The Influence of Land Grabbing on the Wellbeing of Local Actors and Communities
Evidence from the Bagamoyo District, Tanzania Nathan Cable
International Development Studies MSc Thesis Student Number: 10918663 Email: nathan.cable@student.uva.nl
Supervisor: Dr. Enrique Gomez-‐Llata (University of Amsterdam) Second Reader: Dr. Nicky Pouw (University of Amsterdam)
Acknowledgements
I would like to firstly thank Dr Enrique Gomez-‐Llata for supporting me during the entire writing process and offering excellent advice throughout, as well as challenging me to push myself at all times. Thanks also to Dr Nicky Pouw for being the second reader of this thesis.
I would also like to thank my translator Al, who enabled me to carry out my research to the required standard and also provided great friendship and help whilst in the field. Also to Dula, Bashi, Mmeta and everybody else who made my stay in Bagamoyo so welcoming and enjoyable.
My sincere gratitude also goes out to everyone who took part in my research, either through interviews or participatory mapping, as none of this would have been possible otherwise.
Finally I would like to thank my friends for their help and support over the last few months, and to my family for their continued love and guidance.
Abstract
Due to the global ‘land rush’ of the mid-‐2000s, land grabbing is seen as a highly contentious issue within the field of international development, and has resulted in increased research and attention from academics and civil society groups. Many cases are occurring in Africa, where investor-‐friendly climates and welcoming domestic governments are enabling the transfer of huge tracts of land to foreign firms. The Bagamoyo District in Tanzania is a rare empirical example in that it has been subject to two attempted land grabs in the past decade, with current occupier EcoEnergy aiming to mass produce sugar cane over a 20,000 hectare plot. Departing from common political economy or food security perspectives, this thesis looks at the influence of land grabbing on the wellbeing of communities within the ‘grabbed’ locations, inclusive of material, relational and subjective aspects. Interviews with 70 respondents from six village localities first gave rise to a number of issues with the project itself, with legal and financial difficulties resulting in significant delays to the planned production of sugar cane. Said delays are in turn considerably inhibiting material wellbeing via reduced income and access to land, the latter the key resource for smallholder farmers in attempting to move out of situations of poverty. Further, confusion, fear and anger are expressed by local actors with respect to a lack of transparency from both the government and EcoEnergy, as minimal information concerning the current and future intentions of the project and an absence of dialogue and consultation has significantly impacted upon the relational and subjective wellbeing of both individuals and communities, with such fragmentation evident in examples of divorce, migration and poor education attendance. This research suggests a re-‐evaluation of the situation in the Bagamoyo District and a renewed emphasis upon the needs, goals and rights of local actors over those of large-‐scale, foreign owned agribusiness ventures, particularly with respect to customary land tenure rights and the expertise of smallholder farmers.
Key words: Land Grabbing, Wellbeing, Tanzania
Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Problem Statement 1 1.2 Research Rationale 1
1.3 Points of Departure 2
1.4 Research Questions 3 1.4.1 Research Sub-‐Questions 3 1.5 Thesis Outline 3 2. Theoretical Framework 4 2.1 Introduction 4 2.2 Land Grabbing 4
2.2.1 Contemporary Trends and the Role of the Nation State 5
2.2.2 Land Conflict 6
2.2.3 Land Tenure 8
2.2.4 Local Resistance 8
2.2.5 Transparency 9
2.3 Monocropping 10
2.3.1 Contrast with Intercropping Technique 10
2.3.2 Environmental Impact 11
2.4 Wellbeing 11
2.3.1 Theoretical Influences 12
2.3.1.1 From Money Poverty to Human Development 12 2.3.1.2 From Money Poverty to Resources and Agency 13 2.3.1.3 From Money Poverty to Subjective Wellbeing and Quality of Life 14
2.3.2 Conceptualisation 15 2.5 Conclusion 16 3. Research Methodology 17 3.1 Introduction 17 3.2 Research Design 17 3.3 Conceptual Scheme 17 3.4 Epistemological Stance 18
3.5 Methods of Collecting Data 19
3.5.1 Participatory Observation 19
3.5.2 Participatory Mapping 20
3.5.3 Semi-‐structured Interviews 20
3.6 Site and Respondent Selection 21
3.7 Data Analysis 22
3.8 Research Quality, Ethical Considerations and Limitations 23
3.9 Conclusion 24
4.2 Research Location 25
4.2.1 Tanzania 25
4.2.1.1 Colonialism 25
4.2.1.2 Post-‐Colonialism 26
4.2.1.3 Contemporary Governance 28
4.2.2 Bagamoyo District – The SEKAB/EcoEnergy Story 30
4.3 Land Grab or Land Acquisition? 33
4.4 Conclusion 35
5. Data Analysis (1) – Monocropping Proposal 36
5.1 Introduction 36
5.2 Strategy Differences between Smallholder Farmers and EcoEnergy 36
5.3 Conclusion 38
6. Data Analysis (2) – Land Grabbing Consequences 39
6.1 Introduction 39
6.2 Influence on Land (Tenure, Access and Quality) 39 6.3 Influence on Livelihoods and Income 40
6.4 Influence on Education 42
6.5 Influence on Relationships and Households 43 6.6 Influence on Social and Community Cohesion 45
6.7 Influence of Transparency 45
6.8 Resistance and Autonomy 49
6.9 Local Goals 53
6.10 Conclusion 55
7. Discussion 56
7.1 Introduction 56
7.2 Potential Pitfalls of Monocropping 56 7.3 Cultural Importance of Smallholder Agriculture 58
7.4 Significance of Transparency 60
7.5 Conclusion 62
8. Conclusion 63
8.1 Introduction 63
8.2 Addressing the Research Question 63
8.4 Methodological Limitations 65
8.5 Research Recommendations 65
8.6 Future Research Agenda 67
9. Bibliography 68
10. Appendix 79
A. Respondent Profiles 79
List of Acronyms
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CCM Chama Cha Mapinduzi
COC Code of Conduct
DFID Department of International Development ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment HDI Human Development Index
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IMF International Monetary Fund
ILC International Land Coalition
IPC International Civil Society Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation
FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent LM Land Matrix
NEMC National Environmental Management Council NLP National Land Policy
PPP Public-‐Private Partnership
RANQ Resources and Needs Questionnaire RED Renewal Energy Directive
RPF Resources Profile Framework RRA Rapid Rural Assessment
SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania SIDA Swedish International Development Corporation SLA Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
THN Theory of Human Need TIC Tanzania Investment Centre TNI Transnational Institute
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptualisation of Wellbeing Figure 2 Conceptual Scheme
Figure 3 Respondent Profiles Figure 4 Village Profiles
Figure 5 Map of Bagamoyo District Figure 6 Participatory Mapping Profiles
Figure 7 Summary of the Influence of Land Grabbing on Wellbeing
Chapter 1: Introduction The quotation above, collected during an interview with a male, middle-‐aged smallholder farmer in the village of Bozi, illustrates the on-‐going debilitating influence of land grabbing in the Bagamoyo District of Tanzania, where residents perpetually experience hardships such as dispossession, resettlement and exclusion due to the presence of foreign investor EcoEnergy. The despair expressed is just one of many examples of the negative influence of land grabbing within rural localities, prefacing this comprehensive study of how the wellbeing of affected actors and communities has been influenced as a result of the EcoEnergy project within the region.
1.1 Problem Statement
Land grabbing is a contemporary, complex and highly contentious issue within the discourse of International Development, conceptualized as ‘a catch-‐all to describe and analyse the current explosion of large scale (trans)national commercial land transactions’ (Borras Jr et al., 2011, p.210); empirical evidence of 45 million hectares of land having been ‘grabbed’ by 2010 (World Bank, 2010) is indicative of the massive scale on which the phenomena operates, with overarching causal factors given as, but not restricted to, widespread economic liberalisation, globalisation of transport and communications, and rising global demand for food, energy and commodities (Cotula et al., 2010). Studies concerning wellbeing are becoming increasingly popular and academically rigorous, with the most successful conceptualisation derived by the Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD) group (Gough and McGregor, 2007), whereby material, relational and subjective dimensions cumulatively determine the overall wellbeing of a given individual or group. The concept also allows for the appreciation of normative aspects, such as the influence of culture, as well as determining the needs and goals of those affected, thus placing it as an ideal theory through which to determine the influence of land grabbing, particularly when the investment concerns large scale transformation of agricultural land.
