The World Bank, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Secretariat, recently presented seven “Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment.” The principles seek to ensure that large-scale land investments result in “win-win” situations, benefiting investors and directly affected communities alike. However, although well-intended, the principles are woefully inadequate.
It has been several years since private investors and states began buying and leasing millions of hectares of farmland worldwide in order to secure their domestic supply of food, raw commodities and biofuels, or to get subsidies for carbon storage through plantations. Western investors, including Wall Street banks and hedge funds, now view direct investments in land as a safe haven in an otherwise turbulent financial climate.
The scope of the phenomenon is enormous. Since 2006, between 15 and 20 million hectares of farmland, the equivalent of the total arable surface of France, has been the subject of negotiations with foreign investors.
The risks are considerable. All too often, notions such as “reserve agricultural land” or “idle land,” are manipulated out of existence, sometimes being used to seize land on which many livelihoods depend and that is subject to long-standing customary rights. The requirement that evictions take place only for a valid “public purpose,” with fair compensation and following consultation with those affected, is honored more in the breach than in the observance.
In Africa, rural land is generally considered to be state-owned, and treated by governments as if it were their own. In Latin America, the gap between large landowners and small peasants is widening. In South Asia, many populations are currently being driven off their ancestral land to make room for large palm-oil plantations, special economic zones or re-forestation projects.
The set of principles that have been proposed to impose discipline on this phenomenon remain purely voluntary. What is really required is an insistence that governments comply fully with their human rights obligations, including the right to food, the right of all peoples to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources and the right not to be deprived of the means of subsistence. Because the principles being touted ignore human rights, they neglect the essential dimension of accountability.
There is also a clear tension between ceding land to investors for the creation of large plantations, and the objective of redistributing land and ensuring more equitable access. Governments have repeatedly committed themselves to these goals, most recently at the 2006 International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.
The underlying problem runs deeper than how the principles have been formulated. The promotion of large-scale land investment is based on the belief that combating hunger requires boosting food production and that supply has lagged because of a lack of investment in agriculture. Hence, if investment can be attracted to agriculture, it should be welcomed, and the rules imposed be designed to encourage it.
But both the diagnosis and the remedy are incorrect. Hunger and malnutrition are not primarily the result of insufficient food production; they are the result of poverty and inequality, particularly in rural areas, where 75 percent of the world’s poor still reside.
In the past, agricultural development has prioritized large-scale, capitalized forms of agriculture, neglecting smallholders who feed local communities. In addition, governments have failed to protect agricultural workers from exploitation in an increasingly competitive environment. It should come as no surprise then that smallholders and agricultural laborers represent a combined 70 percent of those who are unable to feed themselves today.
Accelerating the shift towards large-scale, highly mechanized forms of agriculture will not solve the problem. Indeed, it will make it worse. The largest and best-equipped farms are highly competitive, in the sense that they can produce for markets at a lower cost. But they also create a number of social costs that are not accounted for in the market price of their output.
Smallholders, by contrast, produce at a higher cost. They are often very productive by hectare, since they maximize the use of the soil, and achieve the best complementary use of plants and animals, but the form of agriculture that they practice, which relies less on external inputs and mechanization, is highly labor-intensive.
If smallholders compete in the same markets as the large farms, they lose. Yet they render invaluable services, in terms of preservation of agro- and biodiversity, local communities’ resilience to price shocks or weather-related events and environmental conservation.
The arrival of large-scale investment in agriculture will alter the relationship between these worlds of farming. It will exacerbate highly unequal competition and it could cause massive social disruptions in the world’s rural areas.
Certainly, agricultural investment should develop responsibly. But, while many have seen the scares provoked by spiking food prices in recent years as an opportunity for investment, opportunities should not be mistaken for solutions.
To re-launch agriculture in the developing world would require an estimated US$30 billion per year, representing 0.05 percent of global GDP. But how much is invested in agriculture matters less than the type of agriculture that we support.
By supporting further consolidation of large-scale monocultures in the hands of the most powerful economic actors, we risk widening further the gap with small-scale, family farming, while pushing a model of industrial farming that is already responsible for one-third of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions today.
It is regrettable that, instead of rising to the challenge of developing agriculture in a way that is more socially and environmentally sustainable, we act as if accelerating the destruction of the global peasantry could be accomplished responsibly.
Olivier De Schutter is UN special rapporteur on the right to food.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS