A/HRC/7/5 page 12 buy land at market rates from large landholders, with the State playing a part only in mediation and the provision of credit. Yet these models shift the logic of agrarian reform away from a concept of a right to land and redistribution towards a view that access to land is only possible through purchase of the land at market prices, despite a context of historically produced inequities. Despite past criticism by the Special Rapporteur and many NGOs and social movements who claim that this undermines more transformative programmes of agrarian reform,19 the practice continues. 28. The Special Rapporteur saw the limits of the “market-assisted” model during his mission to Guatemala.20 Despite the fact that the Government is making impressive efforts to change the situation, Guatemala remains one of the most inequitable countries in the world. Land ownership is highly concentrated: 2 per cent of the population owns up to 70-75 per cent of agricultural land, while 90 per cent of small farmers survive on less than one hectare. This situation is the result of a long history of land expropriation from indigenous people, exacerbated by a 36-year civil war (1960-1996) during which military and landowners forcibly controlled more land. In this particular context, the promotion by the World Bank of a market-based redistribution of land, concretized by the creation of a land fund, FONTIERRA, to provide credit for land purchases, is particularly ineffective. It precludes the adoption of more important measures required under the Peace Accords of 1996, including the creation of an effective land registry system, the elaboration of an agrarian code recognizing indigenous forms of land ownership, and the establishment of an agrarian jurisdiction to resolve land disputes. 2. The lack of coherence of States’ policies 29. The second aspect of this “schizophrenia” is that many States are not at all coherent as far as their own practices are concerned. Far too often, one part of a Government undertakes to protect and promote the right to food, while another part of the Government takes decisions or implements policies that directly undermine this right.21 30. The great majority of States have recognized the right to food in the World Food Summit Declarations and the Right to Food Guidelines. More than 150 States are parties to the ICESCR, and more than 193 to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They have to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food in all their policies and decisions. Unfortunately today, there is an increasing lack of coherence in policies implemented by Governments, which means, for example, that whilst they remain committed to a rights-based approach to development, they might also adopt trade policies that could have negative effects on human rights in other countries. 19 For example “Land for those who work it, not just for those who can buy it”, April 2002, http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/worldbankseminar.html. 20 See E/CN.4/2006/44/Add.1. 21 See E/CN.4/2005/47.