Paraguay - Context and Land Governance

^{Gayndah Queensland. A panorama near the town from the local lookout.}

Paraguay is one of the first countries in the region, if not the first, where part of the indigenous language was nationalized. Since 1967, Guarani, together with Spanish, has been constitutionally recognized as an official language. The fact that 90% of the population is bilingual and that only 1.8% of the population is indigenous, according to the 2012 National Population and Housing Census for Indigenous Peoples, have made Paraguay an exception in the region with respect to the recognition of the indigenous as part of its culture. The Guaraní people are the most numerous, representing 54.7% of the indigenous people, followed by the Maskoy language family (23.6%), the Mataco-Mataguayo family (15.2%), the Zamuco family (4%) and the Guaicurú family (1.7%).[1]

But this recognition is hard to see reflected in the distribution of resources. Paraguay is considered the country with the greatest inequality in land distribution in the region. The land problem in Paraguay dates back to the Triple Alliance War (1864-1870) fought between Paraguay and the alliance between Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, with Paraguay losing more than 334,000 km² of territory in dispute with Brazil. The war resulted in the consolidation of an oligarchic state and the formation of large estates that continue to characterize the agrarian landscape today. Deficiencies in the implementation of agrarian reform have led to land occupations by peasants. This has generated numerous conflicts, violence, forced evictions and the criminalization by the State of the peasant and indigenous struggle for land.

Land legislation and regulations

On paper, Paraguay has a body of legislation to guarantee access to property and land for its citizens. Paraguay's 1992 Constitution guarantees private property in accordance with the content and limits established by law, and taking into account its economic and social function in order to make private property accessible to all (Art. 109). Expropriation is only admitted by virtue of a judicial sentence or for reasons of public utility or social interest. In case of expropriation, compensation is guaranteed, except in cases of unproductive large estates destined for agrarian reform (Art. 109). The Constitution also includes the objective of eliminating large estates, taking into account the suitability of the land, the needs of the rural population and of agricultural, forestry and industrial activities, and the sustainable use of natural resources and ecological balance (Art. 116).The Constitution devotes a section to agrarian reform, defined as the effective incorporation of the peasant population into the economic and social development of the Nation. To this end, it proposes the adoption of equitable systems of land distribution, ownership and tenure; the organization of credit and technical, educational and sanitary assistance; the creation of agricultural cooperatives and similar associations; and the promotion of production, industrialization and rationalization of the market for the integral development of agriculture (Art. 114).

Agrarian reform is based, according to the Constitution, on stimulating production through measures such as the adoption of a tax system; discouraging latifundia and guaranteeing the development of small and medium rural property; regularizing land use to prevent its degradation; promoting intensive and diversified agricultural production; providing the necessary infrastructure (roads, education and health) to facilitate peasant settlements; granting low-cost agricultural credit without intermediaries; defending and preserving the environment; and creating agricultural insurance, among other aspects (Art. 115).

The implementation of the agrarian reform is regulated by Law 1863, which establishes the Agrarian Statute (2002). Among its objectives is to guarantee and stimulate rural real estate ownership and its socioeconomic function, promoting the adaptation of the agrarian structure for the strengthening and incorporation of peasant family agriculture into national development and thus contribute to overcoming rural poverty and its consequences, among others.[2] 

Another law related to land governance is Law 622 of 1960 on Colonizations and De Facto Urbanizations. According to this law, stable populations settled on privately owned land, whether rural or urban, for 20 years or more and which have not originated by reason of the activities of the owners or in response to plans of the owners, shall be known as de facto colonizations or urbanizations, and are subject to the provisions of said law.[3] Among them, each de facto colonization or urbanization corresponds to an average extension of land of ten hectares per stable family in the case of colonizations and of 450 m² in the case of urbanizations, plus the indispensable surfaces for roads or streets.

This normative protection for equitable access to land and egalitarian development of the rural sector has not been reflected in reality. Since the beginning of the agrarian reform, the reality in the countryside has been characterized by numerous cases of evictions, occupations, violent repression and exclusion. This was reflected in the report of the fact-finding mission on the state of implementation of agrarian reform carried out by FIAN International (Food First Information & Action Network) and La Via Campesina in 2006.[4] One of the problems found by the mission was that the lack of or delay in implementing agrarian reform regulations was causing families to put pressure on the government by peacefully occupying land that was not fulfilling its economic and social function. The government's response to these occupations has been to forcibly evict these families by destroying their homes, crops and other property. It is estimated that between 1990 and 2004 there were 350 cases of forced evictions. [5]

Added to this is the repression against peasant movements occupying land and defending themselves against the unbridled expansion of soybean cultivation through harassment, attacks and even assassinations by the National Police or the so-called citizen security commissions, organized as an instrument of repression and social control. Since 1989, 124 peasants have been murdered.[6] From 1990 to 2004, 7,018 people were arrested and charged for land invasion or for participating in protest demonstrations.[7] The FIAN report places the cause of most of these agrarian conflicts on the failure of the National Institute for Rural and Land Development (INDERT) to carry out land acquisition negotiations. The problem is aggravated by the State's inactivity in recovering "ill-gotten lands" (State-owned rural properties illegally awarded to people who were not beneficiaries of the agrarian reform or who were not entitled to public lands), which in 2006 were estimated at 9 million hectares, an area sufficient to settle 300 families. [8]

