
success and inactivity is the knowledge or dedication of the field staff.
Staff change every 2-5 years and each staff member has their own
orientation or specific area of knowledge. The organizational “domain”
areas are so large that no one can be fully knowledgeable in all areas.
Therefore, where staff is really focused on Habitat issues, there is where
they have strong land tenure programs. This unfortunately has resulted in
only spotted success in land tenure. They have a written commitment to
land tenure and have built some good programs around it. However, they
have seen some regions where there are wonderful opportunities and
nothing is being done, while in other more difficult areas great things are
being done. It all depends on the focus of the country office staff. The
child-centered focus of Plan lntemational has prompted them to focus on
the importance of children having secure tenure of their family home.
Much attention has been given to their urban programs where almost all of

the peOple they work with are squatters. There is a feeling that they might

92

not be doing enough in regards to land tenure. “We all know it is an
important area, but a lot of us do not have much focus on it, so somebody
like you can help us, by sending us something and putting something

under our noses.”

. World Relief believes that the rural poor in Latin America have been
pushed to farm on marginalized and mountainous parcels of land.
Although the World Relief representative did not know the land tenure
status in Nicaragua of the famers that they are currently working with. He
assumes that they must own it because they are willing to invest in the

land and farm the same parcel for consecutive years.

. In Nicaragua during the resettlement period after the Contra War ADRA
was actively involved in facilitating the process for people to gain title to
their land. Although legal issues are not ADRA’s specialty, they will sub-
contract with national NGOs who are working in land reform and pay them
for their services. ADRA works principally with famers to enable them to
stay on their land, make it productive and not be forced to migrate to the
city and sell off their land. This is the complementary role to land reform
that they can play. They believe that land reform and empowement of

small-holders have to go together.

93

6. CARE is dealing with land issues in Guatemala, Bolivia, Ecuador and El
Salvador. In El Salvador they were contracted to take a piece of the work
on repatriation and redistribution of land alter the Peace Accords were
signed in 1992. The Salvadoran government contracted CARE to
redistribute certain tracts of land to ex-combatants. They were in charge of
titling the property, delineating the property and doing all other registration
procedures. In Ecuador they worked with the indigenous population in
helping them have rights and priority to work in the buffer zone around a
national biological reserve. They advocated for the rights of the indigenous
people in being significant players in determining how the buffer zone
would be used. The idea was both to protect the reserve but also to
maintain a sustainable livelihood for the people. They helped them by
organizing them and helping them get fair market value for the products

extracted from the buffer zone in an environmentally sound manner.

Much of CARE’s work in agriculture and natural resources management is
working with famers who have usufruct rights from the local municipality
and are hillside famers. CARE works at extending the productive
capability of the land thrOugh soil conservation techniques so that famers
will not have to potentially leave their land and attempt to start up anew
somewhere else. They want to cut the need of hillside famers to encroach
on new hillside plots. However, CARE admits that this strategy has

limitations when the hillside is extremely fragile and already degraded.

94

7.

The ideal situation would obviously be to try to get people off the hillsides,
but then you have the issue of where to put them. “Redistribution of land
quite frankly is still a very delicate and contentious issue in Central
America.” The rural to urban migration is so big in these countries right
now because people have nowhere else to go. CARE has never taken the
position of mexamining their work as it pertains to land tenure and land
use planning at the national or regional level. They have not even debated
the land issue seriously enough within the organization to identify what the

drawbacks for addressing the issue are.

AFSC is currently concerned about the effects of the Free Trade
Agreement for the Americas as it pushes for land markets and makes it a
commodity. This concern is especially focused on indigenous rights and
traditional toms of land tenure. Will indigenous people be pushed off their
traditional lands because they do not have a fomal title or because
someone else corruptly obtained one? AFSC considers this a very
important issue because there seems to be an increasing concentration of
land ownership as a result of NAFTA and they are afraid this will repeat
itself with FTAA They believe in the effectiveness of the free market, but
that it should be to the benefit of many rather than limited benefit to just a
few. He says “The value we place on private property should not

supercede the social function of land.”

95

AFSC believes that after this final push for free trade, people are going to
see that it does not work and only polarizes society even more. They then
will start to look for other alternatives and there are already indications that
this is happening. NGOs can play a role in developing alternative policy
proposals that are clear, well-written, and draw upon credible research.
The land tenure initiative cannot be pushed blindly simply because we
want it, rather AFSC is acting as a catalyst to bring their counterparts,
research institutions, and qualified people in Central America together to

draw up alternative plans and strategies.

. The relative modest size of Oxfam America allows them to work with

groups that others do not yet fund. They work more with small and newly
emerging national and indigenous organizations, and therefore must
commit long-tam to them in building up their organizational capacities.
Oxfam believes that these organizations can have a greater impact on
national policies pertaining to landlessness and land tenure issues. Oxfam
provides them with funds for organizational development and capacity
building. Building a strong local organization is viewed as a key element in
achieving basic rights like access to land and changing the economic

status of the poor.

. Church Wor1d Service has decided to focus on helping famers get the

most out of the land already possess. They do this through the promotion

96

of multi-cropping, organic taming, fish taming and crop diversification.
They believe that through crop diversification a tamer can become more

economically independent.

10. Catholic Relief Services sees a role for themselves in training
communities on land titling procedures, providing free legal counsel,
helping with the fomation of community agrarian committees, and helping
to establish vertical accompaniment relations with the state institutions

that work on land.

Question #8

The intent of this question was to examine how up-front and direct the
organization may be in its’ efforts regarding access to land. The question was “Is
your organization involved in any programs or projects that facilitate direct
acquisition of land for the rural poor? If so, what are the best experiences you

have had?”

Responses

World Vision, World Relief, Oxfam, Church World Service and CARE all said
explicitly that they do not get directly involved in the acquisition of land. They said
that they do not follow the Nature Conservancy model of purchasing land for
preservation. Winrock stated that it is not involved in land acquisition. However,

they flamed the question as it might apply to land titling and registration. They

97

saw this as a highly technical field involving GIS mapping and cadastral
registration. They felt that it is important area for an NGO like the University of
Wisconsin Land Tenure Center to be involved in, but it is not within their realm of

expertise.

Plan lntemational, ADRA and Catholic Relief Services all felt that they are
directly helping famers gain access to land. Plan lntemational said that in some
cases it has purchased land and sold it to new landholders on credit. ADRA
explained their program in Ghana as one where they work directly with landless
people who are immigrants from other parts of the country. They have developed
a program called “apportionment.” In this instance a landowner will sign a
contract with a landless peasant to develop the land. When the land is developed
the landless peasant then is allowed title to one—third of that land. For example, a
landowner may have 20 acres that he wants to plant in citrus trees. Citrus takes
about 5 years to mature. Therefore, as the citrus trees are maturing the tenant
tamer is allowed to do inter-cropping so he has food to subsist on during the 5
year waiting period. After 5 years one-third of the land is given over to the tenant
tamer as his own property. ADRA gets involved by providing the inputs,
seedlings, technical assistance, and seeing that the contract is well—done and
legal. After the 5-year period ADRA makes sure the national land department has
registered the tenant tamer with his one-third portion. This model has worked

well in Ghana for a long time. They have found that after a period of time the

98

once landless peasant may have enough money to buy additional pieces of
9709611)!-

Although Catholic Relief Service does not get involved in direct buying of land or
giving out credit to do so, they still claim to be directly involved in land
acquisition. They have enabled communities to get title to their land by providing
training on legal procedures such as simply filling out an application to the land
credit fund so that they can gain access to resources to actually buy land. They
have also facilitated the process of measuring the land for registration purposes.
So far they have measured out land boundaries in 150 communities in
conjunction with their national counterpart organizations. Another important
aspect of their work is to help communities organize so that they can provide a

united front before the state institutions and also to learn from one another.

AFSC is not presently involved in direct acquisition of land. In the past they were
very much involved at the local land acquisition level particularly with the
resettlement of war refugees after the wars in Central America. AFSC says there

is definitely still a need for land acquisition at the local level.

Question #9
The purpose of this question was to explore what kind of land initiatives these
organizations may be involved in that could be seen as less visible and risky, yet

equally effective. The question was “Is your organization involved in any

99

programs or projects that indirectly or potentially could lead to greater access of

land for the rural poor?”

Responses

1. ADRA says that in most areas of Latin America (Bolivia, Peru, Nicaragua)
where they work, landlessness has not become a big problem. In these
countries they see people working mostly on traditional and family lands.
They feel landlessness is a bigger issue in post-socialist countries like
Madagascar, Mozambique and Sudan where land was taken by the
government and now needs to be redistributed. In Mozambique for
example famers lack land tenure security to their ancestral lands. Here
ADRA works with Ioml organizations in helping famers register and gain
title to their land. In the Sudan they are helping resettled refugees from the
south prove their legal citizenship so they can acquire a parcel of land to
build a pemanent house. However, in the Altiplano of South America
ADRA says that those people already have ownership of their land and
landlessness is not a big issue. It is a bigger issue within the cities of Latin
America they say.

2. Catholic Relief Services has taken a very indirect role in helping people
gain access to land in Guatemala. After the Peace Accords were signed
the government promised more land to people, but this promise has not
been fulfilled. So far the government is basically only acquiring abandoned

or common lands for the land credit fund. They have not expropriated land

100

from wealthy landowners who are not using their land. CRS is helping to
fund organizations that push the govemment to comply with their promises
and start making more land available for the poor.

. Church World Service has decided to focus on helping famers get the
most out of the land they already possess. They do this by promoting crop
diversification and multi-cropping. Additionally, this Is accomplished
through micro-enterprise development and community banking programs
that facilitate credit to famers. They also promote environmental
sustainability by incorporating animals into the farm cycle and using their
waste as organic fertilizer. This has generated a completely different type
of economy for small famers with an emphasis on intensive agriculture
rather than the Northern concept of extensive production. They say the
improvement of the conditions by which famers grow food to live on is
what is so needed. CWS is helping famers think about vertical integration
into the market. They want them to think about how crops will be sold?
Where will crops be sold and at what price? Who will buy them and how
will they get to market? All projects must consider these market factors.
Through this process of agricultural capitalization CWS believes they are
helping small famers become more independent and reduce the risk of
them selling their farm and becoming landless.

. World Relief, similar to CWS, believes that by increasing a famer’s
income this will provide more land security to them. Famers typically lose

their land because of financial debt, therefore having more income through

101

expanded market opportunities allows them to avoid catastrophic debt. It
is important to WR to keep people on their land and be able to support
their families. By growing commercial crops famers gain more income so
that they can send their children to school and not migrate into urban
areas. They feel that debt is what forces famers off their land, so they
really avoid providing credit to famers unless it is for short-tam marketing
of their crops. They provide only working capital credit to famers, oflen for
their secondary source of income.

. Winrock is involved indirectly by training and building up the leadership
capacities of local leaders who hopefully responsive to their constituents
and sensitive to their need of acquiring access to land. Winrock admits
that “it famers are going to invest in the technologies that they are trying
to transfer, then they must have secure land rights - otherwise they wo’n’t
do it.”

. Plan lntemational has been involved in the United Nations PrepCom
conference in New York and they were able to influence some of the
agenda, particularly as it relates to children and Pl’s Habitat domain. They
have an NGO status with the UN. and participate in various U.N.
Conferences. They are currently advocating for Child Rights with the
General Assembly. They have applied for consultative statues with the
UN, but the application is still pending. Currently they are on a lower
status relationship. Because they work directly with communities and get

much of their infomation from communities, Pl believes that they have

102

much to add to the development agenda in giving representation to people
in need. They see that the infomation that they are gathering at the local
level can be useful in influencing broader development policy. The
important realization of finding a balance between addressing the micro
and macro level issues is a relatively recent understanding for Plan
lntemational.

. World Vision concentrates on advocacy and literacy. They believe that if
people are educated and can know their rights, than they will be able to
fight for land. This will also help improve a person’s self-esteem and a
sense of who they are - then they will be able to fight for their rights. WV
has staff that are trained in these types of legal issues. Their level of
advocacy depends on the intensity of the situation. For example, in Haiti
the government there has nominated the President of World Vision to
serve on a national peace commission that will be working on conflictive
issues in the country. One of those issues they will be looking at is the
issue of land. World \Asion is also involved in advocacy at the Washington
DC level. They can work with other NGOs to lobby on Capitol Hill to
pressure the US government to intervene in other governments on
issues that keep people poor. World Vision has a whole department on
government relations that work at this level. They work at two levels: they
work in advocacy for land reform, but also help famers get the most out of
the land they are currently living and working on. This would involve

technical assistance, credit, and promotion of environmentally sustainable

103

practices. They work at accessing agricultural resource technology by
forming relationships with international research centers and national
universities.

8. Oxfam, AFSC and CARE did not choose to distinguish the direct work
they are doing in assisting people in accessing land from any indirect

work.

Question #10

The intent of this question was to find out at what level each organization may be
committed to addressing land tenure issues with the assumption that money will
back up a real commitment. The question was “Does your organization provide

funding for land access initiatives?”

Responses

Winrock, World Vision, Church World Service, CARE and American Friends
Service Committee all stated that they provide no organizational funds for land
access initiatives. World Relief and Plan lntemational stated that they
occasionally purchase land for the purpose of building a house on it, but not for
taming. Oxfam, on the other hand, said that it is open to funding initiatives that
help build coalitions at the pan-national level. An example of this would be Via
Campesina, which is an lntemational umbrella group working on land tenure

initiatives that Oxfam supports.

104

Catholic Relief Services and ADRA are both open to provide direct funding for
land access. ADRA says that it the need is there, they will try to address it. They
get quite a bit of funding from USAID and have found that USAID is receptive to
addressing land issues in Africa it not in Latin America. ADRA will give money to
people to help them acquire title to their land. USAID is funding this initiative in
Mozambique. ADRA says that in this country they identified land entitlement as a
principal obstacle to food security. They admit that even if AID would not have
funded it, they would have received funding from another source to do the
program. Catholic Relief Services provide direct funding for land access in
Guatemala and Brazil through church-based organizations. They get 50% of their
total funding from USAID, but only a small amount goes toward the land access
program in Guatemala. Unlike U.S.AID’s involvement with ADRA in Africa, they
only verbally promote land access in Latin America without providing even
minimal funding for it. CRS admits that more recently U.S. AID has refused to
fund any land tenure initiatives in the CRS strategic plan. They cannot convince

us. AID that land tenure is an important element of their food security program.

1 Question #11

This was a fundamental question to the research because it really prompted
each organization to articulate exactly what the restrictions and limiting factors
are in dealing with the land issue. It is an issue that only recently has been even

considered by some organizations and the intent of the question was to find out

105

why. “What obstacles have you experienced or can you envision in regards to

development initiatives that facilitate land distribution?”

Responses

1. AFSC sees political risk, especially at the local level as an obstacle. The
political risk rests in the fact that land ownership and the amount you
possess has been a strong cultural determinant of ones’ status and power
in Latin America. Elites see sacrificing their land as giving up their status
and power and resist doing so.

2. World Relief sees political risks for NGO’s to be involved in the land
access issue. Political climates vary from country to country and even in
today’s post-agrarian reform time there are risks for NGOs. Although
World Relief admits that it would be difficult to implement their type of
programming into an area where farmers did not own their own land, they
are not prepared to completely change their developmental approach.

3. Wlnrock believes that funding issues would be an obstacle for their
involvement in land access issues. They seriously doubt whether their
donors would be supportive of such an effort.

4. Wond Vision echoed this same concern. They get their funding from child-
sponsorships, government aid, and private foundations. Donors can
stipulate where their money goes to and what kind of intervention they
want to fund. USAID funding depends on the priority that they place on

certain countries. They give no funding for land acquisition, but their focus

106

is more on food security. By this they mean that everyone should have
access to food at all times. USAID generally avoids the land issue
because it is too political.

5. Awording to Plan lntemational one obstacle is that in some countries
NGOs are just not allowed to purchase land according to governmental
law. Another obstacle is that in many countries it is a real challenge to find
out who really owns the land. The documentation is imprecise and much
information may have wen lost in the last coup. Plan lntemational
confidently states that it has felt no resistance from US. donors to its work
in land tenure. Their sense is that donors would be receptive towards it
given the high value that the US. puts on private property ownership and
“pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.’ They also feel that their child-
sponsors are highly educated on development issues and push a more
progressive agenda of sustainable agriculture. Their donor profile reveals
that 65 percent are woman between the ages of 35-64, and are highly
educated with at least a master’s degree.

6. Church World Service says that the obstacle really lies in the fact that
there are very few development projects that are designed from listening
to the needs of the poor, and until that happens we will continue to make
many mistakes and have many failed projects. Even when we say that a
project is owned by nationals, the reality may actually be that it is
controlled by local elites or administered by national professionals who are

trained or have adjusted to the development mentality of the North.

107

7. ADRA believes that in most countries land reform has not become a big
issue because no one is paying attention to it. Only when people start
infringing on other people’s land does it become an issue. A case in point
would be Zimbabwe - only because of the conflict there did people
recognize that there was a problem. Land is not an issue as long as
farmers are planting subsistence crops. However, when they start planting
commercial crops it becomes an issue because this implies permanency.
Commercial farming is making land ownership an issue because it also
implies increasing the value of the land. This is when ownership becomes
an issue. ADRA has some reservations that the World Bank initiative to
develop land markets could create more conflict. ADRA says that a two-
tiered approach is needed, they say that:

a. You cannot develop a land market without tackling the land tenure
system issue. When the value goes up and a market is created for
land, then we are faced with the complicating issue of who is the
rightful owner of the land — the family, the chief, the clan, the tribe,
the household head? If land markets are going to be pushed by
organizations like the World Bank, then at the same time the land
ownership/registration issue must also be addressed or you will
have conflicts.

b. On the other hand, land reform alone will not change the situation.
Why would someone want to register their land if they do not see

any increased value for doing so? Land reform only becomes

108

effective if people feel that there is a threat of losing it or if they see
increased value in it. Therefore, land reform also needs to be
accompanied by a land market. You cannot push one without the
other.

8. Catholic Relief Service cites several obstacles to the broader acceptance
of the importance of land tenure among their organization. The first is that
CRS has come out of a traditional/technical development mindset where
the staff possess technical abilities in health, micro-finance, eduwtion and
agricultural productivity to address poverty. Therefore, some staff are
reluctant to get into justice issues like land tenure, or do not fully
understand its’ relevancy to their work. Secondly, there is not a lot of
organizational support for tenure initiatives at the home office level.
Working on land tenure in only two countries in the world is indicative of
this luke-warm commitment. Thirdly, U.S. AID gives a lot of positive
rhetoric on the importance of land tenure, but does not provide the funding
to support the rhetoric. Fourthly, there exists a low level of expertise
among local people on legal issues pertaining to land and a high level of
community disorganization. Churches have historically not worked on this
issue or even wanted to because of its’ political nature. Building capacity
at the local level has become a slow process. Fifthly, there is a lack of
political will amongst local government officials to be of assistance. There

is a high level of corruption among these officials that expect to get paid

109

off for their help. There is also incompetency and rigidity in the
government registration system.

. Oxfam’s annual budget of $26 million spread out over 6 regions (27
countries) was cited as an obstacle. This really becomes an obstacle
when one thinks about buying land. Another obstacle given is that
internally Oxfam is staffed mostly by social scientists and anthropologists.
The land issue however is fundamentally an environmental issue as the
interview respondent sees it. The academic discipline biases of the staff
hinder how they view the land issue. They can probably overcome this
barrier through more cross-discipline training. Many of the staff in Latin
America are anthropologists and see the land issue as just one element of
the whole cultural/social realm of the region. They did not give it any
special priority. Another obstacle that was cited is that Oxfam has never
been an organization that really engages with local government and
policy. They fund organizations that “may’ engage the government at the
policy level, but they do not do that directly. Obviously government policy
is the biggest obstacle to land reform. He does not see Oxfam as a
primary player in addressing policy issues. They do not advocate to
national governments themselves, but see this as the role of national
organizations. They do however participate in advocacy work at the US.
and multi-Iateral level on issues like globalization and free-trade. They
have also aggressively analyzed how these policies affect the resource

base of the poor. Therefore, they can do advocacy work on how these

110

global issues will effect land tenure and land management, but only at the
international level.

