LEISA's Farm / AgriCultures Network blog

Price on rise

by Mireille Vermeulen

Food prices are on the rise again and the global market for commodities like wheat responds very nervously to every negative price tweet from Russia. One of the reasons that the wheat market is so unstable is the fact that the countries around the Black Sea -Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan- now produce 30 percent of the wheat supply traded internationally, instead of the 4 percent share it contributed before.

The export ban on wheat in Russia and prospects of poor harvests in the rest of the world (i.e., in Canada and Germany due to too much rain, and in Argentina and Australia because of drought), directly influences prices on the market.

Already in September of this year, Abdolreza Abbassian, an economist at the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, warned against rising food prices within the coming crucial months in an article in the New York Times. An increase in the price of wheat has a spill-over effect onto other grains, such as maize and soyabean. The prices of in the so-called breakfast commodities, coffee, tea, cocoa and sugar, have also risen in the past year and a half. After inflation and deflation, the new concept of ''agflation'' has become popular among economists.

Last week The Economist recently presented a more relativist view of the situation in their daily chart contribution. According to them, food is still cheaper in real terms than it was 30 years ago - so what are we complaining about? This is simply playing with numbers, however. Fifty years ago there were a billion people undernourished and today this figure remains the same. This can be presented as progress, as one billion represented a third of the population at that time while now it is only one-sixth. Imagine, however, being one of that billion...

The first warnings of rising bread prices caused social unrest in Mozambique in September at which time ten people died. The problem is perhaps that this billion hungry people have to share food with so many more people. Besides this,the way people consume these days and the kind of products they want, places a demand on even more food, more transport and more processing.

According to a review in the New York Times of the book by Julian Cribb, ''The coming famine'', this pattern of overconsumption is characteristic for people in North America and Europe - and is becoming more so in India and China. The world has what Cribb calls ''two elephants in its kitchen'': a projected 33 percent growth in population in the next 20 years, and an increased consumption of meat among the growing global middle class. This means that food production must grow by at least 50 percent.

However, there is a third elephant knocking on the kitchen door: climate change, increased temperatures, overexploitation of the sea and natural resources, overuse of chemical fertiliser, reliance on fossil fuels, protectionism and subsidies, increase in production for biofuels and rising waste are among the factors that hamper an increase in food production. These issues might be the problem.

Not a problem without possible solutions, though. Small-scale farmers produce most of the food we eat, and says Cribb: it is the small-scale farmers who should be supported by fair prices and compensation for their stewardship services to the Earth; finances should not to to the biggest agricultural corporations - but to research for new green technologies; and agricultural products should not be wasted.

I fully agree with these propositions. Policy-makers should focus on small-scale sustainable agriculture. Small-scale farmers already produce almost 80% of food on regional markets in Africa and Asia. Family farming is more productive and is better for the Earth and its people. Seventy percent out of the mentioned one billion hungry people are poor farmers in rural areas. They need fair prices for their agricultural products. Cheap food is no longer a global right. Fair food is.

Feeding the world 5: Watch your rights!

By Mireille Vermeulen

The world seems to be jumping from one crisis to the other: food, energy, finance… And yet how are they being solved? Is it not remarkable that member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have spent so many billions to prevent the collapse of the financial system and only a few to foster food security and nutrition in the world? Did we not agree to have a universal right to food? Or has this ideal been reformulated into the right to bank?

In 2009, the number of undernourished people around the world surpassed the one billion mark. Well, the OECD countries did think about how to feed their own populations, massively shifting their agricultural investments abroad. But what about the populations of the countries receiving these investments? Do they not also have a part in the universal right to food?

On World Food Day (16 October), the Right to Food and Nutrition Watch presented the 2010 Watch: Land-grabbing and Nutrition – global challenges for global governance in twenty countries. This annual review of state actions and failures provides good insights into what is really going in the field of food and agriculture in Asia, Africa and Latin America.The 2010 Watch focuses on the impact of European land-grabbing practices on the food security situation of developing countries. The country reports of Burkina Faso, Colombia, Kenya, Guatemala, Indonesia, Zambia, Cambodia, Mozambique and Spain show an alarming situation.