Paraguay has been internationally reproached on more than one occasion for the human rights violations, included in international instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, that such repression and evictions cause to peasants.[9] An example of this are the cases of the peasants Ernesto Benítez[10] and Eulalio Blanco,[11] the latter died in the conflict, due to the violence against them and because of which, in 2008, measures of non-repetition were established. Despite this, agrarian conflicts and evictions of the rural population continue to be the order of the day.[12] One of the most recent cases is the shooting attack in the Rosarino agricultural settlement, near the Brazilian border, where several farmers were wounded.[13]

At the legislative level there have been opposing attempts to regulate evictions. In July 2021, Senator Miguel Fulgencio Rodriguez formalized a proposal to modify and expand Law 6524, which in 2020 declared a state of emergency in Paraguay due to Covid, with the purpose of curbing forced evictions during the pandemic.[14] The study of this proposal was postponed. Instead, the government has toughened penalties against trespassing on private property through the approval of a bill passed by the Paraguayan Congress in September 2021 that amends Art. 142 of the Penal Code regarding the crime of trespassing.[15] According to this law (Law No. 6830), the penalties for violent or clandestine entry into another's property can be up to six years in prison and up to ten years when the invasion is carried out for the purpose of settling therein.[16] This modification provoked the mobilization against peasant and indigenous organizations since it was carried out without their participation and would imply the eviction of settlements that had not been regularized up to that moment.[17]

Land tenure classifications

The 2008 National Agricultural Census recognizes the following types of land tenure: definitive title, provisional document, rented or sharecropped land, used as occupant and other unspecified forms. No official definitions of these forms of land tenure have been found either in the Census or in the corresponding legislation, which gives rise to several possible interpretations and informality in the processes. Sharecropping contracts are subject to Law 1863. In addition to sharecropping, rural contracts include leases and partnerships, which are governed by the same law.

The 2022 National Agricultural and Livestock Census is currently being carried out[18] so, for the time being, the latest available data correspond to the 2008 Census. At that time, out of a total of 288,875 farms with land, 134,912 had a definitive title, 64,619 had a provisional document, 77,878 were occupied, 22,456 were rented or under sharecropping and 13,854 had another undefined form of tenure.[19] Translated into surface area data, out of a total of slightly more than 31 million hectares, the majority -around 24,350,000 hectares- had definitive title, 1,280,000 had a provisional document, more than 2,467,000 were rented or taken in sharecropping or sharecropping, around 1,409,000 were occupied, and more than 1,579,000 had another form of tenure.[20] Data for 2008 indicate that the number of farms with definitive title decreased by 4.8% with respect to 1991, those with a provisional document increased by 16.9%, lands rented or taken in sharecropping and those used as occupants decreased (47.4% and 18% respectively), and those with other undefined forms of tenure increased by 52%.[21] In terms of area, the area of land under other forms of tenure and land rented or taken in sharecropping or sharecropping increased significantly (567% and 280.4%, respectively). The area of land with provisional documents (61.3%) and land used as an occupant (56.3%) increased slightly less. The smallest increase was in the area of land with definitive title (14.7%). [22]

In terms of farm size, from 1991 to 2008, farms with an area of 1 to 5 hectares remained the majority and increased from over 90 thousand to over 100 thousand.[23] According to Oxfam, smallholdings of less than 5 hectares represent 40% of farms and occupy less than 1% of the land area.[24] The second most numerous were those of 5-10 hectares, exceeding 65 thousand, followed by farms of 10-20 hectares, decreasing below 60 thousand.[25] According to Oxfam, family farms of less than 20 hectares occupy only 4.3% of the total agricultural area, although they represent more than 83% of the total landholdings.[26] In terms of surface area, farms of 1 to 5 hectares occupied less than 1 million hectares as total surface area, while farms of 10,000 hectares or more increased in total surface area to over 12 million hectares.[27]

From the 2008 Census data, the Oxfam report concludes that 90% of the land is in the hands of 5% of the large landowners, and the remaining 10% is divided between small and medium-sized properties, which represent more than 95%.[28] Another characteristic in Paraguay is that many of the large estates are in foreign hands. It is estimated that 15% of Paraguayan territory is occupied by Brazilian large landowners, located especially in the border regions with Brazil, where they occupy 35% of the territory. [29]

To this inequality must be added the landless peasants and the increase in poverty. No precise and official data has been found in this regard, but in 2012 peasant organizations defended that there were 400,000 landless families in the country,[30] other sources in 2016 mention 300,000.[31] An added problem is that some lands have ceased to be arable because they have been affected by the massive use of agrochemicals or by land degradation.[32] Both situations lead to migration to the cities where poverty belts and precarious situations are growing. For example, a study shows that in the municipalities Limpio and Villa Hayes, in the Central and Presidente Hayes departments respectively, where there was a higher population growth between 2008 and 2017 due to the deepening of the crisis of peasant agriculture and persecution of landless peasants who make occupations, between 70-80% work in the informal sector and between 65-75% of those who have a paid job do not reach the legal minimum wage.[33]  Recent data indicate that the urban poverty belt in Paraguay increased by 34% in the last three years, mainly due to the lack of decent employment opportunities.[34] Various studies also show how at different times in Paraguay's history rural poverty and rural-urban migration is associated with a production model based on the concentration of large tracts of land for agricultural and livestock production.[35] 

Paraguay is considered one of the most unequal countries in Latin America in terms of land tenure. Data using the Gini index to calculate inequality of land distribution indicate that, based on 2008 data, on average Paraguay has an index of 0.93 (0 representing total equality and 1 representing maximum inequality).[36] Inequality is more acute in the Western region (0.94) than in the Eastern region (0.89). [37]

In relation to the land titling procedure for agrarian reform beneficiaries, the web page of the National Institute for Rural and Land Development answers key questions such as where and at what time it can be done, how much it costs and how long it takes.[38] However, in some cases the answers are not precise enough -for example, the lack of detail regarding the documentation required to carry out the procedure-, or the information is ambiguous, such as the lack of concrete data regarding how much it costs and how long the procedure takes.

