Land Grabbing, Agribusiness and the Peasantry in Brazil and Mozambique

Abstract

This article examines the expansion of agribusiness and the evolution of land grabbing in Brazil and Mozambique. The modernization of Brazil’s agricultural sector, which began in the 1960s, successfully expanded into the cerrado region in the 1980s under the state-led PRODECER project. Modernization and state-led programmes such as PRODECER gave new rise to different forms and practices of land grabbing, creating spaces for investment by foreigners. Over the last three decades the production of soybeans in the cerrado has come under substantial foreign control and in recent years, sugarcane production and foreign investment in the ethanol industry has grown markedly in the region; the social and environmental effects of this have been devastating. In this article we will also examine the recent interest of Brazilian agribusinesses in investing in Mozambican land and in particular, the ProSAVANA programme modelled on PRODECER. We argue that while Brazil is subject to land grabbing by foreign capital, it has also become a promoter of land grabbing in Mozambique.

Edição Completa

“…Access is granted through the Land Use and Benefit Titles also called DUAT (Direitos de Uso e Aproveito de Terra). This permits foreign investors to lease the land in periods up to 50 years, for a fee down to US $1 per hectare a year (CLEMENTS;FERNANDES 2013, pp. 51-52).…”

“…The goal is an extensive expansion of agricultural production and productivity in the provinces of Cabo Delgado, Niassa, Nampula and Zambésia, situated in what is known as the 'Nacala Corridor' in the northern part of the country, spanning over an area of around 540.000 square kilometers (PATRIOTA;PIERRI 2013, p. 132). These areas have been selected due to their heavy rainfall and what has been estimated as a high degree of available arable land (CLEMENTS;FERNANDES 2013, p. 54) as well as the climatic and topographical similarities with the Brazilian Cerrado (GARCIA et al 2013, p. 16). Embrapa describes ProSavana as a 'project for the improvement of the research capacity and technology transfer for the development of agriculture in the Nacala Corridor.…”

“…In 2012, the Mozambican Prime Minister at the time, Aires Bonifácio Baptista, also strongly urged Brazilian agricultural investors to come to the country, assuring them that they would face a favorable operational environment (CLEMENTS;FERNANDES 2013, p. 51). On the Japanese side, the main interest has been associated with depressing the price of certain strategic agricultural commodities imported by the country, by increasing the global supply.…”

“…This made critical voices characterize the FRELIMO government as 'complicit in promoting land grabbing practices´. (CLEMENTS;FERNANDES 2013, p. 42) The uncertainty and arbitrary information about the likely extend of Brazilian agribusiness expansion in Mozambique has also fueled much concern, as has been the case with the reports of official promises of designating as much as 6 million hectares for this purpose (GARCIA et al 2013, p. 31). Although official data indicate that 93% of the country´s arable land is presently uncultivated, other assessments set that number much lower, at only around 7 million hectares; a number which is likely to fall markedly in the near future due to the country´s high rate of population growth (THALOR 2013, p. 150).…”

“…This critique thereby implies a contestation of the fundamental model for rural development, which resulted from the extensive introduction of commercial agriculture in central Brazil. The negative assessments of the potential impact of capital intensive agribusiness expansion in Mozambique revolves around the question of food security (CLEMENTS;FERNANDES 2013, p. 62), neglect of the needs of local communities (RENZIO et al 2014, p. 14-15;CABRAL 2015, p. 5) as well as environmental degradation (CHICHAVA et al 2013, p. 22). The experiences and errors of the Cerrado cultivation nonetheless appear to have resulted in some measure of attention towards avoiding some of the potentially negative consequences of this development strategy.…”