DOCSLIB.ORG

Privatization of Land Rights and Access to Factor Markets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Privatization of Land Rights and Access to Factor Markets EGM/BPFA–MDG/2009/EP.1 4 November 2009 ENGLISH only United Nations Nations Unies United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United Nations Development Programme Expert Group Meeting on “The impact of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals” United Nations Office at Geneva 11-13 November 2009 Women’s Role in Agriculture and in Rural Welfare: Access to Land and Resources Expert paper prepared by: Susana Lastarria-Cornhiel * Department of Urban and Regional Planning Land Tenure Center University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin (USA) Division for the Advancement of Women Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations, New York Fax: (212) 963-3463 [email protected] http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw * The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations. EGM/BPFA–MDG/2009/EP.1 4 November 2009 ENGLISH only 1. INTRODUCTION One of the major globalization trends with regard to rural land is the privatization of property rights. International donor agencies and governments have modified their objective of promoting equitable access to land to that of privatizing property rights, rationalizing that private ownership of agricultural land facilitates access to factor markets thus increasing agricultural production. Improved agricultural production, it is reasoned, will eventually result in the efficient allocation of landed resources among producers, including smallholders. Land redistribution programmes are now called market-assisted land reform. This privatization trend is also reflected in the numerous projects and programmes to title and register land rights and to create or activate land markets. Titling and registration programmes are often accompanied by legislation that regularizes private land rights and/or extends individual private property rights for previously public, state, or customary land. This paper will focus on the impact these trends have had on women’s land rights and tenure security, and their ability to produce. Has privatization, through either tenure reform or titling, protected or enhanced women’s rights to land? If privatized land rights increase access to factor markets such as credit for smallholders, have women also been able to access these markets? An examination of the privatization process in a number of regions reveals that where previously different rights to land were distributed among different groups and individuals, privatization tends to concentrate most of these land rights in the hands of a minority. Because of economic and cultural factors and the influence of powerholders, this minority tends to exclude women. This paper will first explain briefly why gendered relations around property rights are an important development and welfare issue. Then it will explore what has happened to women’s rights under agrarian reforms, titling and registration programmes, and land privatization programmes in general. The paper will then briefly describe how women have attempted to respond to threats on their rights. The final section will explore the relation between property rights and access to factor markets, a crucial relation in agricultural production for the market. 2. WHY GENDER? EQUITY, EFFICIENCY AND WELFARE ISSUES Systematic differences in land tenure rights between men and women contribute to structural inequality and to poverty for women. Access to land and control over its use are the basis for food and income production in rural areas, and, more broadly, for household wellbeing. Access to other productive resources such as water, irrigation systems, and forest products is tied to land tenure as well (Meizen-Dick et al. 1997). Women who become heads of household are particularly vulnerable: when their access to land is through their husbands and fathers, they often lose their property rights as a consequence of widowhood, divorce, or desertion. Differences in property rights of women and men, and lack of direct access to and control of land, may place constraints on women’s productive roles and diminish their power and influence in the household and the community. In many societies, property rights reflect, if not determine, a person’s citizenship status or degree of inclusion in the group. In Mexico’s ejidos, for Page 2 EGM/BPFA–MDG/2009/EP.1 4 November 2009 ENGLISH only example, only persons who have ejidal rights to land are considered ejido members with the right to vote on community issues. Often, denial of property rights is used as an exclusionary mechanism for certain ethnic or racial minority groups. When women are denied equal property rights, they also experience reduced social, economic, and often political status. Women provide a large proportion of the labor that goes into agricultural production, even though official statistics based on census and survey instruments that underestimate women’s work indicate otherwise.1 More importantly, the trend is for women to become increasingly involved in agricultural production. One trend is that more rural women are working off the farm as agri-business enterprises contract them both as field workers and processors (Lastarria- Cornhiel 2006). Another trend is that women assume responsibility of