Even the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, is worried. He states that the world is moving too slowly, yet also too quickly. In his eyes, the international community is too slow in finding a co-ordinated way to guide the increasing commercial pressures and speculation on land. But at the same time, it has moved too quickly in deciding that responsible foreign investment is the way forward, where in fact it is only a small part of a much broader strategy. 

In the 2010 Watch, de Schutter talks about the relationship of poverty alleviation at the micro level while seeking the broader development strategy at the macro level. He makes clear that there is a range of actors and interventions, each carrying the responsibility to ensure the right to food for everyone. For De Schutter, seven themes should be central to agricultural investment strategies:

1. Public policies guiding agricultural investments should aim for rural development and increasing incomes, and not focus on boosting production only.
2. Agricultural investments should fit into a broader poverty reduction strategy.
3. A human rights framework is crucial to guiding agricultural investments.
4. Governments should prevent fierce land competition that may result from foreign investments.
5. Land "titling" schemes are insufficient and potentially damaging.
6. Governance structures and the policy environment in the invested country should be adequate before investments are sent in.
7. Both the investment-receiving and -sending countries carry responsibility for the investments proceeding responsibly.

The reality, it seems however, does not match with these ideals. And yet the heated discussions on land-grabbing show that we no longer have time to lose. We do not have much time to discuss guidelines and codes of conduct to develop and guide responsible agricultural investments. Investments have to be responsible tomorrow! If not, many more small-scale farmers being driven off their land, greater inequality in rural areas and more forest destruction will be the reality the day after tomorrow.

(This is the last blog post in our series Feeding the world, on food security and small-scale farming)

Feeding the world 4: Land

by Mireille Vermeulen

Small-scale family farming is about food: producing food to nourish the family and to feed the world. UN reporter on the right to food, Olivier de Schutter, said in an interview with CTA last Monday, that access to land is crucial for food security (or food sovereignty, which might be a more proper word if you know what de Schutter stands for).

But these days, land has become a strategic, geopolitical and commercial issue, due to many foreign investors who have become more and more interested in land for food and fuel in the last decade. Investment in land could be positive, for family farmers as well, but increased commercialisation gives reason to fear that large-scale investments in land will deprive the farming population of their land.

Small-scale farmers, pastoralists and fishermen and women have little power and are not consulted in the negotiations leading to these kinds of deals.

In 2009, more than 45 million hectares of land have been traded in large-scale land deals. For Friends of the Earth, this is reason to ring all the alarm bells; their report, Africa: up for grabs, states that one-third of the purchased land in Africa (some 5 million hectares) is intended for the production of fuel crops. These are competing with food crops for farm land and the international agribusinesses are competing with family farmers for land. The European mandate for increasing biofuels is an important driver to this trend in Africa.

Friends of the Earth makes an urgent call to stop this driver (notably by focusing on the EU target to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020) and to suspend further land deals for biofuels immediately. The publication points at the protests raised in Tanzania, Madagascar and Ghana, where companies have been accused of fraud and giving misleading information. The rest of the publication presents some ideas on alternative directions and ways to support small-scale farmers.

On the other hand, the World Bank and other big institutions state that if we want the best support for farmers, it may be that large-scale investment in land can actually bring them more security and welfare. Sure, it is much easier and more appealing to be against all big land deals, but there may be more results if we think strategically.

De Schutter is pragmatic about this issue, coming out with a discussion paper last January, called Some principles for responsible agricultural investment that respects rights, livelihoods and resources. This paper states that land deals should only be made if they are good for food security, if their programmes are economically viable and socially and environmentally sustainable, and if negotiations include all stakeholders. Lastly, land rights must be respected and land must not be transferred via local elites towards foreign investors in cases where the land rights situation is not clear.

But the question is therefore: can large institutions really be trusted to take these precautions? Anuradha Mittal from the Oakland Institute thinks not. This international think tank published a paper The great land grab in 2009 about how the rush for the world´s farmland is threatening the food security of the poor.

