This article examines the implementation of the Forest Rights Act of 2006 in the historical context of Wayanad’s adivasi land struggles. The left-wing Government of Kerala (2006-11) aimed to interpret the FRA as a legal opportunity to obtain forest (department) land and to fulfil decade-old promises to redistribute land to landless adivasis. However, the provisions of the Act were not the right means to bring them redistributive justice. The well-intentioned FRA failed to make an impact in the specifi c historical and legal environment of the region.

Land is more than a production resource. In the rural areas of countries like Nepal it determines an individual’s socio-economic status, and is therefore strongly related to power issues. Landlessness and insecure land ownership are the major causes of poverty, social injustice and food insecurity. Tackling these issues therefore means influencing policies in favour of more land rights.

Innovative policies in Brazil, such as the Zero Hunger Programme, have significantly reduced poverty in the past decade. Yet, land distribution remains a serious challenge: 46% of all land is controlled by 1% of the population. In Araponga, farmers have not only been able to acquire land: they have increased their options in a sustainable manner.

A study of the socio-economic situations of three villages in north-eastern Andhra Pradesh shows that while times and values have vastly changed, not much has been transformed in terms of privileges and opportunities. Those belonging to landowning families have managed to get a good education and secure good jobs or set up businesses. But those from the landless or marginal landowning families and communities have been left far behind. The government’s schemes and promises have more often than not yielded very little.

After recognising the main reasons to be hopeful about the new Land Acquisition Bill, this commentary critiques two significant structural problems in the proposed legislation: first, the definition of “public purpose”, especially the “informed consent” provision that has been included; second, the price setting mechanism, especially the possibility of an exponential escalation at the metropolitan edges and the creation of certain bizarre rural-urban boundaries.

The livelihood options of landless households of far western Nepal are wage labor, farming and seasonal migration to India. Food sufficiency is barely enough for 0-3 months a year for most. When food is scarce, they cope by borrowing money, buying food, occasional wager labor as domestic servants, less popular and cheaper or wild food, skipping meals and eating less. These options are embedded with social relation in terms of class, caste and gender and social institutions.

Draft land bill proposes higher compensation for land acquisitions, but complaints persist.