In the last 50 years, 140 million hectares - well more than all the farmland in China - have been taken over for soybean, oil palm, rapeseed and sugar cane alone. The world is fast losing farms and farmers through the concentration of land into the hands of the rich and powerful. Corporations take over scarce fertile land and prioritise commodities or export crops for profit and markets far away that cater for the needs of the affluent. This process impoverishes local communities and brings about food insecurity. GRAIN's Camila Montecinos concludes that the concentration of fertile agricultural land in fewer and fewer hands is directly related to the increasing number of people going hungry every day.
The organization GRAIN revealed that small farms produce most of the world's food and are more productively efficient than large farms. By definition, peasant agriculture prioritises food production for local and national markets as well as for farmers' own families. While industrial farms have enormous power, influence and resources, GRAIN's data review showed that small farms almost everywhere outperform big farms in terms of productivity.
The policy think tank the Oakland Institute which states that the first years of the 21 st century will be remembered for a global land rush of nearly unprecedented scale [2]. An estimated 500 million acres, an area eight times the size of Britain , was reported bought or leased across the developing world between 2000 and 2011, often at the expense of local food security and land rights. Institutional investors, including hedge funds, private equity, pension funds and university endowments, are eager to capitalise on global farmland as a new and highly desirable asset class. Financial returns, not food security, are what matter.
Although media coverage tends to focus on land grabs in these countries, there is also a new rush for US farmland. The corporate consolidation of agriculture is being felt just as strongly in Iowa and California as it is in the Philippines and Mozambique. With rising interest from investors and surging land prices, giant pension funds like TIAA-CREF are committing billions to buy agricultural land. one industry leader estimates that ten billion dollars in institutional capital is looking for access to US farmland , but that figure could easily rise as investors seek to ride out uncertain financial times by placing their money in the perceived safety of agriculture. Frequently, these buyers enter the market with so much capital that their funds are practically limitless compared with the resources of most farmers. Virtually nothing is known about these new investors and their business practices. Who do they buy land from? What do they grow? How do they manage their properties? The Institute's Executive Director, Anuradha Mittal argues that this is crucial to look at the motives and pratices of these major players because although institutional investors only currently own an apparently tiny one percent of all US farmland and farmers are still the biggest buyers of farmland across the country, the writing is on the wall in terms of the long-term trends that threaten US agriculture.The US will experiences an unprecedented crisis of retiring farmers over the next 20 years, leading to ample opportunities for these actors to expand their holdings as an estimated 400 million acres changes generational hands. Investors believe that there is roughly 1.8 trillion dollars' worth of farmland across the US . According to the Oakland Institute, of this between 300 and 500 billion dollars is considered to be of “institutional quality,” a combination of factors relating to size, water access, soil quality, and location that determine the investment appeal of a property.
A September 2013 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [4] stated that farming in rich and poor nations alike should shift from monoculture towards greater varieties of crops, reduced use of fertilisers and other inputs, greater support for small-scale farmers and more locally focused production and consumption of food. The report stated that monoculture and industrial farming methods are not providing sufficient affordable food where it is needed. The system actually causes food poverty, not addresses it. Numerous high level reports from the UN and development agencies have argued in favour of small farmers and agro-ecology. However, the bedrock of food production and food security - the small farmer - faces marginalisation and economic distress.
The trends in favour of ‘asset-based', corporate-dictated agriculture do not bode well, especially for low-income (rural-based) countries. That type of system does not exist to address food security or support local economies. Based on speculation, the ring-fencing of commodities for markets and the control of subsidies, prices and inputs, it exists to satisfy shareholders and investors elsewhere.
The above was taken from an article by Tod Hunter on the Counter Currents website
The organization GRAIN revealed that small farms produce most of the world's food and are more productively efficient than large farms. By definition, peasant agriculture prioritises food production for local and national markets as well as for farmers' own families. While industrial farms have enormous power, influence and resources, GRAIN's data review showed that small farms almost everywhere outperform big farms in terms of productivity.