This year, the institute analysed the role of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group in large-scale land deals, in the publication (Mis)investment in Agriculture. IFC promotes profitable deals by creating special agencies for it and rewriting national laws. In the latest issue of Farming Matters, Anuradha Mittal disapproves of the practice of foreign land acquisition in our interview, Cheap deal for rich countries. States Mittal: "This is not investment; it’s exploitation, depleting the resources of the third world."

On 7 September 2010, the World Bank finally published its long awaited report on global farmland grab: Rising global interest in farmland. Many organisations and institutions that had anticipated the report and were a bit disappointed. The study reveals very little new information and does not respond to serious criticism on the role of the IFC. GRAIN has established a land grab website, publishing all relevant and up-to-date reports and events on this important issue.

Keep yourself posted!

Good and bad agriculture

by Jorge Chavez-Tafur

There seems to be no doubt of the fact that agriculture and climate change are interrelated - but the implications of this relationship are not always detailed, nor fully analysed. Does agriculture contribute to climate change? Or does it have mitigation potential? The point of departure should be to consider that all farming systems are different, although this obvious idea is not always considered. Two very recent reports give us some interesting discussion material.

The International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management (IPSRM), hosted by the UN Environmental Programme, aims to "provide scientific assessments on the sustainable use of natural resources". Its latest report, Environmental impacts of consumption and production, concludes that agriculture "has a disproportionately high impact on the planet's life support systems". Agricultural production uses 70% of the global fresh water available, accounts for 19% of greenhouse gas emissions, and for 60% of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Agriculture is put in the same category as fossil fuels.

At the same time, FAO has submitted a paper to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), as a contribution to the UNFCCC discussions taking place these days, stressing that agriculture can provide multiple benefits ("Towards a work programme on agriculture"). These include not only mitigation and adaptation possibilities to climate change, but also development and food security. Quoting, "agriculture can potentially be part of the solution to climate change in ways that respect and support the development and food security requirements of developing countries".

The IPSRM conclusion is clear, and many will find it hard to disagree with it: "a substantial reduction of agriculture's impact would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products". But is this really the only way? Not all farming systems contribute to the figures mentioned above. Wouldn't it be equally interesting to make a clear difference between different kinds of agriculture, and to pay more attention to the type of agriculture that provides the benefits that the FAO paper mentions?

 

Moving forward: The IYFF campaign in Asia

By KVS Prasad

Responding to an invitation from the World Rural Forum, last week I was in New Delhi, attended the meeting organised as part of the campaign for International Year of Family Farming. I was there representing ILEIA and the AgriCultures network, and although I was "only" one of the participants, I ended aup as facilitator of the workshop. This was first of the series of events planned in different continents. The objective of the meetings was to look at the necessary co-ordinated efforts to support the campaign within each region and individual countries. We discussed the purpose, potential activities and consequences of such a campaign with CIFA – Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations (the host organization and the representative of the Indian Family Farming); AFA -Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development, a regional alliance of 9 farmer federations in 8 Asian countries; AsiaDHRRA -Development of Human Resources in Rural Asia -a regional partnership of 11 social development networks and organizations in 10 Asian nations; and the World Rural Forum secretariat, the organisation behind the worldwide IYFF Campaign.

The meeting started with a ceremonial lighting of the lamp. Jose and Miren, representing the World Rural Forum, shared the purpose of the workshop; How family farming can be strengthened through the campaign? What efforts need to be done in order to get the UN declaring a year as "year of family farming"? The participants representing different parts of the globe presented a great sight – participants from South Asia, South East Asia, Africa and Europe, numbering 30 in total, all shared their ideas and insights. Interestingly, the audience also included senior representatives from IFAD and FAO. The representatives of the Indian Governmen included an Advisor, Planning commission, and the Head of the mainstream research system (ICAR) in India. The advisor said many "right things" in favor of family farming.

