Over the past decade, agricultural investment has been presented as
a catchall solution to a conv... more Over the past decade, agricultural investment has been presented as a catchall solution to a converging set of global crises, often with poor rural communities as the proclaimed beneficiaries. Yet the promises of such investment, such as poverty alleviation and improved food access, are routinely at odds with realities on the ground. This article offers frameworks for analysis of agricultural investment that are grounded in the realities of small-scale food providers, drawing from two studies. The first study employs a right to food framework to identify the main channels through which food for consumption is procured by small-scale food providers and the factors impacting these channels. It draws on empirical data from within the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), an investment model promised to lift rural communities out of poverty, which reflects a regional trend. Based on the shortcomings of the large-scale investments examined, the second study employs a food sovereignty framework to explore alternative forms of investment envisioned and/or already being put into practice by small-scale food providers in the SAGCOT area and elsewhere in Tanzania. While two different frameworks formed the basis of two different studies, both the studies and their frameworks are interrelated. The final section of this article makes the case for why both the right to food and food sovereignty are essential lenses for understanding agricultural investment vis-à-vis small-scale food providers and the ways in which they can serve as complementary tools for effective analysis.
In October 2014 the Myanmar government unveiled a draft National Land Use Policy (NLUP) and annou... more In October 2014 the Myanmar government unveiled a draft National Land Use Policy (NLUP) and announced it would take public comments for a limited time before finalizing the document. Once it is finalized, the new policy will determine the distribution, use and management of the country’s land and related natural resources like forests and rivers, for years to come. It promises to make profound changes to the current land-related economic, social, and political-institutional landscape. This is an important – and bold – step for Myanmar, with its complex history of political and armed conflict and protracted displaced populations. More so because land policymaking also tends to involve simplification – that is, putting aside real-life facts and phenomena that have the potential to derail formal-legal standardization agendas. Some simplification is unavoidable. But policies that too narrowly follow overly neat categories of land use will be unable to detect, adapt to or address many of the most significant and “messy” details of actual land based social relations. These are often the very facts that need to be understood and taken into consideration in the first place. So the big question at the heart of the NLUP process is: whose details are going to count? This briefing examines this question with a particular emphasis on an ethnic minority perspective. An inclusive land use policy-making process that allows for - and encourages - full and meaningful participation for all rural working people is essential for ensuring a policy outcome that is widely and effectively accepted by society. It is a significant and welcome development that the public is invited to submit comments and recommendations. If the government is to make this step matter, then it must follow through. It must ensure that the issues, concerns, and aspirations expressed by those whose lives and livelihoods are most affected or threatened by forced eviction and dislocation, land confiscations and large-scale land deals, leave a substantial imprint on the policy that finally gets adopted. 4 The English version of the draft NLUP (as uploaded onto the government website) is positive in some ways and includes several key provisions that would improve Myanmar’s current land governance arrangements. But it still needs improvement especially in terms of some fundamental principles in order to be better positioned to address these key and urgent land policy challenges. Overall, for Myanmar’s land policy to succeed, it must seek to: (i) ensure benefits to the landless and near-landless working peoples; (ii) remedy historical injustices; (iii) promote the distinct right of women to their own land rights; (iv) promote the distinct right of ethnic minority groups, and other customary communities such as Mon villagers in Karen State, for example, to their territorial claims as rural working people1 and as indigenous peoples; (v) support ecological land and labor uses in pursuit of productivity; (vi) ensure state/public support for building diverse and sustainable livelihoods; and (vii) advance the rights of rural working people and peoples to access and use land for purposes and in ways of their own choosing. This is because the current land problem plaguing Myanmar society today is rapidly increasing land polarization, which in turn, is tied to a deeper set of problems related to three main and broadly distinct types of situations affecting rural working households and peoples: (i) some already have access to land but this access threatened or is vulnerable to threat, (ii) some currently have little or no effective access to land and control over land-related decisions, and (iii) some previously had access but lost it due to armed conflict and also natural disasters (such as Cyclone Nargis. It is these three dimensions of the land problem in Myanmar today that define the type of policy response that is needed, and which the NLUP can and must try to address
Over the past decade, agricultural investment has been presented as
a catchall solution to a conv... more Over the past decade, agricultural investment has been presented as a catchall solution to a converging set of global crises, often with poor rural communities as the proclaimed beneficiaries. Yet the promises of such investment, such as poverty alleviation and improved food access, are routinely at odds with realities on the ground. This article offers frameworks for analysis of agricultural investment that are grounded in the realities of small-scale food providers, drawing from two studies. The first study employs a right to food framework to identify the main channels through which food for consumption is procured by small-scale food providers and the factors impacting these channels. It draws on empirical data from within the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), an investment model promised to lift rural communities out of poverty, which reflects a regional trend. Based on the shortcomings of the large-scale investments examined, the second study employs a food sovereignty framework to explore alternative forms of investment envisioned and/or already being put into practice by small-scale food providers in the SAGCOT area and elsewhere in Tanzania. While two different frameworks formed the basis of two different studies, both the studies and their frameworks are interrelated. The final section of this article makes the case for why both the right to food and food sovereignty are essential lenses for understanding agricultural investment vis-à-vis small-scale food providers and the ways in which they can serve as complementary tools for effective analysis.
In October 2014 the Myanmar government unveiled a draft National Land Use Policy (NLUP) and annou... more In October 2014 the Myanmar government unveiled a draft National Land Use Policy (NLUP) and announced it would take public comments for a limited time before finalizing the document. Once it is finalized, the new policy will determine the distribution, use and management of the country’s land and related natural resources like forests and rivers, for years to come. It promises to make profound changes to the current land-related economic, social, and political-institutional landscape. This is an important – and bold – step for Myanmar, with its complex history of political and armed conflict and protracted displaced populations. More so because land policymaking also tends to involve simplification – that is, putting aside real-life facts and phenomena that have the potential to derail formal-legal standardization agendas. Some simplification is unavoidable. But policies that too narrowly follow overly neat categories of land use will be unable to detect, adapt to or address many of the most significant and “messy” details of actual land based social relations. These are often the very facts that need to be understood and taken into consideration in the first place. So the big question at the heart of the NLUP process is: whose details are going to count? This briefing examines this question with a particular emphasis on an ethnic minority perspective. An inclusive land use policy-making process that allows for - and encourages - full and meaningful participation for all rural working people is essential for ensuring a policy outcome that is widely and effectively accepted by society. It is a significant and welcome development that the public is invited to submit comments and recommendations. If the government is to make this step matter, then it must follow through. It must ensure that the issues, concerns, and aspirations expressed by those whose lives and livelihoods are most affected or threatened by forced eviction and dislocation, land confiscations and large-scale land deals, leave a substantial imprint on the policy that finally gets adopted. 4 The English version of the draft NLUP (as uploaded onto the government website) is positive in some ways and includes several key provisions that would improve Myanmar’s current land governance arrangements. But it still needs improvement especially in terms of some fundamental principles in order to be better positioned to address these key and urgent land policy challenges. Overall, for Myanmar’s land policy to succeed, it must seek to: (i) ensure benefits to the landless and near-landless working peoples; (ii) remedy historical injustices; (iii) promote the distinct right of women to their own land rights; (iv) promote the distinct right of ethnic minority groups, and other customary communities such as Mon villagers in Karen State, for example, to their territorial claims as rural working people1 and as indigenous peoples; (v) support ecological land and labor uses in