There is a National Registry of Family Farming (RENAF) created in 2007. According to 2016 data, 76.4% of family farming producers were registered at that time. [39]

Collective land rights

The collective land rights of indigenous peoples are set out in Law 904 Statute of Indigenous Communities of 1981 and in the 1992 Constitution. Law 904 addresses the management of indigenous settlements in general.[40] For example, Article 14 indicates that the free and express consent of the indigenous community is essential for their settlement in sites other than their usual territories. The adjudication of fiscal lands to indigenous communities will be made free of charge and undivided, and may not be seized, alienated, leased to third parties, prescribed or pledged as a credit guarantee (Article 17). With respect to the area for indigenous communities, whether fiscal, expropriated or purchased, it will be determined according to the number of settlers, and is estimated at a minimum of 20 hectares per family in the Eastern Region and 100 hectares in the Western Region (Art. 18). In order to receive the land free of charge, undivided and free of encumbrances, the indigenous community must have its legal status recognized (Art. 20). According to 2012 data, 86.2% of the communities surveyed (425 out of 493) had legal personality. [41]

This law does not provide explicit guarantees for indigenous territorial rights. It also presents some gaps such as the fact that, although it mentions the self-determination of indigenous peoples, the issue of land is not addressed as an aspect of indigenous culture. An example of this is that it does not establish criteria for the demarcation of indigenous lands. Hence, this is not done in accordance with indigenous customary law and traditional use, but rather its boundaries follow arbitrary straight lines determined by the limits of private properties of non-indigenous owners.[42]

The law is also obsolete in some respects. An example of this is the provision regarding the possibility of reserving a portion of no more than 20 hectares in the Eastern Region and 100 hectares in the Western Region of their land to religious missions (art. 69). Some communities complain that there are NGOs and religious missions that maintain plots on indigenous lands and are not happy with the interference of these actors in the collective decision making of their communities.[43]

The Constitution, for its part, recognizes the communal ownership of land by indigenous peoples, and explicitly refers to the fact that its extension and quality must be sufficient for the conservation and development of their particular ways of life (Art. 64). The State will provide them with these lands free of charge, which are considered unseizable, indivisible, non-transferable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to guarantee contractual obligations or to be leased, and exempt from taxation.

Of the indigenous communities surveyed in 2012, 72.4% reported having their own land and 96% of them had title deeds.[44] In terms of surface area, the communities with their own titled land represent 963,953 hectares, 71.3% of which are distributed in the Western region and 28.7% in the Eastern region.[45] Those who do not own their own land occupy land belonging to public institutions, cooperatives, municipalities, companies or ranches, among others.

In practice, indigenous communities face numerous difficulties in regularizing their land situation. Of the 493 indigenous communities surveyed in 2012, 47 reported problems related to the rental or lease of land to third parties (almost 40% of the communities rent or lend their land to third parties for extensive crops, pasture, timber extraction or charcoal production), 42 reported misappropriation by entrepreneurs, 31 reported invasion by peasants, 23 reported overlapping titles, among other difficulties.[46] In the eastern region, the departments where these difficulties are most frequent are Canindeyú, Caaguazú and Amambay; and in the western region, the departments of Presidente Hayes and Boquerón.

One of the challenges faced by indigenous peoples is the fragmentation of their traditional territories into small plots. Communities complain that their land titles are for very small plots of land that do not provide protection or allow communal access to ancestral lands. The average size of titled plots is 917 hectares, with the smallest being 23 hectares and the largest being 8,808 hectares.[47] Thus, the ownership of ancestral territories is divided between indigenous peoples and private third parties, with the expropriation of the territories from the latter being one of the greatest difficulties in guaranteeing the right of indigenous peoples to their lands.[48] The ability to expropriate such lands is limited by an administrative process that prioritizes negotiation for land purchase. Another difficulty for the restitution of indigenous lands is the invocation of environmental laws by the State and large landowners to block the transfer of titles to indigenous communities. [49]

These difficulties have led indigenous communities to denounce the Paraguayan State before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). In the Yakye Axa vs Paraguay case, for example, the IACHR determined in 2005 that the Paraguayan State incurred international responsibility for having violated the rights to property, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, among others, and for not having guaranteed the right to community property over the traditional lands of the Yakye Axa indigenous community, generating many affectations to its members.[50] This case also shows that such sentences take a long time or are not always complied with. In the monitoring of compliance with the sentence in 2019, the IACHR identified that out of nine measures of reparation established in 2005,[51] the State gave full compliance to two measures, partial compliance to one and pending compliance were six measures. [52]

In another example, seven years after receiving a 2006 IACHR ruling in their favor demanding restitution of their lands from the State,[53] the Sawhoyamaxa community continued to live on the side of the road in front of their ancestral lands occupied by a German landowner. In 2014, the Paraguayan Congress passed a law to expropriate the land in order to return it to the community.[54]

