Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Dear members of the FSN Forum Team

Greetings from Dhaka.

We are happy to submit our comments on the zero draft of the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments (RAI).

The document is based on the discussions organized by our national and regional networks of multi-stakeholders – peasants, fisherfolks, forest dwellers, women, indigenous people, landless farmers, from more than 31 southern countries of Asia, Africa and Americas. This also reflects our position on the present draft.

We hope this will contribute the ongoing discussions on this extremely important work.

For any further query and communication, please contact:

Alberta Guerra

Food Policy Advisor, IFSN

AFM Shahidur Rahman

Global Coordinator, IFSN

Warmly

ma contibution

Principe 1. : il faut se concentrer sur l’accès aux facteurs de production-notamment la terre et l’eau - par les femmes et les jeunes

Principe 2 : Un investissement responsable respecte les droits fonciers légitimes et garantit que les titulaires de ces droits n'en seront pas dépossédés : cette formulation est faible et peut conduire à des errements surtout dans des régimes où il n’ya justement pas de droits fonciers légitimes mais des droits fonciers familiaux et/ou communautaire. un investissement responsable doit connaître et respecter les droits fonciers des individus , des  territoires  et des communautés

Principe 3 : pour favoriser une utilisation, un développement et une régénération durables des ressources naturelles, notamment les sols, l'eau et la biodiversité il faut d’abord comprendre les sols, pour s’assurer de la santé végétale ce que les investisseurs ne font pas généralement 

Mrs Christine ANDELA

COSADER and National Alliance against Hunger

Food policy and aid strategies

COORDINATOR In Chief

PLANOSCAM representative

La version V0 trace les grandes lignes de la démarche et le contenue du document final, elle présente la feuille de route à suivre au fur et à mesure d'avancement du travail. il est important de citer quelques expériences des pays dans le domaine de la mise à niveau de la petite agriculture, notamment dans les pays de l’Amérique latine (Mexique et Brésil), la Corée en Asie et le Maroc en Afrique. Pour ce dernier cas, dans le cadre du Plan Maroc Vert notamment le pilier II, dédié à la petite agriculture, et comment faire pour renforcer et aller en avant de ce type d'agriculture.

En général, il est important d'établir une approche spécifique pour gérer ces investissements dans la petite agriculture. Ce type d'agriculteur, en général, manquent de formation concernant le coté financière mais ils ont un bon savoir faire technique. 

">1- Pour la première question posée, il est important de soulever le poids des investissements extérieurs, et comment faire pour attirer les bailleurs des fonds vers la petite agriculture et investir dans des spéculation mal connu à l’échelle mondiale (niches) sur tout dans les produits de terroir. 

">2- Pour la deuxième question, le rôle et les droits de chaque partie sont définis. Mais la grande question c'est la mise en  œuvre de ces engagements.

">3- Pour la 3 eme question, il est difficile de dire que la V0 a bien atteint son objectif, sans avoir vraiment que les parties (les pays) accepter le modèle proposé ainsi que les payants (population ciblé). Et comment le petits agriculteur profite de cet opportunité et améliore son niveau de vie et assure un niveau d'alimentation en quantité et en qualité.

"> 
">4- Il est claire que le projet est rédigé d'un style simple et à la porté des destinataires.

La liberalisation commerciale est généralement présentée comme un facteur de développement par le gain d'efficience que represente,pour chacun des pays concernés,une meilleure allocation de leurs facteurs productifs,en fonction de leur avantage comparatif. Mais nous sommes nombreux à penser que l'agriculture n'est pas un secteur comme les autres. Pour beaucoup de pays en développement,il fait encore vivre une grande majorité de la population. Or cette agriculture est fragile:elle a souvent été négligée par les gouvernements,en meme temps qu'elle a du natamment par des subsides importants. Le choc de la conccurence risque de lui etre fatale si elle n'a pas les moyens de se protéger. En outre,les producteurs agricoles ne peuvent pas repondre aux signaux des prix-réorienter leur production en fonction de la demande-comme dans d'autres domaines:cela demande des conditions adéquates,cela demande des soutiens publics,et cela suppose que l'on détache l'activité agricole de la culture dont elle fait souvent partie intégrante pour les populations qui la pratiquent. Enfin,au sein meme du monde agricole, le crible de la conccurence internationale risque de conduire à une dualisation forte:les plus grands producteurs-les plus mécanisés, qui ont les meilleurs les meilleurs terres et le meilleur accès au crédit et aux infrastructures-survivront et peut-etre verront meme s'accroitre leur part dans la production totale,alors que les plus petits paysans pourront etre laminés.Or l'agriculture la plus "compétitive" en ce sens-c'est-à-dire la mieux capable de répondre aux impératifs de l'agriculture"low cost" qu'on nous prépare-n'est pas nécessairement la plus souhaitable.Car c'est elle qui contribue le moins au développement rural et à la création d'emplois, et qui et qui produit les couts sociaux et environnementaux les plus élevés.