the family farm when men take on wage work. Economic production theory would indicate that if smallholder women are to produce efficiently, they should have control over the resources they need to produce not only for themselves and their families but for local and regional markets as well. Women in most regions tend to be ultimately responsible for children and other dependents, whether there is a male reference person present in the household or not. Female-headed households, both de jure and de facto, are on the increase2 because of migration and male parental abandonment. But even when a male spouse is present, in some societies the norm is that women feed and clothe their children. Women’s increasing responsibility in reproducing and maintaining the family has increased over the last decades for a number of reasons: • people are simply more mobile, and when men migrate away from their families women are often left with sole responsibility for their families; • societies and resource-poor households become more economically vulnerable to global market forces as traditional foods become less economical to produce, rural incomes decline, commercial agriculture becomes more input intensive, and productive resources are dominated by agri-business; • local and regional crises such as civil war and AIDS affect men and women, but it is the women who are often left to care for orphaned dependents. Food security and family wellbeing are thus important reasons for protecting or enhancing women’s rights to land. Studies have shown that resources controlled by women are more likely to be used to improve family food consumption and welfare, reducing child malnutrition and increasing overall wellbeing.3 1 Women have always worked in the production of food and other products in rural areas. Official statistics, both governmental and international, reflect the fact that how agricultural work is officially defined and recorded tends to exclude women’s agricultural activities, in spite of efforts to improve gender-differentiated data in agricultural census and household surveys (see, for example, FAO 1993). 2 The feminization of agriculture and rural areas is demonstrated in the increasing number of rural households in which a woman is the head or the reference person. Regional statistics show that in Southern Africa such households represent 42 percent of the total and in the Caribbean they represent 35 percent (United Nations 2000: pp 42, 46-50). 3 Some of these include Blumberg 1991, Von Braun et al 1994, Hirschmann 1984. Page 3 EGM/BPFA–MDG/2009/EP.1 4 November 2009 ENGLISH only Along with the fact that women increasingly participate in agricultural production and assume more responsibility for families, rural societies are changing; social norms, values, and practices are being modified. The traditional safeguards—or safety nets—that customary systems offered women are being disregarded, often leaving women vulnerable with regard to access to resources. When a customary tenure system is able to ensure that households in the community have sufficient resources to provide for its subsistence needs, lower status persons such as women are also assured the means to provide for themselves and their families—though their access to land and land-based resources is indirect and often dependent on a male relative (Guyer 1987). The reality today, however, is that many of these customary tenure systems are no longer capable of assuring households (and the women of these households) access to sufficient land. A number of factors, including a growing market economy, increasing poverty, and commercial agriculture convert land into an asset resulting in land scarcity and in rights to land becoming more individualized. Since women often do not have direct control over resources, they tend to lose their indirect rights when societal changes occur because those who have traditionally controlled resources are able to increase their own rights, often at the expense of those with secondary rights. In part this occurs because of market forces, but also because of social and economic upheaval. As land becomes a marketable asset, family and community members, who in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents 1.0
    Land Rights Policy Approved by the Land Commission, Republic of Liberia on May 21, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 3 2.0. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3 3.0. BACKGROUND: THE NEED FOR A LAND RIGHTS POLICY ............................................ 5 4.0. LAND RIGHTS PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................................... 6 5.0. GOVERNMENT LAND AND PUBLIC LAND ........................................................................... 7 5.1. Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 7 5.2. Transfers ...................................................................................................................................... 9 5.3. Government Acquisition........................................................................................................... 11 5.4. Failure to Pay Applicable Land Taxes .................................................................................... 11 6.0. CUSTOMARY LAND .................................................................................................................. 15 6.1. Principles ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Makers Guide to Women's Land, Property and Housing Rights Across the World