Land use trends

The agricultural sector has been one of the sectors that has expanded and developed the most in Paraguay, affecting land use. According to data from the 2008 Census, the total area under agricultural or livestock production increased by more than 30%, from 23.8 million hectares to 31 million hectares. [55]

In particular, mechanized or export agriculture stands out, mainly for soybean cultivation, produced in rotation with corn, wheat, rice and sunflower. According to data from the Cámara Paraguaya de Exportadores y Comercializadores de Cereales y Oleaginosas, 66% of soybean production in 2020/2021 will be destined for export.[56] Data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) indicate that soybean and rice exports grew by 36.2% and 30.8% respectively in 2019-2020, while corn exports decreased by 27.8%.[57] The area devoted to corn cultivation reached around 1,100,000 million hectares in 2020.[58] For the most part, industrial agriculture is practiced in the Eastern Region of the country, mainly in the departments of Alto Paraná, Canindeyú, Caaguazú, Caazapa and Itapúa.

Family farming is also mainly located in the Eastern Region, which explains the impact of industrial agriculture on it in terms of the reduction of its surface area and the delay in its development. Between 2002 and 2017, family farming lost 166,347 hectares, with Canindeyú (which lost 30,000 hectares) and Caaguazú (16,214 hectares) being among the most affected departments.[59] Regarding the backwardness of family farming, a study points out that agricultural implements are generally archaic, worn out or deteriorated, and that the possibility of improving the productivity of family farming depends largely on access to implements or equipment as the labor force is aged and scarce.[60]

Another challenge affecting small producers caused by some business sectors dedicated to agribusiness is that caused by illegal fumigation. In 2019 and 2021, the Paraguayan State was condemned by the United Nations Human Rights Committee for violation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights due to the lack of control of illegal spraying by companies dedicated to extensive monoculture of genetically modified soybeans and which affected the peasant community Yerutí Ñu[61] and the indigenous community Campos Aguaé. [62]

To make family farming more competitive, for example through its technification, the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) has implemented, in support of the Paraguayan government, 12 projects since 2014 affecting 97,225 hectares and benefiting 77,000 families in vulnerable situations.[63] UNOPS recommends that such projects become broader programs in the framework of a long-term public policy so that the interventions are sustainable and their budget is adequate to the size and needs of the families in need.[64] This recommendation responds to a reality characterized by one-time investments and scarce and costly credits allocated so far by the government for the development of family farming (2008 data indicate that only 16.6% of farmers received credit assistance); in addition to the fragmentation, dispersion and lack of coordination among the institutions that provide assistance to family farming, reducing their effectiveness.[65]

The main items of self-consumption in family agriculture are corn, sugar cane, beans, cassava, peanuts, sesame, cotton, tobacco and fruit and vegetable crops.[66] However, peasant organizations criticize that peasant production cannot feed the Paraguayan population because policies favor the importation of agricultural goods, making it difficult for local production to compete with imports.[67] Market failures also makes, according to peasant organizations, that there is no outlet for local production which generates insecurity for peasants and poverty in the countryside.[68] According to 2018 data, 34.6% of poverty in Paraguay is rural poverty compared to 17.8% of urban poverty. [69]

In August 2020, a group of senators presented a bill to create insurance for family farming with the objectives of protecting and guaranteeing family farming, providing economic support to producers, guaranteeing minimum survival conditions and promoting risk prevention mechanisms.[70] The Chamber of Deputies rejected the bill in March 2021 because the insurance was already limited to 13 departments and four agricultural products, and because it was not considered convenient to modify tax regulations. [71]

Livestock activity in Paraguay has had a general growth trend in recent years. In ten years, since 2007, the cattle stock has grown by 49%.[72] In 2022, the cattle herd is about 13.5 million cattle.[73] Beef exports also increased, by 15% since 2021,[74] making Paraguay the eighth largest beef exporter worldwide and the sixth largest beef producer in the world.[75] Cattle raising activity is located in both the Eastern and Western Regions.

Agricultural and livestock expansion has been a threat to forests. NASA satellites show that from 1987 to 2012 the forest area in Paraguay was reduced by 44,000 km² as a result.[76] The area allocated to forest land in Paraguay in 2020 was slightly more than 16 million hectares, a decrease of 18% compared to 2010. [77]

In order to reduce deforestation, the government of Paraguay collaborated with the UN in the implementation of a REDD+ to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.[78] This collaboration led to the creation of the National Forest Monitoring System that provides information on forest areas, changes in forest areas and changes in carbon stocks.[79] The reduction of emissions by almost 50% from 2016 to 2018 is another positive result of this collaboration.[80]

In order to manage forests and regulate their possible transformation, the Paraguayan government has implemented a Land Use Plan (PUT) with the objective of managing land allotment, maintaining the quality of the environment and promoting the conservation of natural resources through the Legal Reserve of Natural Forests, forest buffer strips between plots to be allotted, waterway protection forests and Palo Santos Forests.[81] For example, in a plot of land of more than 20 hectares, the following parameters are established: 25% of the legal natural forest reserve, 100 meters of protective forest on both sides of the watercourses (if there are any on the property), and forest buffer strips between plots, reaching an average of 40-50% of the forest to be preserved.[82] However, the PUT is only applicable to the Western region because in the Eastern region, Law 6676 of 2020 prohibits the transformation and conversion of forest-covered areas. According to this law, in the Eastern region, it is prohibited to convert forested areas into agricultural land, human settlements, or for the production, transportation and commercialization of timber, firewood, charcoal or any forest by-product resulting from forest clearing.[83] In 2019, the attempt to pass a Zero Deforestation Law that also affected the Western region was rejected by the Senate.[84]