pursuit of productivity; (vi) ensure state/public support for building diverse and sustainable livelihoods; and (vii) advance the rights of rural working people and peoples to access and use land for purposes and in ways of their own choosing. This is because the current land problem plaguing Myanmar society today is rapidly increasing land polarization, which in turn, is tied to a deeper set of problems related to three main and broadly distinct types of situations affecting rural working households and peoples: (i) some already have access to land but this access threatened or is vulnerable to threat, (ii) some currently have little or no effective access to land and control over land-related decisions, and (iii) some previously had access but lost it due to armed conflict and also natural disasters (such as Cyclone Nargis. It is these three dimensions of the land problem in Myanmar today that define the type of policy response that is needed, and which the NLUP can and must try to address
Uploads
Papers
a catchall solution to a converging set of global crises, often with poor
rural communities as the proclaimed beneficiaries. Yet the promises
of such investment, such as poverty alleviation and improved food
access, are routinely at odds with realities on the ground. This article
offers frameworks for analysis of agricultural investment that are
grounded in the realities of small-scale food providers, drawing
from two studies. The first study employs a right to food framework
to identify the main channels through which food for consumption
is procured by small-scale food providers and the factors impacting
these channels. It draws on empirical data from within the Southern
Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), an investment
model promised to lift rural communities out of poverty, which
reflects a regional trend. Based on the shortcomings of the large-scale
investments examined, the second study employs a food sovereignty
framework to explore alternative forms of investment envisioned
and/or already being put into practice by small-scale food providers
in the SAGCOT area and elsewhere in Tanzania. While two different
frameworks formed the basis of two different studies, both the studies
and their frameworks are interrelated. The final section of this article
makes the case for why both the right to food and food sovereignty
are essential lenses for understanding agricultural investment vis-à-vis
small-scale food providers and the ways in which they can serve as
complementary tools for effective analysis.
This is an important – and bold – step for Myanmar, with its complex history of political and armed conflict and protracted displaced populations. More so because land policymaking also tends to involve simplification – that is, putting aside real-life facts and phenomena that have the potential to derail formal-legal standardization agendas. Some simplification is unavoidable. But policies that too narrowly follow overly neat categories of land use will be unable to detect, adapt to or address many of the most significant and “messy” details of actual land based social relations. These are often the very facts that need to be understood and taken into consideration in the first place.
So the big question at the heart of the NLUP process is: whose details
are going to count? This briefing examines this question with a particular
emphasis on an ethnic minority perspective.
An inclusive land use policy-making process that allows for - and encourages - full and meaningful participation for all rural working people is essential for ensuring a policy outcome that is widely and effectively accepted by society. It is a significant and welcome development that
the public is invited to submit comments and recommendations. If the government is to make this step matter, then it must follow through.
It must ensure that the issues, concerns, and aspirations expressed by those whose lives and livelihoods are most affected or threatened by forced eviction and dislocation, land confiscations and large-scale land deals, leave a substantial imprint on the policy that finally gets adopted.
4
The English version of the draft NLUP (as uploaded onto the government website) is positive in some ways and includes several key provisions that would improve Myanmar’s current land governance arrangements. But it still needs improvement especially in terms of some fundamental principles in order to be better positioned to address these key and urgent land policy challenges.
Overall, for Myanmar’s land policy to succeed, it must seek to: (i) ensure benefits to the landless and near-landless working peoples; (ii) remedy historical injustices; (iii) promote the distinct right of women to their own land rights; (iv) promote the distinct right of ethnic minority groups, and other customary communities such as Mon villagers in Karen State, for example, to their territorial claims as rural working people1 and as indigenous peoples; (v) support ecological land and labor uses in pursuit of productivity; (vi) ensure state/public support for building diverse and sustainable livelihoods; and (vii) advance the rights of rural working people and peoples to access and use land for purposes and in ways of their own choosing.
