Land Reform in the Era of Global Warming—Can Land Reforms Help Agriculture Be Climate-Smart?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Can land reforms be considered a conducive environment to foster CSA adoption?
- (2)
- What are the main channels through which land reforms may affect CSA adoption and the realisation of land reformers’ objectives?
2. Overview of The Four Pillars Driving the CSLR Framework
3. Changes in the Tenure Structure: Land Redistribution and Tenure Reform
3.1. Pillar I: Land Redistribution
3.2. Pillar II: Tenure Reform
4. Support Services: Markets, Infrastructure, Rural Advisory Services
4.1. Pillar III: Markets and Infrastructure
4.2. Pillar IV: Rural Advisory Services
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook, 2nd ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/cite-report/ (accessed on 23 November 2020).
- FAO. Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Aggarwal, P.K.; Jarvis, A.; Campbell, B.M.; Zougmoré, R.B.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Sebastian, L.S.; Kinyangi, J.; Bonilla-Findji, O.; et al. The climate-smart village approach: Framework of an integrative strategy for scaling up adaptation options in agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sova, C.A.; Grosjean, G.; Baedeker, T.; Nguyen, T.N.; Wallner, M.; Nowak, A.; Corner-Dolloff, C.; Girvetz, E.; Laderach, P.; Lizarazo, M. Bringing the Concept of Climate-Smart Agriculture to Life: Insights from CSA Country Profiles Across Africa, Asia, and Latin America; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment Plan Bangladesh; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment Plan Côte d’Ivoire; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Abegunde, V.O.; Sibanda, M.; Obi, A. The Dynamics of Climate Change Adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of Climate-Smart Agriculture among Small-Scale Farmers. Climate 2019, 7, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Asfaw, S.; McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Arslan, A.; Cattaneo, A. What determines farmers’ adaptive capacity? Empirical evidence from Malawi. Food Secur. 2016, 8, 643–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kpadonou, R.A.B.; Owiyo, T.; Barbier, B.; Denton, F.; Rutabingwa, F.; Kiema, A. Advancing climate-smart-agriculture in developing drylands: Joint analysis of the adoption of multiple on-farm soil and water conservation technologies in West African Sahel. Land Use Policy 2017, 61, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Branca, G. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Smallholder Adoption and Implications for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Vecchio, Y.; Agnusdei, G.P.; Miglietta, P.P.; Capitanio, F. Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dunnett, A.; Shirsath, P.B.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Thornton, P.; Joshi, P.K.; Pal, B.D.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Ghosh, J. Multi-objective land use allocation modelling for prioritizing climate-smart agricultural interventions. Ecol. Model. 2018, 381, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, A. Land Reforms: Prospects and Strategies; MIT, Department of Economics: Cambridge, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Griffin, K.; Rahman Khan, A.; Ickowitz, A. Poverty and the Distribution of Land. J. Agrar. Chang. 2002, 2, 279–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipton, M. Land Reform in Developing Countries: Property Rights and Property Wrongs; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Binswanger-Mkhize, H.P.; Bourguignon, C.; Van den Brink, R. Agricultural Land Redistribution: Toward Greater Consensus; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- African Union; African Development Bank; United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa—Land Policy in Africa: A Framework to Strengthen Land Rights, Enhance Productivity, and Secure Livelihoods; AUC-ECA-AfDB: Adis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, S.I. Agrarian Structures and Agrarian Reform—Exercises in Development Theory and Policy; Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Raup, P.M. The Contribution of Land Reforms to Agricultural Development: An Analytical Framework. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 1963, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Progress in Land Reform, Third Report; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- Ciparisse, G. (Ed.) Multilingual Thesaurus on Land Tenure; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Land tenure and rural development. Land Tenure Stud. 2002, 3, 1–50. [Google Scholar]