1.2 Research Rationale
This research project focuses on the Bagamoyo District in Tanzania; the country itself is recognized as one of the most heavily ‘grabbed’ localities, with 4.23% of total global land transactions (equating to 17.63% of
‘I need my land. If EcoEnergy come here and say they need us to give them our land, they will give nothing back. I am ready to die here. Better to die, then I can never see anything, never need to survive this life that EcoEnergy give to us’ (7)
domestic cultivated land) (Rulli et al. (2013). Within the region, a Swedish company, EcoEnergy, have recently acquired a 99 year lease for an area of land more than 20,000 hectares in size, in doing so purchasing plans and an investment licence from native compatriot SEKAB; the latter attempted (and failed) to implement a biofuel policy in the region between 2006-‐09, in doing so incurring losses of SEK 170 million (around USD$18.25 million). Significant other issues have emerged alongside the financial ramifications; these include Tanzania’s poor capacity to deal with large scale, cross cutting projects (such as biofuels) on the national scale, a fractured working relationship between consultants and government officials, and the questionable ethical stance of said consultants (Havnevik et al., 2011). Despite this, EcoEnergy is forging ahead with its proposal, with evidence suggesting that during the first phase of the project, 300 people will be physically displaced alongside 1000 others losing a proportion of their farmland (ActionAid, 2015). The project itself is representative of many such land grabs which occur worldwide, with the planned mass production of sugar cane (indicative of the practice of monocropping) alongside a corporate-‐driven process requiring large scale financing (Barros Jr and Franco, 2012), and has also been criticised by the NGO ActionAid (2015) for failing to adhere to the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) when dealing with local communities prior to arrival. Debate has also arisen as to whether EcoEnergy have ‘grabbed’ or acquired the land in question, with evidence for the former including the aforementioned lack of FPIC alongside the exclusion of local actors and imbalanced power relations between said actors and the government, all of which are attributable facets of land grabbing under recognised definitions, such as that issued within the International Land Coalition’s (ILC) Tirana Declaration.
1.3 Points of Departure
This research aims to add to the literature by providing an insight into the influence of land grabbing, and in particular the potential practice of monocropping, on the wellbeing of rural Tanzanian individuals and communities, in doing so moving away from conventional theoretical approaches such as food security (Spieldoch and Murphy, 2009; Daniel, 2011) and political economy (Moyo, 2000; Lavers, 2012), alongside the common portrayal of financial (Borras Jr et al., 2010; Vermeulen and Cotula, 2010) and environmental (Clover and Eriksen, 2010) consequences. This method is applied in order to hopefully provide a more holistic approach to research concerning land grabbing. The attempt by EcoEnergy to continue where SEKAB failed also provides an unusual temporal insight (with respect to two attempted land grabs for the same region), as well as allowing for consideration as to whether or not lessons were learnt since 2009, and thereafter whether EcoEnergy has been anymore successful than its predecessor, with particular attention paid to the consultation, communication and dialogue with affected actors and communities.
1.4 Research Question
What is the influence of a large-‐scale transnational land grab on the wellbeing of affected individuals and communities in the Bagamoyo District, Tanzania?
1.4.1 Research Sub-‐Questions
1) Who is responsible for land grabbing in the Bagamoyo District, and how does this process materialise? 2) What does the EcoEnergy project entail, and what potential impact could this have on the local
environment?
3) How has EcoEnergy’s land grab influenced material and relational wellbeing within affected communities?
4) How has EcoEnergy’s land grab (with particular reference to top-‐down transparency) influenced subjective wellbeing within affected communities?
5) In what ways do the goals and desires of local actors differ from those of EcoEnergy moving forwards?
1.5 Thesis Outline
This thesis is divided into seven chapters, aimed at providing a thorough, in-‐depth account of the on-‐going situation in the Bagamoyo District and the influence of foreign investment at the community level. Chapter 1, as seen, introduces the key themes of the research, alongside the unique aspects of the work with respect to the wider literature, and establishes the main research question and five sub-‐questions to be addressed. Chapter 2 details the main concepts of land grabbing and wellbeing, establishing the theoretical influences alongside empirical examples. Chapter 3 provides a detailed insight into the methodology of the research project, stemming from pre-‐fieldwork design and epistemological considerations through methods of data collection and final analysis of research quality alongside ethical considerations and limitations. Chapter 4 includes the empirical context of both the Bagamoyo District and Tanzania, specifically focusing on the land policies that have shaped the contemporary scene in the country. Chapter 5 represents a detailed data analysis section, identifying key themes and patterns to emerge from the data in order to satisfy the research questions established in the introduction. Chapter 6 is divided into three discussion sections, each focusing on a key emergent theme with linkages to both theory and other empirical examples. Chapter 7 concludes the thesis with a concise summary and recommendations moving forward in the region, before a bibliography and appendix finalise the thesis.
