By Emma Kirwan
I read a most disturbing article in the New York Times this morning. African governments are leading a new, controversial trend for solving domestic food insecurity and economic impoverishment: leasing land to foreign countries for “development.” As presented by the New York Times, let’s use Mali to illustrate what’s happening. Along the Niger River, 200,000 acres are owned by the state, a minor detail unbeknown to small-scale farmers who have passed down their homeland for generations. People like Mama Keita (age 73) were stunned to discover that “African governments typically own their land and have been leasing it, often at bargain prices, to private investors and foreign governments for decades to come.” In Mali, the 200,000 acre tract is being renegotiated under a 50-year lease to diverse, external interests including China, South Africa, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Belgium, France, South Korea, India, and the Netherlands. Those in power argue that foreign investors will help boost food security by “introducing large-scale commercial farming to places without it.” This solution comes at the cost of uprooting tens of thousands of farming families and their age-old traditions. Another catch; most new production is not destined for domestic markets, but intended for the investors’ own countries and wealthier nations.
Pacho Gangotena, an agro-ecological farmer in Ecuador, hosts farmers from three different communities for a day-long workshop. Here he explains how a nitrogen-fixing crop improves his soil.
African governments are justifying these “neocolonial” deals by highlighting the potential of foreign investors to boost their nations’ land economy through more effective, efficient production. For example, through new irrigation channels. One Niger politician said “even if you gave the population there the land, they do not have the means to develop it, nor does the state.” This comment of course disregards the tens of thousands of farmers who are fighting to stay put precisely because they thrive off their land – while in reality, “development” would displace these farmers, contributing to unemployment, loss of plant biodiversity, and the eradication of cultural traditions.
For nearly half a century agricultural development has been a failure. Foreign aid for agriculture has decreased from 20% of all aid in 1980 to 5% today. A fundamental reason for this shift is the continued dependency on foreign aid and expertise to solve local problems: it doesn’t work. This is all the more reason to shift investments from foreign, expert-led strategies to locally-led, people-centered initiatives. When you give people the tools they need to protect their land and learn how to use it efficiently and sustainably for both sustenance and economic progress, true development can be achieved. Countless studies have already proven that small-scale, biodiverse farming is much more productive that commercial-scale agriculture. The demand for fresh, chemical-free produce is growing among urban and rural consumers, both in developed and developing countries, and supports a style of production that can survive in the long-term rather than depleting land resources in a short span for quick profits.
A group of highland farmers visit a buying club in the nearby city of Riobamba. The club consists of nearly 100 low-income members who organize themselves twice a week to buy chemical-free produce from local farmers. This relationship produces win-win benefits for both farmers and consumers around health and income.
My own experience working with Farmer Field Schools in Kenya and Ecuador provides concrete first-hand evidence of farmers’ capacity to grow sustainably and reinvest in conservation and local economies, and perhaps even more importantly, teach other farmers and communities what they learned. In effect, a domino-revolution occurs, where local actors improve their own health, earning potential, and economy by contributing to local markets and learning how to cope with land degradation and changing weather patterns that might affect their current ability to keep up with their nation’s development. Very small investments are needed to make this type of lasting impact. For example, in Ecuador, Peaks Over Poverty’s partners need $300 to facilitate a workshop where farmers teach each other how to capture rainwater by building water tanks with used tires, or how to improve production by using native seeds and saving seeds from a fruitful crop to circulate within their community the following season.
Women farmers explain how they have reinvested profits from the income-generating crops on their communal plot to buy cocks and build a cock shed.
Like most developing countries, the majority of the population in Mali depends on the land for its livelihood. In Mali, “the land is a natural resource that 70 percent of the population uses to survive.” In Ecuador, around 80% of land is controlled by smallholder farmers. Around the world, peasants terrified of losing their homes and sustenance are seeking ways to rally and counter infringing interests.
Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/africa/22mali.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=african%20farmers%20are%20displaced&st=cse