- Ciamarra, U.P. State-led and market-assisted land reforms: History, theory, and insight from the Philippines. In Proceedings of the Leuven 8th Spring Meeting of Young Economists, Leuven, Belgium, 3–5 April 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Albertus, M. Autocracy and Redistribution; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Tuma, E.H. Twenty-Six Centuries of Agrarian Reform: A Comparative Analysis; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, M. Breaking Ground: Development Aid for Land Reform; Overseas Development Institute (ODI): London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K. Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Report of the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Stiglitz, J. Distribution, efficiency and voice: Designing the second generation of reforms. In Proceedings of the Conference on Asset Distribution, Poverty and Economic Growth, Brasilia, Brazil, 14 July 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Dixon-Gough, R.W.; Bloch, P.C. Role of the State and Individual in Sustainable Land Management; Ashgate Publishing Group: Aldershot, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kay, C. Latin America’s agrarian reform: Lights and shadows. Land ReformLand Settl. Coop. 1998, 2, 9–31. [Google Scholar]
- King, R. Land Reform: A World Survey; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Boyce, J.K.; Rosset, P.; Stanton, E.A. Land Reform and Sustainable Development. Political Econ. Res. Inst. Work. Pap. Ser. 2005, 98, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Colchester, M.; Lohmann, L. The Struggle for Land and the Fate of Forests; World Rainforest Movement: Penang, Malaysia, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Dorner, P. Latin American Land Reforms in Theory and Practice: A Retrospective Analysis; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobs, S. Agrarian reforms. Curr. Sociol. 2013, 61, 862–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabareen, Y. Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2009, 8, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, E.; Lilienthal, A.; Shluzas, L.A.; Masiello, I.; Zary, N. Design of Mobile Augmented Reality in Health Care Education: A Theory-Driven Framework. JMIR Med. Educ 2015, 1, e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eizenberg, E.; Jabareen, Y. Social Sustainability: A New Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nikolakis, W.; John, L.; Krishnan, H. How Blockchain Can Shape Sustainable Global Value Chains: An Evidence, Verifiability, and Enforceability (EVE) Framework. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kostoska, O.; Kocarev, L. A Novel ICT Framework for Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dlouhá, J.; Heras, R.; Mulà, I.; Salgado, F.P.; Henderson, L. Competences to Address SDGs in Higher Education—A Reflection on the Equilibrium between Systemic and Personal Approaches to Achieve Transformative Action. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Binswanger, H.P.; Deininger, K. South African land policy: The legacy of history and current options. World Dev. 1993, 21, 1451–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, I.; Enemark, S.; Wallace, J.; Rajabifard, A. Land Administration for Sustainable Development; Esri Press: Redlands, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Borras, S.M. Questioning Market-Led Agrarian Reform: Experiences from Brazil, Colombia and South Africa. J. Agrar. Chang. 2003, 3, 367–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deininger, K. Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Initial Experience from Colombia, Brazil and South Africa. World Dev. 1999, 27, 651–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, J.M.M.; Fajardo, D. The World Bank’s ‘Market Assisted Land Reform’ in Colombia and Brazil (1994–2002). Rev. Bras. De História 2015, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barraclough, S.L. Land Reform in Developing Countries: The Role of the State and Other Actors; United Nations Research Institute for Social Development: Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Aghion, P.; Caroli, E.; Garcia-Penalosa, C. Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories. J. Econ. Lit. 1999, 37, 1615–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deininger, K.; Squire, L. New ways of looking at old issues: Inequality and growth. J. Devel. Econ. 1998, 57, 259–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Brink, R.; Binswanger, H.; Bruce, J.W.; Thomas, G.; Byamugisha, F. Consensus, Confusion, and Controversy—Selected Land Reform Issues in Sub-Saharan Africa; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- IFPRI. Transforming the Rural Nonfarm Economy—Opportunities and Threats in the Developing World; Haggblade, S., Hazell, P.B., Reardon, T., Eds.; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Maxwell, D.; Wiebe, K.D. Land Tenure and Food Security: A Review of Concepts, Evidence, and Methods; Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison, WI, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Binswanger, H.P.; Deininger, K.; Feder, G. Power, distortions, revolt and reform in agricultural land relations. In Handbook of Development Economics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995; Volume 3, pp. 2659–2772. [Google Scholar]
