Document(s) 7 of 10

Multilateral Institutions

The World Bank’s 2003 PRR on land policy marks a significant change in the thinking of this institution regarding land issues.⁵⁸ First, land policies are now considered central for sustainable growth, poverty reduction and good governance, and governments are urged to develop a national land policy in consultation with civil society. Second, there is recognition that no single recipe can achieve the above objectives in a complementary fashion.⁵⁹ Rather, the PRR offers a menu of policy alternatives that include both market and non-market mechanisms.

The aim of the PRR is to synthesize the results of a quarter of a century of research regarding the three pillars of land policy: guaranteeing security of tenure, access to land, and socially desirable land utilization. Land tenure security is considered the foundation for growth, since it is a precondition for investment and the functioning of markets, as well as a key to preventing conflicts over land. The PRR argues that providing security of tenure is a pro-poor policy to the extent that it potentially reduces costs to small and large farmers alike and can be a catalyst in facilitating access to land for the land-poor.

Where the PRR departs most from previous WB thinking is by its recognition that security of tenure does not necessarily require only private, individual property. Rather, it recognizes that under certain conditions, secure group or collective ownership, such as in the case of Indigenous communities, can provide similar benefits. Moreover, the PRR argues that the benefits of security of tenure may be equally forthcoming from various usufruct arrangements provided they are sufficiently long-term, such as long-term leases of private or state lands. Further, the report notes that such benefits can accrue with instruments other than formal, registered land titles linked to a cadastre. It thus recommends that the wisdom of investing in large-scale land titling and administration projects be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that greater attention be given to the sequencing of alternative interventions that enhance tenure security.

The PRR takes a strong pro-equity stand with respect to guaranteeing the security of land tenure of groups who have been traditionally discriminated against, particularly women and Indigenous groups. It argues that there is sufficient evidence demonstrating that where women are the main cultivators, where there are high rates of male out-migration, and where control of productive activities is gender-differentiated, attention to women’s land rights will have far-reaching economic consequences.

While recognizing that it is not a panacea, the PRR is unequivocal on the role of land access in reducing rural poverty. Access to land must be complemented by access to other inputs and services in an overall policy environment favourable to small farmers and conducive to the development of nonagricultural activities. Included in the menu of policy interventions available to facilitate access to the rural poor are redistributive as well as market-assisted land reforms, and enhancing the scope and functioning of land rental and sales markets. The PRR recognizes that land markets alone will not achieve equitable outcomes, and that the Bank’s previous emphasis on the potential of land sales markets was unwarranted. The report clearly favors fostering land rental markets as the most expeditious means of providing access to land to large numbers of the poor.⁶⁰

Research suggests that wealth constraints and credit market imperfections are formidable barriers to participation by the poor in land sales markets and that these are highly segmented. More effective taxation of land should increase the offer of land for sale, while macro stabilization measures should lower and stabilize land prices. Experience, nonetheless, suggests that grant financing is necessary to facilitate land purchases by the asset-poor, an expensive proposition for governments. Measures to foster land rental markets such as increasing tenure security and reducing transaction costs are thus seen as the less costly alternative. The history of state interventions in markets in Latin America (in particular, prohibitions on land rentals and/or the regulation of rents) is cited as a major factor in the relatively low level of rental activity in the region. The PRR recommends that where these still exist, they be abolished, and that the state seek other means to influence the terms of rental contracts, such as increasing the bargaining position of tenants via greater opportunities in rural areas. While the report clearly favors long-term fixed rent leases, it concludes that sharecropping results in a relatively minor loss of efficiency.

While preferring the enhancement of land rental markets for poverty alleviation, the PRR argues that redistributive land reform can be justified on efficiency and equity grounds where there is extreme inequality in land distribution, productive land is underutilized and rural poverty has proved intractable. It also suggests that redistributive land reforms are warranted in Latin America, where land concentration is an impediment to equitable and sustainable growth.⁶¹ Although this region has a long history of land reform efforts, these remained incomplete and failed to live up to their objectives, partly because of the lack of political will but also because they were too costly and failed to guarantee the competitiveness of the beneficiaries.⁶² In addition, the PRR considers production cooperatives and other forms of group farming to have been a failure. It questions whether creating family farms should always be the objective of land reform, given the tendency for rural households to engage in multiple income-generating activities.