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of land grabbing (including the practice of monocropping) and wellbeing, the core concepts established within this thesis. The framework will incorporate a thorough theoretical perspective, alongside conceptual and empirical evidence, to support and reinforce what each concept entails and its relevance for this specific research, as well as providing links and relationships between the two.
2.2 Land Grabbing
Land grabbing has both historical and contemporary significance within the discourse of development, with recent literature stating that the concept ‘needs to be seen in the context of the power of national and trans-‐national capital and their desire for profit, which overrides existing uses and systems of management of the land that are rooted in local communities’ (TNI, 2013, p.3). Within this, clear associations can be made not only with capitalist, neo-‐liberalistic attitudes that characterize Western hegemonic influence over a number of contemporary global issues, but also with colonialist behaviour and activity. However, such historical comparisons must be carefully considered and can often appear overly simplistic, particularly given the radically different global landscape seen today in comparison with the colonialist period.
Margulis et al. (2013) note that ‘the contemporary wave of land grabbing is a unique world historical event that reveals a nascent shift in the global political economy towards a more polycentric configuration of power and production’ (ibid, p.18), with the aforementioned Western hegemony being increasingly challenged by new global players such as China and the United Arab Emirates (von Braun and Meinzen-‐ Dick, 2009). Land grabbing in its current form was facilitated by this reconfiguration of global power accompanied by a ‘convergence of global crises’ (Borras Jr and Franco, 2012, p.36) concerning oil and food prices in 2007-‐8, which subsequently caused a vast number of countries to reconsider strategy regarding food security. At the forefront lie the aforementioned ‘newer hubs of global capital’ (White et al., 2013, p.249) alongside resource-‐scarce areas such as the Gulf State, where the cumulative food import bill increased by USD$12 billion between 2002 and 2007 (Daniel, 2011). Evidence stemming from the ensuing rush to acquire land has shown a vast number of deals lacking in transparency, consultation and respect for those local communities directly affected (Cotula, 2012), in turn often leading to ‘real and massive
of actors now mobilizing within the field, including but not limited to the G8, World Bank, civil society movements, NGOs and multiple corporations, is indicative of the rise of land grabbing to the forefront of global consciousness, and is met within recent literature with calls for ‘nuanced analyses’ (Wolford et al., 2013, p.206) to better understand how, where and why this phenomenon is currently occurring, alongside potential implications for the future.
2.2.1 Contemporary Trends and the Role of the Nation State
An important theory when determining factors which govern the demand for land is David Harvey’s ‘accumulation by dispossession’ (Harvey, 2003), drawing upon the Marxist concept of ‘primitive accumulation’ to define the over-‐absorption of capital in the global economy. Levein (2013) moves beyond this, introducing the concept of ‘regimes of dispossession’ in order to tackle the non-‐ incorporation of the state into Harvey’s theory, and in doing so establishes a ‘socially and historically specific constellation of political, economic and ideological forces that underpin a relatively consistent pattern of dispossession’ (ibid, p.22) which typically ‘involves a state that is willing to coercively expropriate resources from one class to another for a set of purposes that it seeks to legitimize through claims to the public good’ (ibid, p.22); the latter point is particularly pertinent given that many on-‐going land deals are framed as being beneficial for the communities involved. Oya (2013) further supports Levein’s notion by arguing that in current climates, demand for land is generated as much by state opportunism as it is by exogenous forces; such examples provide further scope as to the importance in contemporary land grabbing of the mutually beneficial relationship, particularly financially, between foreign investors and the recipient state (notwithstanding potentially negative impacts at the local level). Similarly, Wolford et al. (2013) challenge the ‘simplistic’ claim that land deals as seen today are ‘top-‐down phenomenon driven by global markets or foreign states’ (Fairbairn, 2013, p.335), instead focusing on territory, sovereignty, authority and subjects as four key components through which to consider the appropriation of power within a nation state. The attempt to understand the process of governance within such states is critical to understanding the recent trend of large scale land deals, with Wolford et al. (2013) stressing that many states now attracting such investment should be seen not as ‘weak and corrupt’ (ibid, p.206) but rather ‘active, calculating partners’ (ibid, p.192).
