Search

Large scale land acquisitions for food and biofuel production by (mostly foreign) agro-industrial investors have surged as a substantial phenomenon in developing countries in the last 2-3 years. Already 30 million hectares or half of Europe’s agricultural land are said to have been bought or leased, much of it in poor and poorly governed countries in Subsahara Africa. Although food presently seems to dominate motivations for land acquisitions, in the end food and biofuel production are two sides of the same coin if it comes to large scale land acquisitions: They fundamentally change the access of local populations to natural resources, the way resources are used, and the way production and incomes are organised, owned and distributed, not to talk about the changes of ways of live of rural populations. In addition, often production and raw materials can be easily switched between different purposes. Due to the size of these acquisitions there are justified fears that they can substantially harm rural development and food security in the affected countries. On the other hand, these investments bring desperately needed capital, innovation, market access and jobs into rural areas which are often not ideal worlds but marked by poverty, food insecurity and long-term soil mining and resource degradation. The present article discusses whether large scale land acquisition can be expected to be a long term phenomenon, which opportunities and threats exist for different actors, and which institutional challenges have to be dealt with if such investments are to be development-friendly. It is based on a case study on bioenergy potential in Namibia and an analysis of the literature. Unfortunately, the latter is of limited value for the time being because details of land acquisition deals are generally not open to public scrutiny. Thus, the key conclusion is that more transparency in this kind of deals is indispensable. In addition, existing land and user rights as well as compensation mechanisms have to be carefully respected, food security clauses have to be integrated into international trade, investment agreements and investment contracts, land use management, environmental and biosafety rules must be respected, provisions for risk management, moderation and litigation should be formulated, and overall policy coordination is important to make large scale land investments development friendly.

It is widely acknowledged that a well-performing agricultural sector is fundamental for Africa’s overall economic growth, as well for as addressing hunger, poverty, and inequality. However, for the last decades the sector has stagnated, it has been taxed and/or neglected by both governments and donors and has not been able to accomplish its role for development. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) – the economic programme of the African Union (AU) – early on recognised the importance of agriculture and the weaknesses of member countries’ agricultural policies. NEPAD developed a special initiative, namely the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), to improve agricultural policies on the continent. Another NEPAD initiative, the African Peer Review Mechanism(APRM), is likewise supposed to have major impacts on agriculture. This study examines how the CAADP and APRM can and do influence agricultural policies and strategies at the country level. It is based on detailed case studies conducted in Ghana and Kenya and a rapid assessment in Uganda. The key issues analysed, which, in keeping with the new aid effectiveness agenda and NEPAD principles, were supposed to improve agricultural policy processes and their impacts, are ownership, participation, use of scientific evidence, including peer review elements, and alignment. The study works out strengths and weaknesses of past agricultural policies as well as NEPAD initiatives, elaborating recommendations on how best to improve these initiatives to make them fully operational for agricultural development in Africa.

The Aid for Trade (AfT) initiative was launched within the WTO with the aim of helping developing countries to reduce poverty by getting more engaged in trade. It recognises that market access alone is of little use for many poor countries. Instead, it draws attention to a number of obstacles that have prevented many countries from reaping the benefits available in a globalised world as well as to the risks arising from such increased openness.This study presents the results of a research project commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Its aim is to provide input for an informed discussion on how Germany can best contribute to the AfT initiative by optimising both the quantity and quality of its trade-related assistance. After outlining the theoretical debate behind trade and development, the study describes the process behind the AfT initiative as well as the challenges involved in putting it into practice. An analysis of international and – in more detail – German AfT prepares the ground for a discussion on how Germany should shape its AfT portfolio in accordance with its assumed comparative advantages.

"The upcoming Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and regions are extremely challenging. Conceived as a follow-up to the non-reciprocal trade preferences granted to the ACP since 1975, the aim of the EPAs is sustainable development and poverty reduction through the establishment of a Free Trade Area. Many challenges and opportunities arise from this ambitious trade and development partnership between some of the world's poorest and richest countries. Throughout the negotiations, several stakeholders have expressed concerns about the possible negative effects in ACP countries that risk jeopardizing the developmental impacts of EPAs. The ambition, as well as the uncertainties around EPAs make a results-oriented monitoring of the agreements imperative. This study, commissioned by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, addresses the possible goals of EPA monitoring, drawing conclusions on what broad areas need to be monitored, which principles should be followed and which stakeholders involved. The study then outlines the challenges involved in implementing a results-oriented monitoring system: which steps need to be taken, how best to derive indicators, which characteristics the latter should have and how they may be identified. The study also presents a number of recommendations on how to ensure that monitoring is given due consideration in the EPA legal texts." (author's abstract)

For several months now, worldwide food prices have exploded. This has had severe impacts on many developing countries, ranging from increases in poverty and hunger and problems with inflation and balances of payment to national instabilities. The extreme price boom is likely to prove more shortterm in character. However, there are a number of longer-term trends that appear to indicate a tendency toward food prices higher and more unstable than they have been in the past. While in the short term the ongoing food crisis is harmful to most urban and rural households, viewed in the longer-term perspective, (moderately) higher prices have positive effects on the majority of rural households, and thus on poverty as well, which continues to be a mainly rural phenomenon. Both governments and development policy are urgently called upon to adopt short-term measures, including e.g. an easing of import and export restrictions, provision of import or consumer credits, direct transfers, and, possibly, food aid, designed to quickly defuse situations that may often be explosive. But there is also a need for longer-term measures designed to promote agriculture in developing countries -, on the one hand to boost output and thus to return food prices to tolerable levels and stabilize them and on the other hand to bolster rural economic cycles and sustainably raise the purchasing power of the rural population.

Seit einigen Monaten explodieren die weltweiten Nahrungsmittelpreise. Dies hat für viele Entwicklungsländer gravierende Auswirkungen, vom Anstieg von Armut und Hunger über Zahlungsbilanz- und Inflationsprobleme bis hin zu gesamtstaatlichen Instabilitäten. Die extremen Preisausschläge dürften eher kurzfristiger Natur sein, aber es gibt auch eine Reihe von längerfristigen Trends, die für tendenziell höhere und instabilere Nahrungsmittelpreise sprechen, als dies in der Vergangenheit der Fall war. Während die aktuelle Nahrungsmittelkrise kurzfristig sowohl städtischen wie ländlichen Haushalten mehrheitlich schadet, haben (moderat) höhere Preise bei längerfristiger Betrachtung eine positive Wirkung auf die Mehrzahl der ländlichen Haushalte und damit auch auf Armut, die nach wie vor ein hauptsächlich ländliches Phänomen ist. Von Seiten der Regierungen und der Entwicklungspolitik sind kurzfristige Maßnahmen wie Auflockerung von Import- und Exportrestriktionen, Import- oder Konsumkredite, direkte Transfers und evtl. Nahrungsmittelhilfe extrem wichtig, um die oft brisanten Situationen rasch zu entschärfen. Aber es müssen auch längerfristige Maßnahmen zur Förderung der Landwirtschaft in Entwicklungsländern eingeleitet werden: Einerseits zur Erhöhung der Produktion, um die Nahrungsmittelpreise wieder auf ein erträgliches Niveau zu bringen und zu stabilisieren, andererseits, um ländliche Wirtschaftskreisläufe und die Kaufkraft der ländlichen Bevölkerung dauerhaft zu heben.

Under the regime of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), local and regional policies are increasingly determined by global factors. One example is the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). It stresses an earlier notion of African Renaissance, which includes the emphasis on collective self-reliance, but at the same time seeks closer cooperation with the global trade system and its international agencies. Bi- and multilateral trade relations between external actors and individual African states or regional blocs are becoming ever more decisive. This is also true of the more recently negotiated Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in the post-Lomé era of EU-African relations. In light of such trends the question of coherence between trade as aid and other areas of development strategy and cooperation remains to be answered. The contributions to this Discussion Paper reflect upon related matters of socio-economically viable strategies seeking to reconcile the global and the regional in an African perspective. They were originally presented to the Panel 'Regional Cooperation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Between Collective Self-Reliance and Global Trade Regimes'” organised by the Nordic Africa Institute within the 11th General Conference of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) in September 2005 in Bonn. CONTENT -- Preface -- “Partnership” through Accommodation? African Development Initiatives and universal Policy Descriptions. Ian Taylor -- The EU and Regional Integration in AfricaA critical appraisal of the Economic Partnership Agreements. Henning Melber -- Rethinking Protection for Agricultural Markets in Sub-Sahara Africa. Michael Brüntrup

"This paper argues that although there are good reasons why poor countries in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) should support their agricultural sector, applicability of protective policies in the agricultural sectors of SSA is limited by various legal, economic, social, political and administrative reasons. The remaining scope, however, could be used to develop prospective agricultural sub-sectors for growth, poverty alleviation and food security, while protection should be embodied in comprehensive development strategies. These strategies must address the problems of low price transmittance of border measures and high transaction costs (in the largest sense) for agricultural products and particularly the limited supply capacity of small scale producers. Legally, trade policy in the case study country Senegal as well as in many other SSA countries is restricted much more by regional trade agreements than by the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is a formal and political reason why the protective part of such integrated strategies must be defended and implemented at the regional level. Other reasons to plan, negotiate and implement further specific elements of these strategies at the regional level are the lock-in effect of commitments in order to protect them against ad hoc decisions of national politics, as well as economies of scale and scope in supportive policies, in supply and in demand. These specific elements, such as research, standard setting, quality control or strategic public-private partnerships, should be complemented with other more general elements of regional integration which are less sector-specific, e. g. infrastructure, transport, information, finance or regional trade facilitation. In this way, regionally oriented agricultural policies can profit from wider regional integration and at the same time support it. A note of warning is finally expressed that regional solutions have high political and administrative costs and should only be stressed where advantages clearly outweigh these." (author's abstract)