- Sen, A. Development As Freedom; Alfred A. Knopf: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Dorward, A. Farm size and productivity in Malawian smallholder agriculture. J. Devel. Stud. 1999, 35, 141–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sender, J.; Johnston, D. Searching for a Weapon of Mass Production in Rural Africa: Unconvincing Arguments for Land Reform. J. Agrar. Chang. 2004, 4, 142–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cornia, G. Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: An analysis for fifteen developing countries. World Dev. 1985, 13, 513–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, R.A.; Cline, W.R. Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Developing Countries: A Study Prepared for the International Labour Office Within the Framework of the World Employment Programme; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Eastwood, R.; Lipton, M.; Newell, A. Farm Size. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics; Evenson, R., Pingali, P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 4, pp. 3323–3397. [Google Scholar]
- Carletto, C.; Savastano, S.; Zezza, A. Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size–productivity relationship. J. Devel. Econ. 2013, 103, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, M. Identification of the Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of Peasant Agricultural Production. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 1984, 36, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, A.; McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Asfaw, S.; Cattaneo, A. Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 187, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Asfaw, S.; Coromaldi, M.; Lipper, L. Adaptation to Climate Change and Food Security: Evidence from Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Asfaw, S.; Di Battista, F.; Lipper, L. Food Security Impact of Agricultural Technology Adoption under Climate Change: Micro-Evidence from Niger; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Di Falco, S.; Veronesi, M. How Can African Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change? A Counterfactual Analysis from Ethiopia. Land Econ. 2013, 89, 743–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassie, M.; Zikhali, P.; Pender, J.; Köhlin, G. The Economics of Sustainable Land Management Practices in the Ethiopian Highlands. J. Agric. Econ. 2010, 61, 605–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassie, M.; Jaleta, M.; Shiferaw, B.; Mmbando, F.; Mekuria, M. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80, 525–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teklewold, H.; Kassie, M.; Shiferaw, B. Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 64, 597–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teklewold, H.; Mekonnen, A.; Kohlin, G. Climate change adaptation: A study of multiple climate-smart practices in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, A.; Belotti, F.; Lipper, L. Smallholder productivity and weather shocks: Adoption and impact of widely promoted agricultural practices in Tanzania. Food Policy 2017, 69, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawin, K.G.; Tamini, L.D. Land Tenure Differences and Adoption of Agri-Environmental Practices: Evidence from Benin. J. Dev. Stud. 2018, 55, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyangena, W. Social determinants of soil and water conservation in rural Kenya. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2007, 10, 745–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pino, G.; Toma, P.; Rizzo, C.; Miglietta, P.P.; Peluso, A.M.; Guido, G. Determinants of Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Water Saving Measures: Evidence from Italy. Sustainability 2017, 9, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Makate, C.; Makate, M.; Mango, N.; Siziba, S. Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from Southern Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 858–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feder, G.; Just, R.E.; Zilberman, D. Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey. Econ. Devel. Cult. Chang. 1985, 33, 255–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdulai, A.; Owusu, V.; Goetz, R. Land tenure differences and investment in land improvement measures: Theoretical and empirical analyses. J. Devel. Econ. 2011, 96, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, R.M.; Nhemachena, C. Determinants of African farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change: Multinomial choice analysis. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 2, 83–104. [Google Scholar]
- Pender, J.; Gebremedhin, B. Determinants of Agricultural and Land Management Practices and Impacts on Crop Production and Household Income in the Highlands of Tigray, Ethiopia. J. Afr. Econ. 2007, 17, 395–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, A.; McCarthy, N.; Lipper, L.; Asfaw, S.; Cattaneo, A.; Kokwe, M. Food Security and Adaptation Impacts of Potential Climate Smart Agricultural Practices in Zambia; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Baron, J.B. Rescuing the bundle-of-rights metaphor in property law. Univ. Cincinnati Law Rev. 2013, 82, 57–102. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, D.R. Reflections on the Bundle of Rights. Vt. Law Rev. 2007, 32, 247–272. [Google Scholar]