C'est pourquoi, avant la conclusion d'un accord de libre-echange,il est essentiel d'étudier les impacts sur les droits de l'homme des différents groupes au sein de la population concernée:aprés,il risque d'etre trop tard. Les études d'impacts visent à attirer l'attention-celle des gouvernements,et celles surtout de la société civile et des parlements nationaux qui controlent les gouvernements, sur la situation des plus vulnérables,dont la situation peut encore s'aggraver meme si les indicateurs macro-économiques-PIB ou revenus d'exportations pour le pays dans son ensemble-progressent.

Le droit à l'alimentation peut constituer un outil d'analyse puissant des impacts de la libéralisation commerciale.Il met l'accent sur les inégalités,et non seulement sur les gains d'efficience.Il s'intéresse aux groupes les plus vulnérables,et non uniquement aux valeurs agrégées.Il conduit à interroger si les évolutions qu'amène le développement du commerce international sont durables,ou bien si elles augmentent la vulnérabilité aux chocs des pays qui misent tout sur lui.

Serigne Sarr

Bueno, es loable por supuesto pretender el establecer principios y vías de acción de estados y empresas e individuos en la agricultura de manera responsable y " solidaria " agregaría. Estamos de acuerdo en la mayoría de acciones y tareas a desarrollar, más resulta un poco ingenuo creer que sin tratados o leyes internacionales claras con algún tipo de incentivo o compromiso, ciertos actores , las realizarán. Aún más, muchos de los líderes de empresas y corporaciones - y estados-, no tienen interés real en crear condiciones justas para el ordenamiento de territorios y facilidades para sectores vulnerables como las mujeres o minorías étnicas. Además, a pesar de que actualmente hay instrumentos jurídicos y políticos que buscan muchos de los objetivos planteados en los principios no a habido "voluntad "para crear esas condiciones. Copio textualmente:

 Los principios, que son voluntarios y no vinculantes, deberían interpretarse y aplicarse de conformidad con las obligaciones expresadas en el derecho nacional e internacional, y teniendo en la debida consideración los compromisos voluntarios asumidos en virtud de los instrumentos regionales e internacionales aplicables. Deberían interpretarse y aplicarse en consonancia con los sistemas jurídicos nacionales y con sus instituciones.

Es pues, un reflujo de instancias y deseos planteados hace mucho y por muchos. Planteo: es en estos escenarios dónde debemos buscar el cambio ? Las sociedades contemporáneas siguen persiguiendo un equilibrio y balance que logre la equidad para todos. No podemos plantearnos absolutos, y lo sabemos. Los organismos multinacionales deben buscar fortalecer los principios universales en la esferas nacionales, para buscarla integración regional y luego global. Partir de hechos en naciones con fundamentos democráticos,solidarios y de cooperación, dónde los ciudadanos, coincidan con los intereses del prójimo, de su vecino, de su conciudadano, nos permitirá abrir un ábanico de posibilidades para poner en práctica una inversión responsable en la agricultura y otros campos. Sabemos que los patrones de consumo, generados por la ambición " desmedida ", nos llevan a especulación y acaparamiento, explotación e injusticias. Los cambios de paradigma no solo se dan en lo económico, sino en la simiente espiritual del ser humano. Lograr ésta transformación es el reto, lo demás vendrá por añadidura. Mientras esto acaece, debemos seguir adelante con  llevar a la acción mucho de lo que ya está planteado,  perfeccionarlo. Debe haber esperanza, pues muchos la necesitan. Saludos a todos.

Dear FSN Forum members,

(Here follows the conclusion based on the earlier two parts. References and notes included.)

3. A multi-lateral diversionary effort arranged around virtual goalposts

The adoption of RAI will aid, in any host country, the tailoring of all policies and strategies to fit investors (foreign and domestic, for the technological advantages are now common, as much as the conduits of capital flow for food and agriculture investment are many) so that they can be 'competitive' in the market. Instead of prioritising a model of agricultural production where women, farmers/peasants, pastoralists and all small-scale food producers are at its core, in which agro-ecological forms of farming and raising livestock are supported, and through which local markets and economies are strengthened, the eight RAI principles listed here for discussion will if accepted legitimise policies that put the government and country at the service of such investors (both foreign and domestic, it must be noted). Moreover, from the point of view of human rights terms this is discriminatory; and will turn a parlous situation into a destabilising one - already countries are falling short of their obligations related to realising the right to adequate food (a foretaste of which was seen most recently during the World Trade Organisation ninth ministerial conference in 2013 December which brought to the fore disagreements about governments' own procurement of food for public programmes as distorting world trade).

Consider some of the examples presented to the public in recent months which are seen as exemplary of inclusive, sustainable development. An IFAD-supported project in Uganda has supported farmers who are now "able to send their children to school, pay for medical expenses and build better homes for themselves". The arrangement promoted (or facilitated) is perhaps too conveniently called "the type of public-private partnership that we need to see throughout Africa, with government, the private sector, civil society and smallholders all benefiting from working in partnership".

However, behind these homogenous labels are partners whose outlook and imperatives are usually contradictory, are often in competition and inimical to one another - realities in the districts and counties can be brutally but not surprisingly different from the umbrella assessments made at the regional level of international agencies. The manner in which these sharp-edged realities find voice is, for example, in the following way - "as investment in rural Africa grows, we must ensure that there are mutually beneficial partnerships between smallholders and other private sector investors. These can take many forms, including out-grower schemes, contract farming or joint share equity schemes" - here again investment is the locus of activity and outcomes, but self-determination and there is no giving way to any alternate conceptualisation of an agrarian economy.

Less sophisticated in manner is this announcement concerning Ethiopia: "A new agency responsible for large-scale agricultural investments was officially launched two weeks ago. The Agriculture Investment Agency (AIA) was set up to oversee large-scale and mechanised agricultural investment on land belonging to the Ministry Land Bank. Its aim is to boost investment in agriculture." Blunt and to-the-point (when viewed on an interested investor's screen). Can we imagine that the eight proposed principles will, in any fashion or form, temper the ambitions of either the invited investors or the local actors in Ethiopia who have established this new agency? I would flatly say 'no'. Likewise, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada has advocated "increasing private investment in Africa's agriculture sector will help lift millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa out of poverty. Canada is taking a leadership role, on behalf of G-8 countries, to support Senegal in joining the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition ... "

Moreover, governments supporting - via departments of trade, foreign ministries, alliances of industry networks and through a complex matrix of subventions - the private sector of their countries investing in the South (the erstwhile Third World, or "developing" countries or "emerging" economies) see agriculture as "a complex and risky undertaking; for that reason, many private firms don't feel comfortable investing in African agriculture as opposed to other economic opportunities". That is why, about two years ago, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, was said to have "leveraged" US $3 billion in private investment which USAID promised would be the beginning of the "much greater investment that Africa needs to achieve the growth targets of the African Union" - and of course to reduce poverty.

These perspectives help dispel some of the fog, but principles such as RAI (and all multilaterally promoted 'voluntary guidelines' concerning land, water or forests, for example) cannot encompass in any meaningful way the alliances being formed - involving government, business, technology and finance capital - which have blurred the boundaries between primary crop that becomes food, animal feed and biofuels in what are now called vertically integrated agribusinesses.

