Elaborating on the “Inequalities in food systems and other systems” and the “Systemic Drivers and root-causes of FSN inequalities”, we have to consider that “the engine of inequity” is also fueled by “labor inequalities” within rural communities, a feature to which the current draft report of the HLPE is not throwing enough light. At least in sub-Saharan Africa, where subsistence farmers prevail, the two lowest quintiles are trapped into trans-generational poverty and actual hunger or accentuate vulnerability because of unequal capabilities to access to labor (manpower).
The topic is complex for a short intervention in the context of the current debate, but I will try to focus on some key elements of the rationale, also referring to some case-studies, to give a flavor from the reality on the ground, hopping, to call the attention of the HLPE to the topic, in order to be taken on board by the final report, opening the opportunity:
A. Acknowledge (put the topic on the Agenda)
B. Build Knowledge (create evidence, elaborate conceptual construct, Monitor and Assessment)
C. Act (implication on the Programming exercise of Projects, Programs, Strategies and Policies. Projects and Programs must stop turning a blind/eye to differentiation within communities just labeling “their beneficiaries” as the vulnerable).
a) Poverty and FNS are related to inequalities that do not stop at rural communities’ gates. In poor rural communities relying on subsistence agriculture, not all poor are equally poor. Inequalities taking place within rural communities lead the most vulnerable to starvation through entrenched complex practices of access to labor, land, and food stocks. Access to labor is a major determinant of structural hunger in rural communities in Sub-Saharan Africa, yet, it is poorly addressed by the mainstream analysis and action that consider African communities as “labor-surplus economies”. This is both, wrong and unfair.
b) Subsistence farmers’ sustainability is at the core of food security and adequate nutrition. In fact, they represent the vast majority of the world food insecure. In the modern world, sustainability of subsistence agriculture is fragile and subsistence households are vulnerable. By definition, subsistence agriculture produces the strict necessary for the survival of the family. In such systems, pursuing high increase of outputs leads to overwhelming pressure over the limited production assets; namely labor and natural resources, including land and forest. That impacts negatively on the environment and on the increasing inequality within a rural community. Pressure over environment and accentuation of inequalities further compromise the already fragile sustainability of households and ecosystems.
c) Typical subsistence systems present an equilibrium of inputs and outputs. In a subsistence system, in theory and in the real life, each person produces what is needed to reproduce his/her labor force (his/her productive capacity and that of his/her children, the future generation of producers), and sometimes that person may produce small surpluses. These surpluses must also support bad years, which, in average for these systems, occur once or twice in every 4-5 good years. Individuals, each peasant, and consequently each “subsistence” livelihood and subsistence communities, cannot produce significant structural surpluses to channel to the markets. What such societies can do is distribute manpower unequally among its various groups and subsequently some can accumulate. In short, someone has to go hungry so that this society as a whole can produce “surpluses”.
d) However, rural communities relying on subsistence agriculture are in a process of market integration. People buy from and sell to the markets. In a schematic way, two are the main sources feeding trade; namely a) temporary surpluses and not structural ones and b) certain households cultivate more land and consequently have more production. Accurate analysis shows that the two dimensions are interrelated. Both sources of “surpluses” to sell to the markets are sources of structural hunger in the rural communities.
e) Deprived from structural surpluses, particularly during the “hunger gap – lean season”, the poorest households (varying from 20% to 40% of a predominantly subsistence community) “sell” their labor literally for a plate of beans to the “better off” that are in a process of consolidation of assets’ concentration. The “better off” manage to open and cultivate more land. At this stage, selling “under-cost” their labor force, the poorest households remain caught in the trap of trans-generational poverty. (see below an example from Northern Mozambique).
f) Labor control is much related to land control even when land apparently is “accessible” to all members of the community, even to the foreigners as Internal Displaced People (IDP). Much of the traditional institutions are aimed at regulating and controlling manpower and access to labor force. Actually, while we are focusing on land tenure (which correct), rural communities are claiming manpower shortage (“we don’t have enough power to work the fields”).
To give an example from Mozambique
FNS in Mozambique overview: In 2022, 60 percent of the population in Mozambique lived in extreme poverty, with the poverty threshold at 1.90 U.S. dollars a day. That corresponded to roughly 20 million people in absolute numbers. (statista). Poverty is still predominantly a rural phenomenon in Mozambique. More than 70 per cent of poor households live in rural areas (ifad). The overwhelming majority of producers are subsistence farmers (USAID Fact Sheets).
