“Sugar cane will liberate us!”
Large-scale agricultural investments (LSAI) are common in today’s globalised world and frequently involve outgrower schemes. A complex situation involving land conflicts, government bureaucracy and requirements for international best practice in resettlement is causing continuing delays to a Swed...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Second cycle, A1E |
| Lenguaje: | sueco Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2015
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/8482/ |
| Sumario: | Large-scale agricultural investments (LSAI) are common in today’s globalised
world and frequently involve outgrower schemes. A complex situation involving
land conflicts, government bureaucracy and requirements for international best
practice in resettlement is causing continuing delays to a Swedish LSAI in
Bagamoyo district, Tanzania. A sugar cane factory is to be built and farmers in
surrounding villages will be offered the opportunity to supply sugar cane as
outgrowers to the investor, Bagamoyo EcoEnergy Ltd (EE), on the farmers’ own
land. The Swedish international development cooperation agency (Sida) provided
support to the EE investment through credit guarantees for the ongoing initial
phase of investment.
This thesis investigated farmers’ perceptions of the planned outgrower scheme and
the origins of these perceptions through interviews with farmers in two affected
villages. The theoretical concept of imaginaries was used to analyse farmers’
expectations as regards the outgrower scheme. Imaginaries are long-term visions
where people imagine themselves in the future and are a powerful tool that can
affect subjects’ actions. Here, farmers’ more concrete expectations were examined
and set in relation to the risks that the farmers perceived.
It was found that, despite delays and risks, farmers expected a higher standard of
living from the outgrower scheme. They expressed scepticism about the investor
and were worried about the risks, but they regarded the outgrower scheme for
sugar cane as a large part of the future. This imaginary was strongly influenced by
the one-sided way in which information had been presented to the farmers.
Poverty and lack of agenda-setting power are also limiting the farmers’ choices –
they essentially can only take this opportunity or stay in their current situation.
Their high motivation for the EE outgrower scheme may be because it is regarded
by all actors as the villagers’ only chance to develop economically. The farmers’
expectations and risk perceptions were problematised and compared here with the imaginaries of EE, which hopes to change local farmers’ attitude towards farming as a business, and of Sida, which hopes for policy changes regarding land in Tanzania. |
|---|