10. One major obstacle that CARE expressed was that for 55 years they have
focused primarily on individual projects related to one of their sectoral
objectives. This has hindered them from taking a broad-based approach. It
would be a huge shift for them as an organization to move from project
and program-based types of efforts to taking on large cross-cutting
initiatives that have large policy implications. There is not the
organizational will in the organization at this time to make that shift. CARE
is still trying to discover what some of the dynamics are that cause
poverty. They have not really identified those structural and political root
causes and have not yet decided if land is one of those causes. Moreover,
sixty percent of funding for CARE USA comes from the US. federal
government. Most funding proposals are generated out of country level
offices. In Latin America there currently are about $100 million worth of
projects and programs. USAID is certainly comfortable with funding
projects that build local capacities within community-based organizations
and local municipalities. However, each “pot of money” within AID has its
own funding objectives and you have to be able to determine which one is
most appropriate for your project proposal. AID is also divided into
“sectors” much similar to CARE. Therefore, it would be hard to find the
appropriate office in AID that would fund cross-cutting issues such as

access to land.

11]

Another obstacle for CARE is that their presence in all their countries is
based on agreements with national governments. This makes it difficult for
them to take on any perceived confrontational role with these
governments. This hinders what agendas they put on the table at the
national level. CARE expressed doubts that the US. government would
be willing to seriously look at policy issues, especially those policies in the
US. that adversely effect poverty overseas. They also feel that the US.

govemment must seriously rethink its role in poverty reduction.

Question #12

The intent of this question was to assess the future plans of each organization
pertaining to their organizational strategies regarding land accessibility. The
question posed was “Do you see your organization changing its position or
development priorities regarding access to land in the future? What extenuating

circumstances might prompt you to change?”

Responses
World Vision, Plan lntemational, ADRA, Catholic Relief Services and World
Relief did not envision any future organizational changes in regards to the

strategic manner in which they respond to the land tenure issue.

112

AF SC stated that their position is always evolving according to the needs of the
time. Their involvement in land tenure in one form or another has been going on
for a number of years. They worked at resettling war refugees and acquiring land
for them during the 1980s. This new effort at being catalysts in the development
of land policy in light of land-markets initiatives is a new focus for them, so they

will be sticking with it for a while.

Oxfam confessed that they do not have a systematic way of measuring impact

and that this is one of their main strategic growth areas for the future. They need
to quantifiably know whether they are making an impact when dealing with policy
issues and political impact. They currently do not have baseline data to measure

the impact of their work and they need it.

Winrock said that it is very unlikely that they would change their work priorities
towards land tenure even if money became available to do such. They do not
have the history or expertise in this area so therefore would not be competitive in
bidding on projects. They might conceivably get involved as a subcontractor or
as a component of a whole team initiative regarding land access, as long as

some other organization would take the lead in land tenure issues.

CARE had by far the most to say in regards to this question. They have come to

the realization in the past 5 years of a need to at least consider some of the

macro-level policy issues that effect poverty. In their home office in Atlanta three

113

years ago they started a Policy and Advocacy Unit. This unit is charged with a
two-fold focus: 1) to develop some basic guidelines and tools to build institutional
capacity in the ability to do good policy analysis, 2) to contribute in the
development of organizational positions on specific policies. An example of their
work would be that CARE took a position on the Sudan situation and also got
involved in advocating for the restricted use of landmines. This unit has not yet

developed a position or advocacy on any issue in Latin America.

CARE says it is starting to change and now would even entertain proposals from
country level groups that want to do something to effect policy. They are still
trying to determine what is the most appropriate vehicle for exercising advocacy

at the policy level.

The President of CARE has stated that just because they get more involved at
the policy or human rights level does not mean that they are going to become like
a Woridwatch Institute, but they do need to learn what their role could or should
be. They want to move from being a ‘well-intentioned philanthropic organization
to a much more effective and serious player in development.” They are starting
to see the disconnects between this desire and 55 years of philanthropy.
However, there are obviously people in the organization who are not ready to
engage at that level. But, there are others in the organization who see world
poverty getting worse in spite of the fact that they have been able to touch

individuals, families and community lives. “It is tough for organizations like ours to

114

play that game and especially for organizations that depend on aid agencies for
their resources.” CARE is not sure what the maction of their donors will be. They
are not ready to give up possibly 40% of their funding base to address policy

issues.

CARE says it is time to start thinking both individually and collectively (all NGOs)
about the interconnectedness to poverty and start thinking it through. “We can
and should be more major players than we currently are. People would have to

stand up and listen to us because of our experience.”

The representative from Church Wodd Service does not see the organization
changing its position. In fact he personally regrets that the organization will
probably regress from addressing structural issues such as land and move in the
opposite direction of promoting more technology transfers. This will be done for
the purpose of raising more funds in the United States. There is a strong push
from donors to expect measurable results from their donated funds. However, it
is difficult to show measurable results from efforts involving justice and
community empowement. He criticizes World Vision for its focus on child
sponsorship and what your money can get the individual child. He says to show a
child in hunger and then move them to a happy and smiling face is a powerful
fundraiser. This unfortunately is the same kind of paradigm that CWS has opted

for. He says that the problem really is that CWS does not sell their projects very

115

well. He says CWS is stuck in the production side of development with projects

that people can take pictures of and use to raise funds.

116

CHAPTER 5

Research Findings From Organizational Literature Sources

117

As previously mentioned in the Research Design chapter, the second leg of the
triangulation process was the collection of secondary literature sources from
each selected organization. Annual reports were collected from each
organization as well as country project reports, organizational newsletters and
brochures, project proposals, and home office correspondence with field staff.
Much of this information was located within each organizations’ home page
website. The process proved helpful in gaining additional information beyond
what the interviews offered. This material was used to provide a contextual
framework to the work of each organization as well as to support or refute what
had been said during the interview. A dual analysis of the interviews and
literature sources proved helpful at gaining a broader perspective of each

organization.

Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA)

The promotional and programmatic literature obtained from ADRA cleariy
supports the views expressed by the ADRA representative during the interview.
One of the main development focuses of ADRA in Latin America is that of food
security. However, their understanding of food security and how to address it
does not include any mention of access to land. They concentrate their efforts on
providing emergency food relief to countries during times of natural and man-
made disasters, but also by seeking long-term solutions to the lack of food by
increasing both the quantity and quality of the locally produced food crops. Their

strategies in Latin America for achieving food security are to strengthen local

118

community and farmer organizations, increase local production of crops through
technical assistance initiatives, build up basic agricultural infrastructure, and
promote the commercialization of agricultural products. ADRA makes extensive
use of donated USAID Title II food as a means to achieve their food security
objectives. Although ADRA makes reference in their literature of the fact that
food security problems arise from a combination of factors and that integrated
programs designed to accomplish multiple goals are needed, ways for people to
gain access to land are not mentioned. In October of 2001 ADRA officials
announced that they received $51 million for food security projects from USAID
for work in Ghana, Nicaragua and Mozambique. The news release mentioned
that these projects are “comprehensive, including organization of farmers groups,
research, training, nutrition education, water conservation, market research, pest
and disease management techniques, loans, and provision of seeds, tools, and
other supplies” (ADRA, 2001). The notable exception to this list from the
perspective of this research is that access to land was not mentioned as a

developmental intervention.

Winrock lntemational

Winrock’s promotional material and website provide a clear picture of its focus on
the transference of agricultural technology. This is no more evident than in
President Frank Tugwell’s report in Winrock’s 1999 Annual Report where he says
that “Of particular importance in the years to come will be the impact of

information systems and software applications in helping people understand their

119

options and make informed technical choices. this year's report reflects our
belief that the digital transformation of the globe will be a truly transcendent one
for those of us involved in the work of international development" (Annual Report,
1999:3). The focus of Winrock’s work is on developing new farm technologies
and improved seed varieties, promoting market driven agriculture such as non-
traditional crops, and establishing partnerships among public and private
organizations, farmers, and educational institutions. Even though they mention
land tenure as a limitation to agricultural productivity in Brazil, it is evident from
their literature that their work does not seek to address this limiting factor.
Winrock’s written literature concurs with what was said during the interview that

they have chosen not to engage in the access to land debate.

World Relief

In the interview with World Relief they expressed more of a concern for helping
poor farmers increase the profitability of their land than in assisting the landless
and land-poor gain access to land. Their literature equally supports this position.
Emphasis is put on helping farmers enrich and conserve their soil, increase their
harvest, and diversify into more profitable crops. This position is clearly self-
evident in one of the “success stories” which is posted on their website. In the
article “Farms Produce a Bountiful Harvest for Families” comes the brief
description of their work in Nicaragua. The article says:

‘While many North American farmers enjoy endless miles of flat land.

Nicaragua ’s farmers must contend with steep hills in this mountainous nation;

120

little flat land is available for the typical family. World Relief is helping Nicaragua ’3
farmers meet this challenge by demonstrating methods of farming that make it
possible to have a thriving farm even on the steepest plot of land. ”(World Relief

website, 2001)

This anecdote however raises a very fundamental but simple question that World
Relief does not address in their work. Why is there not any flat land for poor
Nicaraguan farmers to farm on, is it because non exists in the country or rather

because it is not available to the poor?

Catholic Relief Services (CRS)

It is evident from literature published by Catholic Relief Services that they
consider the cross-cutting theme of “justice” to be the central focus of all their
activities, overseas and domestically, within their external relationships and
within the agency. They have begun to apply a “Justice Lens” to all their work.
This Justice Lens is identified as a tool that helps them:

. Analyze the world in terms of the promotion of justice
0 Sharpen their responses to identified injustices
c To consistently apply their justice values to all their programs. (CRS-
Justice, 2001)
The justice approach is equally applied to all their agricultural programming. It is

through this justice lens that CRS recognizes control over and secure access to
land as an area of concern. They realize that a farmer’s plot is largely controlled
by factors off the plot and out of the farmer’s control. Therefore, many of their

projects support the development of community organizations, enabling them to

121

provide credit and empower farmers to advocate for change in government
policies that affect factors such as access to resources and markets. Specific
land titling projects are cited in Guatemala and Brazil. The crosscutting themes of
gender equity, human rights, justice and empowerment of civil society are just as

pronounced in the literature of CR8 as they were in the interview.