In 2010, what was considered the world's largest titanium deposit was discovered in Paraguay.[85] Specifically in Alto Paraná, the U.S. company Uranium Energy is carrying out exploration work in an area covering 70,498 hectares.[86]

^{Aerial view of the Campo María Lagoon in the Paraguayan Chaco, photo by Tetsu Espósito, Yluux, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0}

Investments and land acquisitions

Since the end of the War of the Triple Alliance in 1870, the trend in Paraguay has been to make large tracts of land available to foreign capital. The massive sale of public lands at the end of the 19th century facilitated the acquisition of more than 2.5 million hectares in the western region by a single company.[87] From the 1950s onwards, driven by the military dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner, there was a significant investment of Brazilian capital in Paraguayan lands. This was the beginning of the introduction of soybean crops in Paraguay. In recent years, the opening to industrial investments from the neighboring country has continued and has been promoted by the Paraguayan government offering tax advantages, for example, for the installation of maquilas, and the possibility of exporting to Europe without paying tariffs, a benefit that Brazil lost in 2014.[88] According to some sources, 14% of the land in Paraguay belongs to Brazilian large landowners, in particular 16 owners and companies that together own a total of 454,000 hectares. [89]

Since the 1990s, foreign capital has diversified, with a greater presence of multinationals interested in cultivating grains and agricultural products on Paraguayan land for export. This led to the approval of transgenic seeds and an increase in the importation of pesticides. [90]

Today, Paraguay is still perceived as an attractive country to invest in land because of the opportunities it offers, the quality of the land, the conditions for production and its growth potential.[91] Uruguayan investors in Paraguayan land are increasing due to the fact that Paraguay offers the most competitive prices in the region and offers better tax conditions. In 2014, it was estimated that between 1.8 and 2 million hectares in Paraguay belonged to Uruguayan landowners. [92]

But Paraguay is also attractive for real estate investments. Especially in the last 10 years, many Argentinean investors are attracted to invest in bricks and mortar in Paraguay due to controlled inflation, a low fiscal deficit, a stable exchange rate, low tax pressure and investment incentives from the Paraguayan government. While renting an apartment in Paraguay offers between 7 and 9% return, in Argentina it offers 1%.[93] Thus, 7 out of 10 apartments are bought by Argentines.[94]

Throughout its history, Paraguay has experienced an intense process of land grabbing. According to the Land Matrix database, which includes large land transactions (GTT) in Paraguay from 2000 to 2016 (excluding GTT for mining, gas and oil operations), GTT occupy 673,259 hectares.[95] This area represents 1.6% of the total area and 16.7% of the arable land, with only 12.1% of the total area being arable. The highest number of GTTs was recorded in 2015 and the largest areas were recorded in 2000 and 2013.[96] Among the 33 GTTs with concluded contract in the Land Matrix database, the largest area has 240,000 hectares and includes the Puerto Casado village sold to the sect of Korean pastor Sun Myung Moon.[97] This is one of the 9 transactions in which the communities were not consulted or expressed their rejection of the projects. [98]

Women’s land rights

In Paraguay, women represent 48% of the rural population and often live in a precarious economic situation. Of the 25% of households headed by women, 55% live in poverty and 35% in extreme poverty.[99] 

Forty-four percent of rural women are engaged in agriculture. Of these, more than half are self-employed (53.2%), often in conditions of vulnerability due to the lack of a contract, social protection and retirement, or work in the family unit without remuneration (9.7%).[100] According to the latest available data for 2008, women mainly manage small farms (36% of them are farms of less than one hectare) and only 15% manage farms of more than 1,000 hectares.[101] Women own 23% of the farms, representing 16% of the surface area.[102]

At the legislative level, the 1992 Paraguayan Constitution includes as a basis for agrarian reform the support of peasant women, especially women heads of household, and the participation of peasant women in agrarian reform at the same level as men (art. 115). Women heads of household are also a preferential group for land adjudication in the 2002 Agrarian Statute (art. 49).[103] The Statute establishes land payment facilities for women, offering the possibility of extending the established 10 years to 15 years (Art. 50). With respect to land titling, the Statute recognizes joint title in cases of marriage and de facto unions of more than one year's duration (art. 57).

Although there are no legal restrictions on women's access to land, men have continued to be the main recipients of fiscal land and land titles. Between 2000 and 2009, women had access to 22% of fiscal land and 33% of land titles in the Eastern Region, while the figures in the Western Region were 15% to 21% respectively.[104] Most women have continued to acquire land through inheritance rather than through state adjudication.[105] In part, according to some authors, the explanation may lie in the late incorporation of the gender approach into agrarian reform policies when there was no land left to distribute.[106] Other obstacles include a male bias whereby women reject inheritance in favor of their sons and the belief that women's need for land is only to meet household food needs.[107] At the policy level, one study notes that women were favored with respect to access to land and land titles with the democratic transition that began in 1989. [108]

Inequality between men and women is also evident in the financial and technical assistance received. Between 2012 and 2016, 12% of the credits granted by the Crédito Agrícola de Habilitación (CAH) benefited women and 88% benefited men.[109] These figures do not represent an improvement, rather the opposite, of those offered in 2008, according to which 13.4% of women received credit compared to 86.5% of men.[110] Until 2010, CAH defended "neutrality" in access to credit, explaining the difference in the figures as a lack of demand.[111] According to CAH, in recent times credit lines for women have increased and in 2020 they represented 40% of the credits. [112]

