During this summer I read a book about the link between agriculture and globalization “Agrarian question and globalization”. The principle of the book, which has been published at Alternatives sud, is to shed light on the agricultural question from a southern point of view. Therefore, this work is a compilation of 11 articles from searchers and agriculture specialists from Latin America and Africa. From this multidimensional perspective, I will now write what I think is the gist of their analysis on the effects of globalization on agriculture over the past century.
The Green Revolutions
First of all, it is necessary to have a proper historical overview of what we are going to call the globalized agriculture. During the 19th and the 20th century, agriculture has known 3 major technical revolutions. The first and maybe the most famous is the development of motorization-mechanization over a large scale which has been a giant leap forward in terms of yield for the land-owners who could afford it. Secondly, the amelioration and selection of the inputs (seeds) which led in most case to promote most profitable seeds. The last (but not least!!) symptom of this phenomenon is the current spreading of GMOs in the world. Finally, the last revolution is exogenous: the infrastructures to support farmers could difficultly be less equally-distributed. Indeed, in Western countries governments have often support financially the birth of a modern-mechanized-agriculture.
With this first said, it leads us to the core point of all macroeconomic debate on agriculture: What is the “fair price” for a farm product? Because, as Jun Borras (Phillipines) explains in its article, agricultural commodities’ price determines life or death for a plethora of populations in today’s world. This assertion underlines the idea that, under a certain price level for raw farm products, the agribusiness firms imperil local equilibrium and, over the long run, detroy local agriculture and create famines at the same time.
But what’s the big deal with low prices? Isn’t it odd that low prices for agricultural commodities would create famine and food shortage in developing countries?
Today’s situation
Before addressing this question I would like to draw a picture of agriculture on a national level (even if it will be simplistic. We can consider 3 groups of farm products producer countries:
This group of countries seek to liberalize farm product prices, mostly by struggling against US and UE protectionism regarding these commodities. In fact, these countries have a small numbers of large land-owner that have adopted early the agribusiness methods, just like in the UE and in the US. The only difference is the possibility to hire a large number of low-payed agricultural workers which gives us a competitive advantage over these two areas. This is called by Wilma Salgado “the new-latifundism”
2. The USA and the EU
As the Cairn groups, the share of farmers in the active population decreased constantly over the past century thanks to modernization of the sector. Nonetheless, there are still a large number of medium-sized land owners that struggle to reach the break-even point if they sell their products at the same prices as the Carin groups (smaller lands, no very-low-paid farm workers...). In order to tackle this issue that has led to the pauperization of lots of farmers in the UE and the US, US/EU governments have settle a large set of protectionism rules. In the case of the UE and France, the Common Agricultural Policy and the French government have controlled prices, settled norms and distributed grants for the farmers to reach their break-even point. In the eyes of the rest of the world, it has induced a distortion of competition.
As these two areas have focused on an overwhelming quantity of farm products, it happens that a share of the harvesting is to be sold at a loss. It is therefore bought by the governments and given as food help for developing countries. We will see below the downside effects of such a practice.
3. Asian, South-American and African countries (only small producers)
This very heterogeneous group is on the other side of the productivity gap. As the book was not truly about Asia, we won’t talk about it a lot. In Asia, green revolutions of the 70-80’s have led to a situation where the agrarian sector employs a large share of the population for very productive cultures (rice mostly). It has been facilitate by a 3-way protectionism during the agricultural expansion: custom rights, norms and farmer subsidies. On the other hand, in Africa and South-America, small farmers are suffering from international competition and colonization heritage. Especially in South America and in some African countries, the small farmers do not have an access to the lands which prevent any forms of independence. Most of the time, it is a form of modern serfdom practice by the large-land owners. In light of this, a large number of very small producers are nearly above the threshold of a proper living standard which lead some of them to rural exodus. This phenomenon is even worst when these same rural areas are “beneficiating” from food help from Western countries. As the national government is most the time the distributor in these operations, it is a mere dumping that can force small farmers to stop their activity.
When the weak producers do not reach their threshold of renewal of economic activities, it implies a decapitalization (selling of the livestock, equipment, exodus, standard of living lower...) or in the worst case an economic exodus. A large part of these agrarian populations are very close to the threshold of survival. They are under a Damoclès sword of a detrimental incident (bad harvest or life accident). For instance, recently in the North of Nigeria, a poor political situation is transforming in a humanitarian catastrophe.
A key figure is core to keep in mind: On the 800 million people are suffering from undernourishment in macro-nutriments, ¾ are living in rural areas and the other ¼ is overwhelmingly represented by population that directly came from a recent rural exodus.
Environmental Issues
To increase their production in developing countries, most farmers prefer carry out monoculture or GMOs that are less requiring than a large set of seeds with their own specificities. Sadly, it leads to a decrease of soil fertilities or worse, a spoliation of the soil because of pesticides. In this respect, GMOs are a case in point. If we take the classic example of Monsanto corn, the farmer cannot use the genetically-modified seeds for the next season. He becomes dependent of the firm and its products (the famous round-up!) and keeps on destroying its own soil.
Political Influence on globalized agriculture
The authors of the book seem to agree on one point: food sovereignty is core to solve this major issue. For instance, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) in Brazil, fight for enable small farmers to Access land property against latifundism. This civil experience, even if there are not only silver linings, showcases that social unrest is to be tackle by empowering bottom population. In addition, they all agree on the detrimental effects of regional group of countries when the group is imbalanced (Mexico participation in the FTAA is a case in point).
Besides, the searchers’ historical analysis points out how crucial the state can be by fostering investment to alleviate rural poverty. The idea is to lend money over 10 years to rural areas in order to implement the green revolution. On the contrary, certain experiences like in Zimbabwe are only political which prevents from any sustainable progress (Magari Madebvu: land property in Zimbabwe).
The Gender Issue
The first victim of the agricultural weakness of these populations are the women. They are socially determined by their marriage in African societies which is the mist insecure social position that can be. They are often the most involved in the harvest but they do not access the money that comes from their work because men hold financial resources in most of traditional societies. It is a pity because it has been demonstrate that women are better than men concerning infant nutrition. Moreover, in these societies, women are more “long-term” oriented. The rub is that the women status is made by the weddings in most of rural areas which undermines the possibility of a direct ownership of the land and therefore of a better social status.
In Southern and Eastern Africa, several initiatives have been launched in order to strengthen women access and rights to the lands. It is not an easy task as most of the rights is still based on customs. That is why association like Women and Law in South Africa (Association promoting women rights) are so crucial for land claim of heritage.
Conclusion
Agriculture covers very different and conflicting realities. It is core for today’s farmers to keep in mind what their actions mean for the rest of the world. Therefore, as a personal conclusion, I would say that local agriculture of added-value products is to be the new norm for the producers but also for the clients because today’s agribusiness cannot be reliable over the long-run. In today’s world, we are all responsible.
Other Key figures to have in mind
Alimentation in the world evolution:
1950: 2450 kkal/day
2000 : 2700 kkal/day
¼ of human being live in households directly depending on rural agriculture
Half of the world population lives with less than 2 USD every day (PNUD)
By Thomas
