![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Millions of poor rural people depend on farming for their livelihood, but they control very little land. They may have no legal rights to the land they farm, or they may work as hired labour on large farms. Low incomes and rural poverty are often the result. Redistributing land to small-scale farmers can do much to reduce their poverty. When rural families have land, and secure control over that land, they are likely to grow more food and see their incomes rise. Land security can mean food security. Dividing large farms into smaller units often means that more food is produced per hectare. This is happening in a number of countries. In El Salvador, for example, a 10% rise in land ownership has boosted income by 4% per person. In India, the states where poverty has fallen the fastest are those that have implemented land reforms. Ethiopia has transformed a feudal land system into family farming. Most strikingly, in China, the shift from large farms to smallholdings (in the period 1977 - 1985) witnessed a unprecedented increase in farm output, thus enabling millions of people to rise out of poverty. Land reform can increase both employment and income. Small farms employ more people per hectare than the larger units, often to the benefit of the landless and unemployed. And owning land means that family farmers often secure the bank credit that was previously denied them. The Rural Poverty Report 2001 points out that while land reform has achieved much, in some areas it has been unduly statist and top-down. Large landowners have often frustrated land reform programmes in India and Pakistan, for example but change has come about after small farmers insisted on their rights. In Latin America, which has the world's most unequal land tenure system, severe inequality persists even after land reform, partly because of the collectivist nature of some of the reforms. Nonetheless, land reform is achieving much, especially when it is community-driven and tailored to local conditions and when it puts the poor at the forefront of the process. The Rural Poverty Report 2001 stresses the particular importance of giving women more control over land as this would give them more power in the community and reduce their vulnerability within the household. ![]() For further information contact: At.Rahman@ifad.org
or G. Geissler@ifad.org Prepared
by the Communications and Public Affairs Unit |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||