Regarding technical assistance, data from 2008 indicate that 17% of women producers received assistance compared to 83% of men,[113] which would represent a slight decrease compared to the technical assistance received by women in 2006-2007, which reached 19.2% compared to 78.3% of men.[114] According to a study by the Latin American Center for Rural Development and UN Women, in 2012 the gap in technical assistance decreased reaching 41% women and 59% men.[115] An FAO study suggests that the difference in technical assistance received by men and women may be due to a reduced conception of women as mothers and wives, and the need to advance in the valuation of women's productive and civic role.[116] Other challenges are to increase data disaggregated by sex to allow a differentiated analysis of the impact of assistance on men and women, as well as transparency and free access to information on financial and technical assistance received by men and women to assess whether they have been granted with criteria of equality and equity. [117]

Timeline - milestones in land governance

1864-1870 - War of the Triple Alliance
After the war, the formation of large estates in Paraguay was consolidated.

1927 - Colonization of the Chaco
The first Mennonite settlers arrived in the Chaco lands given by the government where they began to grow peanuts, cotton and vegetables. 

1936 - Agrarian Reform Law
The objective of the agrarian reform was to break with the latifundia system and promote a more equitable distribution of land.

1954-1989 - Military Dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner
It was one of the longest-lived dictatorships in Latin America. With the arrival of Stroessner to power, the still dominant latifundismo reached a new dimension by instituting a capitalist approach to the exploitation of the countryside and with it agriculture for export. 

1970s - Construction of trans-Chaco highway
It provoked a strong influx of new settlers in the region, relegating the indigenous population to be refugees in their lands at another time.

1990s - Expansion of transgenic soybean monocultures
The development of the transgenic industry boosted the monoculture of transgenic soybean. This expansion made Paraguay the fourth largest soybean exporter in the world. This also led to an acceleration of the expulsion of peasants from their land.

1994 - First large farmers' march
The peasant march demonstrated the organizational capacity of the peasant movement and succeeded in placing their demands on the political agenda.

2002-2004 - Rise of the peasant movement
In 2002, popular organizations led by the peasant movement succeeded in stopping privatization policies and the anti-terrorist law. In 2003, a massive 17-day protest against privatization projects demonstrated the consolidation of the peasant movement. In 2004, the peasant movement formed the Front for Life and Sovereignty and confronted the neoliberal policies of the government of Nicanor Duarte Frutos. Peasant organizations resumed occupations in the face of the advance of agribusiness in Paraguay.

2012 - Political crisis
The land conflicts led to a political crisis that led to the removal of President Fernando Lugo from office nine months before the end of his term. A precedent of this event was the Curuguaty massacre, in which the conflict generated between police forces and peasants, over the property classified as ill-gotten Marina Kué, who had been evicted from the Campos Morumbí farm, resulted in 17 deaths.

Where to go next?

Author's suggestions to learn more

The Chaco occupies 60% of Paraguay's surface area (250,000 km²) and is home to less than 2% of the population. Its original inhabitants, the indigenous peoples, now own only a small part of the territory, most of which is privately owned, with protected areas and large areas for cattle ranching. The USAID report, Land Rights, Beef Commodity Chains, and Deforestation Dynamics in the Paraguayan Chaco provides an assessment of the risks to land rights and deforestation from the cattle industry in the Paraguayan Chaco, and identifies different ways to address these risks.[118] Deforestation and forest degradation in Paraguay not only threaten the livelihoods of the communities that live from it and the forest's contribution to climate regulation, protection against soil erosion and the supply of food, medicines and other forest products, but may also increase the country's vulnerability to climate change. The report Mapping the multiple benefits of REED+ in Paraguay: the use of spatial information to support land use planning contributes to the analysis and learning from REED+ initiatives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and increase CO2 removal from the atmosphere while promoting sustainable development.[119] Rural poverty in Paraguay is related to vulnerability to risks in the agricultural sector. In the report Análisis de Riesgo del Sector Agropecuario en Paraguay. Identification, Prioritization, Strategy and Action Plan, carried out by the World Bank at the request of the Government of Paraguay, proposes solutions to reduce the volatility of the sector's output and stabilize the income of family farming.[120] The recent report Agricultura Familiar Campesina. Risks, Poverty, Vulnerability and Social Protection, published by the Center for Analysis and Dissemination of the Paraguayan Economy (CADEP), delves into aspects of family farming in Paraguay such as its characteristics, vulnerabilities and risks, and reflects on food sovereignty, public policies towards family farming and proposals for advancing its promotion.[121]

References

[1] General Directorate of Statistics, Surveys and Census (2012). Indigenous Peoples in Paraguay. Final Results of Population and Housing 2012. III National Population and Housing Census for Indigenous Peoples. 

[2] Law 1863 Establishes the Agrarian Statute (2002).

[3] Law 622 of Colonizations and De Facto Urbanizations (1960).

[4] FIAN, La Via Campesina (2006). Agrarian Reform in Paraguay. Informe de la misión investigadora sobre el estado de la realización de la reforma agraria en tanto obligación de derechos humanos.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Última Hora (2020). "Fueron asesinados 124 campesinos desde caída de dictadura en el 89"

[7] FIAN, La Via Campesina (2006). Agrarian Reform in Paraguay. Informe de la misión investigadora sobre el estado de la realización de la reforma agraria en tanto obligación de derechos humanos.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Areco, A. and Irala, A. (2021). "Desalojo Forzoso como Respuesta a quienes Reivindican Acceso a la Tierra". In Derechos Humanos Paraguay 2021. CODEHUPY.