This contemporary role of nation states is reflected in the numerous Public-‐Private Partnerships (PPPs) attempting to integrate into the global land market, typically comprised of a foreign private investor and recipient state. Recent discourse involving these partnerships has attempted to shift the ‘dominant storyline of land grabbing’ (Borras Jr and Franco, 2010, p.509) from that of a threat to an opportunity, with primary focus on closing the financing gap that is systematic of many agricultural sectors globally, and particularly applicable in Sub-‐Saharan Africa (FAO, 2012). An attempt to remedy this saw the G8
launch ‘The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition’ initiative, which ‘promised to deliver USD$3 billion in agriculture-‐related investments from African and multinational companies, with the goal of lifting 50 million people out of poverty over the next decade’ (Oxfam, 2013, p.2). However, the initiative has since received significant criticism from NGOs and mainstream media due to the requisite policy reforms participating countries have to undertake (Provost et al., 2014); facets such as the easing of export controls and tax laws act as enabling forces and thus give preference to those providing foreign direct investment (FDI) through agri-‐business rather than smallholder farmers, in doing so alienating the population subset it was initially framed to help. Hallam (2009) reflects on the reproducibility and global scope of such issues; ‘many developing countries have introduced extensive policy reforms in this respect in recent years creating more stable legal environments, liberalizing entry conditions and establishing investment promotion institutions to facilitate inward investment’ (ibid, p.8), thus enhancing the notion that recipient states are frequently more concerned with foreign investment than the needs or desires of their domestic population. Indeed, measures imposed for the benefit of attracting FDI have seen justification for land deals expanding far beyond original concerns over food security into areas such as ecotourism, Special Economic Zones and retirement migrations (Zoomers, 2010).
Evidence thus far provides clarity as to the establishment of a global environment, particularly in terms of governance, which welcomes and encourages land deals. The Transnational Institute (TNI) have also detailed a number of ‘ideological myths’ (TNI, 2013, p.6) that further sustain the on-‐going practice of large-‐scale investments; these include claims that there is an availability of excess land with which to transform investment into income, agriculture is dependent upon investment (particularly foreign) and property rights are the best solution to greater land tenure security (ibid, 2013). The paper concludes that ‘these interpretations reinforce the conservative view of land as ‘a thing’ with only economic use-‐value, which undermines many other values associated with land for communities worldwide’ (ibid, p.7); evidence within the literature supports the claim that the conservative premise is false, as ‘there is now an incontrovertible link between plants, animals and lands that people gain material and non-‐material welfare from’ (Jacques and Jacques, 2012, p.2971). The latter point is indicative of how the global mobilisation of investors and recipient states to negotiate land deals has been accompanied by growing concerns as to the impact of such deals at the local level, particularly concerning the levels of transparency, dialogue and consultation between those directly affected and investors.
2.2.2 Land Conflict
Sassen (2013) questions potential consequences when ‘national territory is downgraded to foreign-‐owned land for plantations and the rest is evicted – flora, faunas, villages, smallholders’ (ibid, p.43), implying a
dichotomous relationship between recipient states and its citizens alongside a gradual denationalisation of state territory; Borras Jr and Franco (2010) claim ‘any effort to link high standards of business practice with ethical behaviour […] is unlikely to produce truly pro-‐poor outcomes if the primary aim [is not] to protect and advance the land access and property interests of working poor people’ (ibid, p.510) while Hallam (2009) states that information pertaining to land deals is ‘often anecdotal, probably exaggerated and difficult to verify’ (ibid, p.3). Concerns established via research, such as these, are also reflected in the attitudes of civil society organisations; in 2012, Friends of the Earth garnered support from several other groups in order to address issues regarding ‘speculation on land’ (FoE, 2012, p.1) and suggested the specific banks and pension funds involved in fuelling such deals to ‘be subject to mandatory, prior and independent assessment of the potential impacts of investments and products’ (ibid, p.1). Corresponding efforts are at the forefront of tackling the frequent consequences of land grabbing, with the rapid and large-‐scale mobilisation indicative of a growing global civil society; a renowned scholar on the subject is Robert Cox, who states that ‘civil society is the realm in which those who are disadvantaged by globalisation of the world economy can mount their protests and seek alternatives’ (Cox, 1999, p.10). A successful implementation of such behaviour is evident in the case of Madagascar in late 2008, where a highly controversial land deal garnered significant media coverage and was eventually thwarted; the event also led to the government being overthrown (Cotula et al., 2010).