    POLICY MAKERS GUIDE TO WOMEN’S LAND, PROPERTY AND HOUSING RIGHTS ACROSS THE WORLD UN-HABITAT March 2007 POLICY MAKERS GUIDE TO WOMEN’S LAND, PROPERTY AND HOUSING RIGHTS ACROSS THE WORLD 1 Copyright (C) United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 2006 All Rights reserved United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 7621 234 Fax: +254 20 7624 266 Web: www.unhabitat.org Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, or its Member States. Acknowledgements: This guide is written by M. Siraj Sait, Legal Officer, Land, Tenure and Property Administration Section, Shelter Branch, UN-HABITAT and is edited by Clarissa Augustinus, Chief, Land, Tenure and Property Administration Section, Shelter Branch. A fuller list of credits appears as an appendix to this report. The research was made possible through support from the Governments of Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. Further Information: Clarissa Augustinus, Chief Land, Tenure and Property Administration Section, Shelter Branch, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) P.O. Box 30030 Nairobi 00100, Kenya E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.unhabitat.org 2 POLICY MAKERS GUIDE TO WOMEN’S LAND, PROPERTY AND HOUSING RIGHTS ACROSS THE WORLD TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 'Viability' in Redistributive Land Reform: Perspectives from Southern Africa
    Contested paradigms of ‘viability’ in redistributive land reform: perspectives from southern Africa Working Paper 15 Contested paradigms of ‘viability’ in redistributive land reform: perspectives from southern Africa Working paper for Livelihoods after Land Reform Project Ben Cousins1 and Ian Scoones2 June 2009 1 Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape. 2 Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. PLAAS Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies 1 Contested paradigms of ‘viability’ in redistributive land reform: perspectives from southern Africa Contents Introduction 3 Modernisation and agricultural development in southern Africa: past and present 5 Framing viability: frameworks for assessing land and agrarian reform 9 Viability in redistributive land reform in southern Africa 21 Rethinking viability in southern African land reform 31 Conclusion 34 References 35 2 Contested paradigms of ‘viability’ in redistributive land reform: perspectives from southern Africa Introduction ‘Viability’ is a key term in debates about land reform in southern African and beyond, and is used in relation to both individual projects and programmes. ‘Viability’ connotes ‘success- ful’ and ‘sustainable’ - but what is meant by viability in relation to land reform, and how have particular conceptions of viability informed state policies and planning approaches? More broadly, how have different notions of viability influenced the politics of land in re- cent years? This paper interrogates this influential but under-examined notion, reflecting on debates about the viability of land reform – and in particular about the relevance of small- scale, farming-based livelihoods – in southern Africa and more broadly3. These questions are not merely of academic interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalist Dynamics from Above and Below in China
    Forthcoming July 2015 with the special issue "AGRARIAN CHANGE IN CONTEMPORARY CHINA" of Journal of Agrarian Change Agrarian Capitalization without Capitalism?: Capitalist Dynamics from Above and Below in China Hairong Yan and Yiyuan Chen Abstract: Cooperatives, family farms, and dragon-head enterprises are emerging as new subjects of agriculture in China and are being promoted by the Chinese government as engines of agricultural development. The current dynamics of increasing capitalization of agriculture in China has been characterized by scholar Philip Huang as ‘capitalization without proletarianization’. Through case studies, we examine the dynamics of accumulation in Chinese agriculture, as well as the government's agriculture policy shift. We argue that capitalist dynamics exist in Chinese agricultural production and they come from above and below. We also argue that Chinese government’s policy shift toward de-peasantization began in the early years of the rural reform. Keywords: capital accumulation, agrarian capitalism, agrarian populism, Chayanov, China INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND DEBATES Thirty some years of market reform has significantly transformed China’s agrarian society and agricultural production. The official political discourse in China disavows Chinese capitalism in general. The Chinese government avows upholding socialism and making markets play ‘a decisive role’ at the same breath (China Daily 2013). It is reported that the private sector already employs 85 per cent of the national labour force, owns 60 per cent of the enterprise capital (Lu 2013) and produced more than 60 per cent GDP in 2013 (Xinhuawang 2014). Reform is underway to open the remaining public sector for private investors. With regard to agricultural sector, the latest national policy asserts ‘socialist market economy’, but strengthens a market-determined pricing system and promotes new subjects (agents) of agriculture that include agribusiness, cooperatives and family farms.