[10] Communication No. 1829/2008, Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/104/D/1829/2008), accessed October 14, 2021, https://undocs.org/es/CCPR/C/104/D/1829/2008.

[11] Communication No. 1828/2008, Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/104/D/1828/2008), accessed October 14,2021,https://www.mre.gov.py/SimorePlus/Adjuntos/Informes/Dictamen%201828.%202008%20Eulalio%20Blanco%20(2012).pdf.

[12] Carneri, S. (2021). "'Ill-gotten' lands: the origin of peasant expulsions in Paraguay". El País.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Areco, A. and Irala, A. (2021). "Desalojo Forzoso como Respuesta a quienes Reivindican Acceso a la Tierra". In Derechos Humanos Paraguay 2021. CODEHUPY.

[15] Europa Press. (2021). "Paraguay Congress approves law that toughens penalties against trespassing".

[16] Law 6830 amending Article 142 of Law 1160/1997 Penal Code, as amended by Law 3440/2008 (2021).

[17] ABC Color (2021). Demonstrators demand veto of the law against invaders: "We give you 24 hours".

[18] Paraguayan Information Agency (2022). "The National Agricultural Census 2022 will start next Monday in four departments of the country".

[19] Republic of Paraguay (2009). National Agricultural Census 2008.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Guereña, A. and Rojas Villagra, L. (2016). Ivy Jára. The owners of the land in Paraguay. Oxfam.

[25] Republic of Paraguay (2009). National Agricultural Census 2008.

[26] Guereña, A. and Rojas Villagra, L. (2016). Ivy Jára. The owners of the land in Paraguay. Oxfam.

[27] Republic of Paraguay (2009). National Agricultural Census 2008.

[28] Guereña, A. and Rojas Villagra, L. (2016). Ivy Jára. The owners of the land in Paraguay. Oxfam.

[29] Carneri, S. (2021). "'Ill-gotten' lands: the origin of peasant expulsions in Paraguay". El País.

[30] La Via Campesina (2012). Paraguay, more than 50% of the rural population lives in misery.

[31] Guereña, A. and Rojas Villagra, L. (2016). Ivy Jára. The owners of the land in Paraguay. Oxfam.

[32] La Via Campesina (2012). Paraguay, more than 50% of the rural population lives in misery.

[33] Riquelme, Q. and Fernández, G. (2021). "The socioeconomic and cultural impact of rural migration in two urban settlements in the municipalities of Limpio and Villa Hayes, period 2008-2017." Kera Yvoty: reflections on the social question 6.

[34] La Nación (2022). "Urban poverty belt grew 34% in the last three years".

[35] Riquelme, Q. and Fernández, G. (2021). "The socioeconomic and cultural impact of rural migration in two urban settlements in the municipalities of Limpio and Villa Hayes, period 2008-2017." Kera Yvoty: reflections on the social question 6.

[36] Guereña, A. and Rojas Villagra, L. (2016). Ivy Jára. The owners of the land in Paraguay. Oxfam.

[37] Ibid.

[38] INDERT. Land Titling.

[39] Imas, V. J. (coord.) (2020). Agricultura Familiar Campesina. Risks, Poverty, Vulnerability and Social Protection. Centro de Análisis y Difusión de la Economía Paraguaya (CADEP).

[40] Law 904 Statute of Indigenous Communities (1981).

[41] General Directorate of Statistics, Surveys and Censuses (2012). Census of Indigenous Peoples Communities Final Results 2012.

[42] Federation for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples (FAPI). (2015). Territorial Situation of the Indigenous Peoples of Paraguay.

[43] Ibid.

[44] General Directorate of Statistics, Surveys and Censuses (2012). Census of Indigenous Peoples Communities Final Results 2012.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Federation for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples (FAPI). (2015). Territorial Situation of the Indigenous Peoples of Paraguay.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2019). Resolution in the Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.

[51] Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Fact Sheet: Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.

[52] Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2019). Resolution in the Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.

[53] Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2006). Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay.

[54] BBC. (2014). "Paraguayan Congress approves restitution of indigenous lands".

[55] Guereña, A. and Rojas Villagra, L. (2016). Ivy Jára. The owners of the land in Paraguay. Oxfam.

[56] Paraguayan Chamber of Exporters and Traders of Grains and Oilseeds. Use of Soybeans.

[57] OEC. (2020). Paraguay.

[58] Enciso, V. (2020). Maize. Data, statistics and comments. December 2020. National University of Asuncion. 

[59] Imas, V. J. (coord.) (2020). Agricultura Familiar Campesina. Risks, Poverty, Vulnerability and Social Protection. Centro de Análisis y Difusión de la Economía Paraguaya (CADEP).

[60] Ibid.

[61] Human Rights Committee (2019). Views adopted by the Committee under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol in respect of communication 2751/2016. CCPR/C/126/D/2751/2016

[62] Human Rights Committee (2021). Views adopted by the Committee under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol in respect of communication 2552/2015. CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015

[63] UNOPS. (2022). Modernization and Integral Development of Family Agriculture in Paraguay. Systematization of Lessons Learned in Project Implementation 2014-2021.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Imas, V. J. (coord.) (2020). Agricultura Familiar Campesina. Risks, Poverty, Vulnerability and Social Protection. Centro de Análisis y Difusión de la Economía Paraguaya (CADEP).