Church World Service (CWS)

The promotional material that Church World Service uses is very much different
than the previous four agencies. They make strong reference to their work of
addressing poverty through “issues and advocacy.” The target audience of this
objective is their North American church constituents and individual donor base.
They use a wide array of learning materials to educate people on the causes of
poverty. Some of the causes they identify are HIV/AIDS, international debt,
landmines and the plight of refugees. In the year 2000 CWS spent 9 per cent
($2.5 million) of their total budget on these types of North American-focused
educational programs. It is however ironic to see that only 1.5 percent of their
organizational budget was spent on international programs leading to Justice,

Peacemaking and Human Rights.

Moreover, CWS focuses a lot of their promotional materials on the number of
refugees they have resettled in North America and in the amount of farm tools,
blankets, food aid and educational materials they have donated to the over 80

countries that they work in. There is little information given in regards to the exact

122

nature of their work overseas, but by all indications it is very much based on
direct aid and emergency relief since this is where the brunt of their budget is
spent. The dual focus of educating North Americans while simultaneously
offering direct aid gives a rather mixed message to the true nature of their work.
The interview with the CWS representative further reinforced this perceived
confusion. The interviewee repeatedly tried to distance his personal opinion from
the official position of the organization. While the CWS representative advocated
for an increased valuation of the need for farmers to have access to land, the
organization continues to push for more emphasis on direct aid as a useful tool to
raise funds. To an outside observer it would appear that CWS is not in total

agreement on what development strategies they should be pursuing.

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)

AF SC has worked in Central America for most of the past 45 years. Its activities
have included humanitarian relief, refugee support, human rights advocacy,
health, community and economic development, support for popular movements
and NGOs, and post-war reconciliation and reconstruction. Their human rights
advocacy work is initiated principally by their regional Quaker lntemational Affairs
Representatives. The literature shows that AF SC is currently working on land
issues in Ecuador with indigenous communities in helping them protect the
cultural integrity, environmental resources, and community land rights. They have
also supported peasant and landless peoples’ associations in Brazil since the

early 19803. Although little reference is given in their promotional material to the

123

question of access to land, one might assume that they give considerable
attention to it given the numerous references relating to their work on peace,

justice and reconciliation contained in their written materials (AFSC, 2001).

World Vision

In spite of Worid Vision’s television image of only helping poor children through
their child sponsorship programs, their work has a much broader community
focus. One of their core values is to promote justice that seeks to change unjust
structures affecting the poor with whom they work. One of the ways they do this
is through a US. advocacy office based in Washington DC. where they monitor
and advocate for policy issues discussed within congressional offices. In World
Vision’s 1999 Annual Report they cite “Ten Urgent Issues for the New
Millennium.” They believe that if the political will can be gathered to address
these issues then the world could be rid of poverty and full of promise. One of the
urgent issues cited in the report is that of food for everyone. The report says “In
developing countries, malnutrition leaves four of every 10 children stunted. The
diet of a third of the world's population is either insufficient or lacks the essential
vitamins and minerals necessary for good health and growth. Yet the world is
more than capable of feeding itself. Increased production of food crops,
investment in rural infrastructure, better food distribution, and land reform are
among the measures that can reduce hunger” (Wortd Vision, 1999:48). Although

little evidence is actually presented on how land reform might actually reduce

124

poverty, it is nevertheless significant that the subject is brought up in such a high
profile document as the Annual Report.
CARE
Care is very up—front in its printed material regarding its work in helping farmers
get access to land. In their 1996 Annual report they mention the importance of
addressing the land issue:
“Women, children, indigenous peoples, the elderty and refugees are more
likely to live in poverty. For these groups, powerlessness in the social and
political arenas means less access to land, credit, education, health care,
jobs and civil rights. Solutions to poverty must be thoroughly grounded in
the complexities of the problem, both in its global dimensions and its real-

life impact on people.” (CARE Annual Report, 1996)

In the CARE 1998 World Report “The Edge of Hunger “ they once again make
the point that “In rural areas, sufficient food depends largely on access to land

and seeds” (CARE World Report, 1998).

It is also clear from the CARE website that they are involved in land issues in
Guatemala, El Salvador and Bolivia. ln Guatemala they are helping 38
indigenous communities obtain land titles in the buffer zone just outside of the
Maya Biosphere Reserve in the Petin Department. In Bolivia they are supporting
the preparation of law proposals that would modify and/or substitute polemic
laws, on topics, which include land tenure and land titling. El Salvador has been

the site of their most extensive work in land titling. In El Salvador CARE has an

125

annual budget of $16 million and a staff of 208 and are the largest non-
governmental organization in the country. Since 1995 CARE and its Salvadoran
partner organizations have been contracted by USAID and the Salvadoran
government to design a process for equitably dividing govemment-assigned
lands among ex-combatants from both sides of the war. This work is a direct
result of the provisions laid out in the 1992 Peace Accords. CARE used a global
positioning system to survey and mark off land holdings and to obtain titles for
over 30,000 small farmers. Having their own land title will allow these farmers the
level of security needed to make long-term investments and improvements in

their land.

Plan lntemational

As a child-sponsorship organization Plan lntemational strives to make lasting
improvements in the lives of poor children worldwide. They concentrate their
work in 5 critical and interrelated domains: Building Relationships, Growing Up
Healthy, Leaming, Livelihood, and Habitat. These domains, in turn, lay the
groundwork for their community development projects and are referred to in all of
their country program reports. Security of tenure has been identified within the
Habitat domain as one of Plan’s main strategic objectives. Other objectives
included in the Habitat domain are home construction, home repair and
improvement, safe drinking water, basic sanitation facilities and access to credit.
The position of Plan lntemational regarding the importance of secure tenure is

clear from its printed promotional literature:

126

“In rural areas, an overriding concern is the establishment and
maintenance of title over agricultural lands to ensure food security.
However, individual and community control over residences and
immediate living environments are equally critical. Land and domiciles
form the bulk of capital assets for the rural poor. Insecurity of tenure is a
common condition of mral settings. In some countries, economic
pressures concentrate land ownership in the hands of fewer, better-off
people. In rural communities around the wortd, insecure tenure prevents
the poor from taking direct action to address the critical elements of their
habitat.” (lyer and Goldenberg, 1996:13)

However, in spite of the strong emphasis that Plan lntemational puts on “security
of tenure” in their promotional literature, specific country reports from Latin
America do not clearly reflect the same level of prioritization. Of the 12 countries
in Latin America in which Plan lntemational has programs, only in Ecuador is
there mention of efforts at helping people gain legal title to their land. Most all
other country reports refer to the amount of homes improved and drinking and
sanitation facilities constructed. Further correspondence with Plan Intemational’s
field representatives in Bolivia confirmed that in some cases they do support
families in the legalization of land, but that this relates to home construction and

not to land for agricultural production.

Oxfam America

127

Oxfam is very public and vocal about its work in Latin America at helping small
farmers gain access to land. They have particulariy focused their work in Peru,
Ecuador and Bolivia in efforts at helping farmers achieve legal title over their
ancestral lands. This is accomplished by working with partner agencies in
conducting community level workshops on legal issues and natural resource
management. Establishing legal title to land is particulariy crucial in the Andean
countries at this time as multi-national corporations continue to eye the region for
its lucrative mineral resources. Oxfam is not only supporting local land tenure
efforts, but is also working at the policy and advocacy level. In their w
magazine it is mentioned that “Oxfam America’s advocacy allies in Washington,
D. C., launched a new Extractive Industries Advocacy Program. With an expert in
the law and policy of resource use on staff, it will prepare policy
recommendations on the protection of indigenous people in the face of powerful

industry challenges” (Moss and Wilder, 1999-00:9).

Their relief work in Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch has also taken into
consideration the issue of land and the lack thereof. Through their partner
organization Nitlapan they have enabled farmers to buy new lands by offering
them low interest loans. “Nitlaplan has helped hundreds of subsistence farmers,
small landholders, and farmers/ranchers with the particular challenges they face,
including gaining title to property, diversifying agricultural production, promoting
environmentally sensitive practices, and improving technical skills” (Romero,

1 999-00.‘ 1 0).

128

 

Country reports indicate that Oxfam has been actively supporting indigenous
partners in South America on land title initiatives since 1987. The work of Oxfam
in Central America on land issues however is not nearly as pronounced. In this
region there is much more of a focus on increasing the productive capacities of

farmers and little is mentioned in their Annual Report of work with the landless.

129

CHAPTER 6

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations

130

Although each of the organizations that were interviewed voiced their own unique
set of priorities and development objectives, during the course of the research
there emerged several common themes shared by most if not all. Below I have
summarized these themes and provided some corresponding recommendations

that relate directly to each one.

Conclusion #1:

The first theme that emerged and acknowledged by all ten organizations was that
each one originally began their work as direct aid providers. However, in recent
years they have changed their way of working. They now are all more committed
to doing either market-analysis training, organizational and community capacity
building, providing loans, doing advocacy work, or organizing communities. In
short, they have moved from distributing hand-outs (except in acute relief
situations) to following a development agenda. Some organizations said that this
change took place because of the growth and maturity in the technical and
institutional capacities of the local organizations throughout Latin America. Their
partner organizations in the South have become stronger and more assertive in
expressing to their U.S.-based counterparts what it is exactly that they need and
how northern NGOs can be most helpful to them. Others admitted that the
motivation for change stemmed from some of the criticism that the international
development organizations received both internally and externally. The criticism
was that in spite of all the aid given to these NGOs in helping them do their work,

poverty and inequity has not decreased as was mentioned in chapter 1 of this

131

research. Whatever the reason, all of the organizations interviewed admitted that
there has been a definite shift in the way that they are working. This shift is
touched upon in the recently published book Going Global: Transforming Relief
and Development NGOs. Here the authors say that:

“it is plausible that the division of labor among global network members will
change dramatically. For example, Northem organizations may have a special
role to play in advocacy in Northem power centers, perhaps because of their
proximity to these centers of decision-making as well as their special
understanding of the context. It is fashionable to say that Northern organizations
will have less of a role to play in service delivery in the developing world. A more
probable statement might be that national organizations in every country have a
special comparative advantage in program delivery in their own country
compared to outsiders — due to their unique understanding of the

context”(l.indenberg and Bryant, 2001:61).

The conclusion that can be drawn from the responses of the organizations
interviewed is that they have indeed been paying more attention to the petitions
of the rural poor in recent years through their partner assemblies, international
meetings, and increased hiring of national staff. As was mentioned in the
Literature Review, the poor want development programs that address the
systemic causes of poverty - one of which is lack of available land resources.

Research indicates this kind of change is afoot among these NGOs.

Recommendation #1:

132

 

The large NGOs that were interviewed all had long rich histories that date back to
World War II and even before that. It is understandably hard to change the long-
established culture of these organizations. They realize that development
priorities are changing but are hard-pressed to keep up with the changes. I
recommend that they learn from some of new emerging organizations that

display a fresh approach to working in Latin America. One of these organizations

may

is Grassroots lntemational, which is a U.S.-based lntemational development

.FI"'o-z'l

organization based in Boston, Massachusetts. It is a relatively small organization

 

started in 1983 with an annual budget of just over 2 million dollars. In 1998 they
began working in Brazil and formed a partner relationship with the Landless
Workers Movement (MST). It is a good example of the type of organization that
Kamal refers to in his Third Wortd Quarterty article “It is only in rare cases, and
particularly in the case of small Northern NGOs without much money, that the
power relationship has been more equal, with non-funding roles such as policy
dialogue and advocacy moving to the centre of northem NGO relationships with

Southern non-govemmental organizations. ”(Malhotra, 2000:658)

The Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST) is the largest social movement
in Latin America and one of the most successful grassroots movements in the
world. Thousands of landless peasants have organized and taken on the task of
canying out a long—overdue land reform in a country mired by an overly skewed
land distribution pattern. In its 12 years of existence, some 6 million hectares of

have been acquired with the settlement of over 140,000 landless families on

133

these lands (IFAD, 20012222). The success of the MST lies in its ability to
organize and manipulate the legal system of Brazil. Its members have not only
managed to secure land, thereby guaranteeing food security for their families, but
have come up with an alternative socio—economic development model that puts
people before profits. This is transforming the face of Brazil's countryside and

Brazilian politics at large.

The basis of the partnership between Grassroots lntemational and the MST is
aimed at confronting exclusionary development and the increasing concentration
of land ownership with an emphasis on land rights and human rights. Grassroots
contributes to this relationship by providing cash grants and material aid to the
community development and legal rights work of the MST. For example, they are
currently underwriting the position of a human rights lawyer who is working for
the MST. However, in addition to direct grant making, Grassroots does advocacy
and public education on behalf of the MST. They act as a conduit for educating
the American public about the MST in order to leverage political and financial
support for them. This is done through organizational newsletters, a website,
Grassroots sponsored speaking tours of MST representatives in the US, and
informational letters to donors. They strategically plan with the MST on how to
effectively disseminate information to the American public on the land rights
issues facing the landless in Brazil and what the MST is doing to overcome the

problem.

134

The relationship between Grassroots lnt’l and the MST is one based upon
mutuality and respect. It gives a positive example of how a U.S.-based NGO is
not only dialoging with the organized landless of Brazil, but also responding in a

manner which promotes long-term development.

Conclusion #2:

A second significant theme that emerged was that nine out of the ten
organizations interviewed said that NGOs have a role to play in helping poor
farmers gain access to land. This conclusion was surprising given the number of
formidable obstacles that each respondent identified for why it may not be safe or
appropriate for them to be involved in issues of land tenure. However, the exact
nature of that role was open to broad interpretation by each organization. Two
broad diverging paths emerged during the course of this research. Winrock
unofficially led the group that included World Relief, CARE and ADRA that put
emphasis on market-based production systems. They followed the model that a
competitive market will ultimately benefit all farmers by allowing them to stay on
the land that they already possess while making it more productive. Project focus
is put on crop diversification, soil conservation, farm modernization, making credit
available, and improving rural infrastructure. This is a model that puts primary
focus on preventing farmers from becoming landless and less of an emphasis on
helping the landless become tenured farmers. These four organizations were the

most avid supporters of this model for their work in Latin America. It should also

135

be mentioned that all four receive a substantial portion of their financial budgets

from the US. federal government.

The second group opted for a path that put more focus on policy advocacy and
saw landlessness as a result of unjust economic and political systems. This
group was lead by AFSC and Oxfam America and followed in varying degrees by
Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Church World Service, and Plan
lntemational. These organizations made verbal and written references to issues
like human rights, community empowerment, development of civil society, and
social/economic equity. AFSC and Oxfam America are by far and away the most
outspoken organizations that have chosen to design their work at addressing root
causes of landlessness. They have been upfront in publishing literature that
specifically points at the concentration of wealth as a major cause of
landlessness. They say that free trade agreements, agricultural modernization,
privatization of public services, and US. government foreign policy have lead to
concentration of wealth. Consequently, they have developed advocacy programs

designed to address these issues.

Recommendation #2:

The fact that this is unfamiliar territory would lead one to assume that these
organizations are open to new ideas and objectives. Many demonstrated an
informal desire for more shared knowledge and cross-fertilization between

organizations on the matter. Plan lntemational admitted as much when they

136

 

voiced regret that they might not be doing enough in regards to land tenure. They
asked for some direction by saying “We all know it is an important area, but a lot
of us do not have much focus on it, so somebody like you can help us, by

sending us something and putting something under our noses.”

AFSC strongly emphasized the need for scholars and practitioners to develop
alternative policy proposals to the free trade push that are well-researched, well-
written and draw upon empirical data. AFSC said that land tenure cannot be
blindly pushed simply because we want it, rather NGOs must act as a catalysts
to bring farmers, grassroots organizations, NGOs, and academics together to
draw up alternative plans and strategies. Michigan State University was
specifically mentioned as an appropriate forum for bringing together this group to
discuss land policy strategies in a conference format. AFSC said questions
regarding to what extent we value private property and whether it supercedes the
social function of land need to be addressed. They see that these important
issues need to be discussed and up until now they do not see anyone doing it.

They expressed strong interest in seeing the final results of this research.

Conclusion #3:

Many of the organizations admitted that their financial donors were obstacles to
their involvement in land access programs. This was primarily true if they
received money from the United State government through us. AID. It is no

coincidence that the two organizations most involved in advocacy for land reform,

137

Oxfam and AFSC, do not receive any US. AID funding. Four organizations
admitted that the acceptance of government funds impedes their level of
involvement on land issues in Latin America. Funds are available for community
project work, but not for work on land policy issues. Unfortunately, the level of
dependence that these organizations have on public funding does not allow them

the freedom to deviate from the development priorities of US. AID.

Recommendation #3:

Even for those NGOs who may want to seriously address land tenure issues in
their work, it is difficult for them to do so if their donors are resistant to it. There
are three recommended directions that an NGO can take when confronted with
this situation. Each one has proved successful at various levels for different

organizations.

1. They can decide to be “program driven” rather than “budget driven.” If they
decide that their development strategy should include a land access component
to it, then they should look only for donors who can support that plan. Although
this may cause the NGO to forego other potential funding sources, it allows them
a great deal of freedom in deciding how, where, and with whom they will work.
This is what Oxfam America and American Friend Service Committee do and it

has been successful for them.

2. They can dedimte certain funding streams to certain program initiatives. This
is when the NGO tries to match the donor to the type of project that the donor

may have an affinity with. This is what Catholic Relief Service (CRS) is doing in

138

 

Central America. CRS is very much involved in a land-titling program in
Guatemala. However, the funds to cover the program do not come from US.
AID, who does not fund such programs in Central America, the funds rather
come from other private funding sources. U.S. AID, however, continues to fund

many other programs that CRS is working in.

3. They can decide to educate themselves and their donors on the existing
research regarding land access that has been done by academic, non-profit and
multi-lateral research institutions. This knowledge is essential for NGOs if they
are going to make a convincing case for new land initiatives to their donors. This
is the tactic that CARE USA seems, or at least wants to take with their donors.
They expressed a desire to be a “key player” at global level regarding policy and
advocacy issues. This would indicate a move from being “budget driven” to be

“program driven.”

No matter which path an organization chooses, I recommend that they become
aware of the growing pool of knowledge on this t0pic. This knowledge base is
coming out of academic institutions, educationally-based NGOs, and

international research organizations.

The Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin is one such research

institution. They serve as a global resource institution on issues relating to land

ownership, land rights, land access, and land use. Their research is based on the

139

 

premise that widespread and equitable access to land is important in establishing

viable economic, social, political, and environmental systems.

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) also is
valuable resource on land reform research. They have given considerable
attention to identifying and documenting cases of where grassroots movements
have been directly involved and played a key role in land redistribution and titling,

and securing rights to agricultural land by landless farmers.

The Wortd Bank has also established a Land Policy Network. This is an
electronic resource link for people interested in improving and applying policy
related to land tenure, land access, land titling, and administration. The site
contains information for researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners. It can be

accessed through the World Bank web site.

The Institute for Food and Development Policy, also known as Food First, is
another U.S.-based organization that has done extensive research on land
reform in Latin America. Their mission statement states that they are a “nonprofit
'peoples' think tank and education-for-action center.” Their work focuses on
highlighting the root causes and value-based solutions to hunger and poverty
around the world, with a commitment to establishing food as a fundamental

human right. Most recently they have been involved in research that seeks to

140

 

quantitatively support the idea that small, family-owned farms are more effective

than large tenant-run farms in food production.

In February of 2001 FoodFirst representatives met in Chiapas, Mexico with four
other international organizations that are working on the struggle for land and
agrarian reform in the Third World. These organizations consisted of the National
Land Committee from South Africa, the Center for Global Justice from Brazil,
Focus on the Global South from Thailand as well as FoodFirst. One of the
interesting issues they decided upon was to issue a call for committed
researchers and analysts to critically respond to the World Bank’s market-
assisted model for land reform with carefully conducted studies, more objective
research results and analyses. These organizations convened the Land
Research Action Network (LRAN) to link activist researchers with each other and
with grassroots movements. The idea of this network is to effectively mobilize
their intellectual work where it is most needed, to empower the land access

movements (FoodFirst, 2001 :5).

Conclusion #4:

A fourth theme was that all of the organizations preferred the more indirect
approach to helping people acquire or maintain security of land. This compared
to the tactic of getting involved in the outright purchasing of land for agricultural
purposes. All voiced skepticism of the effectiveness and appropriateness of

direct NGO involvement in land acquisition. They envisioned many political and

141

 

legal pitfalls in this type of direct involvement. They opted rather for the indirect
approach of community organizing, political advocacy and providing legal
assistance. They felt that these methodologies offered the best prospects for
producing long-term sustainable development. It was interesting to note however
that none gave evidence of trying the direct land purchase method and having it

fail.