With respect to land use regulation and zoning, the PRR sees a clear role for the state in land preservation, in reducing externalities, and in providing incentives and cost-effective government services. It also favors the devolution of state land through either the recognition of adverse possession or long-term leases to small farmers. A recurrent theme is the opportunity for land policy to strengthen local governance through such measures as decentralized land taxation and the provision of services.

WB lending activities in the area of land access and administration since 1995 include ten loans to seven countries for a total of US$463 million.⁶³ The current land access projects are in Guatemala, Honduras and Brazil. The largest initiative has been the community-based land reform project in Brazil (the Land-Based Poverty Alleviation Project, at US$202.1 million). Expanded nationally from a pilot (the Cédula da Terra) in Northeast Brazil, this project supports complementary infrastructure and technical assistance for beneficiary groups of the negotiated land reform. In this model, groups negotiate the purchase of land directly with landowners and obtain subsidized government loans for its purchase. A pilot based on similar principles is also being financed in Honduras, although in this case the purchase of land is to be financed by the private sector. The loan to Guatemala partially funds that country’s land bank. Land administration projects are being financed in Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.

Between 1981 and 2001 the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) financed 14 land-related projects, 11 of which were land titling and administration projects, totaling approximately US$265 million.⁶⁴ The rationale behind these projects is focused quite clearly on providing the preconditions (security of tenure, reduction of transaction costs, and the administrative and judicial machinery for dispute resolution) to expand land rental and sales markets.⁶⁵ IDB researchers note that among the major international actors working on Latin America⁶⁶ there is “generally consensus on the convenience of accelerating programs focusing on land titling, registration and development of cadastres . . .as a condition to the development of markets.”⁶⁷ While they recognize the potential importance of other means of increasing access to land by the poor — principally, market-assisted land reform and land banks of various types — they suggest that these approaches require further study.

All the land-related projects in preparation at the IDB for 2002-04 involve land titling and administration, with five projects totaling an estimated US$271 million.⁶⁸ Although IDB land titling projects have not been externally evaluated in terms of whether they improve the welfare of the poor, the IDB Office of Evaluations is completing a major review of its rural development programming that might shed light on this issue.⁶⁹

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in the early 1990s provided the impetus for the study of rural land markets in Latin America.⁷⁰ FAO has also played a major role in the provision of technical assistance to governments on land issues. It has been a major actor in designing and assessing the various experiments with market-assisted land reform, ranging from the initial experiments in Brazil (in the state of Ceará) and Colombia, to the new WB pilot project in Honduras. It has also taken the lead in integrating gender issues into the agrarian reform program in Brazil and into rural development strategies elsewhere.⁷¹

The research efforts of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) have been important in fostering recognition of the link between rural poverty and lack of access to land.⁷² Still, most of its loan portfolio in Latin America is geared to rural development, and it currently has only one land reform related loan, for sustainable development on agrarian reform settlements in the Brazilian Northeast (US$93.5 million).⁷³

The UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC/CEPAL), in collaboration with the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ), also played a role in fostering the study of land markets, but is not currently involved in further research on land issues.⁷⁴ Finally, mention should be made of the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation (IICA), which has provided technical assistance for the market-assisted land reform efforts in Colombia and Brazil as well as the traditional reform efforts in the latter country.

Bilateral Donors

Several bilateral donors have also been involved in land policy issues in Latin America. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) self-identifies as a “regional leader” in this domain with good reason, since it has promoted common policy orientations, funded a large range of projects in many countries and supported coordinating initiatives such as the Inter-Summit Property Systems Initiative. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) and the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ) have small portfolios in the region but have been more involved in policy learning and development. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) have a low profile in policy debates despite a trajectory of funding on land issues in the Americas.

USAID’s approach to land policy issues, in the Hemisphere and beyond, is anchored in its commitments to market-oriented development, poverty reduction, democratic governance and environmental stewardship.⁷⁵ The Agency has been influenced strongly by the work of Hernán de Soto and colleagues at the Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD), and its emphasis on the development of effective, simplified, transparent property rights systems to enable the poor to harness their assets.⁷⁶