 

To illustrate, the Indonesian palm oil trade is dominated by Cargill, ADM-KuckWilmar (the world's largest biofuels manufacturer), and Synergy Drive, a large Malaysian government company. This co-exists - particularly in finance capital terms - with both an 'ethanol alliance' involving the USA, Brazil and Argentina, and a sugar-soya alliance that brings together (often uncomfortably) India, China, Mozambique and South Africa in new production enterprises backed by European Union and American subsidies and trade preferences. Are they 'Northern' acquirers of 'Southern' agri-lands? That is too simplistic, for there are powerful South-South alliances, and a web of relationships between Northern and Southern actors, both public and private (including local elites and politicians). [See 'The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals', The Journal of Peasant Studies (July-October 2012), by Ben White, Saturnino M. Borras Jr., Ruth Hall, Ian Scoones and Wendy Wolford.]

We have tied 'land' to being 'responsible', however the transfer of resources through extra-economic coercion or non-market mechanisms is equally prevalent. This is an issue that lies outside principles, commitments and voluntary guidelines because included here are mechanisms (other than outright violence) of expropriation such as cynical manipulation of the public debt, the exploitation of the designed biases in the international credit system, financial speculation, stock-exchange gambling (what has also been called 'casino capitalism'), restrictive practices in market transactions inclusive of price manipulation, and the like.

The powerful combination of multinational corporate alliances, biotechnology, bilateral trade agreements, commodities markets and exchanges, asset managing companies, banks and financial institutions, political classes in league with industry, and the retail food industry have foisted upon us an unnatural vocabulary. Hence we are led, quite unnecessarily, to fit the kaleidoscopic cultures of small cultivation into grey bins labelled 'investment', 'competitiveness', 'logistics', 'supply / value chain', 'efficiency' and so on. Textbook business school blather assumes oracular weight and an agribusiness-oriented vision for agriculture, with large-scale (or technologically-empowered farms at the core), even if linked through "outgrower" schemes to smallholders, is one that some see as the logical and inevitable extension of global capital into rural economies. This readymade argument has been adopted by national governments, investors and (unfortunately, some) donor agencies alike.

Hence, concerning the questions raised for this consultation:

Q1. Are all relevant issues and areas ...

A. No longer a consideration as I advocate without reservation, condition or alternative the complete scrapping of the RAI.

Q2. Are the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders ...

A. These are done locally and any international set of principles does not supercede local agreement in all its variations.

Q3. Does the Zero Draft achieve the desired outcome to promote investments ...

A. Does not arise as I advocate without reservation, condition or alternative the complete scrapping of the RAI.

Q4. The principles are intended to provide practical guidance ... current structure and language ... principles to be used and implemented by different stakeholders ...

A. The principles may or may not be acceptable to communities, which - as we have seen for a century now in the case of indigenous peoples and tribes, first nations and aborginal populations, who have drafted, enacted and implemented their own natural resource protection laws and exercise sovereignty - are very competent in defining their codes and (if required complementary legislations).

What else if not RAI? What I have outlined in the two preceding parts of this contribution and in this conclusion are the adverse outcomes of the market-driven neoliberal paradigm that has fostered what since 2007 we call the food crisis (itself a meta text for linked crises such as dispossession, urbanisation and concomitant migration, the feminisation of agriculture, the volatility in cost of cultivation and retail food prices both, the loss of agro-biodiversity, and a host of others). However, in the South there are many experiments with more development-driven local and community institutions that provide morally acceptable and culturally sound alternatives.

References and notes

'The agrarian question', volumes I and II, Karl Kautsky, Zwan Publications, 1988

'Summary of selected parts of Kautsky's The Agrarian Question', Jairus Banaji, Economy and Society, 1976

'Power, property rights and the issue of land reform: A general case illustrated with reference to Bangladesh', M H Khan, Journal of Agrarian Change, 2004

'The land question: Special economic zones and the political economy of dispossession in India', M Levien, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2012

'The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals', Ben White, Saturnino M. Borras Jr., Ruth Hall, Ian Scoones and Wendy Wolford, The Journal of Peasant Studies, July-October 2012

"In the study area (and Bangladesh generally), land grabs by foreign governments and transnational agencies have not been particularly significant compared to those by domestic corporations, private interest groups and state agencies. However, alienation of land has been indirectly influenced by factors at the global level, inclusive of policy and development interventions promoted by international financial and donor agencies." - 'Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh: interactions between neoliberal globalisation, state interventions, power relations and peasant resistance', by Shapan Adnan, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2013