Recommendation #4:

During the course of this research there emerged from the interviews and
literature sources other examples of smaller, lesser-known Northern NGOs
involved in land initiatives. Two of these development organizations are working
in Latin America and are involved in the direct acquisition of land for the landless.
I would like to briefly cite these organizations and make the recommendation that
the larger organizations be open to investigating and learning from these
alternative models. My experience is that cross-fertilization of development ideas

and methods is an effective tool for individual and community actualization.

The AGROS Foundation is a northem-NGO based in Seattle that is directly
involved in the purchase of land. They buy land for the expressed purpose of
allowing the landless access to it. AGROS is a Christian-based organization that
states plainly in its mission statement “AGROS is people, rich and poor, working
together to overcome the cycle of poverty in the world through ownership of land

to build self-sustaining and thriving villages” (Agros.org, 2001).

142

It is an organization that is working only in the Central American countries of
Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. AGROS follows a development process
of buying available parcels of rural land, which is for sale on the open market.
They will then settle an already organized group of landless families or AGROS
themselves will select a group of families to move on to the land. They will then
assist in the development of this new community by helping them become
economically viable, self-goveming, and owned by the people. This new
community than begins to agriculturally improve the land and repay AGROS for
the original purchase price of the land through their increased production. The
size of these new communities usually varies between 25 - 50 families and the
acreage of the land generally ranges between 50 acres to 300 acres. They

currently claim to have resettled more than 300 families on newly acquired land.

Although AGROS is a relatively new and small organization it was cited for an
award in 1998 by an alliance of the United Nations Development Program, the
World Bank, and the Inter-American Foundation for providing lasting solutions to
poverty in Central America. AGROS proven track record of assisting the poor at

becoming self-sufficient through land ownership was highlighted in the award.

A representative from the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee (CRWRC)
based in Grand Rapids, Michigan was interviewed at the early stages of this
research as part of a field-testing of the interview instrument. CRWRC is a

medium-sized international development organization with funding roots based in

143

the Christian Reformed Church of North America. I learned during the interview
and in reading subsequent promotional literature that CRWRC this year started
partnering with the Nicaraguan Church of Christ in a program called “Land for
Landless Farmers.” CRWRC helps provide the $90,000 in capital to purchase
large pieces of land and break them into smaller plots to sell to landless farmers.
The farmers make payments on the land while they improve and farm it. Over the
next 3 to 5 years, the farmers earn a higher income, implement improvements
like terracing, fertilizing, planting trees and growing cover crops. When the loan is
repaid and the improvements completed, they receive legal title to their land. The
repayment money is reinvested in the purchase of more land for other landless
farmers. Land values range from approximately $100 per acre to $500 per acre.
The land values vary according to soil and land quality, and location related to
urban areas. Where the land is nearer to markets and is of higher quality the
farmers will receive approximately .75-1 acre. In the more mountainous areas
and areas some distance from major markets, farmers will receive up to 5 acres.
The loan size per farmer will not vary much being between $500 - $700 per
farmer (CRWRC, 2001). This program is the first of its kind for CRWRC, but one

that really grew out of a strong relationship with the church-partner group.

Conclusion #5:
The very fact that most of these organizations have broached this topic at any
level was more than a small surprise to this researcher. The land issue has until

recently been strongly avoided by NGOs as being too controversial, too political

144

and falling clearly within the jurisdiction of the state. This research demonstrates
that either they are giving more weight to the voice of the poor and the
organizations that represent them, or the erosion of state-sponsored social
welfare programs have pushed NGOs to take a broader role filling the vacuum of
providing for the long-term development of the poor. Whatever the reason, NGOs
are moving into positions of influence and change on the land issue that they

have never faced before.

Recommendation #5:

I recommend that more North-North and North-South coalitions and alliances be
formed to address land issues in Latin America. George and Nancy Axinn point
out in their book Collaboration in lntemational Development that “A vigorous,
dynamic, creative, and insightful response to the issues of lntemational rural
development in the 21St century will certainly demand collaboration, and will
require active long-term involvement of professional practitioners and scholars.
There are plenty of challenges which promise to be demanding, exciting, and
rewarding” (Axinn and Axinn, 1997:310). There is emerging evidence that this
collaboration has already begun to occur among smaller and lesser-known
NGOs, but much more needs to happen at the level of NGOs that this research
has focussed upon. They are the ones that have influence at the national and
lntemational policy level. Only collaboration will bring about the kind of synergism
that needs to be mounted to address such a comprehensive issue such as

inequitable land tenure. Further exploration must be done that begins to find new

145

ways for NGOs to become involved collaboratively in FIAN lntemational and the
work they are doing in the Land Research Action Network. NGOs should take an
active role in international poverty summits convened by the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization, as well as hunger and poverty conferences
sponsored by the lntemational Fund for Agricultural Development. These are the
kind of forums where the poor have expressed their need for land reform in the

past and where the presence of NGOs could be of mutual benefit.

NGOs must also consider more collaborative relationships with local government
officials. They can offer legal and regulatory assistance to governments to
strengthen the land registration system and protect people’s resource rights.
They can help leverage for increased financing for land reform and post-land
acquisition services from northern governments. They can provide technical help
to governments to establish their cadastral systems and land-survey methods.
They can also help establish mechanisms for the resolution of community land
disputes. This sort of collaboration with local governments could be key in
minimizing one of the major obstacles voiced by NGOs regarding their fear of

involvement in land issues - threat of state oppression.

Recommendations for Further Research:
This research has shown that NGO thinking on the land access issue is a
relatively mcent occurrence. While some are aggressively wrestling with the

concept, even they have been doing so for only a short period of time. There is a

146

need for more research on this topic so that international development
professionals can be effective and well-informed practitioners, scholars and
advocates. I, William Van Lopik, would personally make the following two

recommendations regarding future research.

1. The newness of this topic within the NGO world has left them with a
paucity of results from fieldwork. NGOs lack well-established track records or
information gleaned from an evaluative process that might help them determine
the success of their work. There is a broadly-accepted position that advocacy at
the policy level is needed to address the justice issues that cause rural poverty,
but little empirical data has actually been generated that might help confirm that
the poor are better off because of it. A large amount of research and money has
gone into evaluating the state—run land reform programs of the 19503-1980s.
However, the interviews and literature sources did not reveal any attempt to
evaluate the collective or individual work of northern NGOs involved in land
access work. New research must be undertaken that seeks to determine the
long-term sustainability of these new initiatives and an analytical determination of
whether the results actually transfer down to the improvement of life among the

poor of Latin America.
2. It is clear that most organizations are in agreement about the importance

of land tenure to the development process. However, two divergent points have

emerged from the study on how to remedy the problem. Most of the

147

organizations that receive some sort of government or multi-lateral funding favor
land registration and individual property rights projects. Consequently, these
organizations also have access to a larger pot of money that can be used for
studies that support their point of view. While other more “progressive” NGOs
who do not receive government funding seek to go beyond the property rights
debate and raise the point that the quality of land is also an important
consideration. Just because a farmer has title to her/his land does not mean that
the land is capable of being productive. These groups call for equitable land

redistribution in addition to land title and registration. However, I found scant

 

research being done by development scholars supporting this development
model. I would argue that the reason for this is because it is not widely embrace
by major funding institutions. Therefore, more funding for comparative research
is definitely needed to examine which of these methods is not only most
effective, but which also yields greater economic benefit to the individual farmer

and ultimately the entire country.

Limitations

As in all research projects, there are extenuating factors in the methodology,
budget and human capacity that limit the validity, reliability, and representative
ness of the data collected. Although measures were taken in this research to
diminish these limitations, they were present nonetheless. There were four

principal limitations in this research.

148

1.

In each case only one individual from each organization was interviewed in
this study. Great efforts were made to select the most appropriate person
based on their position and knowledge of their organizations’ Latin American
development programs. Nevertheless, there is always a danger in the
interview process that the person being interviewed is trying to purposely put

on the best face of the organization and its activities. They may not want to

I .D' “W

respond to any question in a way that might cast a negative light upon their

m
e “.-

organization. Although additional interviews with other organizational

representatives would have helped minimize this limitation, there was not

“an-rm new:

sufficient time and money to broaden the scope of the research.

Another limitation was that information conveyed by each respondent had to
be accepted as truth. There was no way of really knowing whether the person
being interviewed was answering the survey questions according to what they
thought the interviewer wanted to hear. The triangulation design of the
research helped to mitigate this limitation by comparing the information
gathered from the interview with the resource literature gathered from each
organization. In no case did the literature contradict anything the respondent
said. However, in several instances the literature did not verifiably support the
responses given by the interviewee. Ideally an on-site visit to Latin America
would have been helpful in providing more complete authenticity to the views
expressed in the interview.

A third limitation was the differing interpretation of the term “access to land”

among the organizations. Some interpreted the concept within the context of

149

a property rights issue, others as a technical issue related to poor cadastral
mapping abilities, and others as a justice issue related to historical inequitable
distribution patterns. The term “access to land” was carefully chosen in order
to cast a broad net over all the various initiatives being undertaken by these
NGOs. The broadness of the term helped to reveal the differing
interpretations that each organization had of the subject. However, in
retrospect more detailed information might have been gathered from each
organization it a clearer distinction was made between the idea of land
security and land equity. During the last interview, Oxfam America made
available a report that they had commissioned Moss and Banaclough to do
on Hurricane Mitch reconstruction efforts in Nicaragua. Here they point out
the distinction between land security and equity:

“Insecure and inequitable access to land, water and other natural resources
by the rural poor is a major factor in perpetuating their poverty, and also of
environmental degradation, in all four countries of Central America. Land
registration by individual small cultivators with insecure titles, peasant
cooperatives and indigenous groups using land under customary common
property regimes is desirable in the Central American context. Donors should
recognize, however, that land registration, together with “land banks” and
more competitive land markets, can alone do little toward providing secure
access to adequate land for those who need it - and in some circumstances
can even make the situation worse for the rural poor” (Barraclough and Moss,

1999:4 7)

150

 

4. The ten organizations selected for this study represent a significant amount of
the private and public U.S. development budget for Latin America. However, it
should be noted that several large NGOs were not included in the study
because they either do not put a focus on development work or are not
involved in rural agricultural development. Some of the most obvious
organizations are Save the Children, Mercy Corp., Feed the Children,
Christian Children’s Fund and MAP lntemational. Some of the organizations
that were omitted from the study actually have much larger operating budgets
than the ones included. Therefore it should be noted that these organizations
are far removed from addressing land issues in even a general sense.
Therefore, the ten organizations that participated in this research do not
comprise a complete representation of the NGO response to inequitable land
tenure in Latin America. They do however represent a large percentage of the
private contributions given by people in the United States for development

work in Latin America.

