Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

Soils, agriculture and food security: The interplay between ecosystem functioning and human well-being

Healthy soils are critical to agriculture, and both are essential to enabling food security. Soil-related challenges include using soils and other natural resources sustainably, combating land and soil degradation, avoiding further reduction of soil-related ecosystem services, and ensuring that all agricultural land is managed sustainably. Agricultural challenges include improving the quantity and quality of agricultural outputs to satisfy rising human needs, also in a 2 degrees world; maintaining diversity in agricultural systems while supporting those farms with the highest potential for closing existing yield gaps; and providing a livelihood for about 2.6 billion mostly poor land users. The greatest needs and potentials lie in small-scale farming, although there as elsewhere, trade-offs must be negotiated within the nexus of water, energy, land and food, including the role of soil therein.

Improving bovine udder health: a national mastitis control program in the Netherlands

Because of increasing bulk milk somatic cell counts and continuous clinical mastitis problems in a substantial number of herds, a national mastitis control program was started in 2005 to improve udder health in the Netherlands. The program started with founding the Dutch Udder Health Centre (UGCN), which had the task to coordinate the program. The program consisted of 2 parts: a research part and a knowledge-transfer part, which were integrated as much as possible. The knowledge-transfer part comprised 2 communication strategies: a central and a peripheral approach. The central approach was based on educating farmers using comprehensive science-based and rational argumentation about mastitis prevention and included on-farm study group meetings. Comprehensive education materials were developed for farmers that were internally motivated to improve udder health. In the peripheral approach it was tried to motivate farmers to implement certain management measures using nontechnical arguments. Mass media campaigns were used that focused on one single aspect of mastitis prevention. These communication strategies, as well as an integrated approach between various stakeholders and different scientific disciplines were used to reach as many farmers as possible. It should be noted that, because this intervention took place at a national level, no control group was available, as it would be impossible to isolate farmers from all forms of communication for 5 years. Based on several studies executed during and after the program, however, the results suggest that udder health seemed to have improved on a national level during the course of the program from 2005 to 2010. Within a cohort of dairy herds monitored during the program, the prevalence of subclinical mastitis did not change significantly (23.0 in 2004 vs. 22.2 in 2009). The incidence rate of clinical mastitis, however, decreased significantly, from 33.5 to 28.1 quarter cases per 100 cow years at risk. The most important elements of the farmers' mindset toward mastitis control also changed favorably. The simulated costs of mastitis per farm were reduced compared with a situation in which the mastitis would not have changed, with € 400 per year. When this amount is extrapolated to all Dutch farms, the sector as a whole reduced the total costs of mastitis by € 8 million per year. It is difficult to assign the improved udder health completely to the efforts of the program due to the lack of a control group. Nevertheless, investing € 8 million by the Dutch dairy industry in a 5-yr national mastitis control program likely improved udder health and seemed to pay for itself financially.

Swiss Policies for more Food Security

Resource-poor yet blissful Switzerland is also one of the most food-secure countries in the world: there are abundant food supplies, relatively low retail prices in terms of purchasing power parity, with few poverty traps. Domestic production covers 70% of net domestic consumption. A vast and efficient food reserve scheme insures against import disruptions. Nonetheless, the food security contribution by the four sectoral policies involved is mutually constrained: our agriculture is protected by the world’s highest tariffs. Huge subsidies, surface payments, and some production quotas substitute market signals with rent maximisation. Moreover, these inefficiencies also prevent trade and investment policies which would keep markets open, development policies which would provide African farmers with the tools to become more competitive, and supply policies which would work against speculators. The paralysing effect of Swiss agricultural policies is exacerbated by new “food security subsidies” in the name of “food sovereignty” while two pending people’s initiatives might yet increase the splendid isolation which in effect reduce Swiss farmer competitiveness and global food security. Is there a solution? Absent a successful conclusion of the Doha Round (WTO) or a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) further market openings and a consequent “recoupling” of taxpayer support to public goods production remain highly un-likely. To the very minimum Switzerland should resume the agricultural reform process, join other countries trying to prevent predatory behaviour of its investors in developing countries, and regionalise its food reserve.

Baseline Survey Report: Case study of Uluguru and Usambara mountains (Bigwa, Tangeni, Peko Misegese, Mashewa and Misalai villages)

Agriculture is the back borne of the economy of Tanzania and its main objective is to ensure food security and eradication of rural poverty through the promotion of production systems, technologies and practices that are environmental sound (Tanzania National Environmental Policy, 1999). However, this has not been achieved due to rapid land degradation, which has consequently lead to massive soil loss, decline in crop yields, disruption of water resources and the destruction of the natural resources in general. This report highlights the extent to which agricultural related activities like agronomic and cultural practices such as use of fire for preparation of farms and cutting of trees to meet villagers’ needs have devastating effect on the quality of the environment. Besides these observed difficulties this paper argued that as the survival, well being and future of the Uluguru and Usambara people it is essential to provide continuous training to farmers, so that they know how best to continue farming and harvesting forest products on a sustainable basis without causing much harm to the environment. Most of all this paper recommends the introduction of Ngolo cultivation technology on steep slopes of Usambara and Uluguru mountains in order to enhance the conservation of the environment.

The story of Community preference for food security

"Préférence communautaire" is an in-built notion of the CAP since its inception with the Treaty of Rome (1957). Its’ simple objective laid down at the Stresa Conference in 1958 is to prefer community produce over imports wherever possible, while at the same time promoting agricultural exports and FDI (“vocation exportatrice de l’Europe”). Does this contrast or correlate with the notion of “food sovereignty” which originated in 1996 as a notion of small farmer self-sufficiency (Via Campesina), and which now has found its way into the official EC discourse? Recent CAP reforms indeed seem to continue banking on border protection and on the occasional export subsidy. Nonetheless, coming together with claims to mitigate climate change, “food sovereignty” à la CAP fails to acknowledge efficiency losses at home and negative spillover effects on the right to food of food exporting developing countries. This chapter asks whether new non-tariff and domestic support measures are just new wine in the old cask of fortress Europe, together with the FDI promotion instruments of the FED and others. Might the increasing dynamics and new challenges of agricultural trade and investment lead to lower market and production shares for European farms? It concludes that in the medium term the WTO Green Box has the only legal and effective tools to promote EU agriculture and food.

The effect of brain size evolution on feeding propensity, digestive efficiency, and juvenile growth

One key hypothesis in the study of brain size evolution is the expensive tissue hypothesis; the idea that increased investment into the brain should be compensated by decreased investment into other costly organs, for instance the gut. Although the hypothesis is supported by both comparative and experimental evidence, little is known about the potential changes in energetic requirements or digestive traits following such evolutionary shifts in brain and gut size. Organisms may meet the greater metabolic requirements of larger brains despite smaller guts via increased food intake or better digestion. But increased investment in the brain may also hamper somatic growth. To test these hypotheses we here used guppy (Poecilia reticulata) brain size selection lines with a pronounced negative association between brain and gut size and investigated feeding propensity, digestive efficiency (DE), and juvenile growth rate. We did not find any difference in feeding propensity or DE between large- and small-brained individuals. Instead, we found that large-brained females had slower growth during the first 10 weeks after birth. Our study provides experimental support that investment into larger brains at the expense of gut tissue carries costs that are not necessarily compensated by a more efficient digestive system.