[66] Ibid.

[67] La Via Campesina (2012). Paraguay, more than 50% of the rural population lives in misery.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Imas, V. J. (coord.) (2020). Agricultura Familiar Campesina. Risks, Poverty, Vulnerability and Social Protection. Centro de Análisis y Difusión de la Economía Paraguaya (CADEP).

[70] Parliamentary Front against Hunger and Malnutrition (2020). Bill for the Creation of Insurance for Peasant Family Farming.

[71] COPROFAM. (2021). Deputies reject the creation of insurance for Family Farming.

[72] Ibid.

[73] MF (2022). Situation and perspectives of cattle farming in Paraguay.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Information Center for Sustainable Production of the Chaco (2017). Paraguay: livestock and its growth.

[76] NASA Earth Observatory. Deforestation in Paraguay.

[77] Statista (2022). Area allocated to forest land in Paraguay from 1990 to 2020.

[78] Steiner, A., Andersen, I. and Dongyu, Q. (2020). Why Paraguay can be a "magnet country" on forest management. El País.

[79] National Forestry Monitoring System of Paraguay

[80] Steiner, A., Andersen, I. and Dongyu, Q. (2020). Why Paraguay can be a "magnet country" on forest management. El País.

[81] National Forestry Institute. Land Use Plan.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Law No. 6676 Prohibits the Transformation and Conversion of Forest Covered Surfaces in the Eastern Region (2020).

[84] Última Hora (2019). Senate rejects zero deforestation bill.

[85] Arce, E. (2010). Paraguay will be a world titanium production center. BBC.

[86] El Urbano (2022). Alto Paraná is identified as the largest titanium reserve in the world. 

[87] Kretschmer, R., Irala, A. and Palau, M. (2019). Land occupations: marks of rural conflict (1990-2019). BASE Investigaciones Sociales.

[88] La Vanguardia (2014). Paraguay opens its doors to Brazilian companies to attract

[89] Castilho, A. L. and Stankevicius Bassi, B. (2017). Brazilian landowners hold 14% of the land in Paraguay. Paraguay en la Mira. De Olho Nos Ruraristas.

[90] Kretschmer, R., Irala, A. and Palau, M. (2019). Land occupations: marks of rural conflict (1990-2019). BASE Investigaciones Sociales.

[91] Valor Agro (2022). "Investing in land in Paraguay is profitable due to production and the potential for price increases".

[92] Cronista (2014). "Uruguayan investors buy more and more land in Paraguay".

[93] Canonico, P. (2022). "The new promised land: the neighboring country that keeps attracting Argentine investments". Clarín.

[94] Ibid.

[95] Land Matrix (2020). Large Land Transactions in Paraguay. A country perspective.

[96] Ibid.

[97] La Nación (2000). "La secta Moon compró un pueblo en Paraguay".

[98] Land Matrix (2020). Large Land Transactions in Paraguay. A country perspective.

[99] Guereña, A. (2017). Kuka Ha Ivy. Gender inequalities in access to land in Paraguay. Oxfam. UN Women.

[100] Ibid.

[101] Ibid.

[102] Ibid.

[103] Law 1863 Establishes the Agrarian Statute (2002).

[104] Campos, C. (2016). Policies and territorial experiences relevant to the empowerment of rural women in Paraguay: An analysis from a territorial approach. UN Women. Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP).

[105] FAO. (2008). Situation of rural women. Paraguay.

[106] Ibid.

[107] Ibid.

[108] Campos, C. (2016). Policies and territorial experiences relevant to the empowerment of rural women in Paraguay: An analysis from a territorial approach. UN Women. Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP).

[109] Government of Paraguay (2014). National Development Plan Paraguay 2030.

[110] Campos, C. (2016). Policies and territorial experiences relevant to the empowerment of rural women in Paraguay: An analysis from a territorial approach. UN Women. Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP).

[111] Ibid.

[112] Agricultural Enabling Credit (2021). CAH has loans to finance women's entrepreneurial projects

[113] Government of Paraguay (2014). National Development Plan Paraguay 2030.

[114] FAO. (2008). Situation of rural women. Paraguay.

[115] Campos, C. (2016). Policies and territorial experiences relevant to the empowerment of rural women in Paraguay: An analysis from a territorial approach. UN Women. Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP).

[116] FAO. (2008). Situation of rural women. Paraguay.

[117] Campos, C. (2016). Policies and territorial experiences relevant to the empowerment of rural women in Paraguay: An analysis from a territorial approach. UN Women. Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP).

[118] Veit, P. and Sarsfield, R. (2017). Land Rights, Beef Commodity Chains, and Deforestation Dynamics in the Paraguayan Chaco. USAID.

[119] Walcott, J. et. al. (2014). Mapping multiple benefits of REDD+ in Paraguay: the use of spatial information to support land use planning. UN-REDD Program, Secretariat of the Environment. National Forestry Institute.

[120] World Bank (no year). Risk Analysis of the Agricultural Sector in Paraguay. Identification, Prioritization, Strategy and Action Plan.

[121] Imas, V. J. (coord.) (2020). Agricultura Familiar Campesina. Risks, Poverty, Vulnerability and Social Protection. Centro de Análisis y Difusión de la Economía Paraguaya (CADEP).