151

CHAPTER 7

Bibliography

152

Adams, M. (January 2001). Redistributive Land Reform in Southern Africa.
Natural Resouppp Pgsmivg. Overseas Development Institute, No. 64.

Adams, M. (2000) Breaking Ground: Development Aid for Land Reform. London:
Overseas Development Institute.

ADRA. ADRA Receives $51 Million for Food Security Projects. [Online] Available
www.adra.omlnews.html, October 12, 2001.

Adelman, l. and Cynthia Taft Morris, C. (1982). National and lntemational
Measure in Support of Equitable Growth in Developing Countries: A
Proposal. Working Paper No. 78-13, Univ. of Maryland.

AFSC. lntemational Programs. [Online] Available http://www.afsc.0i_‘gllntl.htm,
2001 .

AGROS, [Online] Available www.agros.org, 2001.

Axinn, G. and Axinn, N. (1997). Collaboration in lntemationpl Rural Development:
A Practitioner’s Handbook. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Barraclough, S. (June 1999). Land Reform in Developing Countries: The Role of
the State and Other Actors. UNRISD Discussion nger No. 101. Geneva,
Switzerland: UNRISD.

Barraclough, S. and Moss, D. (1999, May). Toward Greater Food Security in
Central America Following Hurricane Mitch: Rethinking Sustainable Rural
Development Priorities. A report commissioned by Oxfam America.

Barry, D. and Rosa, H. (Jan/Feb. 1995). Crisis de la Economia Rural y Medio
Ambiente en El Salvador. PRISMA no.9.

 

Bebbington, A. (November 1997). Reinventing NGOs and Rethinking Alternatives
in the Andes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
S_cipr_i_pe;s_, vol. 554.

Bebbington, A. and Thiele, G. (1993). an-Govemmental Organizations_§nd the

State in Latin America: Rethinking Roles in Sustainable Agricultural
Development. New York: Routledge.

Bhasin, K. (1991). Participatory Development Demands Participatory Training. A
Convergence. vol. XXIV, no.4.

Blum, L. (December 1996). The Role of an lntemational Private Voluntary

Organization After a Civil War. The Case of Catholic Relief Services in El
Salvador. Qevelppment TeghNet. Vol. 7, no. 4.

153

Bonnard, P. (1995). Land Tenure, Land Titling, and the Adoption of Improved
Soil Management Practices in Honduras. Ph.D Dissertation, Michigan

State University Department of Agricultural Economics.

Bower, R. (Jan/Feb. 2001). Land Reform in El Salvador. Witness. vol. 84,

no. 1l2, 22-3.
Brockett, c. (1998). Lang, Pmr, ang vaafly (2"d g). Boulder, co: Westview
Press

Brown, L., Flavin, C. and French, H. eds. (2000). State of tha World
2000:A Worlgwatch Institute Repgt on Progress Toward a Sustainable
Society. New York: WW. Norton and Company.

 

CARE Annual Report. (1996). The Complexity of Global Poverty. [Online]
Available

http://www.care.orglpublicationslannualrepprt96lcfgglobal mveplyhtml

CARE World Report. (1998). [Online] Available
http://www.care.orglpublicationslworldreportlfall98lfallhunger.html

 

Catholic Relief Services. Programming Overseas — Justice. [Online] Available
www.catholicrelief.org/whatloverseasljusticelindax.cfm. 2001.

Chiriboga, M. (September 2000). False Promises: Latin America and Geneva
2000. Social Development Review, vol. 4, no. 3.

Christian Reformed World Relief Committee. (September 2001) Whose Land is

it Anyway. Tackling Tough Issues - With Resmngs that Wprk. 2001 Fall
Campaign promotional brochure.

Church World Service, (2001). CWS Issues and Advocacy. [Online] Available
www.churchworldserviceorglEduc Advolindex.html, 2001.

Clawson, D. (2000). Latin America and the Caribbean: Lands and Peopl_e_§.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Colatosti, C. (Jan/Feb 2001). Chiapas’ Long Struggle for Equality. Witness
Magazine, vol. 84, no. ‘/2, pp. 24-7.

Corr, A. (1999). No Tresgssing: Sguatting. Rent Strikes ang Land Struggles
Woridwide. Cambridge, MA: South End Press

 

Cristobal, A. (11I3l98). An Ideal Poor State? Philippine _D_ajlv Iriquirer.

Daly, H. (1996). Beyond Growth: The Economica of Sustainable Development.

154

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Danaher, K. (1995). Getting at Hunger’s Roots: The Legacy of Colonialism and
Racism in The Color of Hunger. Race and Hugger in National aria
lntemational Perapective. Shields, D. ed. London: Rowman and Littlefleld
Publishers, Inc.

 

DeJanvry, A. and Sadoulet, E. (1989). Investment Strategies to Combat
Rural Poverty: A Proposal for Latin America. Wortd Development 1711203-
1221.

De Janvry, A., Key, N. and Sadoulet, E. (1997)). Agricultural and Rural
Development Policy in Latin America: New Directions and New
Challenges. FAO Agricultural Policy and Economic Development Series;-
2. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations.

De Soto, H. (2000). The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the
Wgt ang Faila Evemyhere Else. New York, NY: Basic Books.

DeWalt, B. Testimony to the Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere, the Peace Corps, Narcotics and Terrorism of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations. [Online] Available

http://www.pitt.edul~brdewaltltaatimony.html, July 25, 2000.

DeWitt, C. ed. (1996). The Just Stewardship of Land and Creation, A Report of
the Reformed Ecumenical Council.

Dorner, P. (1999). Technolmy and Globalization: Modem-Era Constraints on
lnitiativas fpr Land Reform. United Nations Research Institute for Social

Development.

Dorner, P. and Thiesenhusen, W. (1992). Land Tenure and Deforestation:
Interactions and Environmental Implications, UNRISD Dispussion Paper
No.34. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development.

Eckholm, E. (June 1979). The Dispossessed of the Earth: Land Reform and
Sustainable Development," Worldwatch Paper #30A.

ECONOMIST. (2000, January 29). Sins of the secular missionaries.(there are
tens of thousands of non-governmental organizations in the world, many

dispensing assistance, others serving special interests and even
governments). The Economist (US). v354 i8155 p25.

Edwards, M. (1993). Does the Doormat Influence the Boot?: Critical Thoughts on
UK NGOs and lntemational Advocacy. Development in Practice 3: 163-75.

155

 

Edwards, M., Hulme, D., and Wallace, T. (2000). Increasing Leverage for
Development: Challenges for NGOs in a Global Future in New Rolee and
Relevance: Development NGOeand the Challenge of Change. Lewis, D.
and Wallace, T. eds. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

El-Ghonemy, M. Riad, (June 1999). The Political Economy of Market-Based
Land Reform. UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 104.

Ervin, D. (1986). Constraints to Practicing Soil Conservation: Land Tenure
Relationships in Coneerving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research.
Lovejoy, S. and Napier, T. eds. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society
of America.

Feder, G. (October 1987). Land Ownership Security and Farm Productivity:
Evidence from Thailand. The Journal of Development Studies. Vol. 24,
no. 1.

Fernando, J. and Heston, A. (November 1997). Introduction: NGOs between
States, Markets, and Civil Society. The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Sciences Vol. 554, p8.

 

FIAN. (1997, May 8-11). Consultation on a Global Campaign for Agrarian

Reform. Report of an lntemational Confereng held by FIAN lntemational
ang Via Campeeina. Paris, France.

Fisher, J. (1998). Nongovemmente: NGOs and the Political Development of the
Third Wprld. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

 

 

Fusch, R. (Spring 1991). Human Settlement, Political Instability, and
Environmental Deterioration in Uganda. The Centennial Review.
Vol.XXXV, no.2.

Gebremedin, T. (1997). A Critical Analysis of the Causes of World Food
Security.

George, S. (1984). III Fares The Land: Esgys on Foog. Hunger. and Power.
London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.

Ghimire, K. (1999, June). Peasants” Pursuit of Outside Alliances in the Process
of Land Reform: A Discussion of Legal Assistance Programmes in
Bangladesh and the Philippines. UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 102.

Grindle, MS. (1986). State and Counttysidezgevelopment Policy and Agrarian
Politics in Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Gwynne, R. and Kay, C. (1999). Latin America Transformed: Globalization and

156

Modemig. London: Arnold Publishers

Hecht, S. (1985). Environment, Development and Politics: Capital
Accumulation and the Livestock Sector in Eastern Amazonia. Worid
Develppment 13: pp. 663-84

Hoy, P. (1998). Players and Issues in lnternaLtional Aid. West Hartford, CT:
Kumarian Press.

Hudson, A. (2000). Making the Connection: Legitimacy Claims, Legitimacy
Chains and Northern NGOs’ lntemational Advocacy in New Roles ang
Relevance: Development NGOs and the Challenge of Change. Lewis, D.
and Wallace, T. eds. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

Huntington, S. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale
University Press.

ICARRD Conference Report. (2000, December 5-8). Statement presented to the
lntemational Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
(ICARRD), Tagaytay City, Philippines. [Online] Available
http:/Iwww.oxfam.org.ukllandrights.§tatemnt.rtf

Information Services of Latin America (ISLA). “The Landless Workers
Movement Towards Social Transformation.” talk given by Landless Rural
Workers Movement (MST) activist Sandra Praxedes at Berkeley's La
Pefia Cultural Center. [Online] Available http://www.igcorgtislalbraz1.html,
May 19, 1999.

Institute for Food and Development Policy. (Spring 2001). Working Together for
Real Land Reform. Foedfirst Newe and Views. vol. 24, no. 81., p.5.

lntemational Fund for Agricultural Development. (1995, November 20-21).
Conference on Hunger and Poverty: A Popular Coalition for Action.

