ICARRD+20: Lessons learnt and reflections for the future

ICARRD+20 reaffirmed that agrarian reform and land governance are deeply political. Access to land, water, and resources is linked to power, rights, and sovereignty — not only productivity. For Palestinian farmers, land protection and secure tenure must remain central. Advocacy should continue at both national and international levels to frame land rights as a human rights and justice issue — not only an agricultural concern.

The strong presence of farmer organisations showed that lived experience adds credibility and urgency to policy discussions. Grassroots voices enriched the dialogue beyond institutional perspectives. The Palestinian Farmers Union should continue strengthening farmer-led narratives and ensure women, youth, and small-scale farmers are visible in international platforms. Building alliances with global networks like ILC can amplify impact.

Climate resilience is no longer a side topic — it is now central to agrarian reform, food systems, and rural survival. Investing in climate-smart agriculture, water-saving techniques, local seed preservation, and community adaptation strategies will be essential. Positioning Palestinian farmers as frontline climate actors can open doors to new partnerships and funding.

Governments commit on paper, but implementation gaps remain. Monitoring, transparency, and civil society oversight are critical. Civil society — including the Palestinian Farmers Union — must play a watchdog role. Documentation, policy tracking, and evidence-based advocacy will be key to translating declarations into real change on the ground.

ICARRD+20 demonstrated the power of international solidarity. Shared struggles across regions (Latin America, Africa, Asia, EMENA) create stronger collective power. Sustained engagement beyond conferences is essential. Regional coordination, joint campaigns, and follow-up mechanisms will help keep agrarian reform high on the global agenda.

One of the most frequently repeated facts was that 1% of landowners control around 70% of the world’s agricultural land (estimates vary by source, but the trend is undeniable – extreme concentration). A panelist from Indonesia stated that in her country, 1% of the population controls 64% of the territory.

If this is the market – then it is a market without competition.

If this is development – then it is development for the few.

And if it is for the few, then it is injustice!

At the same time, only one in three women who produce food owns land. Those who feed us most often lack security over the land they cultivate. Those who need land the most – have it the least.

This is not a technical problem. It is a question of political will and the distribution of power. It raises a fundamental question: to what extent do our political leaders act in the interest of the people who elect them, and to what extent in the interest of corporations for whom profit comes before humanity?

We often hear about “food system transformation.” The term sounds impressive, almost technocratic. But as emphasised during the conference, transformation must be grounded in standards for people, not merely standards for markets.

From the perspective of us “small” and “ordinary” people, transformation means recognising the territories of Indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth in decision-making, ensuring access to credit and insurance, securing control over distribution chains, and adapting production to climate change.

Traditional food production is an ideal and strategically sound response to climate change. Climate change was not created by peasants and small farmers, but by industry. Therefore, those who profited while destroying human and animal habitats and poisoning the land that fed us for millennia should bear the costs of addressing its consequences.

But that, too, requires political will – genuine political will.

In Brazil it was highlighted that policies for small producers do exist, but that the institutional structure is often influenced by political blocs connected to business interests. An administration may be progressive at the top, yet implementation often stalls in the middle.

Small producers already bear the burden of the climate crisis – they lose harvests, lack insurance, and have no safety nets. At the same time, the intensive use of drones for spraying and heavy chemical inputs undermines soil health and makes organic production more difficult. Farmers have no insurance, while large companies are insured. The state itself insures them!

If land is the first line of defense against hunger – then poisoning it is short-sighted policy.

Agrarian reform is not merely the right to a plot of land. It is about control over water, forests, minerals, and food distribution.

In many countries, territories are under pressure from mining and extractive projects. Conflicts over land are not accidental – they are the result of an economic model that prioritises capital over community.

During the discussions, ILC Director Marcy Vigoda clearly stated: “Progress on paper does not mean progress on the ground.”

That may have been the most precise sentence of the entire conference, and one with which we can all agree.

There are many strategies. Even more action plans. Declarations are impressive. But implementation is where truth is tested. If laws exist while people continue to be killed defending their land – then the law is not functioning.

Without political will there is no reform. Without the participation of peasants there is no legitimacy.

There can be no agrarian reform without recognition of the territorial rights of Indigenous peoples. This is not symbolic – it is a matter of historical justice and survival. Without the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and women there is no just reform. Without agrarian reform there is no social justice.

In countries such as Colombia and Philippines, people still pay with their lives for defending their land. The criminalisation of land defenders must stop.

Women were clear: we are not asking for charity, we are asking for equality.

We are not asking for an invitation to a panel – we are asking for a seat at the table where decisions are made.

Starvation is often used as a silent mechanism of displacement. If you take away people’s land and their access to markets, you force them to leave. That is not migration by choice – it is migration by necessity. It is expulsion. And if we want to understand what expulsion looks like when the world chooses to look away, we need only ask the Palestinians. What for us is a nightmare – the thought that someone might drive us from our land, demolish our homes, seize our property – for our brothers and sisters in Palestine is daily reality.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed us who fed us: local producers, families, communities. Not financial markets. Not multinational structures.

The current global food system is not sustainable – neither environmentally nor socially. The concentration of land and capital produces hunger in a world that has enough food.

There will be more violence and suffering. But there will also be solidarity.

Multistakeholder platforms can be useful, but only if they are not a façade to legitimise existing inequalities. Dialogue matters – but balance of power is decisive.

We must unite. We must find allies.

The struggle for land in Montenegro is connected to the struggle in Brazil, Indonesia, Colombia.

Because the system is global, then resistance must be global.

ICARRD+20 demonstrated that there is energy, knowledge, and a network of solidarity. But words must become policy, and policy must become practice.