IS THE SCRAMBLE FOR LAND FORECLOSING A SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION STRATEGY? T.S. Jayne, Antony Chapoto, Nicholas Sitko, Milu Muyanga, Chewe Nkonde and Jordan Chamberlin Photo: Christiaensen and Demery (2007) Presentation at the World Bank Land and Poverty Conference Washington, DC 26 March, 2014
26
Embed
IS THE SCRAMBLE FOR LAND FORECLOSING A SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION STRATEGY? T.S. Jayne, Antony Chapoto, Nicholas Sitko, Milu Muyanga, Chewe Nkonde.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IS THE SCRAMBLE FOR LAND FORECLOSING A SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION STRATEGY?
T.S. Jayne, Antony Chapoto, Nicholas Sitko, Milu Muyanga, Chewe Nkonde and Jordan Chamberlin
Photo: Christiaensen and Demery (2007)
Presentation at the World Bank Land and Poverty Conference
Washington, DC 26 March, 2014
16
Selected newspaper headlines -- Kenya 27 28
Motivation
Do African governments have an accurate understanding of:
• how much good agricultural land remains?
• how rapidly this remaining land is being purchased/acquired?
• by whom?
• Implications for their own agricultural / rural dev plans?
Total 820,341 1,438,779 1,399,737 70.6% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Ministry of Agriculture Crop Forecast Surveys, 2009, 2012. *2001 figures are land under cultivation. ** Growth rate computed from 2009-2012 only. “na” means not available.
Table 2: Changes in farm structure among small- and medium-scale farmers in Zambia (2009 - 2012)
Total 820,341 1,438,779 1,399,737 70.6% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Ministry of Agriculture Crop Forecast Surveys, 2009, 2012. *2001 figures are land under cultivation. ** Growth rate computed from 2009-2012 only. “na” means not available.
Table 2: Changes in farm structure among small- and medium-scale farmers in Zambia (2009 - 2012)
Total 820,341 1,438,779 1,399,737 70.6% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Ministry of Agriculture Crop Forecast Surveys, 2009, 2012. *2001 figures are land under cultivation. ** Growth rate computed from 2009-2012 only. “na” means not available.
Conclusion 2
Land under control of MS farms exceeds that of LS (foreign + domestic)
More land cultivated/owned by MS than by large-scale, including LS foreign investors
Large scale (foreign+domestic)
Medium scale (5-100 ha)
Million hectares
Ghana (cultivated) 3.08 4.21
Kenya (cultivated) 0.69 0.84
Zambia (owned) 2.11 2.47
Medium-scale farmers’ characteristics: Kenya (n=300)
Farm-led growth
strategy (n=82)
Non-farm led growth
strategy (n=118)
Heads had non-farm job 42% 58%
_civil servant 71% 68%
_private sector 29% 32%
Heads had business 52% 42%
Heads level of education:
_informal 12% 7%
_primary 43% 24%
_secondary 27% 22%
_post-secondary 18% 47%
Father to household head:
_landholding owned (ha) 94.7 45.1
_non-farm job 33% 38%
_some formal education 35% 40%
Medium-scale farmers’ characteristics: Kenya (n=300)
Farm-led growth
strategy (n=82)
Non-farm led growth
strategy (n=118)
Heads had non-farm job 42% 58%
_civil servant 71% 68%
_private sector 29% 32%
Heads had business 52% 42%
Heads level of education:
_informal 12% 7%
_primary 43% 24%
_secondary 27% 22%
_post-secondary 18% 47%
Father to household head:
_landholding owned (ha) 94.7 45.1
_non-farm job 33% 38%
_some formal education 35% 40%
Medium-scale farmers’ characteristics: Kenya (n=300)
Farm-led growth
strategy (n=82)
Non-farm led growth
strategy (n=118)
Heads had non-farm job 42% 58%
_civil servant 71% 68%
_private sector 29% 32%
Heads had business 52% 42%
Heads level of education:
_informal 12% 7%
_primary 43% 24%
_secondary 27% 22%
_post-secondary 18% 47%
Father to household head:
_landholding owned (ha) 94.7 45.1
_non-farm job 33% 38%
_some formal education 35% 40%
Conclusion 3
Medium-scale farmers control more land than small-scale farmers (0-5 ha) in Zambia and most likely in Ghana as well
Large scale Medium-scale
(5-100 ha)
Small-scale (0-5 ha)
Total land controlled
Million hectares
Ghana (2005) 3.08 4.21 5.08 = 12.37
Kenya (2006) 0.69 0.84 2.63 = 4.16
Zambia (2012) 2.11 2.47 2.09 = 6.67
Large scale
Medium-scale
(5-100 ha)
Small-scale
(0-5 ha)
Total land controlled
PAC remaining (arable +
grasslands)
Million hectares
Ghana 3.08 4.21 5.08 = 12.37 3.56
Kenya 0.69 0.84 2.63 = 4.16 1.01
Zambia 2.11 2.47 2.09 = 6.67 3.35
Conclusion 4
Potentially available cropland (PAC) is 25% or less in relation to land already utilized in Kenya and Ghana
Conclusion 4: PAC is sizeable in Zambia, but small as proportion of land already utilized in Kenya and
Ghana
PAC including forest land / (PAC +
already utilized)
PAC excluding forest land /
(PAC + already utilized)
Million hectares
Ghana (cultivated) 26.8% 22.4%
Kenya (cultivated) 21.5% 19.5%
Zambia (owned) 43.1% 33.4%
Conclusion 5
Rising concentration of landholdings and cultivated area
Gini coefficients of landholding
Period Movement in Gini coefficient:
Ghana (cult. area) 1992 2005 0.54 0.65
Kenya (cult. area) 1994 2006 0.51 0.55
Zambia (landholding) 2001 2012 0.42 0.49
Conclusions
1. Rate of growth of medium-scale farms (MS: 5-100 ha) 10 times faster than small-scale (SS: 0-5 ha) farms
2. Despite major focus on large-scale “land grabs”, more farm land is owned by MS farmers than by LS farms
3. Land controlled by MS farmers > that of SS farmers (0-5 ha) in at least 1 of the 3 countries examined (probably 2/3 by 2014)
4. Mean farm size rising in some countries even while holdings are gradually shrinking for most farm hhs
5. Rising Gini coefficients over time in landholdings / cultivated area
6. Potentially available cropland as % of total utilized + unutilized arable land: ranges from 43.1% (Zambia) to 21.5% (Kenya)
Implications
1. Revolutionary changes in farm structure in Africa
2. Lack of clarity about the potential for smallholder land expansion
3. While productivity growth on existing farmland is most desirable path, area expansion will be required for employment of the rapidly growing labor force
4. Elite take-over of land? Potential for area expansion for smallholder farmers / indigenous rural communities?
Stylized fact:
A stylized fact is often a broad generalization that summarizes some complicated statistical relationship, which although essentially true, may have inaccuracies in the detail.