Download Current Issue - SAIS

of less than two hectares (about five
acres), supporting some 2 billion
people. But the 0.5 percent of farms
that exceed 100 hectares capture
a disproportionate share of global
farm income, enjoy privileged access
to policymakers and—particularly
in developed countries—receive
generous subsidies. Further, buying
power is increasingly concentrated
in the hands of agribusiness and
other powerful corporate actors that
generally prefer to deal with larger
operators who can deliver sizable
lots of produce.
n “Land grabs.” Seeking to ensure
access to food in an era of high and
volatile prices, investors from China,
India, South Korea and Persian Gulf
states have bought or invested in
tens of millions of hectares of farmland,
mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Although this means food and profits
for the investors, it is not always clear
what the host countries gain from the
deals. In many instances, small-scale
farmers have lost their land without
much compensation.
n Technology. The application of
science to agriculture remains controversial.
Critics point to adverse
environmental and social impacts of
the green revolution, which required
purchased fertilizers and pesticides
to achieve higher yields. Questions
remain about the long-term
environmental and health effects of
genetically engineered seeds, which
go beyond conventional plant breeding
to transfer genes from one species
to another (and among plants,
animals and microorganisms), and
many consumers reject the products
of these seeds. Proponents of hightechnology
approaches argue that
the alternatives—organic agriculture
and reduced reliance on purchased
fertilizer and pesticides—will not
generate sufficient yields to feed a
world of 9 billion people in 2050, are
extremely knowledge-intensive and
will require the clearing of new land,
thereby threatening biodiversity.
n Export versus local food crops.
“Food first” proponents advocate a
focus on staple crop production and
growing food for local and national
markets. But many donors and agri-
cultural economists favor highervalue,
internationally traded crops,
such as fresh fruits and vegetables.
n High- and low-potential areas. The
International Food Policy Research
Institute has found that returns on
rural development investments—in
terms of both economic growth and
poverty reduction—may be higher
in less-favored areas. These are areas
that are disfavored by policy as well
as nature, with poorer-quality soils
and more limited access to markets,
services and infrastructure. The possible
gains are particularly large in
the less-favored zones of China and
India, where additional investments
in high-potential irrigated areas
result in diminishing returns.
Need for Integrated Approaches
Although the controversies over how
to support agricultural development
concern important and difficult issues,
to some extent they reflect either/or
thinking. As the International Institute
for Environment and Development
has shown, it is possible to structure
land deals so they benefit small-scale
2011–2012 23