- Rights and Resources Initiative. What Rights? A Comparative Analysis of Developing Countries’ National Legislation on Community and Indigenous Peoples’ Forest Tenure Rights; Rights and Resources Initiative: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Brasselle, A.-S.; Gaspart, F.; Platteau, J.-P. Land tenure security and investment incentives: Puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso. J. Devel. Econ. 2002, 67, 373–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, S.; Otsuka, K.; Deininger, K. Land Tenure Reform in Asia and Africa: Assessing Impacts on Poverty and Natural Resource Management; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kasimbazi, E. Land Tenure and Rights for Improved Land Management and Sustainable Development; UNCCD: Bonn, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Alden Wily, L. Collective Land Ownership in the 21st Century: Overview of Global Trends. Land 2018, 7, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Janvry, A. The agrarian question and reformism in Latin America; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K.; Feder, G. Land Registration, Governance, and Development: Evidence and Implications for Policy. World Bank Res. Obs. 2009, 24, 233–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Janvry, A.; Key, N.D.; Sadoulet, E. Agricultural and Rural Development Policy in Latin America: New Directions and New Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1997; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Platteau, J.P. The evolutionary theory of land rights as applied to sub-Saharan Africa: A critical assessment. Devel. Chang. 1996, 27, 29–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besley, T. Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana. J. Polit. Econ. 1995, 103, 903–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McCarthy, N.; Brubaker, J. Climate-Smart Agriculture and Resource Tenure in SubSaharan Africa: A Conceptual Framework; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Byamugisha, F.F. The Effects of Land Registration on Financial Development and Economic Growth: A Theoretical and Conceptual Framework; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- De Soto, H. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, D.; Balint, T.; Liversage, H.; Winters, P. Investigating the impacts of increased rural land tenure security: A systematic review of the evidence. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 61, 34–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawry, S.; Samii, C.; Hall, R.; Leopold, A.; Hornby, D.; Mtero, F. The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: A systematic review. J. Dev. Eff. 2017, 9, 61–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meinzen-Dick, R.; Mwangi, E. Cutting the web of interests: Pitfalls of formalizing property rights. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binswanger, H.P.; Rosenzweig, M.R. Behavioural and material determinants of production relations in agriculture. J. Dev. Stud. 1986, 22, 503–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domeher, D.; Yeboah, E.; Ellis, F. Formal property titles or more? Perspectives from Ghana‘s financial institutions. Afr. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2018, 10, 243–273. [Google Scholar]
- Dekker, H. In Pursuit of Land Tenure Security—Essays on Land Reform and Land Tenure; Pallas Publications: Amsterdam, The Ntherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Thiesenhusen, W.C. Implications of the Rural Land Tenure System for the Environmental Debate: Three Scenarios. J. Dev. Areas 1991, 26, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Besley, T.; Ghatak, M. Property Rights and Economic Development. In Handbook of Development Economics; Rodrik, D., Rosenzweig, M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 5, pp. 4525–4595. [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K.; Castagnini, R. Incidence and impact of land conflict in Uganda. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2006, 60, 321–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- FAO. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Quan, J.; Dyer, N. Climate Change and Land Tenure: The Implications of Climate Change for Land Tenure and Land Policy; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- De Maria, M. Understanding Land in the Context of Large-Scale Land Acquisitions: A Brief History of Land in Economics. Land 2019, 8, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deere, C.D. Women’s land rights, rural social movements, and the state in the 21st-century Latin American agrarian reforms. J. Agrar. Chang. 2017, 17, 258–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meinzen-Dick, R.; Quisumbing, A.; Doss, C.; Theis, S. Women‘s land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: Framework and review of available evidence. Agric. Syst. 2019, 172, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quan, J. Land Access in the 21st Century: Issues, Trends, Linkages and Policy Options; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank; FAO; IFAD. Gender in Climate-Smart Agriculture—Module 18 for the Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA; FAO: Rome, Italy; IFAD: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Gender and Land Rights Database. Available online: http://www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database/country-profiles/countries-list/en/ (accessed on 1 April 2020).