“In rural settings, ....... seems to picture a situation where extreme poverty is very high (around 40%, i.e. the two lowest quintiles of rural population), better off situations are in phase of consolidation (around 20%, the richest quintile) and a “grey” area of those exposed in vulnerability, living on the edge of the poverty line (the remaining 40%) moving in and out of poverty according to external conditions, such as family illness and deaths, climate hazards, loss of jobs and cash income.” (FAO; “Protecting and improving households food security and nutrition in HIV/AIDS affected areas in Manica and Sofala provinces”; 2009 -2012).
On the whole, “for most farmers food security varies with the agricultural calendar”. That is, most farmers exhaust their reserves way before the next harvest. In general we can probably speak of temporary surpluses rather structural surpluses. (Food Security Survey (Medecins Sans Frontieres, UNDP/UNHCR, French Co-operation; 1994/95 season, Mozambique). On the other hand, some households are able to cultivate more land because they have access to supplementary labour. The access to extra manpower typically takes place under very concrete circumstances. Actually, access to more labour is possible in detriment of the poorest households when high labour requirements (clearing, weeding) and “hunger gap” / lean season are overlapping. At this stage, the poorest have to go and sell “under-cost” their labour force and, at this point, the poorest households remain caught in the trap of trans-generational poverty.
In Northern Mozambique, in the Macua society, a coping strategy through traditional social relations, called “o’lola”, takes place. This practice of “exchanging labor for food” enables considerable accumulation to those who benefit from the work of others. Suffice it to say that one day's work under "o'lola" can be paid with 3-4 kg. of cassava or sometimes with just a plate of beans, while the average flour production per workday corresponds to 7-9 Kg for cassava. Under these circumstances, a process of land concentration on the hands of few within the rural communities is taking place. For instance, in 1993, in Nampula Province, about 40-50% of the total land was held by only 25% of the subsistence producers that farmed between 4 and 5 times more land per household than the smallest 25%. The land accumulation must be understood not in terms of property rights on land (in Mozambique the State is the only owner) but in terms of farming capacity, i.e., the capacity of a farmer to have access to labor during the peak season.
To also keep in mind that IDP or vulnerable community members is almost always provided a plot to be cultivated. However, subtle and elaborated agreements allow those providing land (normally related to traditional elites) to easily turn the better-off. For instance, to the worse-off is given a new plot to be opened in the forest, which requires intense labor. After a number of cultivation cycles, when the land turns less fertile for certain cultures, the cycle normally closes with cassava which requires drastically less labor while produces more flour/ha.
In Northern Mozambique, among the Macua people, the average household has five people, two of whom are children. In terms of labour force, if we consider man to be one agricultural labour unit, a woman is calculated as 0.7 of a labour unit and a children as 0.5. The cultivated area per capita varies in relation to several factors as the type of culture, crops rotation, to list only few. In Northern Mozambique the cultivated area/capita varies between 0.6 ha and 1.1 ha and the average cultivated area/household is of 2 ha, up to 3.7 ha in some groups.
In dry lands, the average productivity in food crops is 450 -- 500 kilos of flour/hectare . So, a typical household of five with two ha of land could access to a production output, in food crops, of around 9.041/kcal/day. According to FAO the world average kcal/person/ day today is 2,800. For the industrial countries 3,380 and for Sub-Saharan Africa 2,195. The food and nutritional poverty line in Mozambique is around 2.150 kcal/person/ day and the MDER 1.617 Kcal/person/day.
So, there is a huge possibility that a household faces an annual average kcal food deficit. The situation is more dramatic throughout the year. It is noted that in the period of “abundance” (September) the per capita consumption is higher than the Kcal requirements, in January (a period of hunger but also of heavy agricultural work) there is a big deficit, and a more moderate deficit around May. It is to be noticed that September is the time of the cassava harvest, while May sees the maize, groundnut, and bean harvests and is also the marketing season. In January there is a Kcal deficit for all household groups and types whilst in May only one of the three household types has a Kcal deficit. This most vulnerable group cultivates a smaller area/household and/capita, has fewer cashew trees, is larger, and possibly has a younger head of household. This last aspect could be of interesting if related to the social stratification typical of Macua society, by age groups.
Ms. Emilia Venetsanou