Within this framework the Agency has funded a vast range of projects on land titling, law reform, institutional strengthening of cadastral and property registry agencies, conflict mediation, conservation, insertion of small producers into markets, tenure security in postwar contexts, and other areas. For example, in Bolivia, US AID has supported efforts by the government, the Wildlife Conservation Society and Izoceno Indigenous organizations to establish a 3.5 million hectare national park and integrated management area. The Izoceno are now apparently co-administering the park and consolidating a territory adjacent to it. The cost of titling Indigenous lands was born partly by private sector enterprises as part of the arrangements for establishing the Bolivia-Brazil gas pipeline.⁷⁷

In El Salvador, the Agency has supported the Programa de Seguridad Jurídica Rural (PROSEGUIR) which has facilitated the participatory allocation of individual land titles following on the postwar Programa de Transferencia de Tierras. PROSEGUIR included participatory boundary delineation, legal titling and registration of individual parcels, conflict mediation, and capacity-building for non-governmental organizations. Over 30,000 families have apparently achieved tenure security through this program.⁷⁸

AID has also invested heavily in the development of a “community of practice” on land policy issues in the Hemisphere. The cornerstone of this effort has been the Inter-Summit Property Systems Initiative (IPSI) co-managed with the Organization of American States (OAS). IPSI is a program of regional activities including a web portal that aims to “foster consensus building through debate and information sharing . . . sponsor analyses and data gathering that will help clarify issues, identify new approaches and monitor progress; and . . . . sponsor activities aimed at motivating civil society resources towards achieving the property registration goals of the Summit of the Americas.”⁷⁹ The web portal, revamped under the rubric of Landnet Americas (http://www.landnetamericas.org/) in 2003, is a useful clearing-house for resources and news on land policy issues and practices. AID has also been actively involved in supporting consultations and other inputs into the World Bank’s policy research review on land policy. At the Paris launch of the PRR in June 2003, AID officials stated that the PRR could serve as a multilateral policy framework for coordinating land policy initiatives over the coming years.⁸⁰

USAID has funded the Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Market Systems (BASIS) research consortium. Land policy research has been a pillar of this program, led by the Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin in Madison during the 1996-2001 phase, and by the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics since. In the Americas this program has enabled US researchers and counterparts in the region to generate policy research on land, rural financial institutions, credit reporting bureaus and food security. The budget for 2001-06 is US$8 million.⁸¹

European official development agencies are not extensively involved in land policy issues in Latin America. The European Commission (EC) funds numerous rural development and agricultural projects in Latin America, but it is difficult to discern their land programming elements or a coherent EC approach to land policy.⁸² The UK Department for International Development (DFID) has supported activities related to land policy in Brazil, Guyana and in the English-speaking Caribbean. Its longstanding decision to scale back programming in the region limits opportunities for field activities. However DFID has used its land programming in Africa and its analytical capacity on these issues to contribute to multilateral learning, policy development and practice in the Americas, particularly in Brazil. As such, the Department’s global experience and its commitments to pro-poor, context-sensitive, long-term and coordinated land policy interventions could be assets in the Americas.⁸³

GTZ manages a small portfolio of grants to land-related projects in the region, mostly at the local level. Examples include an initiative to update land registries to stem rural-urban migration to the town of Ibarra in Ecuador, and a project to settle land ownership claims in the Bosawas biosphere in Nicaragua. It has also funded cadastre modernization projects in Guatemala. Like DFID, GTZ concentrates its field programming in Africa and Asia. Yet by articulating a cogent policy position in 1998 (long before most other official development agencies rediscovered land issues) and strategically funding land policy initiatives by the multilaterals, GTZ has had considerable impact on global debates.⁸⁴ Key GTZ ideas — on the need to balance efficiency, equity and sustainability; include the poor, women and other marginalized constituencies as stakeholders; combine legal and institutional reforms, statutory and customary law, alternate dispute resolution, and broader rural development strategies; coordinate donor approaches and learn from practice — were picked up in the World Bank PPR.