[Online] Available http://www.ifadorgloverhtml

lntemational Fund for Agricultural Development. (2001). Institutions and the
Rural Poor". Building Coalitions for Rural Poverty Reduction. [Online]

Available http:/Iwww.Eadoggjmvemlchapterepgf

lntemational Fund for Agricultural Development. (2001). Plan to Cut Global
Poverty by 50% is Falling - Needs of Rural Majority Neglected. [Online]

Available http:llwww.ifad.otglmvemlpr.htm

lntemational Fund for Agricultural Development. (2002). Magnitude of, and
Recent Trends in, Rural Poverty. [Online] Available

httpzllifag.otgtoperationslrgionall2002lpllpl.htm

157

lyer, L. and Goldenberg, D. (1996). We Live Here Tool MovingTowarflhild-
Centered Habitat Pmmmfi. Plan lntemational

Jackson, D. (1993). Sintesis de la Evaluacion de Ias Politican Agricolas de El
Salvador. Agricultural Policy Analfiis Pppject. Phase II, USAID/El
Salvador.

Kaimowitz, D. ed. (1990) Making the Link: Agricultural Research and Technolpgy
Transfer in Developing Countng. Boulden Westview and lntemational
Service for National Agricultural Research.

Kay, C. and Silva, P. (1992). Rural Development, Social Change, and the
Democratic Transition. In Development amd Social Chm in the Chilean
Qggntrystde: From Pre-L_a_nd Reform Period to the Democratic Transition.
Kay, C. and Patricio Silva, P. eds. pp. 291-299. Amsterdam: Centre for Latin
American Research and Documentation.

 

Kay, C. (1998). The Complex Legacy of Latin America’s Agrarian Reform.

Institute of Social Studies Working Paper No. 268. The Hague -
Netherlands: Institute of Social Studies.

Kimbrell, A (Winter 2000). Monsanto’s Myths: Examining the Assumptions of
Industrial Agriculture. Race, Povefiy and the Environment. vol. VII no. 2,
pp. 3438.

Korten, D. (1990). Getting tp the 21St Centpgy: Vpluntaty Action and the lepal
Agenda. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Lappe, F. M., Collins, J. and Rosset, P. (1998). World Hunger". Twelve Mfihs.
New York, NY: Grove Press

Lastarria-Comhiel, S. and J. Melmed-Sanjak, J. (April 1999). Land Tenancy in
Asia, Africa, and Latin America: A Look at the Past and a View to the

Future. grid Tenure Center Wprking Paar No. 27. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin.

Liamzon, C. (November 1996). Agrarian Reform: A Continuing Imperative or an
Anachronism? Develppment in Practice. vol. 6, no. 4, pp.315-323.

Lipton, M. (1996). Successes in Anti-Poverty. Issues in Development Discussion
Pamr, no. 8. lntemational Labour Office, Development and Technical
Cooperation Department, Geneva: ILO.

Malhotra, K (2000). NGOs without aid: beyond the global soup kitchen. Third
World Quarterly. vol. 21, no. 4, pp 655-668.

158

 

Manz, B. (1995). Indians, Land, and Poverty in Guatemala. In file
Color of Hunger: Race aid, Hunger in National and lntemational
Persmwe. Shields, D. ed. London: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

May, R. (1991). The Poor of the Land: A Christian Case for Land Reform.
Maryknoll,NY: Orbis Books.

McReynolds, S. (1998). Agricultural Labour and Agrarian Reform in El Salvador:
Social Benefit or Economic Burden? Journal of Rural Studies. Vol.14,
No.4, pp.459-473.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Oficina Sectorial de Planificacion
Agropecuaria. (1989, January 1). Estudio Nacional del Sector
Agropecuario, Encuesta Sobre Uso y Tenencia de la Tiena. Analisis de
Reeultados Volum 1. San Salvador.

Molano, A. (Sept/Oct. 2000). The Evolution of the FARC: A Guerilla Group’s
Long History. NACLA. Vol. XXXIV, no. 2.

 

Monsod, S. (3l11l99). The Case for Agriculture. BusinessWorid.
Navarro, R. (Sept. 1995). El Salvador Sustentable. Econciencia. no.8.

Nichols, B. and Slavin, B. (2001, February 20). Foreign aid hike pushed Bush
considers Helms” call for 'faith-based' initiative. USA TODAY. Washington.

Painter, M. and Durham, W. (eds). (1995). The Social Causes of Environmental
Destruction in Latin Amerig. Ann Arbor: Univ.of Michigan Press.

Paniagua-Ruiz, R. (1997). Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Strategies in
Latin America and the Caribbean. Agricultural and Rural Development
Epljcy in @i America: New Directions_apd New Challenges. FAO
Agricultural Policy and Economic Development Series — 2. Food and
Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations. Rome.

Pearce, D. and Warford, J. (1993). Wprld Without End: Economics,
@vironment. and Sustainable Development, New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Petras, J. (December 1997). Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America. (non-
govemmental organizations). Monthly Review. v49 n7 p10(17).

Philippines Peasant Movement. What is the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas?
[Online] Available ht_tp:llwww.geocities.comlkmp phlaboutlwhatishtml

159

Phillips, B. (1971). Sm’al Rgaearch: Strategy and Tactig (2"d ea). New York:
The Macmillan Company.

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (1997, November 23). Towards A Better
Distribution of Land. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Prosterrnan, R. and Riedinger, J. (1987) Land Reform and Democratic
Development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Rabkin, R. (July 12, 1985). A conservative case for land reform. National Review.
v37 p36(5).

Remson, J. (November 2000). The Path to Global Solidarity: The Roles of the
UN. and NGOs. Blueprint for Social Justice. volume LIV, no. 3.

Riedinger, J., Yang, W-Y. and Brook, K. (2000, December 5-8). Market-Based
Land Reform: An Imperfect Solution. A paper presented at the
lntemational Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.

, Tagaytay City, Philippines.

Rodriguez, R. (1991). El papel de los organismos no gubernamentales y
federaciones de cooperatives en la generacion y transferencia de
tecnologia agropecuaria, caso: El Salvador. San Salvador“. Programa
Regional de Reforzamiento de la lnvestigacion Agronomica sobre los
Granos en Centroamerica. Convenio CORECA-CEE-IICA.

Rosset, P. (July/August 2000). The Case for Small Farms - An Interview with
Peter Rosset. The Multinational Monitor. Vol. 21, No. 7 & 8.

Rosset, P. (Sept. 1999). The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm
Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations. Food First Policy
Brief No.4. [Online] Available http:llwww.foodfirst.orglpubslpolicybslpb4.html

Rosset, P. (Winter 2001). Tides Shift on Agrarian Reform: New Movements
Show the Way. Food First Backgrounder, vol. 7, no.1 .

Russell, F. (Spring 1991). Land Use: Erosion and Poverty in the Dominican
Republic. The Centennial Review. Vol. XXXV, no.2.

Seligson, M. (1994). Thirty Yea_rsr of Transformation in the agrarian Structure of
El Salvadpr. Documento de Trabajo, Serie Analisis de la Realidad
Nacional 94-9.

Singleton, R., Straits, B. and Straits, MM. (1993), Approaches to Social
Reflrph (2"d ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

160

Sobhan, R. (1993). Agrarian Reform and Social Transformation: Preconditions
for Development. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Stonich, S. (1989). The Dynamics of Social Processes and Environmental
Destruction: A Central American Case Study. Population and
Development Review 15: 284. Pp. 269-96.

Stonich, S. (1995). Development, Rural lmpoverishment, and Environmental
Destruction in Honduras. In The mal Causes of Environmental
Destruction in Latin America. Painter, M. and Durham, W. eds. Ann Arbor:
Univ.of Michigan Press.

Thiesenhusen, W. and Melmed-Sanjak, J. (1990). Brazil’s Agrarian
Structure: Changes from 1970 through 1980. World Development 18: 393-
41 5.

Thiesenhusen, W. (1996). Trenda in Land Tenure Issue in Latin America:

whengs ang Recommendatione for Development Coogration for
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit.

Thiesenhusen, W. (1995). Broken Promises: firarian Reform and the Latin
American Camgsino. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

 

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2000). Human Development
Remit. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO Paper -
Contemporary Thinking on Land Reform. [Online] Available

http:llwww.fao.om[sdlltdirectlltan0037.htm, March, 2000.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1976, January 3).
lntemational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. [Online]
Available hapzllwww.unhchr.chlhtmllmenu6l2lfs16.htm#3

United Nations Non-Govemmental Liaison Service. (July 2000). Eighth Session
of the Commission on Sustainable Development. Environment and
Development File. vol. IV, no.1.

United Nations Non-Govemmental Liaison Service. (July 2000). First Prepcom
Session for lstanbul+5. NGLS Roundup, no.55.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948, December 10). United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 217A(lll). [Online] Available
www.hn~.orgluniversal.html

Valverde, V., R. Martorell, V. Jejia—Pivarel, H. Delgado, A. Lechtig, C. Teller, and

161

R.E. Klein. (1977). Relationship Between Family Land Availability and
Nutritional Status. Ecolpgy of FM and Nutrition, Vol. 6, pp. 1-7

Vandermeer, J. and Perfecto, I, (1995). Breakfast of Biodiversity: The Truth
about Rain Forest Destruction. Oakland, CA: Food First.

Weinberg, B. (1991). War on the_Land: Ecology and Politics in Central America.
London:Zed Books Ltd.

Wortd Bank, (1999), Consultations with the Poor: Methodolagy Guide for the 20

County Study for the World Development Report 2000/1. Poverty
Group/Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network:

Washington DC

World Bank. (2000). World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

World Bank. (1996). Povem Reduction and the World Baik: Prgress and
Challengg in the 1990s._ Washington DC: World Bank

World Relief. Farms Produce a Bountiful Harvest for Families. [Online] Available
www.wr.orflintemational_2lwhere we workltouchinglnicaragualfannsprod
seem. 2001.

Wortd Resources Institute (WRI). World Resources 2000-2001: People
and Ecosystems: The F raying Web of Life. [Online] Available

http:l/www.wri.grg!wrilwrr2000. 2000

Worid Resources Institute. (1985). Tropical Forests: A Call for Action, Part 1.
Report of the lntemational Task Force convened by the World Resources
Institute, The World Bank, and the United Nations Development
Programme. Washington, DC: WRI.

 

World Vision, (1999). Ten Urgent Issues for the New Millennium. World \fision
1999 Annual Remrt.

162

ll