This is because the current land problem plaguing Myanmar society today is rapidly increasing land polarization, which in turn, is tied to a deeper set of problems related to three main and broadly distinct types of situations affecting rural working households and peoples: (i) some already have access to land but this access threatened or is vulnerable to threat, (ii) some currently have little or no effective access to land and control over land-related decisions, and (iii) some previously had access but lost it due to armed conflict and also natural disasters (such as Cyclone Nargis. It is these three dimensions of the land problem in Myanmar today that define the type of policy response that is needed, and which the NLUP can and must try to address
a catchall solution to a converging set of global crises, often with poor
rural communities as the proclaimed beneficiaries. Yet the promises
of such investment, such as poverty alleviation and improved food
access, are routinely at odds with realities on the ground. This article
offers frameworks for analysis of agricultural investment that are
grounded in the realities of small-scale food providers, drawing
from two studies. The first study employs a right to food framework
to identify the main channels through which food for consumption
is procured by small-scale food providers and the factors impacting
these channels. It draws on empirical data from within the Southern
Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), an investment
model promised to lift rural communities out of poverty, which
reflects a regional trend. Based on the shortcomings of the large-scale
investments examined, the second study employs a food sovereignty
framework to explore alternative forms of investment envisioned
and/or already being put into practice by small-scale food providers
in the SAGCOT area and elsewhere in Tanzania. While two different
frameworks formed the basis of two different studies, both the studies
and their frameworks are interrelated. The final section of this article
makes the case for why both the right to food and food sovereignty
are essential lenses for understanding agricultural investment vis-à-vis
small-scale food providers and the ways in which they can serve as
complementary tools for effective analysis.
This is an important – and bold – step for Myanmar, with its complex history of political and armed conflict and protracted displaced populations. More so because land policymaking also tends to involve simplification – that is, putting aside real-life facts and phenomena that have the potential to derail formal-legal standardization agendas. Some simplification is unavoidable. But policies that too narrowly follow overly neat categories of land use will be unable to detect, adapt to or address many of the most significant and “messy” details of actual land based social relations. These are often the very facts that need to be understood and taken into consideration in the first place.
So the big question at the heart of the NLUP process is: whose details
are going to count? This briefing examines this question with a particular
emphasis on an ethnic minority perspective.
An inclusive land use policy-making process that allows for - and encourages - full and meaningful participation for all rural working people is essential for ensuring a policy outcome that is widely and effectively accepted by society. It is a significant and welcome development that
the public is invited to submit comments and recommendations. If the government is to make this step matter, then it must follow through.
It must ensure that the issues, concerns, and aspirations expressed by those whose lives and livelihoods are most affected or threatened by forced eviction and dislocation, land confiscations and large-scale land deals, leave a substantial imprint on the policy that finally gets adopted.
4
The English version of the draft NLUP (as uploaded onto the government website) is positive in some ways and includes several key provisions that would improve Myanmar’s current land governance arrangements. But it still needs improvement especially in terms of some fundamental principles in order to be better positioned to address these key and urgent land policy challenges.
Overall, for Myanmar’s land policy to succeed, it must seek to: (i) ensure benefits to the landless and near-landless working peoples; (ii) remedy historical injustices; (iii) promote the distinct right of women to their own land rights; (iv) promote the distinct right of ethnic minority groups, and other customary communities such as Mon villagers in Karen State, for example, to their territorial claims as rural working people1 and as indigenous peoples; (v) support ecological land and labor uses in pursuit of productivity; (vi) ensure state/public support for building diverse and sustainable livelihoods; and (vii) advance the rights of rural working people and peoples to access and use land for purposes and in ways of their own choosing.
This is because the current land problem plaguing Myanmar society today is rapidly increasing land polarization, which in turn, is tied to a deeper set of problems related to three main and broadly distinct types of situations affecting rural working households and peoples: (i) some already have access to land but this access threatened or is vulnerable to threat, (ii) some currently have little or no effective access to land and control over land-related decisions, and (iii) some previously had access but lost it due to armed conflict and also natural disasters (such as Cyclone Nargis. It is these three dimensions of the land problem in Myanmar today that define the type of policy response that is needed, and which the NLUP can and must try to address