This is an interesting question. I would rather like to see more investment to smallholders than legislating. The later would ensure food security and more of the former would restrict farmers capacity to produce.

The role of Governments is critical, to regulate, promote and facilitate to alleviate the difficulties of its masses; and it will always remain so. Increasing investment over time is certainly the main requirement to continually sustain and improve the quality of life in villages.

if organized farmers groups have some legislative rights, they have voice, than they can be part of the local planning process, e.g. if a comunal group of smallholder in a rural area can declare a protected area in their environmental surrounding, that could provide them at least to some point that companies move into their areas randomly for e.g. mining, and they can still practice small scale farming ....

The role of governments is different for different countries. In former communist countries (east European countries) there is a perception that the intervention of the government may push farmers groups back to communist type cooperatives. In these countries still a lot should be done to promote a new way of cooperation.

Legislation protect Farmer’s group rights against any violation for the action they are doing and gives them a legal structure. Once they are working under a legal framework, they can take power from the legislation and they can exercise power on the Government.

Besides, Farmer’s group cannot be involved into the Market Supply Chain unless if they are well managed. Because what the Market Supply Chain needs, is a consistency in the supply. When the management is done under a legal framework, this will give assurance to the Market Supply Chain that the Farmer’s group are well committed in their action. Once the Farmer’s group are involved in the Market Supply Chain, this will ensure their sustainability.

I am really impressed with the input on this important subject.. Everybody will  wish, as I said earlier, that the quality of life in villages must improve. Basic facilities of all kinds need to be made available, whatever may be the mechanism. In the fundamental Right to 'Life and Liberty', as in Indian Constitution, the word 'Life' has been interpreted by Supreme Court of India to include a large number of basic necessities, e.g, clean water and environment, education, roads and so on.  That dream of equally good life in villages and urban areas need to be realized. That will be real "farmers' rights". Governments not just legislate but also execute. Generally, there is a lot of difference between policy and law making and implementation, more so in poor and developing countries.

I would say that there is certainly a case to be made here for a redistribution program to be utilized in order to fulfill the Indian Supreme Court's decision regarding life.  Also, utilization of a redistribution policy could also go a long way towards positively benefiting the agriculture sector in India as it has here in the U.S.  I am sure that if our agricultural sector did not receive the subsidies which they do and have over the past several decades much of the U.S. would not be at the present level of development.  I know a lot of people are opposed or resist redistribution policies, and on that note there is reasonable evidence from some of the U.S. EPA's programs which suggest that a properly incentivized program of voluntary participation can also produce significant results as well.  The real challenge is in the crafting of the legislation which enables people to act towards the desired results.

In Trinidad, farmers' groups are seen as political forces and thoughts to place legislation into their activities can be a possible threat to the governments re-election. Yet, still these groups seek protection and support from the state agencies.

Farmer organization may have better legitimacy if they are registered and recognized as a credible group of actors in the policy process. Without proper legislative support for the farmers group, it may be difficult for them to demand the right action form the government. The response of the government to the needs of the farmers could be better articulated if the farmers are encouraged and empowered to work in an organized manner to articulate their needs.

In Zimbabwe farmers groups/unions are official registered organization and work closely work with Government. They work with Government (negotiate) in coming up with producer prizes for strategic crops like maize each year.

Farmer groups can promote the interests of rural areas that often conflict with urban interests. While farmers want to receive a fair income for their produce urban interests (at least partly) is to have low food prices, as rhey also refer to the reproduction costs of urban labour and this to the wages they demand. Keeping this in mind low food prices subsidize industrial productin by helping to keep wages low.

In India this conflict between Bharat, the rual India and the urban one have been important conflicts. Already the opposition of the mide 1970s against Indira Gandhi was (also) driven by rural elites who demanded a bigger share in the wealth created int he country. Again in the 1980s, in the Government of V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar farmers's movements (e.g. under the leadership of Devi Lal ) played an important role.

I feel that such movements are particular important in societies where farmers make up an important segment to assure thast they get their fair share in development. Often, however, these movements are dirven bya rural elites and neglect the interests of usually bigger sections of poor peasants.