The desire for land is clearly at the very crux of the land grabbing debate; nonetheless, the desires of transnational companies to take advantage of beneficial investment conditions is in stark contrast to those directly affected by such deals, the vast majority of whom are smallholder farmers. Estimates indicate that these farmers are cumulatively responsible for cultivating 80% of Sub-‐Saharan and Asian farmland (FAO, 2012) and that GDP growth stimulated in the agricultural sector is up to four times more effective in alleviating poverty than growth in other sectors (World Bank, 2008) are emblematic of both the dependence and potential of such farmers on their land; De Schutter (2011) stresses the importance of the latter in contrast to farming activity associated with investors, implying ‘huge opportunity costs’ and ‘much less powerful poverty-‐reducing impacts than if access to land and water were improved for the local farming communities’ (ibid, p.249). Indeed, the discourse surrounding the critical importance of land has now extended to calls for ‘the promotion and application of the right to land as a human right’ (Künnemann and Suárez, 2013, p.123), reflecting the inherent role smallholder farming plays in rural communities worldwide.
2.2.3 Land Tenure
The evolutionary theory of land rights operates under a central tenet that ‘under the joint impact of increasing population pressure and market integration, land rights spontaneously evolve towards rising individualisation […] this evolution eventually leads rights holders to press for the creation of duly formalized private property rights’ (Platteau, 1996, p.29); historical evidence from Sub-‐Saharan Africa supports this claim, where ‘in many areas there has always been individual possession; in others, it is growing’ (Feder and Noronha, 1987, p.163). Nonetheless, despite claims that possession was growing as far back as the late 1980s, contemporary scenes in core land grabbing locations, particularly Africa, see a vast majority of local actors with no official or formal rights to the land they current occupy. Even when formal land rights are implemented, an emergent and recurring issue is a lack of understanding or information given to those at the local level in order to secure such rights. Thus, the security of land is typically both tenuous and vulnerable, particularly with respect to the consequential onset of legal pluralism due to the multiple bodies of law (from global to local), which interact and overlap (Edelman et al., 2012) and thus add complexity to already limited domestic legal structures. Edelman et al. further highlight the issue with respect to the power dynamics at play; ‘international human rights law […] tends to be incorporated selectively and unevenly into regional conventions and national laws […] while international trade and investment law is generally applied more thoroughly’ (ibid, p. 1524), highlighting the imbalance of priorities and the disadvantageous position from which local actors operate.
2.2.4 Local Resistance
Conversely, resistance provides a means by which local level actors can challenge authority, and is tightly linked to concerns regarding both power relations amongst the various levels of governance involved in land grabbing and the ascension of a global civil society tackling the issue. McKeon (2013) provides a detailed overview as to the growth of transnational social movements, insinuating that such movements seem ‘poised to apply a sandwich strategy moving simultaneously from the global and the local levels in their fight against land grabbing’ (ibid, p.111), placing NGOs at the forefront of those promoting global policy advocacy. However, of equal importance is the co-‐existing mobilisation and organisation of those at the local level; McKeon cites the example of the International Civil Society Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) as a network strongly rooted in rural movements and one which grew from civil society forums held in parallel to FAO World Food Summits in 1996 and 2002. Since inception in 2003, the IPC ‘has facilitated the participation of over 2000 representatives of small food producers’ organisations in FAO policy forums, championing an alternative paradigm to free trade and green revolution technology’
(ibid, p.107), yet despite its success and that of similar forums, many local actors still lack the means by which to articulate and voice their claims.