    [Show full text]
  • Back to the Basics: Lessons from U.S. Property Law for Land Reform
    Denver Law Review Volume 95 Issue 1 Article 9 November 2020 Back to the Basics: Lessons from U.S. Property Law for Land Reform Shelley Cavalieri Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Shelley Cavalieri, Back to the Basics: Lessons from U.S. Property Law for Land Reform, 95 Denv. L. Rev. 73 (2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. BACK TO THE BASICS: LESSONS FROM U.S. PROPERTY LAW FOR LAND REFORM SHELLEY CAVALIERIt ABSTRACT Redistributive land reform programs are a central development ap- proach in nations of the global south. For proponents of land reform, land redistribution is an obvious strategy, designed to reduce hunger and pov- erty, to bolster citizens' ability to support themselves and their families, and to shape the future of burgeoning democracies worldwide. But for land reform skeptics and opponents, land reform is something of a puz- zle. While states routinely redistribute money, the choice to distribute land seems somewhat peculiar. On its face, it is not obvious why land is worthy of a separate, strange approach, when this is not how nations con- sider the allocation of many other crucial non-monetary resources. To invest money in reducing the concentration of land by purchasing from some in order to give or sell land to others seems far more complex than simply redistributing financial resources.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Viability' in Redistributive Land Reform : Perspectives from Southern Africa
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by IDS OpenDocs Contested paradigms of ‘viability’ in redistributive land reform: perspectives from southern Africa Working Paper 15 Contested paradigms of ‘viability’ in redistributive land reform: perspectives from southern Africa Working paper for Livelihoods after Land Reform Project Ben Cousins1 and Ian Scoones2 June 2009 1 Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape. 2 Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. PLAAS Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies 1 Contested paradigms of ‘viability’ in redistributive land reform: perspectives from southern Africa Contents Introduction 3 Modernisation and agricultural development in southern Africa: past and present 5 Framing viability: frameworks for assessing land and agrarian reform 9 Viability in redistributive land reform in southern Africa 21 Rethinking viability in southern African land reform 31 Conclusion 34 References 35 2 Contested paradigms of ‘viability’ in redistributive land reform: perspectives from southern Africa Introduction ‘Viability’ is a key term in debates about land reform in southern African and beyond, and is used in relation to both individual projects and programmes. ‘Viability’ connotes ‘success- ful’ and ‘sustainable’ - but what is meant by viability in relation to land reform, and how have particular conceptions of viability informed state policies and planning approaches? More broadly, how have different notions of viability influenced the politics of land in re- cent years? This paper interrogates this influential but under-examined notion, reflecting on debates about the viability of land reform – and in particular about the relevance of small- scale, farming-based livelihoods – in southern Africa and more broadly3.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Customary Land Tenure & Agroforestry Management In
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Papers in Economics EPTD DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 31 DOES LAND TENURE INSECURITY DISCOURAGE TREE PLANTING? EVOLUTION OF CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE AND AGROFORESTRY MANAGEMENT IN SUMATRA Keijiro Otsuka, S. Suyanto, and Thomas P. Tomich Environment and Production Technology Division International Food Policy Research Institute 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-3006 U.S.A. December 1997 EPTD Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results, and are circulated prior to a full peer review in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment. It is expected that most Discussion Papers will eventually be published in some other form, and that their content may also be revised. ABSTRACT It is widely believed that land tenure insecurity under a customary tenure system leads to socially inefficient resource allocation. This article demonstrates that land tenure insecurity promotes tree planting, which is inefficient from the private point of view but could be relatively efficient from the viewpoint of the global environment. Regression analysis, based on primary data collected in Sumatra, indicates that tenure insecurity in fact leads to early tree planting. It is also found that customary land tenure institutions have been evolving towards greater tenure security responding to increasing scarcity of land. CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction........................................1 2. A Model of Tree Planting.................................4
    [Show full text]
  • The Metamorphosis of Aboriginal Title
    THE METAMORPHOSIS OF ABORIGINAL TITLE Brian Slattery* Aboriginal title has undergone a significant transformation from the colonial era to the present day. In colonial times, aboriginal title was governed by Principles of Recognition based on ancient relations between the Crown and Indigenous American peoples. With the passage of time, this historical right has evolved into a generative right, governed by Principles of Reconciliation. As a generative right, aboriginal title exists in a dynamic but latent form, which is capable of partial articulation by the courts but whose full implementation requires agreement between the Indigenous party and the Crown. The courts have the power to recognize the core elements of a generative right — sufficient to provide the foundation for negotiations and to ensure that the Indigenous party enjoys a significant portion of its rights pending final agreement. However, the courts are not in a position to give a detailed and exhaustive account of a generative right in all its facets. This result can be achieved only by negotiations between the parties. Le titre autochtone a considérablement évolué depuis l’époque coloniale. À cette époque, le titre autochtone était régi par les principes de reconnaissance de la common law sur la base des anciennes relations entre la Couronne et les peuples autochtones américains. Au fil des ans, ce droit historique est devenu un droit héréditaire régi par les principes de réconciliation. En tant que droit héréditaire, le titre autochtone existe sous une forme dynamique mais latente, que les tribunaux peuvent formuler partiellement, mais dont la définition valide doit faire l’objet d’une entente entre la partie autochtone et la Couronne.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Lands Conservation in Papua New Guinea