Canadian development agencies have also supported selected land policy initiatives across the Americas. CIDA has tended to fund technical cooperation projects using aerial photography, radarsat technology and geographic information systems to assist land mapping and titling.⁸⁵ The land component of the Guayape Valley Agricultural Development Project is an exception to this tendency: particularly since 1991, it has involved supporting up to 5,000 small farmers’ efforts to obtain land titles and credit, diversify production and gain access to new marketing opportunities. In 2002-03, CIDA generated two policy papers scoping broader options in this domain. The second paper suggests that Canadian cooperation could build on its comparative advantages to foster innovative approaches to land titling and access, dispute resolution, poor peoples’ participation in policy-making and practice, and other matters.⁸⁶ These papers could lead to the adoption of an agency-wide land policy; however, CIDA seems more likely to use its existing policy guidelines and the 2003 paper to inform its land-related programming, and focus its resources on engaging selected country land administration initiatives.⁸⁷

For its part, IDRC has supported research on a variety of land-related issues over the decades, particularly in the Andes and Central America. Projects cluster around four themes: community-based approaches to land use management; conflict and collaboration over natural resources at the local level; land policies and postwar peacebuilding; and gender equity and land tenure.⁸⁸

Civil Society Networks

Three major transnational networks of civil society organizations are very active on land policy issues in Latin America: the Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo (CLOC), Vía Campesina and the International Land Coalition.

CLOC is a regional social movement that emerged in the mid-1990s: it brings together a large number of landless peasant, small farmer, rural worker, women’s and Indigenous Peoples’ organizations across Latin America and the Caribbean. Its overarching goals are: to advocate a critique of neo-liberal policies, especially for being anti-peasant in their outcomes; to formulate an Alternative Project based on integral agrarian reform, sustainable development and food sovereignty; and to strengthen member organizations, their capacity to work together across borders, and the participation of women in these networks.⁸⁹ At its Third Congress, in Mexico City on August 8-11, 2001, 320 delegates from 37 organizations in 18 countries generated a declaration that included proposals to:

• Formulate integral and participatory agrarian reforms that include enhanced credit, marketing support and technical assistance for peasant agriculture.
• Promote productive activities that guarantee a balanced use of the environment, including the conservation of biodiversity and genetic resources.
• Review existing trade liberalization agreements and oppose future agreements that could further undermine peasant agriculture, food sovereignty and sustainable development.⁹⁰

Over 100 of CLOC’s Andean members met in Lima on October 21-23, 2003, and adopted a manifesto that reiterated some of these proposals and added new elements, including:

• An analysis of the relationships between their struggle for new agrarian policies and major events such as the recent protests and change of government in Bolivia, the opposition to Plan Colombia, the collapse of the WTO talks in Cancún, etc.
• A call for an “authentic regional integration of peoples and nations” in the Andes.
• A strong critique of existing international trade regimes and macroeconomic policy frameworks for being incompatible with goals such as poverty reduction, viable peasant economies, food security and sustainable rural development.⁹¹

Most of CLOC’s members are also affiliated with Vía Campesina, a global social movement that brings together organizations of landless peasants, medium and small farmers, agricultural workers, rural women and Indigenous Peoples across Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe. It is pluralistic and independent of political affiliations. Vía Campesina’s overarching goals are similar to those of CLOC, partly reflecting the weight of Latin American members in the global movement.⁹²

Vía Campesina has championed food sovereignty and integral agrarian reforms as the two core elements of its alternative model of agricultural development. Food sovereignty, defined as the right to produce food in one’s own territory, brings together the demand for food as a basic human need (rather than as a commodity, as in the neo-liberal model) and food production as a basic right of the peasantry. Food sovereignty thus goes beyond food security (guaranteeing adequate food supplies) by stressing how food is produced, by and for whom.⁹³

The movement considers that an integral agrarian reform (from land redistribution to adequate credit, technology and marketing assistance for the poor) is essential for the survival of peasant communities and for the conservation of natural resources. It defends the principle of social property, including communal property and cooperatives, as a potentially effective means of poverty reduction, food sovereignty and preservation of cultural identities.

Vía Campesina advocates that international financial institutions profoundly review the policies that fail to support such priorities. It opposes the World Bank’s market-assisted land reforms on the grounds that these policies and programs:

• Are based on unrealistic assumptions about the capital that developing countries have available to finance land purchases at market rates.
• Do not, in practice, adequately deal with the illegal character of many properties currently occupied by large landowners.
• Do not deal with the special circumstances of communal and state lands.
• Are often associated with financial corruption in practice, as several studies by member organizations in different countries have shown.
• Reflect an intent to demobilize peasant movements in Latin America.⁹⁴

In 1999, Vía Campesina and FIAN launched a Global Campaign for Agrarian reform. Vía Campesina is currently working with its members and allies to demand that national governments and international institutions suspend lines of credit for market-assisted land reform and launch a new national and international debate on land reform and rural development. The movement highlights three key questions:

• How can rural communities be included more effectively in the formulation of rural development policies and programs, nationally and internationally?
• How can the gap between agreed principles and their application be closed?
• What mechanisms can be established to enable rural communities to file complaints and sue for damages when they consider that measures adopted are contrary to the exercise of their rights?⁹⁵

The International Coalition for Access to Land is not a social movement: it is a global coalition of governmental, intergovernmental and civil society organizations that grew out of the Popular Coalition for Land and Hunger, itself an offshoot of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The Coalition works with national and international organizations to secure poor peoples’ access to natural resources, especially land. One of its objectives is to enhance the capacity of rural peoples’ organizations to participate in decision-making processes that affect their livelihoods at the local, national, regional and international levels. Its preferred means of action are multi-institutional coalitions, combined with the application of knowledge and training. Within this framework, the Coalition has apparently broadened spaces for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue in several countries and regions.⁹⁶

The Coalition has the following main objectives at the global level:

• Facilitate exchange of information among its members.
• Encourage and support the replication of their experiences.
• Transform their experiences into knowledge.
• Establish a dialogue with public officials.
• Promote the analysis of legislation related to land and agriculture.
• Determine the causes that prevent access to land for peasants.
• Discover and broaden local initiatives and help national authorities to incorporate popular experiences into policy options.

The Coalition has fostered studies on a wide range of issues including land markets and institutional reforms, especially those aiming to enhance access to land by the poor. They have also fostered the development of methodologies for assessing agrarian reforms from pro-poor perspectives. In the Americas, the Land Coalition has developed an extensive portfolio of partnerships in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and several countries in the Caribbean. In these countries the Coalition supports the identification of financial mechanisms to facilitate land titling, the provision of services to beneficiaries of land reform subsequent to the acquisition of land, and the development of strategies to strengthen the capabilities for local legal administration.⁹⁷

Endnotes to International Initiatives

⁵⁸ Deininger (2003). See World Bank (1975). It gave overwhelming emphasis to issues of productivity and efficiency, to the detriment of equity considerations.

⁵⁹ This has also been the conclusion of a growing number of academic studies (Zoomers 2000; de Janvry, Platteau, Gordillo and Sadoulet, 2001).

⁶⁰ The analysis supporting land rental over land sales markets closely follows that of Sadoulet, Murgal and de Janvry (2001).

⁶¹ See Birdsall and Londoño (1997) and Deininger and Squire (1998) on how the concentration of assets in Latin America has retarded economic growth and exacerbated poverty.

⁶² Among the lessons that the PRR draws from past land reform efforts are the following: i) it should only follow interventions to eliminate other distortions that increase land values (such as macro instability, subsidies and lack of effective taxation); ii) the greatest social benefits will

be derived when the land to be redistributed is unproductive but of high agricultural potential; iii) the selection of beneficiaries should be done in a participatory, decentralized and transparent manner; and iv) the provision of access to non-land assets and working capital is crucial. On past reform efforts, see Thiesenhusen (1995; 1999) and de Janvry, Sadoulet and Wolford (2001).

⁶³ Twenty-eight loans in Latin America could be readily identified on the Bank’s website via a search of “land,” “land policy,” “land access” and “land administration.” The majority of these projects (18) focus on natural resource management and local rural or Indigenous development and may have land-access or administration components. These 18 loans totaled $888.9 million. See www4.worldbank.org/projects, accessed August 3, 2003; and www-wds.worldbank.org, accessed September 4, 2003. The composition of the Bank’s current land-related portfolio in Latin America was confirmed in a phone interview with Isabel Lavadenz, World Bank, September 2, 2003.

⁶⁴ Echeverría and Bello (2002, p. 7). The other three projects included one focused on agrarian reform settlements in Brazil, and two centered on sustainable development in frontier regions of Colombia and Guatemala. Eight countries received financing for land titling and administration projects: Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica and Peru.

⁶⁵ The justification for the IDB strategy is laid out in Jaramillo (1998) and Echeverría and Bello (2002).

⁶⁶ The Interagency Group for Rural Development in Latin America includes the World Bank, IDB, CEPAL, FAO, FIDA, IICA, GTZ, and USAID.

⁶⁷ Echeverría and Bello (2002, p. 12).

⁶⁸ Echeverría and Bello (2002, p. 8) and correspondence with Rubén Echeverria, Chief, Rural Development Unit, Sustainable Development Department, IDB, September 15, 2003. The new projects approved or pending are in Bolivia, Brazil, Panama, Paraguay and Venezuela.

⁶⁹ Correspondence with Rubén Echeverria, op. cit. Only seven of the projects have been evaluated, principally in terms of project performance. Given their complexity and political sensitivity only two of the seven were completed on schedule. It seems as if most of these projects did not include a viability assessment with respect to their efficacy in terms of directly improving the incomes and welfare of beneficiaries (Echeverría and Bellow 2002, p. 9). Jaramillo (1998, p. 94, 124) also stresses the need to evaluate these projects to assure that they are in fact benefiting the poor.

⁷⁰ The FAO research projects were carried out in the early 1990s in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico and were published as FAO working papers in 1994 and in Reydon and Ramos (1996).

⁷¹ See FAO (2002) for a list of its current projects.

⁷² IFAD (2001).

⁷³ IFAD (2002).

⁷⁴ The CEPAL-GTZ studies were carried out between 1998 and 2000 in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Paraguay, and Peru. They are summarized in Tyler (2000) and will be available in a forthcoming CEPAL collection edited by Pedro Tejo. Correspondence with Martine Dirven, ECLAC Agricultural Unit, August 22, 2003.

⁷⁵ USAID (2002). USAID funds and works extensively with ILD, in the Americas and beyond.

⁷⁶ de Soto (2003).

⁷⁷ USAID (2002, p. 3).

⁷⁸ USAID(2002, p. 6). For details see FUNDESA (2001).

⁷⁹ Background documents for the World Bank and USAID Consultative Meeting on Land Issues — April 24 to 26, 2001. See also www.usaid.gov/our_work/agriculture.landmanagement/.

⁸⁰ Statement by Jolyne Sanjak, Senior Advisor, Land Policy, USAID, at the Presentation of the World Bank Policy Research Report on Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction, Paris, June 19, 2003.

⁸¹ See http://www.ies.wisc.edu/ltc/ for more information on Phase 1, and http://www.basis.wisc.edu/for information on the current phase. See BASIS (2002) and “Phase II: Proposal” on-line.

⁸² In July 2003, the relevant European Union website, http:/europa.eu.int/comm/development, was searched thoroughly for information on land policies and programming in Latin America. Several requests for more information were also submitted to the European Commission.

⁸³ DFID (2002) and correspondence with Julian Quan, Land Policy Advisor, DFID Land Tenure Group, September 16, 2003. The learning initiative on land access and redistributive land reform, linking the Brazil country program with DFID-supported activities in South Africa and South Asia, is worth following in this regard. See http://www.dfid.gov.uk for more information on the Department’s priorities.

⁸⁴ GTZ (1998). See http://www.mekonginfo.org/mrc/html/tenure/te_inh.htm for more information.

⁸⁵ Strachan (2001) and Bergeron (February 2003). The table in Annex 1 of the second paper suggests that the results of CIDA-funded land projects in the Americas are mixed at best.

⁸⁶ See http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/682f5cd8c017661b8525677d0071179 or http://www2.worldbank.org/hm/hmlandpolicy/0087.html for more information.

⁸⁷ Phone interview with Harvey Sims, former Director, CIDA Policy Branch Research Division, on August 27, 2003.

⁸⁸ IDRC (2003). In addition to the present paper, IDRC commissioned a note on its own programming options in the Americas. For more information on IDRC land-related funding in the Americas, see http://www.idrc.ca/minga and http://www.idrc.ca/peace.

⁸⁹ Deere (2001d).

⁹⁰ CLOC (2001). Downloaded from http://www.movimientos.org/cloc/show on November 27, 2003.

⁹¹ CLOC (2003). Downloaded from http://www.movimientos.org/cloc/show on November 27, 2003.

⁹² Deere (2001d) and Desmarais (2003).

⁹³ Desmarais (2003).

⁹⁴ Correspondence with Rafael Alegría, International Director, Vía Campesina, November 10, 2003.

⁹⁵ Vía Campesina (2003).

⁹⁶ Analysis of documents and reports of the Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and Poverty, today called Land Coalition. Especially Coalition Popular (2001).

⁹⁷ Information obtained from http://www.landcoalition.org, accessed on November 27, 2003.

Document(s) 7 of 10