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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment