Analysing agricultural investment from the realities of small-scale food providers: grounding the debates

Abstract

Over the past decade, agricultural investment has been presented as a catchall solution to a converging set of global crises, often with poor rural communities as the proclaimed beneficiaries. Yet the promises of such investment, such as poverty alleviation and improved food access, are routinely at odds with realities on the ground. This article offers frameworks for analysis of agricultural investment that are grounded in the realities of small-scale food providers, drawing from two studies. The first study employs a right to food framework to identify the main channels through which food for consumption is procured by small-scale food providers and the factors impacting these channels. It draws on empirical data from within the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), an investment model promised to lift rural communities out of poverty, which reflects a regional trend. Based on the shortcomings of the large-scale investments examined, the second study employs a food sovereignty framework to explore alternative forms of investment envisioned and/or already being put into practice by small-scale food providers in the SAGCOT area and elsewhere in Tanzania. While two different frameworks formed the basis of two different studies, both the studies and their frameworks are interrelated. The final section of this article makes the case for why both the right to food and food sovereignty are essential lenses for understanding agricultural investment vis-à-vis small-scale food providers and the ways in which they can serve as complementary tools for effective analysis.

Keywords:

• Agricultural investment
• right to food
• food sovereignty
• Tanzania
• SAGCOT
• small-scale food providers

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Frank Ademba, Jun Borras, and Kerstin Lanje for their ongoing support of both studies that form the basis of this article, and thanks to the team at MISEREOR for ongoing administrative support. Many thanks also to Denis Mpagaze and others at MVIWATA Ruvuma; Brito Mgaya, Paul Chilewa, Josephine Dungumaro, Father Makombe, Sister Sabina, and others at Caritas Tanzania; Marc Wuyts and others at REPOA; the team of MVIWATA Zanzibar; and John Faida, Fatuma Amiri, Jordan Gama, Dickson Mwalubandu, and the many others who supported the field work for these studies, especially the many food providers who took time out of their busy days to share their input with us. Thanks also to Olivier De Schutter and Samuel Darkwah for contributing input early on and to the anonymous reviewers whose feedback helped to strengthen this article.

Notes

1. The use of the term ‘food provider’ in this article reflects an intentional move by food sovereignty advocates to recognise the diverse groups in addition to farmers that produce, harvest or otherwise provide food.

2. McMichael, “The Land Question,” 436.

3. McMichael, “The Land Question”; Kay, Reclaiming Agricultural Investment.

4. De Schutter, “The Green Rush”; Borras et al., “Towards a Better Understanding.”

5. Patel et al., “Cook, Eat, Man, Woman,” 22.

6. Wuyts and Kilama, “Planning for Agricultural Change,” 322.

7. Patel et al., “Cook, Eat, Man, Woman,” 22.

8. Bergius, Benjaminsen, and Widgren, “Green Economy.” See also Havnevik, “A Historical Framework” and Skarstein, “Smallholder Agriculture in Tanzania.”

9. Herrmann, “Large-Scale Agricultural Investments,” 305.

10. Wuyts and Kilama point out, however, that the 75% figure can be misleading because ‘in terms of labour time, employment in agriculture is not as high as the data on employment by main activity suggests, due to the fact that the peasantry combines agriculture with off-farm activities to make a living’; Wuyts and Kilama, “Planning for Agricultural Change,” 338.

11. Cliffe, “Rural Class Formation”; Cliffe and Saul, “Socialism in Tanzania”; Havnevik and Isinka, Tanzania in Transition.

12. For more detailed information on the methodology underlying the two studies informing this article, see Twomey et al., Impacts of Large-Scale Agricultural Investments; Schiavoni et al., Alternative Agricultural Investment.

13. Cliffe, “Rural Class Formation”; Mbilinyi “Agribusiness and Women.”

14. Martiniello, “Don’t Stop the Mill”; Herrmann, “Large-Scale Agricultural Investments”; Sulle, “Social Differentiation”; Smalley, Sulle, and Malale, “The Role of the State.”

15. Olivier De Schutter, personal communication, 28 February 2014. See also De Schutter, “Towards More Equitable Value Chains.”

16. Mbilinyi, “Agribusiness and Women,” 570.

17. CESCR, “General Comment 12.” The right to food is legally binding for the countries that have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the total number of which is 165 (including Tanzania), according to the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as of April 2017.

18. De Schutter, “Right to Food.”

19. Cotula, Djiré, and Tenga, The Right to Food; De Schutter, “Right to Food.”

20. De Schutter and Cordes, “Accounting for Hunger.”

21. De Schutter, “Right to Food.”

22. Bernstein, Class Dynamics, 63.

23. Cotula, Djiré, and Tenga, The Right to Food.

24. La Vía Campesina and GRAIN, Seed Laws that Criminalise.

25. Cordes, “The Impact of Agribusiness.”

26. De Schutter, “Right to Food.”

27. De Schutter, “Towards More Equitable Value Chains.”

28. Anker, Estimating a Living Wage, 5.

29. Twomey et al., Impacts of Large-Scale Agricultural Investments.

30. SAGCOT, The Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor.

31. Twomey et al., Impacts of Large-Scale Agricultural Investments.

32. See Schiavoni et al., Alternative Agricultural Investment.

33. “Declaration of Nyéléni.”

34. Schiavoni et al., Alternative Agricultural Investment.

35. Kilima et al., “Impacts of Market Reform”; Sulle and Hall, “Reframing the New Alliance Agenda.”

36. MVIWATA, which stands for Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania (the National Network of Farmers’ Groups in Tanzania), is a member of the transnational agrarian movement La Vía Campesina. It is important to note that MVIWATA, like the Tanzanian farming sector, is not homogenous, with members engaged in a variety of activities across the political spectrum.

37. Schiavoni et al., Alternative Agricultural Investment.

38. Mollel and Porokwa, “Pastoralists, Land Rights”; IFAD and IWGIA, Country Technical Note; Lund, Odgaard, and Sjaastad, Land Rights and Land Conflicts.

39. Mollel and Porokwa, “Pastoralists, Land Rights,” have documented such forms of exclusion.

40. Benjaminsen and Bryceson, “Conservation, Green/Blue Grabbing.”

41. Halweil, Eat Here.

42. High Level Panel of Experts, Sustainable Fisheries, 58.

43. Franco, Monsalve, and Borras, “Democratic Land Control.”

44. Schiavoni et al., Alternative Agricultural Investment.

45. Food First, Issue Primer: Agroecology.

46. Lin et al., “Effects of Industrial Agriculture.”

47. Franco, Monsalve, and Borras, “Democratic Land Control” (emphasis authors’ own).

48. FAO, Voluntary Guidelines.

49. De Schutter, From Charity to Entitlement, 6.

50. Edelman and James, “Peasants’ Rights.”

51. Patel et al., “Cook, Eat, Man, Woman,” 29

52. See Claeys, Human Rights and Windfuhr and Jonsén, Food Sovereignty.