"In recent years the government of Laos has provided many foreign investors with large-scale economic land concessions to develop plantations. Many have lost their agricultural and forest lands, or conditions of production, making it difficult to maintain their former semi-subsistence livelihoods, and thus compelling many to take up employment on the same plantations that displaced them, despite frequently having to work for low wages and under poor conditions." - 'Turning Land into Capital, Turning People into Labour: Primitive Accumulation and the Arrival of Large-Scale Economic Land Concessions in the Lao People's Democratic Republic', by Ian G Baird, New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, November 2011

Agri-business corporations involved either with the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition and/or are World Economic Forum partners:

AGCO Corporation, Anheuser-Busch InBev, Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge Limited, Cargill, Carlsberg Group, Coca-Cola, Diageo, DuPont, Ecolab, General Mills, Heineken, Kirin Holdings, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Mondelez International, Monsanto Company, Nestlé SA, Orkla, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Sinar Mas, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, The Coca-Cola Company, The Mosaic Company, Unilever, Wal-Mart, Yara International, Yum! Brands, Zhangzidao Group

Bonjour à tous,

l'accaparement des terres progresse rapidement,et il prend dans plusieurs pays des proportions inquiétantes.Nous connaissons tous les raisons de cette ruée vers l'or vert.Les marchés internationaux sont devenus plus volatils et moins fiables,et les acheteurs de produits agricoles,firmes privées ou gouvernements,veulent assurer un approvisionnement stable.La demande d'agrocarburants progresse,en Europe comme aux Etats-Unis et dans d'autres régions,et c'est un facteurs majeurs accélérant l'accaparement de terres.Enfin,tout ceci nourrit la spéculation sur les terres:il n'est pas rare que les fonds d'investissement achètent de larges surfaces de terres,simplement dans l'espoir que leur prix va monter,et sans projet de développement.

Je voudrais faire deux commentaires.

-Le première commentaire est que les directives volontaires ne suffissent pas.Il faut aussi qu'au niveau régional,les Etats se mettent ensemble et définissent les limites à ne pas franchir.Le droit à l'alimentation notamment doit être intégralement respecté.Les Etats porteraient atteinte au droit à l'alimentation si,en louant ou en vendant des terres à des investisseurs (nationaux ou étrangers),ils privaient de ce fait les populations locales d'un accès à des ressources productives indispensables à leur subsistance.Ils le feraient également s'ils négociaient des contrats de vente ou de location sans s'assurer qu'ils ne compromettent pas la sécurité alimentaire,par exemple en créant une dépendance à l'égard de l'aide étrangère ou des marchés internationaux toujours instables et imprévisibles,étant donné qu'une grande partie des cultures produites dans le cadre de l'investissement étranger serait expédiée vers le pays d'origine de l'investisseur ou vendue sur les marchés internationaux.Il faut qu'au niveau régional,les Etats s'accordent sur un cadre qui protège les populations contre le risque de telles violations.Le niveau régional est sans doute le plus opportun,car les Etats d'une même région(par exemple,le CEDEAO ou l'UEMOA,voire l'Union Africaine) ont un intérêt commun à opposer aux candidats à l'acquisition de terres une position commune.Les Etats africains sont en concurrence pour attirer à eux les investisseurs:ceci ne doit pas se faire au détriment des populations.

-La deuxième commentaire,c'est qu'il faut refuser l'alternative qui nous est parfois présentée:soit vous acceptez  les investissements à large échelle dans l'agriculture,soit vous vous privez de tout investissement dans l'agriculture.Non.Les investissements sont nécessaires.Il faut améliorer l'accès des petits agriculteurs au crédits,aux intrants,et à l'information.Il faut améliorer les moyens de stockage et de communication,et donc l'accès au marchés.Mais tous ces investissements,en amont et en aval de la production,ne doivent pas affecter les droits à la terre:ils doivent-et ils peuvent-laisser intact l'accès des utilisateurs aux ressources indispensables à leur subsistance.ce qui importe,c'est d'orienter les investissements vers ce qui peut aider le mieux l'agriculture familiale,pour trois raisons:investir dans cette agriculture familiale,c'est le meilleur moyen de lutter contre la pauvreté rurale,c'est soutenir aussi les revenus d'une grande masse d'habitants des zones rurales,aujourd'hui trop  pauvres pour acheter des biens et services aux producteurs locaux,mais qui,lorsque leurs revenus augmenteront,pourront bénéficier à ces autres secteurs également,avec d'importants effets multiplicateurs sur l'économie locale;enfin,l'agriculture familiale est mieux équipée pour favoriser la diversité dans les champs et soutenir les écosystèmes,ce qui a une fonction vitale notamment face à la menace que représente le changement climatique.

