Big Questions

This is a common discussion but frankly I am bewildered by it! It seems always to be predicated on the assumption that it is either small farmers, or large farmers. But surely the answer is that there is both room and a need for both. Equally, I am little unsettled by the implicit typology which suggests that small is the same as poor. Examples abound in sub-Saharan Africa of small farmers thriving on truly tiny plots where they produce high value produce for local, regional and global markets. Another point that needs to be made is that large commercial farming is not necessarily by definition bad. Neither for that matter is all small farming good! Especially where unsupported by good extension, information and marketing services. With this in mind, I am also bewildered as to why all the media attention is on the "land-grabbers". True, this may be a problem (but where by the way, are the capital flows needed to develop millions of ha allegedly grabbed? Surely there would be a ripple in the financial markets?). But what about the commercial investors looking for positive social impacts? Instead of including them (by default) among the bad guys, surely they should be talked up for risking their own wealth in the interests of social equity and environmental responsibility. Finally: i) larger production models are needed to feed the increasing numbers of non-farmers in Africa, and ii) one day so that Africa can realise its huge potential as a major contributor to global food security, with concomitant economic growth in producer countries. But for that we need Doha!

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.