"The EBA-Initative of 2001 has made three notable exceptions to its commitment for tariff and quota free access of least development countries (LDCs) to the EU-market: Sugar, bananas, and rice, for which longer transitions periods have been imposed. Despite the decelerated opening of the EU market for EBA sugar, it is precisely sugar that presently constitutes the highest preferential value for LCDs, at least in the short and medium term and given the present high EU sugar price of more than 600 Euros per ton under the current Sugar Markt Order (SMO), which is more than triple the world market price. The EU itself projected that the EBA exports would attain 3.3 million tons per year in 2013 at a value of almost 2 billion Euros." (excerpt)

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit den Agrarverhandlungen in der sogenannten Doha-Entwicklungsrunde im Rahmen der WTO, die im November 2001 eingeleitet wird. Ziel der Runde war es ursprünglich, bis Ende 2004 weitreichende Liberalisierungen und eine Präzisierung der Regeln des internationalen Handels zu verabschieden, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Interessen von Entwicklungsländern. Die zentrale Herausforderung in den Agrarverhandlungen ist, Länder mit ganz unterschiedlichen Ausgangssituationen, Problemen, Instrumenten und Zielen für ihre Agrarwirtschaften und Ernährungslage dazu zu bringen, sich auf gemeinsame Spielregeln zu einigen. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht am Beispiel von Tansania und Senegal, welche spezielle Interessenlage in den Least Developed Countries (LDC) südlich der Sahara vorherrscht, welche internationalen Agrarhandelspolitiken diesen Interessen am ehesten dienlich sind und in welche Richtung weitere agrarpolitische Maßnahmen gehen müssen, damit mögliche Impulse aus den Agrarverhandlungen auch tatsächlich zu Entwicklung im Sinne von nachhaltigem Wachstum und Armutsminderung beitragen. Die zentrale Hypothese der Studie lautet, dass mögliche Liberalisierungen der Weltagrarmärkte zwar wichtige Anreize für armutsorientiertes Wachstum in SSA (Sub-Sahara Afrika) bieten können, dass aber die wichtigsten Reformen und Entwicklungsanstrengungen dort selbst stattfinden müssen. Mit den Beispielländern, Tansania und Senegal, werden zwei charakteristische, entgegengesetzte Situationen analysiert: Tansania repräsentiert eine stark agrarisch geprägte Ökonomie mit relativ großem Reichtum an agrarischen Ressourcen. Senegal steht für eine im afrikanischen Kontext schon relativ stark urbanisierte und industrialisierte Volkswirtschaft, die aufgrund mangelnder agrarwirtschaftlicher Dynamik und der Degradierung der natürlichen Ressourcen stark von Agrarimporten abhängig ist. Im ersten Kapitel werden die wichtigsten strittigen Punkte der komplexen Agrarverhandlungen und die wichtigsten Positionen präsentiert. Diese stecken den Ergebnisraum ab, in dem sich die Verhandlungen bewegen. Die Verhandlungssituation der LDC wird besonders berücksichtigt. Im zweiten Kapitel wird thematisiert, dass nicht nur die internationalen, sondern auch die verschiedenen nationalen Interessengruppen in Bezug auf den Agrarsektor und die Doha-Agrarverhandlungen sehr heterogen sind. Aus der Kombination von Verhandlungsthemen und interner Interessenlage wird ein Analyseraster konzipiert. Das dritte Kapitel führt in die Fallstudienländer ein und zeigt die unterschiedlichen agrarökologischen und ökonomischen Ausgangssituationen. Außerdem wird die Interessenlage der wichtigsten internen Akteursgruppen diskutiert. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden die Verhandlungspositionen der LDC einer kritischen Analyse unterzogen: Im vierten Kapitel stehen die Forderungen an die Verhandlungspartner im Vordergrund, im fünften Kapitel die Forderungen für die internen agrarpolitischen Spielräume. Schließlich werden im sechsten Kapitel Folgerungen für die WTO-Positionen sowie kohärente Handels- und Agrarpolitiken der LDC gezogen und Empfehlungen für eine entsprechende entwicklungspolitische Unterstützung gegeben. (ICG2) Abschätzung der Wirkungen multilateraler Agrarliberalisierungen." [Textauszug]

