28
THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS AND THE RURAL POOR
those same farmers. Farmers now have to purchase the genetic resources that they RQFH FRQWUROOHG LQ WKHLU RZQ Ă€HOGV The Malawi government’s provision of a subsidy for chemical fertilizers targeting smallholders has emerged as one of the most contentious agricultural development policies. The IFIs, in accordance with their liberalization and privatization agenda, have condemned the government. This subsidy is condemnable, but not because it opposes the IFIs’ agenda. By providing its farmers with the means to purchase fertilizer, Malawi legitimizes private sector agro-chemical companies. In other words, Malawi is creating the enabling conditions for the long-term involvement of these companies in the agriculture sector. There are two main problems with this situation. )LUVW LW LV Ă€VFDOO\ LQIHDVLEOH IRU WKH JRYHUQPHQW WR PDLQWDLQ WKDW VXEVLG\ SHUPDQHQWO\ eventually, the country’s farmers will be at the mercy of the private sector. At this SRLQW ODUJH VFDOH IDUPHUV ZLOO EHQHĂ€W DQG PRVW VPDOO VFDOH IDUPHUV ZLOO EH XQDEOH WR afford the fertilizer. In addition, given the inextricable linkages between agro-chemLFDO DQG VHHG FRPSDQLHV WKH VXEVLG\ PD\ OHDG WR WKH LQĂ€OWUDWLRQ RI YHU\ H[SHQVLYH seed varieties beyond the reach of small farmers. A key question is: will substantial private agribusiness investment emerge on the marketing side to capitalize on farmHUV¡ LQFUHDVHG \LHOGV" 6XFK LQYHVWPHQW ZRXOG OLNHO\ WDUJHW WKH ZHDOWKLHVW UHJLRQV DQG farmers, increasing inequality between large-scale and small-scale farmers. However, despite this inequitable outcome, the government would likely be applauded for having successfully produced the enabling conditions for fertilizer companies. Second, public funding for fertilizer distracts attention from the agriculture approaches that may be more effective for farmers’ livelihoods. Such alternative approaches are not amenable to private investment, for there is no input that can be sold to farmers. Therefore, the fertilizer subsidy is once again an attempt to make government policy compatible with private sector interests. This again raises the question of whether public and private investment are distinguishable. Public-private partnerships The emphasis on public-private partnerships for agricultural development, particularly by USAID administrator Rajiv Shah, is allowing transnational agribusiness investment to increasingly become legitimized under the banner of “development.â€? This is problematic because it renders the integration of developing world agriculture into global markets – which has long been predicated on politically and economically unequal relationships – compatible with humanitarian objectives. It also ignores the reality that African countries’ dependence on global food markets is precisely why the continent was susceptible to the 2008 food crisis. In this context, then, development becomes a propagator of the transnational capitalist forces currently FRQWULEXWLQJ WR WKH SRYHUW\ WKDW GHYHORSPHQW SXUSRUWV WR FRPEDW 7KLV LV H[HPSOLĂ€HG by Pepsi Co., which, through a public-private partnership, is investing in export-based chickpea production for its supply chain36. The ultimate danger is that as development grants credibility to such investments, the fact that such investments have historically come at the expense of food