Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
crops and animals. New forms of public-private partnerships that are often des-
ignated as Foreign Direct Investment further complicate adaptation. Using the
Community Capitals Framework, community-based adaptation strategies that take
gender into account are identified.
Small producers, their livelihoods, and the land associated with both are threat-
ened by changes in climate. They are among the vulnerable of populations in that
their natural and social systems are susceptible to damage from climate change
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2012). Their adaptive capac-
ity, which is the degree to which adjustments in practices, processes, or structures
can moderate or offset the potential for damage or take advantage of opportunities
created by a given change in climate (IPCC 2012), is often limited by the political
economy that determines the access to and control of the land.
Social science distinguishes two kinds of responses to climate change: adapta-
tion and coping. Adaptation involves anticipating, planning, and acting to decrease
vulnerability to climate change. Coping is the use of available skills, resources, and
opportunities to address, manage, and overcome adverse conditions with the aim of
achieving basic functioning in the short to medium terms. In some cases, coping can
increase long-term vulnerability.
While individuals cope or adapt to climate changes, community adaptation is
often more effective in preserving soils and the dignity of the small producers.
Community adaptation is most effective when women are included, particularly in
Africa where women produce subsistence food crops and small animals for local
markets (Gladwin 2002).
Structural adjustment in the 1980s and 1990s had major negative impacts on
farming communities, particularly on women (Due and Gladwin 1991; Meena 1991;
MacKenzie 1993). Governments dismantled and privatized extension systems that
distributed agricultural inputs and technical assistance. As government spending on
health and education decreased, fees for these services increased dramatically. Wage
freezes meant a large reduction in remittances from fathers and sons with urban
employment. Farming systems designed for subsidized inputs were no longer afford-
able (Hassan et al. 2013; Tchingulou et al. 2013). National emphasis on export crop
production to generate foreign exchange often led to monocultures and increasing
land concentration (Gladwin 1991).
The 21st century brought a new development model, where public-private part-
nerships brought new sources of foreign exchange to governments in the form of
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Under the right circumstances, when FDI invests
in roads, ports, railways, electricity, and water, for example, it can contribute to inter-
national integrations and encourage transfer of technology between countries, and
under the right policy environment, FDI can be an important vehicle for develop-
ment (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2012a).
However, land-based investment often is purely extractive. Most FDI studies look at
it as a totality, and their analyses combine FDI in industry and infrastructure with
FDI in land, finding that it is not extremely negative (Xu and Sheng 2011). Thus, it is
difficult to systematically address its impacts in different contexts.
In many parts of the world, the government holds title to communal lands, which is
a primary resource for smallholders and pastoralists. When this land is leased to foreign