Jose Osaba traced the genesis and the relevance of campaigning for getting an official declaration by the UN. He also shared the steps involved in such a process – at least representations from 50 – 60 countries saying - YES, we support this campaign. Right now, 5 national governments have extended support. This means that a lot still needs to be done, and done quickly. This requires pursuing several countries at the national level to support the idea at the UN General Assembly. If this is successful, the UN may take 2-3 years to officially declare the International Year of Family Farming, and then seek help of agencies like FAO and IFAD to propose potential programmes and events. The expectation is that once the year of family farming is declared, family farming will be even higher on the "international agenda", and the year long programmes and events will lead to more favorable policies as well as actions for strengthening family farming.

As member of the Agricultures network, my task was to present in 10 minutes what we have been doing in promoting and strengthening the concept. What I did was: (a) presented the different magazines we are bringing out as a network – regional editions, and local translations in India, (b) highlighted that the organizations publishing these magazines are also helping small holders/ family farming in operationaslising agriculture based on agro ecological principles in diverse contexts. Also, I quickly mentioned my views on what are the present "gaps" and limiting factors like – perspectives, different agendas, research and curriculum’s "disconnected" with field realities, and the total neglect of this "constituency". Also, the pursuit of "quick fix solutions" rather than "long term solutions" was highlighted. Another point of view, strongly presented, was the need to conceive "long term programmes" rather than events alone during the year, when declared as year of family farming. Later, I facilitated the group work with regard to road maps as well as action plan for the next year, and shared the synthesis on each day of the workshop.

Overall, it was a great learning event for me personally to know about the various contexts and the convergence of ideas and strategies across different contexts towards support to family farming and small holder agriculture.

Videoreport on conference 'Future of Family Farming'

By Mireille

The Copenhagen summit in December 2009 may have failed in reaching clear commitments, the ileia conference on the Future of Family Farming on 15 December certainly did not. In a warm and positive conference climate, participants agreed on the importance of small scale family farming as a solution for climate change. Their commitment to incorporate and disseminate this perspective in their work was obvious. But as Camilla Toulmin, director of IIED and keynote speaker at the conference already said, the coming six to twelve months will be primordal in finding answers to climate change. So, look at our conference video, stir up your memory and get inspired (again)...

Family farming: new opportunities for agriculture

Posted by Mireille Vermeulen

Family farming offers a global solution to the rising demand for food, even while the agricultural sector is expected to be hard hit by the effects of climate change. This emerged from our jubilee conference “The Future of Family Farming" on 15 December at Nieuwspoort in The Hague, the Netherlands.

“Whatever the results may be of the Copenhagen Climate Conference, it is clear that next year will be decisive for climate measures in agriculture”. This said Camilla Toulmin, Director of the British research institute IIED, which focuses on opportunities for developing countries in this time of environmental change. Over 130 scientific, governmental and agricultural professionals from the Netherlands and developing countries discussed the future of family farming.

Family farming is not only defined by its smaller size, but even more by the fact that it is better adapted to local conditions. It is therefore able to respond more flexibly to climate change. As summed up by chairperson of the day, Bram Huijsman from Wageningen University: “Multifunctional agriculture is in tune with the local situation - this is what family farming is all about. While large-scale, industrial agriculture has largely reached the limits of growth, family farming still has a lot of potential.”

In addition, family farming offers new opportunities for feeding cities. In a city such as Accra, the capital of Ghana, urban agriculture sees a daily stream of fresh vegetables, fruit and animal products into the city, due to the efforts of hundreds of family farmers. “Because farmers cultivate with waste products like chicken manure as fertilizer, they kill two birds with one stone”, according to Dr Olufunke Cofie, who is researching the opportunities presented by urban agriculture at the International Water Management Institute in Accra.

In order for family farmers to take hold of new opportunities, knowledge is crucial. According to its Director Edith van Walsum, ileia has an important role to play: “ileia now celebrates its 25th anniversary. It has grown in 25 years into an international movement that makes links between farmers and knowledge exchange from Latin America, Africa and Asia possible. By way of our seven network partners, we reach a quarter of a million male and female farmers around the world, who provide for food and the environment and oppose climate change.”

Begin next week we will publish more about our conference. You will also find the presentations of the speakers and a video report of the day. Keep posted!

Join the debate: Any future needs family farming

The Broker magazine presents a wide range of articles and opinions from the fields of governance, security, science and technology, aiming to contribute to better formulated research questions regarding poverty reduction and international development.