The policy think tank the Oakland Institute which states that the first years of the 21 st century will be remembered for a global land rush of nearly unprecedented scale [2]. An estimated 500 million acres, an area eight times the size of Britain , was reported bought or leased across the developing world between 2000 and 2011, often at the expense of local food security and land rights. Institutional investors, including hedge funds, private equity, pension funds and university endowments, are eager to capitalise on global farmland as a new and highly desirable asset class. Financial returns, not food security, are what matter.
Although media coverage tends to focus on land grabs in these countries, there is also a new rush for US farmland. The corporate consolidation of agriculture is being felt just as strongly in Iowa and California as it is in the Philippines and Mozambique. With rising interest from investors and surging land prices, giant pension funds like TIAA-CREF are committing billions to buy agricultural land. one industry leader estimates that ten billion dollars in institutional capital is looking for access to US farmland , but that figure could easily rise as investors seek to ride out uncertain financial times by placing their money in the perceived safety of agriculture. Frequently, these buyers enter the market with so much capital that their funds are practically limitless compared with the resources of most farmers. Virtually nothing is known about these new investors and their business practices. Who do they buy land from? What do they grow? How do they manage their properties? The Institute's Executive Director, Anuradha Mittal argues that this is crucial to look at the motives and pratices of these major players because although institutional investors only currently own an apparently tiny one percent of all US farmland and farmers are still the biggest buyers of farmland across the country, the writing is on the wall in terms of the long-term trends that threaten US agriculture.The US will experiences an unprecedented crisis of retiring farmers over the next 20 years, leading to ample opportunities for these actors to expand their holdings as an estimated 400 million acres changes generational hands. Investors believe that there is roughly 1.8 trillion dollars' worth of farmland across the US . According to the Oakland Institute, of this between 300 and 500 billion dollars is considered to be of “institutional quality,” a combination of factors relating to size, water access, soil quality, and location that determine the investment appeal of a property.
A September 2013 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [4] stated that farming in rich and poor nations alike should shift from monoculture towards greater varieties of crops, reduced use of fertilisers and other inputs, greater support for small-scale farmers and more locally focused production and consumption of food. The report stated that monoculture and industrial farming methods are not providing sufficient affordable food where it is needed. The system actually causes food poverty, not addresses it. Numerous high level reports from the UN and development agencies have argued in favour of small farmers and agro-ecology. However, the bedrock of food production and food security - the small farmer - faces marginalisation and economic distress.
The trends in favour of ‘asset-based', corporate-dictated agriculture do not bode well, especially for low-income (rural-based) countries. That type of system does not exist to address food security or support local economies. Based on speculation, the ring-fencing of commodities for markets and the control of subsidies, prices and inputs, it exists to satisfy shareholders and investors elsewhere.
The above was taken from an article by Tod Hunter on the Counter Currents website
1 comment:
Agribusiness giants scored a victory in Missouri on Tuesday when voters narrowly approved a corporate-backed state constitutional amendment that critics say will threaten animal rights, remove checks and balances around food safety, and make it more difficult to regulate industrial farming practices.
The ballot question, which was supported by big-ag players like Monsanto and Cargill, asked: "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural and ranching practices shall not be infringed?" With all precincts reporting, the measure passed 498,751 to 496,223 — a margin of just 2,528 votes, or less than one percentage point. This makes Missouri the second state in the nation, after North Dakota, to adopt such a provision. Opponents said it would open the door for foreign-owned factory farming in Missouri and "strip most local governments of their ability to stop foreign companies from polluting and contaminating our land."
Joe Maxwell, former lieutenant governor of Missouri said the amendment could shield factory farming operations from existing laws and regulations related to food safety, fertilizers and pesticides, genetically modified organisms, animal rights, and waste disposal.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/06/corporate-victory-will-screw-local-farmers-amendment-passes-missouri
Post a Comment