Borras Jr and Franco (2013) reinforce this notion by challenging the ‘largely implicit assumption of the homogenous nature of affected local communities’ (ibid, p.1724) and stress that ‘unjust treatment of poor people does not automatically translate to affected groups mobilising and engaging in contentious politics’ (ibid, p.1733); key facets in determining such action include ‘the emergence of collective perception about a possible threat […] the contradictory role of the state in maintaining political legitimacy while advancing capital accumulation […] and the emergence of elite allies’. The latter aspect is highlighted as a crucial aspect of resistance theory (Hobshawn, 1973) despite the ‘partial representation’ (Borras Jr et al., 2008, p.183) of such allies in contemporary scenarios (notwithstanding the efforts of civil society groups).
2.2.5 Transparency
A final concern stemming from a ‘bottom-‐up’ perspective is that of transparency, encompassing all stages of the land grabbing process. Deineger et al. (2011) state that, in an ideal scenario, ‘information on prices, contracts, rights and on land use plans should be publically available to help local people to monitor performance of investments and public institutions to properly do their job’ (ibid, p.xi), yet the reality within such situations is often significantly different. Cotula et al. (2012), in a detailed study of five African countries affected by land grabbing, suggest ‘there is a general sense among observers that negotiations and agreements occur behind closed doors, actual contracts between host governments and incoming investors are not public [and] some data sources may be publically accessible […] but usually only for limited data on completed deals’ (ibid, p.68). Problems such as these are exacerbated by the fact that ‘civil society has been largely absent’ (ibid, p.69) in communications; although such groups are making significant progress within the field (as seen above), absence or lack of contact with key figures in the private sector means that subsequent information provided to concerned local communities is typically minimal. A significant issue that can arise from this is the lack of free, prior informed consent (FPIC), the premise ‘that indigenous people have the right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to proposed developments on their lands (Cotula et al., 2012, p.70) which despite being formalised by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 is often hard to derive when relevant information is limited or withheld and consequentially hard to monitor with regards to successful implementation.
2.3 Monocropping
Amongst recent empirical land grabbing cases, monocropping readily emerges as the most common form of agricultural production, with two such examples a 200,000 hectare (ha) land transformation in Bahia, Brazil for the growing and manufacturing of soy beans and a 64,000 ha lease for jatropha in Kenya, both of which occurred in previously flora-‐diverse zones (GRAIN, 2014). Monocropping itself is defined as large-‐ scale, homogenous, mass production of a singular crop, with causation and justification for using this method primarily stemming from the need of foreign investors to satisfy their own demands for either food or renewable energy (the latter met via the production of biofuels such as ethanol) (TNI, 2013).
2.3.1 Contrast with Traditional Intercropping Techniques
Despite its widespread utilisation across developing countries, monocropping has faced criticism due to the creation of ‘an agricultural model based on high exploitation of workers and dependence on Trans National Companies’ (Mendonca, 2011, p.99), and typically provides a complete contrast to traditional techniques employed by smallholder farmers in the regions contemporarily affected by land grabbing. Such techniques revolve around the concept of intercropping, the method by which two or more crops are cultivated simultaneously and which ‘offers farmers agronomic advantages over monocropping […] these include reduced risk from natural calamities, enhanced protection against pests and diseases, improved use of factors of production, greater total agricultural yields per unit of land, and a more even use of household labour over the agricultural cycle’ (Godoy and Bennett, 1991, p. 83-‐84). The advantages relating to productivity and sustainability are supported by scientific studies from across the globe (Mendonca, 2011; Wang et al, 2014).
Jacques and Jacques (2012) contest that ‘the central difference between industrial and traditional agriculture is epistemological’ (ibid, p.2974), whereby the former is established via ‘reductionist and separatist reasoning’ (ibid, p.2974) and thus fails to recognise the wider sphere in which the agricultural sector operates. The authors explore the link between cultural and biological diversity, or bioculture, concluding that the two are ‘inter-‐dependant communities’ (ibid, p.2972) and that ‘the richest areas of language, ethnicities and other cultural indicators, correlate […] with areas of both flora and fauna diversity’ (ibid, p.2971). The paper thus contests that not only does monocropping inhibit the material benefits of intercropping, as outlined by Godoy and Bennett, but in fact damages cultural diversity as a bi-‐ product of its inherent homogenisation.