AgriCultures Network partners contributed the opinion article in the December issue, noting that approximately 1.5 billion family farmers in the world live by producing food for themselves and for cities. In some regions, a policy emphasis on global markets and high-input agriculture undermines farmers' capacity to keep rural landscapes productive. The authors argue that policy needs to create space for family farmers to realise their possible contribution to a resilient world without hunger: 'Any future needs family farming'. Click here to read the whole article and join the debate by adding your comment at the bottom of the page.

This article will start the debate which will be discussed during ILEIA's jubilee conference, The Future of Family Farming, on December 15 in the Hague, Netherlands. Watch this blog for news, articles and more debate from the conference!

World Food Summit - is the basket half full or half empty?

posted by Karen

While I am happy to see that there will be a World Summit on Food Security, it is already looking like it may not achieve its potential. I hope this is just a case of the pessimists taking over the internet, but it does seem like governments are not really committed, in terms of time, money or political will.

FAO itself is hailing the run-up to the meeting with a variety of activities - in particular the petition to end hunger, see http://www.1billionhungry.org/ I found the video of Jacques Diouf (Director-General of FAO) quite chilling and therefore very effective. They are also calling for a day-long hunger strike, or fast, this weekend. You can read much more about this by clicking here.The homepage of the Summit is here, and is available in various languages.

Outward signs look supportive, but advocacy organisations are already pressing for more action and commitment. La Via Campesina has sent an open letter to Jacques Diouf, calling for the G8 countries to send their heads of state to the summit, as it is rumoured that few, if any, will attend. You can read it on their homepage, click here. La Via Campesina will also be in Rome next week, and we will be following their activities at their "People's Food Sovereignty Forum", running parallel to the FAO meeting. Oxfam and ActionAid take a similar view, saying that the Summit "...could be a waste of time and money ... Governments are at risk of throwing away a great chance to stop more than one billion people going hungry." Click here to read more from Oxfam International. Even Reuters Africa reports that the Summit "is expected to make little headway" - for the full article click here.

In a radio broadcast, Jacques Diouf states that "eradicating hunger is no pipe dream", referring to eight countries which have already achieved MDG1. He maintains that "Supporting smallholder farmers is the most effective and efficient way to fight hunger and poverty". As an optimist, it is my hope for the World Food Summit that governments attend and commit the necessary resources to eradicate hunger. I'll be watching them closely and bringing another round-up of comments and analysis next week.

New books available online

posted by Karen

More and more books are being made available online, which for those of you with good access to fast downloading facilities and printers, is good news.

Here are two new books we think are worth highlighting:

Firstly, we have "Inclusive Improvement: Standards and Smallholders" written by Coen van Beuningen and Peter Knorringa, published by HIVOS. The word "standards" in the title refers to quality management standards such as those used in ISO (International Organization for Standardization), or in the fair trade and organic certification arena. With that made clear, the book argues that "combining sustainable development and poverty reduction is feasible." This book draws on 20 years of experience, and its central theme is management - how through improved management, smallholder families involved in commodity chains can increase their income. The book addresses all actors in commodity chains, most importantly stressing the difference between smallholder groups managing their own processes ("inclusive improvement") and how greater co-operation is needed amongst supporting actors such as certification bodies, trainers, buyers or funding organisations. A total of 149 pages, the book is very accessible and also contains a useful glossary. It is especially interesting as it draws heavily on examples and experiences, and is self-critical in a spirit of further learning and sharing. It proposes various tools to guide the way forward. Click here to access the page where you can read more and download it at no cost.

Next, is the "Right to Food Methodological Toolbox" published by the FAO. The Toolbox is split into six small volumes, covering topics including methods for monitoring the human right to food, a guide for conducting a right to food assessment, and budgets for advancing the right to food. Working on the premise of food security as a basic human right, the Toolbox is a collection of highly practical methods and guidelines for achieving this right. It fills a gap in the literature and will be of use for practitioners as well as policy-makers involved in strengthening in-country capacities to secure this basic right. Click here to access the page where you can download the various sections at no cost.