- United Nations. Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Developing Gender-Equitable Legal Frameworks for Land Tenure—A Legal Assessment Tool; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Global Land Tool Network; UN Habitat. Gendering Land Tools—Achieving Secure Tenure for Women and Men; Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) and United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Global Land Tool Network; UN Habitat. Global Land Tool Network Gender Strategy (2019–2030)—Towards Securing Women’s and Girls’ Land and Property Rights; Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) and United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Using CEDAW to Secure Women’s Land and Property Rights: A Practical Guide; GI-ESCR: Duluth, MN, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Akrofi-Atitianti, F.; Ifejika Speranza, C.; Bockel, L.; Asare, R. Assessing Climate Smart Agriculture and Its Determinants of Practice in Ghana: A Case of the Cocoa Production System. Land 2018, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manda, J.; Alene, A.D.; Gardebroek, C.; Kassie, M.; Tembo, G. Adoption and Impacts of Sustainable Agricultural Practices on Maize Yields and Incomes: Evidence from Rural Zambia. J. Agric. Econ. 2016, 67, 130–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenske, J. Land tenure and investment incentives: Evidence from West Africa. J. Devel. Econ. 2011, 95, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christoplos, I. Mobilizing the Potential of Rural and Agricultural Extension; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Poulton, C.; Dorward, A.; Kydd, J. The Future of Small Farms: New Directions for Services, Institutions, and Intermediation. World Dev. 2010, 38, 1413–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IFAD; WFP. Potential for Scale and Sustainability in Weather Index Insurance for Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods; WFP: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Putzel, J. Land Reforms in Asia: Lessons from the Past for the 21st Century; LSE Development Studies Institute: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- De Janvry, A.; Sadoulet, E. A study in resistance to institutional change: The lost game of Latin American land reform. World Dev. 1989, 17, 1397–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdulai, A.; Huffman, W. The Adoption and Impact of Soil and Water Conservation Technology: An Endogenous Switching Regression Application. Land Econ. 2014, 90, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Dang, H.; Li, E.; Nuberg, I.; Bruwer, J. Factors influencing the adaptation of farmers in response to climate change: A review. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mwungu, C.M.; Mwongera, C.; Shikuku, K.M.; Acosta, M.; Läderach, P. Determinants of Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture Technologies at Farm Plot Level: An Assessment from Southern Tanzania. In Handbook of Climate Change Resilience; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porrini, D.; Fusco, G.; Miglietta, P.P. Post-Adversities Recovery and Profitability: The Case of Italian Farmers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amare, M.; Asfaw, S.; Shiferaw, B. Welfare impacts of maize-pigeonpea intensification in Tanzania. Agric. Econ. 2012, 43, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Climate Smart Agriculture: Building Resilience to Climate Change; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Murage, A.W.; Midega, C.A.O.; Pittchar, J.O.; Pickett, J.A.; Khan, Z.R. Determinants of adoption of climate-smart push-pull technology for enhanced food security through integrated pest management in eastern Africa. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 709–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, J. The Effectiveness and Sustainability of the Input Supplier Model.; IDS: Brighton, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Lipton, M. Land reform as commenced business: The evidence against stopping. World Dev. 1993, 21, 641–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for Development; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, A.; Erenstein, O. Assessing farmer use of climate change adaptation practices and impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, E.; Ringler, C.; Okoba, B.; Roncoli, C.; Silvestri, S.; Herrero, M. Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and determinants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birner, R.; Davis, K.; Pender, J.; Nkonya, E.; Anandajayasekeram, P.; Ekboir, J.; Mbabu, A.; Spielman, D.J.; Horna, D.; Benin, S.; et al. From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2009, 15, 341–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, J.R. Agricultural Advisory Services; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.R.; Feder, G.; Ganguly, S. The Rise and Fall of Training and Visit Extension: An. Asian Mini-drama with an African Epilogue; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- FAO; World Bank. Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural Development (AKIS/RD). Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Rivera, W.M.; Alex, G.; Hanson, J.; Birner, R. Enabling agriculture: The evolution and promise of agricultural knowledge framework. In Proceedings of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, 19–22 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Agricultural Innovation Systems: An. Investment Sourcebook; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Alex, G.; Zijp, W.; Byerlee, D. Rural Extension and Advisory Services–New Directions; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank; IFPRI. Gender and Governance in Rural Services: Insights from India, Ghana, and Ethiopia; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, J.R.; Feder, G. Rural Extension Services; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Clarkson, G.; Dorward, P.; Osbahr, H.; Torgbor, F.; Kankam-Boadu, I. An investigation of the effects of PICSA on smallholder farmers’ decisionmaking and livelihoods when implemented at large scale—The case of Northern Ghana. Clim. Serv. 2019, 14, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gido, E.O.; Sibiko, K.W.; Ayuya, O.I.; Mwangi, J.K. Demand for Agricultural Extension Services Among Small-Scale Maize Farmers: Micro-Level Evidence from Kenya. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2015, 21, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swanson, B.E. Global Review of Good Agricultural Extension and Advisory Service Practices; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Swanson, B.E.; Samy, M.M. Introduction to Decentralization of Agricultural Extension Systems: Key Elements for Success. In Decentralized Systems: Case Studies of International Initiatives., Rivera, W., Alex, G., Eds.; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Volume 1, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Climate-Smart Agriculture Training Manual—A Reference Manual for Agricultural Extension Agents; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Upscaling Climate Smart Agriculture—Lessons for Extension and Advisory Services; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- FAO; Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries. Climate-Smart Agriculture Training Manual for Agricultural Extension Agents in Kenya; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ngara, T. Climate-Smart Agriculture Manual for Agriculture Education in Zimbabwe; Ngara, T., Ed.; Climate Technology Centre & Network: Copenhagen, Demark, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sala, S.; Rossi, F.; David, S. (Eds.) Supporting Agricultural Extension Towards Climate-Smart Agriculture. An Overview of Existing Tools; Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA): Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Sulaiman, R.V. Enabling Advisory Services for Climate-Smart Agriculture. Key Elements to Foster Farmers’ Adoption of CSA Practices; Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA): Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Asfaw, S.; Shiferaw, B.; Simtowe, F.; Lipper, L. Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia. Food Policy 2012, 37, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khonje, M.; Manda, J.; Alene, A.D.; Kassie, M. Analysis of Adoption and Impacts of Improved Maize Varieties in Eastern Zambia. World Dev. 2015, 66, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makate, C.; Makate, M.; Mutenje, M.; Mango, N.; Siziba, S. Synergistic impacts of agricultural credit and extension on adoption of climate-smart agricultural technologies in southern Africa. Environ. Dev. 2019, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beyene, A.D.; Mekonnen, A.; Kassie, M.; Di Falco, S.; Bezabih, M. Determinants of Adoption and Impacts of Sustainable Land Management and Climate Smart Agricultural Practices (SLM-CSA): Panel Data Evidence from the Ethiopian Highlands. Environ. Dev. Initiat. Discuss. Pap. Ser. 2017, 10, 1–30. [Google Scholar]
- Dorward, P.; Clarkson, G.; Stern, R. Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA): Field Manual; Walker Institute, University of Reading: Reading, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mulwa, C.; Marenya, P.; Rahut, D.B.; Kassie, M. Response to climate risks among smallholder farmers in Malawi: A multivariate probit assessment of the role of information, household demographics, and farm characteristics. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toma, P.; Miglietta, P.P.; Zurlini, G.; Valente, D.; Petrosillo, I. A non-parametric bootstrap-data envelopment analysis approach for environmental policy planning and management of agricultural efficiency in EU countries. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Climate-Smart Agriculture and the Sustainable Development Goals: Mapping Interlinkages, Synergies and Trade-Offs and Guidelines for Integrated Implementation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
1 | Land policy refers to “the set of intentions embodied in various policy instruments that are adopted by the state to organise land tenure and land use” [24] (p. 69). |
2 | In addition to country contexts, evolutions in external pressure trends have also played a role in influencing the types or forms of land reforms in different countries. Examples of these pressures are the Alliance for Progress (AfP) set by the United States (US) Government in 1961 or the World Bank’s influential role in prioritising land titling programmes in numerous developing countries in the last decades of the twentieth century and in supporting market-led land reforms. |
3 | For a detailed explanation of the conceptual framework analysis, including a description of the different phases composing the methodology see [40] (pp. 53–54). |
4 | Such reforms consist essentially in transforming farm operation in farm ownership. Typical examples of successful land to the tiller types of reform are those that occurred after the end of the Second World War in Eastern Asia (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea). |
5 | |