The reform of the European sugar market organization (SMO), which has until now been excepted from the general restructuring of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, must be seen as an important building block in the project of liberalizing the international agricultural markets. The reform will have substantial impacts on developing countries. However, it is not as radical as it is often made out to be: Its principle aim is to cut subsidized exports by lowering administrative prices. Some other important elements of the existing market regime will continue in place, including production quotas and heavily restricted market access. Without tariff protection, no more than a small proportion of the EU’s sugar production would be likely to survive for long, and most of the EU’s demand for sugar would be covered by a number of larger, competitive developing countries. For this reason alone, pressure to reform the EU sugar sector is likely to continue over the long term. Alternative reform proposals that would have left prices at their present, high levels and used quotas to manage production and imports must for this reason be viewed with a critical eye. While these proposals hold promise of short-term gains for certain developing countries, they would at the same time set major incentives for these countries to develop inefficient production structures that would not prove economically sustainable in the long run. The consequence would be later crises entailing high economic and social costs. Under the current form not all developing countries will turn out to be winners. The decline in prices it entails will substantially curtail the exports and export chances of some developing countries that presently enjoy preferential access to the EU market. These include some especially poor countries that have virtually no other production compensation for these losers of the reform – for one thing to cushion negative impacts, but for another to avoid the impression that agricultural liberalization is a factor that contributes to exacerbating poverty. The EU should mobilize the funds needed to compensate these countries.

Die anstehende Reform der europäischen Zuckermarktordnung, die bisher von der allgemeinen Umstrukturierung der europäischen Agrarpolitik ausgenommen war, ist ein bedeutender Baustein zur Liberalisierung der internationalen Agrarmärkte. Sie wird erhebliche Auswirkungen auf Entwicklungsländer haben. Der von der EU-Kommission im Juni 2005 vorgelegte Reformvorschlag ist allerdings nicht so radikal wie oft dargestellt: Er zielt insbesondere auf den Abbau von subventionierten Exporten durch Reduktion der administrativen Preise. Einige andere wesentliche Elemente der bestehenden Marktordnung bleiben hingegen erhalten, so die Quotierung der Produktion und der beschränkten Marktzugang. Ohne Außenschutz dürfte nur ein geringer Teil der EU-Zuckerproduktion überlebensfähig sein, der EU-Zuckerbedarf würde hauptsächlich von großen wettbewerbsfähigen Entwicklungsländern gedeckt werden. Schon aus diesem Grund wird der Reformdruck auf den EU-Zuckersektor langfristig anhalten. Alternative Reformvorschläge, die Preise auf hohem Niveau zu belassen und Produktion und Importe über Quoten zu steuern, sind daher kritisch zu sehen. Sie versprechen bestimmten Entwicklungsländern zwar kurzfristige Gewinne, aber der Anreiz zum Aufbau ineffizienter und langfristig wirtschaftlich nicht nachhaltiger Produktionsstrukturen wäre sehr groß. Spätere Krisen wären mit hohen wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Kosten verbunden. Allerdings führt auch der jetzige Reformvorschlag nicht nur zu Gewinnern unter den Entwicklungsländern. Durch den Preisrückgang verlieren diejenigen, die präferenziellen Zugang zum EU-Markt haben, teilweise erheblich an Exporten bzw. Exportmöglichkeiten. Darunter sich auch besonders arme Länder, die kaum Produktions- und Exportalternativen haben. Für diese Verlierer muss Kompensation geschaffen werden, einmal um negative Auswirkungen zu dämpfen, aber auch um den Eindruck zu vermeiden, dass Agrarliberalisierung zur Verschärfung von Armut beiträgt. Die Mittel für Kompensationen sollten von der EU aufgebracht werden.

CAADP is an exciting change process of the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) to shape African agricultural policy making and development from within the continent. CAADP covers a wide range of issues from natural resource management through agricultural production and value chains to food security. Its goals, increasing government budgets, donor and private funding, and improving the quality and the outcome of agricultural policies in all African countries, point in the right direction and come at the right time. However, it has to be noted that CAADP has not yet led to a systematic improvement of agricultural policy making – the older CAADP design was not convincing in terms of participation, ownership and use of evidence, and the new, improved design is about to be implemented. Some important elements of the existing CAADP design are still rudimentary, such as peer review or interventions of the pillar network. The overall targets – agricultural growth and poverty alleviation – are still far away from being a reality. Nevertheless, CAADP has shown that it is a learning system, and it has developed into a comprehensive concept. It must now demonstrate that it can implement its agenda. It must develop and institutionalise convincing quality control mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation, and it must coordinate the many tools and actors that it has put into motion. In case CAADP fails, there is a risk that the entire agricultural sector will once again be classified as “too complex to be managed†. Donors are therefore well advised to support it wisely, but the main impetus must come from the African agricultural community, state and non-state actors.