2.3.2 Environmental Impact
A key aspect of criticism directed towards monocropping concerns negative environmental consequences. Resultant issues typically include a loss of habitat, predation and introduced diseases (Dirzo and Raven, 2003), the latter stemming from the fact that ‘the industrial economic system requires simplified, machine harvested ship-‐loads of one variety’ (Jacques and Jacques, 2012, p.2970), rather than the traditionally diverse production of smallholder subsistence farmers which grants the latter greater resistance to shocks and stresses, both within the market and environmentally (Chapin et al., 2000). Further, continual monocropping of arable land has been shown to deplete nutrients and erode soil (Watson et al, 2002), particularly in comparison to intercropping, which over time will cumulatively decrease the production capability of the area.
The influx of biofuel production has also contributed significantly to the problem, with global interest rising as viable alternatives for fossil fuels are sought; Hill et al. (2006) indicate ‘high energy prices, increasing energy imports […] and greater recognition of the environmental consequences of fossil fuels’ (ibid, p.11,206) as reasons for this. Nonetheless, empirical evidence now suggests that biofuels in turn are also exhibiting negative impacts, particularly for the agricultural sector. Indeed, Scharlemann and Laurance (2008) cite a study in which 12 out of 26 biofuels, including central crops such as corn/sugar cane ethanol and soy diesel, exhibit bigger overall environmental costs than the production of gasoline.
2.4 Wellbeing
The research statement of the Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research (WeD) group defines wellbeing as ‘a state of being with others, where human needs are met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue one’s goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory quality of life’ (WeD, 2007, p.1). The WeD is at the forefront of studies concerning wellbeing, successfully ameliorating huge amounts of literature on the subject through a number of experts over the course of five years in order to arrive at the definition above. Numerous scholars reflect upon the obvious complexity that surrounds the concept; White (2009) notes that wellbeing is ‘notoriously difficult to define because it means different things to different people’ (ibid, p.3), whilst Thomas (2009) goes further to state it is ‘intangible, difficult to define and even harder to measure’ (ibid, p.11). Such struggles have been, and likely will continue to be, at the heart of wellbeing discussion.
2.4.1 Theoretical Influences
Gough and McGregor (2007), in illustrating the challenge to the previously dominant development framework, highlight three approaches which influence the overarching paradigm shift away from economic obsession; ‘from money poverty to human development’, ‘from money poverty to resources and agency’ and ‘from money poverty to subjective wellbeing and quality of life’ (ibid, p.6)
2.4.1.1 From Money Poverty to Human Development
A primary concern of the WeD revolves around conventional frameworks for development, which typically ‘have focused on money, commodities and economic growth’ (Gough and McGregor, 2007, foreword) and are thus limited via a lack of appreciation for humanistic aspects of development. A key figure in advancing discussion away from such economic metrics is Amartya Sen, who, in developing his capabilities approach in the early 1990s (Sen, 1999), gave a platform from which to ascend human needs onto the global agenda (evidenced by the implementation of the approach into the United Nations (UN) Human Development Index (HDI) (ul-‐Haq, 1995). Sen’s framework identifies five instrumental ‘freedoms’, which ‘tend to contribute to the general capability of a person to live more freely’ (ibid, p.38). Said freedoms are (1) political freedom, (2) economic facilities, (3) social opportunities, (4) transparency guarantees and (5) protective security; examples of each are (1) democracy and the ability to scrutinize authorities, (2) the opportunity to have and use economic resources, (3) the ability to have health care and be educated, (4) knowledge that information received is clear and honestly disclosed, and (5) protection for vulnerable people that previously experienced abject deprivation (Esquith and Gifford, 2010, p.21)
Another crucial scholar in this respect is the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who uses the notion of ‘needs’ alongside an Aristotelian framework from which to devise a list of ‘central human capabilities […] informed by an intuitive idea of a life that is worthy of the dignity of the human being’ (Nussbaum, 2000, p.222-‐223); the inclusion of facets such as imagination, emotion and affiliation are indicative of Nussbaum’s attempt to satisfy the need for cross-‐cultural norms in wellbeing discussion. Despite the pioneering nature of both scholars’ work, criticism has also been directed at their respective approaches; the HDI is accused of failing to move beyond traditional notions of maximizing individual welfare (Anand and Sen, 2000) and in turn failing to address the fact that humans interact within a network of massively complicated relationships (White, 2009), whilst Nussbaum’s static list of capabilities is problematized by ‘its failure to account for the dynamic nature of on-‐going experience and its potential for reconstruction’ (McReynolds, 2002, p.50).