6 | “Best-guess generalizations [of the multiplier effects stemming from agricultural to rural non-farm income] probably lie in the range of 1.6 to 1.8 in Asia and 1.3 to 1.5 in Africa and Latin America” [55] (p. 167). Moreover, “indirect income gains at the national level exceed those for rural regions by 50 to 150 percent, increasing indirect income gains [above those generated in the rural non-farm economy] by 30 to 90 cents for each initial dollar of agricultural income growth” [55] (p. 159). |
7 | A caveat here is that the agricultural productivity gains derived from land redistribution may not necessarily be sustainable. This factor provides an additional justification for the inclusion of the adoption of CSA practices within this framework as a means to attain the objective of sustainable increases in agricultural productivity. |
8 | [61], for instance, finds an IR for 12 of the 15 countries studied and indicates that the results from the three countries for which no statistically significant relationship was found (Peru, Bangladesh and Thailand) were “probably due to the limited number of observations […] scanty information […and] limited farm differentiation” [61] (p. 524). |
9 | The propensity of the farmer to adopt particular CSA practice(s) will of course also be dependent upon the farmer’s information and knowledge of the CSA practice(s). Moreover, beyond the farmer’s intention to adopt particular CSA practice(s), there may exist barriers that limit the possibility for the farmer’s intention to translate into actual implementation (e.g. lack of tenure security, poor access to markets, infrastructure and rural advisory services). These aspects further substantiate this paper’s thesis that land reforms which combine interventions on the various CSLR pillars can substantially enhance the likelihood of CSA adoption. |
10 | It should be noted here, however, that the empirical evidence in this regard is not conclusive. There exist studies that have found a positive relationship between farm size and CSA adoption [11,12,78]. Inconclusive results on the relationship between farm size and agricultural technology adoption have also been highlighted in earlier studies [79]. However, in our view, this is likely to be due to the fact that most studies of adoption of practices with climate-smart potential focus on smallholder farmers only and to the large variation in the specific agricultural practices analysed. This is confirmed by studies that have analysed multiple practices with climate-smart potential and found positive effects of land size on adoption of certain practices and negative effects on adoption of other ones [74,80,81,82]. Interestingly, studies investigating the effect of CSA adoption on productivity have also confirmed the presence of the IR between farm size and land productivity [11,68,74,83]. |
11 | Sustainable increases in agricultural productivity, for instance, would translate in agricultural output growth and in economic growth. |
12 | The second is described at the end of Section 4 below. |
13 | |
14 | |
15 | It often occurs that several tenure types are present within the same country. |
16 | [87] (p. 374) renames this effect the “realizability effect”. |
17 | A comprehensive definition of RAS is provided by [125] (p. 3): “systems that should facilitate the access of farmers, their organizations and other market actors to knowledge, information and technologies; facilitate their interaction with partners in research, education, agri-business, and other relevant institutions; and assist them to develop their own technical, organizational and management skills and practices.” |
18 | The historical vote that took place in October 2020 in Chile, where an overwhelming majority (78 percent) of voters expressed their will to have the 1980 (Pinochet-Era) constitution re-written, is an indication that the conservative interests perpetuating inequality in the country are likely to be overhauled by a new democratic movement ignited by the quest for social rights and equality. Beyond pressing rights such as housing, healthcare, and education, alternative rights to water, to land and enhanced environmental rights compared to those present in the 1980 constitution (and subsequent revisions) may well feature among the key themes that the Chileans elected to form the constitutional convention will be tasked to include in the new constitution. |
19 | The same caveat reported in Section 2 (Pillar I Land Redistribution) above applies here: the agricultural productivity gains derived from MaI and RAS interventions that are not determined by CSA adoption may or may not be sustainable. |
20 | It should be noted, in passing, that although this overview of the evolution of advisory services describes a close to linear process, whereby models such as the ToT or T&V appear as obsolete and no longer present, in practice advisory service providers continue to perpetuate traditional methods in several rural areas of lower-income countries (see, for instance, [149,150]). |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rampa, A.; Gadanakis, Y.; Rose, G. Land Reform in the Era of Global Warming—Can Land Reforms Help Agriculture Be Climate-Smart? Land 2020, 9, 471. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120471
Rampa A, Gadanakis Y, Rose G. Land Reform in the Era of Global Warming—Can Land Reforms Help Agriculture Be Climate-Smart? Land. 2020; 9(12):471. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120471
Chicago/Turabian StyleRampa, Alexis, Yiorgos Gadanakis, and Gillian Rose. 2020. "Land Reform in the Era of Global Warming—Can Land Reforms Help Agriculture Be Climate-Smart?" Land 9, no. 12: 471. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120471