Il ne s'agit pas de négliger l'agriculture,car il faut la soutenir.Mais on ne la soutient pas en détruisant la paysannerie des pays en développement.Il faut que les gouvernements comprennent qu'il est dans leur intérêt de favoriser la relance de l'agriculture familiale,et si l'on investit dans l'agriculture,c'est à cela que les investissements peuvent et doivent servir.

Personne ne nie que l'échange international crée des gagnants,mais qu'il crée aussi des perdants,celles et ceux qu'emploient les secteurs les moins compétitifs de l'économie.Or les pays en développement ne disposent pas des mécanismes redistributifs de l'état providence.Et ces perdants,lorsqu’ils sont des petits paysans,souvent n'ont pas les moyens de se mobiliser politiquement.

Enfin,surtout,le droit à l'alimentation insiste sur la réappropriation démocratique d'un processus de décision trop souvent confisqué par une élite étroite,qui exerce une influence disproportionnée sur la décision politique en même temps qu'elle sera la première à bénéficier du développement des échanges.

Cordialement

--

Serigne Sarr

BP:1177/rufisque/Sénégal

Dear FSN Forum members,

(Here follows the second of two parts. References and notes included.)

2. The idea of investment and how it influences policy

Definitions of 'responsibility' and of 'investment' are now informed from the ground. These definitions - by peasants' and farmers' groups and associations - recognise the behaviours of the many different actors who produce, handle and sell food. They are quite different in character and tone from a set of weak universal and consensual principles by being local, tied to legislation and enforceable, and whose structure and remit can be amended locally. When practiced by community and supported by local administrations, such definitions can halt the negative impacts of industrial- and 'market'-scale investments in agriculture. They can also control the irresponsibility of such investments dispossessing local communities of their land, of clear-cutting forests, sterilising the soil and polluting water.

In contrast the consultations (however well-intentioned) about RAI have little local basis and less community future. That is why they are very likely to be employed to obscure the power imbalances that exist to deepen industrial control of the means of agricultural production - and that is why these will not be acceptable as a measure of food growers' and food consumers' rights. The guiding of local responses is the need, which RAI does not recognise, and not an international or global charter that is fundamentally inapplicable to any actual food-growing region and therefore of no use.

Howsoever idealistic one or all of the eight principles in the zero draft are, to what extent will they be diluted or done away with entirely? Why should this happen? Because of the considerations of economic viability of agricultural (or land, or biotech) investment, of the expected profitability of a course of action that includes land grabs. My view is these principles will not be demonstrable in situ by any of its signatories in just the same way that market mechanisms that have been invented in the last 15 years as means to tackle serious inter-generational problems have proved (and continue to prove) to be instead mechanisms around which new industries profit.

These market inventions are the Clean Development Mechanism and the certified emission reduction schemes in all their hues which have contributed not at all to reducing CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions, Payment for Ecosystems Services which have been cynically refined recently in the form of 'nature offsets' (a gross perversion of an already destructive concept), reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) which has become rather than a mitigating mechanism one through which forest-based communities are alienated from their living habitat and which has further endangered forests by financialising their benefits.

Mechanisms that have international sanction, principles that include inclusionary clauses and concepts (but which are not offered for amendment/objection to affected communities in their own languages and idiom), campaigns to promote the use of 'best practices' and to assure transparency are increasingly being invented and followed by the functionaries of monetary and finance capital. These mechanisms may accompany international trade between two countries but may also be present when internal consumption (private companies selling goods in a country, or newer forms of social welfare such as direct benefit transfers / cash transfers) takes place. These are deemed as being necessary and desirable interventions to reduce hunger, reduce poverty, tackle inequality, increase access to service and so on, but are very likely not to result in processes and outcomes that advance the interests of project affected peoples and communities.