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 Private Lands Conservation in Papua New Guinea Sonja Klopf University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Estates and Trusts Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Citation Information Sonja Klopf, Private Lands Conservation in Papua New Guinea (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). SONJA KLOPF, PRIVATE LANDS CONSERVATION IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Private Lands Conservation in Papua New Guinea A Report by the Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law September 2004 Primary Author: Sonja Klopf, NRLC Research Assistant E-mail: [email protected] 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Brief Questions ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Aboriginal Title
    The Nature of Aboriginal Title BRIAN SLATTERY Introduction The concept of aboriginal title is an autonomous concept of Canadian common law that bridges the gulf between aboriginal land systems and imported European land systems.1 It does not stem from aboriginal customary law, English common law or French civil law. It coordinates the interaction between these systems, without forming part of them.2 Aboriginal title is thus a sui generis concept—one that does not fit into pre-existing legal categories.3 The unique character of aboriginal title is explained by the distinc- tive history of aboriginal lands in North America during the formative era extending into the nineteenth century. This history can be divided into four phases: (1) the period prior to European contact, when aboriginal peoples were independent political entities with international title to their territories; (2) the period of contact, when European states launched exploratory voyages and issued Charters embodying territorial claims; Notes will be found on pages 27–33. 11 12 Beyond the Nass Valley (3) the period of initial settlement, when permanent European colo- nies were established and inter-European treaties were concluded, delimiting the boundaries of exclusive colonial spheres; and (4) the period of imperial expansion, during which Crown suzerainty was gradually extended over aboriginal nations and a constitution- al framework emerged that embraced both settler communities and aboriginal peoples. Before Europeans came to North America, the indigenous peoples of the continent were independent entities, holding international title to the lands in their possession.4 However, the map of North America, like that of Europe, was far from static.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin-American Land Reform: the Uses of Confiscation
    Michigan Law Review Volume 63 Issue 2 1964 Latin-American Land Reform: The Uses of Confiscation Kenneth L. Karst The Ohio State University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth L. Karst, Latin-American Land Reform: The Uses of Confiscation, 63 MICH. L. REV. 327 (1964). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol63/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LATIN-AMERICAN LAND REFORM: THE USES OF CONFISCATION Kenneth L. Karst* N Latin America, every land reform is motivated principally by I political demands for equality, for the redistribution of wealth and income. The statement is true even in those countries where the governments are hostile to the idea of redistribution. Palliatives that exploit the ambiguity of the word "reform" in such countries are aimed at appeasement of the demand for sharing the wealth. Landless peasants and landowners understand perfectly well; yet, many technicians and students of land reform continue to speak a different language, a language in which land reform means anything from agricultural rent control to the introduction of hybrid corn.1 In part, talk of this kind is the product of sophistication.
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Acquisition of Land and Compensation FAO LAND TENURE STUDIES 10
    LAND TENURE STUDIES ISSN 1020-3117 10 Compulsory acquisition of land and compensation FAO LAND TENURE STUDIES 10 Compulsory acquisition of land and compensation FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome 2008 FAO Land Tenure Studies FAO’s Land Tenure Studies are concise presentations on the often complicated and controversial subject of land tenure, especially as it relates to food security, poverty alleviation and rural development. These studies do not seek to be exhaustive but instead reflect what FAO and its many international collab- orators have discovered are “good practices” for a particular aspect of land tenure and its administration. The studies cover various aspects of improving access to land and other natural resources and increasing tenure security. They address the role of land tenure in rural development, gen- der and access to land, improved access to land through leasing arrangements, rural property taxation systems, land consolida- tion, land access and administration after violent conflicts, good governance in land tenure and administration, and com- pulsory acquisition of land and compensation. More information on the Land Tenure Studies, and on FAO’s work in land tenure, is available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/lten/lten_en.htm Acknowledgements Guide prepared by: Simon Keith, Patrick McAuslan, Rachael Knight, Jonathon Lindsay, Paul Munro-Faure and David Palmer. Review panel: Erik Blaabjerg, David Callies, Lorenzo Cotula, Allen Crawford, Richard Grover, Morten Hartvigsen, Andrew Hilton, Trevor Knowles, Malcolm Langford, Li Ping, Hamish McDonald, Sofia Monsalve Suarez, Opiata Odindo, Alexei Overchuk, Jean du Plessis, Frances Plimmer, Remy Seitchiping, John Sheehan, Mika Torhonen and Heléne Swanepoel.
    [Show full text]