Farewell!

It's come to the end of the module, and the blog... so I thought I could take this opportunity to pause and reflect on the whole process

Throughout the blog I grappled with competing visions for "development". This threw up serious and difficult questions to answer. Opting for the less compromising view of development, one where there is an absolute commitment to always reduce inequalities, also carried real risk. In the UK and most other developed countries, there are plenty of inequalities, and every day we engage with institutions and practices that are complicit in them. The NHS is not perfectly equal and London is not particularly sustainable, but surely we would not give either of those up? It is not then acceptable to hold the continent of Africa to such a standard that in the hopes for idyllic development, any improvement of circumstance, if at all flawed, is rejected.

When approaching the question of development in this way, an absolute resolve to not compromise becomes very uncomfortable. When accepting a degree of compromise, land acquisition deals and Green Revolutions become far more palatable. The arguments put forward by the literature against land acquisitions fail to stand up to the "Would I accept the compromise?" test. That is not to say that I agree to wholesale selling off of land in Africa to the highest bidder, but rather that a land acquisition deal, even one that displaces land users and has potentially unsustainable farming plans, can present an opportunity for net positive outcomes. Those positive outcomes however would be reliant on significant conditions and safeguards from the host nation - whether countries have the political strength to pull that off is yet to be seen. That setup however would still likely sustain, if not increase inequalities of income; whether that can still be called development, or whether "progress" is better, is down to individual preference.

On the question of sustainable farming, I am doubtful that there is a current, scalable model. From examples around the world, farming has consistently relied on a mix of subsidies, over cultivation and/or poor returns for farmers. Either one of those three conditions precludes a sustainable solution. If we accept that there is currently no model for agriculture that is sustainable and could feed Africa and beyond, then we must accept an unsustainable setup, and expect innovation to improve the situation going into the future.

I remain a fan of the big policies and doubtful of the chances of small, grassroots schemes being successful. Concepts such as IRBM have good intentions, but I'd contend that they are not viable approaches for large-scale development/progress. Even the success of the Green Revolution would not ensure the use of the IRBM framework. Of course, as Africa continues to develop, that all may change. Writing this blog has made it clear just how difficult it is to judge right and wrong and success and failure on the national and international level.

Hopefully you've enjoyed reading this blog, and if you'd like to leave a comment... please do - I'll still be around to reply!

Exploited - the big and the small

Many of the pressures, for farmers and the environment, exist in smallholder and agri-industrial scenarios alike. Last week's post on Panjab revealed the challenges faced in a smallholder setting. Whilst some of the challenges surrounding large scale land acquisitions have previously been discussed, De Schutter's (2011) exploration of acquisitions shows how similar the land ownership problems can be to smallholder settings.

Land deals, even when leasing, carry a considerable opportunity cost. By developing land in the vision of corporations, driven by shareholder pressures and strategies drawn up by faraway executives, poverty-reduction and responsible consumption of resources are not prioritised. Large-scale, agri-industrial developments are not necessarily the "progress" that communities and regions require. The binding contracts of these deals may also restrict political visions of future governments, introducing inflexibility that harms poverty reduction measures and sustainable water use.

Land deals may also facilitate the development of a market for land rights - and by proxy, water rights. 'Small farmers face structural disadvantages in the land market'; as prices for land increase, the small farmers are priced out of the market, and their primary source of credit are high-interest rate local money lenders. Land titling would see the exploitation of the small farmers, with their insecure and uncodified land claims. Despite this, multilateral organisations continue to call for land titling (Greco, 2013), as it makes foreign investment (and potentially removing land users from their land) much easier.

The exploitation of farmers is likely to be an ever-present threat regardless of whether it is small-scale farming, industrial farming or something in between. If there are individuals/organisations prepared to stretch resources further for greater returns, it is difficult to imagine that others would not follow suit (willingly or not). Strict state controls of resource usage are the only viable solution to ensure a free-for-all does not occur. This would however collaboration across Africa, or else businesses could easily move elsewhere, leaving farmers stranded.

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

Firstly, I hope you all had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

On the back of my last post on Panjab, I thought this would be a nice video to post.

The positivity in the video is certainly infectious - it's tough not to get swept away by the promise of it all!

What stands out to me the most is the focus on tangible results, even with the simplest of innovations (like a standard mobile phone!). It's both encouraging and empowering