Investment to which a 'side-car' of moralistic mechanisms have been attached have only, in the last two decades, weakened local and indigenous control over crop choices and the uses to which primary crops are put (currently seen as raw material for an international or regional food retail industry). This phenomenon is amongst the reasons why social movements have warned (and continue to warn, more loudly than before) of a spectre of extensive dispossession and displacement of small farm producers and pastoralists [see GRAIN, 'Grabbing land for food', Seedling, January 2009]. On the other hand there also exist civil society technocracies which consider these investments as providing 'developmental' opportunities and hence they argue that the potential threat of dispossession can be mediated through internationally supervised guidelines on 'best practice', such as RAI which we are discussing.

In these circles - which includes a section of the proponents of RAI, which includes the international agricultural and crop science network (usually led by the CGIAR system in rather cozy partnerships with pliant national agricultural research systems, such as those of Brazil and India), and which includes the formidable armoury of the agbiotech industry - these land acquisitions are portrayed as a benign search for food security among countries destabilised by the world food price crisis (which shocked in 2007-08, and continued the shock from 2010-11 so that it remains current). At the same time, agriculture as being profitable enough to interest the enormously influential investments funds is now a sales pitch over five years old [see ' 'Land grabbing by foreign investors in developing countries: risks and opportunities', International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Policy Brief, 2009, and also see 'Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits?', World Bank, 2011].

(A concluding part follows.)

References and notes

GRAIN, 'Grabbing land for food', Seedling, January 2009

' 'Land grabbing by foreign investors in developing countries: risks and opportunities', International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Policy Brief, 2009

'Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits?', World Bank, 2011

'The global food crisis and what has capitalism to do with it', W K Tabb, International Development Economics Associates, Networkideas, 2008

'Global capitalism, deflation and agrarian crisis in developing countries', U Patnaik, Journal of Agrarian Change, 2003

'The resurgence of rural movements under neoliberalism', in Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros, 'Reclaiming the Land: The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America', Zed Books

'The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry', Utsa Patnaik and Sam Moyo, published 2011 by Pambazuka Press and the Mwalimu Nyerere Chair in Pan-African Studies, University of Dar es Salaam

An example of banking finance determining agricultural futures: Deutsche Bank

"Agricultural production must double - To combat world hunger successfully, it is important to address the diverse, long term causes of underfeeding and malnutrition. The central task in agriculture involves producing higher amounts of food staples and providing additional healthy and affordable foodstuffs. Prognoses by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) indicate that grain production alone will need to double by 2050 if everyone is to have enough to eat in the future."

"Agriculture must change - To achieve this, we must turn our environmentally damaging industrial landscape into a food production and distribution system that is more just, more environmentally friendly and more sustainable. That calls for innovative models and new, intelligent technologies to increase productivity and efficiency. These range from irrigation systems and precision technologies to a market for sustainably produced food that models itself on consumers’ needs. We must also use resources more efficiently and waste less food."

A short, representative list of 'asset managers' for whom agriculture is in 'investment class':

Adveq, Allianz, Altima Partners, Barclays Capital, BlackRock, Bligh Agri, CAIA, Capital Partners Group, Ceres, Connexion Capital LLP, Cornish Consultancy, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Duxton Asset Management, ED Capital, Emergent Asset Management, Helvetica, InvestAg Savills, Kendall Court, Macquarie, Miro, Olympus Capital, Robeco, Societe Generale, Worldwide Aginvest

Dear FSN Forum members,

My thanks to the administrators and facilitators of this subject who are guiding the consultative process. This note contains three sections. One that examines the rationale and background to the principles pertaining to 'responsible agricultural investment' (which is now referred to commonly by the 'RAI' short form); one that explains, from a point of view that is seated in a personal and regional perspective, the concepts about agricultural investment (or spending on agricultural activities) especially what are assumed and what are implied; and one that is critical of the RAI and the multi-lateral effort to find common ground with a set of principles.

(This is the first of two parts. References are included.)

