Are there better options? Yes !
It is easy to build a consensus on what is wrong, and also to say that something ought to be done about it. The more difficult and challenging task is to draw up an action agenda which can bring the different stakeholders together in a symbiotic relationship. Thus ,while it is easy to say that outsourcing agriculture is not a sustainable and equitable solution, the question that confronts us that in a world in which resources and income distribution is so skewed, can we actually make ‘equity’ the centre point of the discourse in agriculture. For over three hundred years now, major agricultural commodities – from cotton tea, coffee, rubber, indigo, opium, bananas ,sugar –to name a few, have been organised on a commercial scale by mercantile interests all over the world . The deplorable condition of the labour that has toiled on these plantations has been well documented, and it is now acknowledged that most of the prosperity of England was based on the appropriation of surplus from trade in agriculture. However as the ‘political power’ is no longer centered in the Anglo Saxon world, there is a possibility of bringing in a greater degree of equity in the process of global agricultural production.
IFPRI argues that as outsourcing is here to stay, it is better to regulate it and develop some internationally accepted norms on the subject. It argues that the best way to resolve the conflict, and create a ‘win-win’ situation is for the foreign investors to sign a code of conduct to improve the terms of trade for the locals. This could be similar to the IASSA code which Cornell university drew up to ensure that the tribes which had maintained the oral traditions about the healing properties of medicinal plants should be given a share in the final profit which pharmaceutical companies would make by using their traditional knowledge and preservation skills. ‘Good Practice’ would mean and include respect for customary rights; creating job opportunities for the local youth, greater transparency and respect for the domestic trade policy. Thus if the domestic trade policy mandates that cereal export will be taken up only after a certain buffer has been created, this should be accepted. Also if the National Agricultural Policy of a country gives greater priority to staples in certain agro climatic zones, exceptions should not be sought or granted by foreign owned/operated firms.
However, the possibility that China would accept these conditions does not appear to be realistic. The report that over
1 million Chinese workers will be engaged in Chinese operated lands in Africa is actually a cause of serious concern, because such an arrangement would surely lead to a sense of ‘deprivation’ and ‘acute alienation’ among the local populations .Already one fourth of all the eggs sold in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia are from Chinese owned and operated farms. Another 2 million hectares of land is being negotiated for the growth of bio-fuels. This is in addition to the 2.8 million hectares of cultivation rights in Congo for the world’s largest palm oil plantation.
The Economist also reports that Pakistan has offered to create a special security force of a hundred thousand people to protect the million hectares of prime agricultural land which the Sheikhs are keen on buying. These are dangerous portents for here is the complete involvement of the state apparatus in non transparent land deals, which have all the possibility of a political backlash. The only hope is that as all these deals have not been done by democratically elected governments, there is a possibility of reversal. The other possibility – that of an early realization that ‘agriculture’ defies such structured and remote controlled solutions – from the collectivization efforts in Soviet Union to Britain’s ill fated attempts in the 1940s to convert large tracts of Tanzania into peanut prairies ( the ill fated Tanganyika Groundnut scheme) may not cut much ice, and therefore it will run its course of five to ten years, before it is found to be impractical. The problem is compounded by the fact that these schemes are being funded by the state, and therefore the decision on whether to continue the scheme or not is not linked to market determined efficiency test, but the altar of national pride (leader’s ego). When the private sector puts money into commodity production, and cash crops, it tends to boost world trade and international economic activity. But when governments invest in staple crops in a protectionist impulse to circumvent world markets, the global trading would show a sharp downturn. It is expected that these ‘new hectares’ will produce 30 -40 m tonnes of cereals every year, and this will reduce the effective world trade of 220 m tonnes every year. This will also mean that staples will move from the poorest regions of the world to the well endowed regions.
AgriMatters is concerned with this trend. Just as it had cautioned against the uncritical acceptance of the World Bank’s proposition of urbanisation being the driver of growth and prosperity, it would like to mention that this trend should be nipped at the earliest. At the global level, India has to take the lead in getting the developing nations to understand the long term implications of this phenomenon. From the point of view of global warming and ecology also, these mega farms would create more problems than they can ever resolve. At the same time, the major food producers, including India should assure the food deficit, but resource rich countries that there will always be sufficient food around to feed the growing numbers. Just as the CACP determines the costs and prices for the country, an international agency like the IFPRI or CGIAR can work out the global production, consumption and trade scenarios. This will be far more practical and well meaning for all stakeholders and a decidedly better option than ‘outsourcing agriculture’.