1. Where the RAI has emerged from and where it may want to go

It will help if there is a willingness by the CFS to take a step back and review why we have, in 2014, a discussion about 'responsible agricultural investment' when in fact, in well balanced and thoughtful societies that are agrarian in nature, such a discussion would have been unnecessary. There is, in the prefatory material surrounding the principles up for discussion (and there is similar material to be seen for the last four years or so, over the life of this concept), a view on 'investment' and on 'responsible'. These are unlikely to be the view that one would find in a province or state, in a district or county, the majority of whose population is engaged in farming because there is undoubtedly such a variety of view about the nature of their activity. There is therefore a need to decide what degree of agnosticism can be acceptable (or tolerated, or welcomed) vis-à-vis the authority of the RAI concept. My advice is to be as realistic as possible and not turning a consultative consensus into a statement that has emerged from a deterministic process, as this shows a danger of becoming.

For that reason I would like to see in this consultation a fuller analysis of what is meant by 'investment' and by 'responsible'. That we have such concepts also means that we have conditions of irresponsible actions towards agricultural practice and agrarian societies, and that investment ought to include as thoroughly as possible a discussion about the public, social and private natures of investment. This is because investment tends to be given meanings that originate in finance and banking, in the financial and commodities markets, and from the sources of monetary and technological capital - whereas these views must not be allowed under any circumstance to dominate how the meaning of a term comes into acceptance. The investment made by generations of a community who have enriched a particular strain of traditional knowledge pertaining to the cultivation of a food staple is both implicit in the way their lives are led and implicit in their status as members of a community. In such a case (and there are fortunately still numerous such cases to be found) the term 'investment' becomes a vulgar one and is neither used nor translated.

Part of the rationale for declaring the need for RAI is the invoking of food security, of the banishment of hunger, and of the imperative to protect the biospheres while doing so. Unfortunately, the background and rationale for RAI does still not overtly and clearly enumerate what irresponsible actions or policies are when states pursue food security, seek to reduce hunger and to grow crops in ways that do not harm the environment. Without clearly enumerated actions and policies that are irresponsible, it is then left to the states themselves, to private corporations and agencies, to the financial and commodity markets, to the traders and retailers, to adjudge themselves responsible (for they will not do the opposite).

The work of the CFS will be strengthened by the presence of a teleological guide to determining irresponsibility and its opposite - this goes well beyond the enunciation of principles, adherence to which comes at no loss of profit nor is it enforceable under national or local legislation. Moreover, in what way policies will be aligned with 'responsibility'? Countries produce food and biofuel stock for internal use, but also import portions of both. In what ways are 'responsible' and 'investment' defined under these circumstances (which are the circumstances demanded by a country following its World Trade Organisation 'responsibilities' as a member state of WTO)? Lacking such definitions, the CFS when considering RAI is in danger of accepting the production, distribution and consumption patterns that are commonplace in most countries because they are imposed by the 'market', but which are systemically flawed in environmental and social terms.

(Part 2 follows.)

References:

Main page for Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments - CFS-RAI

Summary of the international initiatives that provide guidance on responsible investment: key characteristics

Comparative analysis of selected instruments on responsible investment: similarities, differences and gaps

Annotated list of international binding agreements that may have implications for the formulation of the rai principles

Matrix of Issues Covered by Related Initiatives

Knowledge Exchange Platform for Responsible Agro-Investment (World Bank, FAO, UNCTAD, IFAD)

Other guidelines, standard schemes or codes of conduct:

Equator Principles

Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI)

Santiago Principles

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

The Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (PRAI) - UNCTAD

Report to the G20 Development Working Group: Options for Promoting Responsible Investment in Agriculture (June 2011)

Focusweb - why we oppose the principles of RAI

Transnational Institute - why so-called 'responsible agricultural investment' must be stopped

Farmlandgrab - We do not believe in responsible agriculture investment

Organisations working on agrarian issues, farmers' rights, land rights, social justice and equity: Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano (Study Centre for Change in the Mexican Countryside), FIAN International, Focus on the Global South, Friends of the Earth International, Global Campaign on Agrarian Reform, GRAIN, La Via Campesina, Land Research Action Network, Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos (Social Network for Justice and Human Rights), World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP), World Forum of Fisher Peoples

 

Dear All,

Attached you can find some specific proposals to improve the structure as well as the wording of principles and concrete reccommendations. In fact, we think that the draft 0 should be dramatically improved in order to be consistent with the agreed ToRs and ensure that the rai contribute to ahieve food security.

We hope that our contribution will be helpful in addressing major issues present in the draft 0.

Best regards,

Luca Chinotti