There are very promising possibilities of strengthening sustainable livelihoods of small farmers, including women farmers, based on natural farming and horticulture, water and soil conservation, small-scale irrigation, combining small-scale animal husbandry and tree growth, which can at the same time contribute a lot to mitigation as well as adaptation aspects of climate change response. I have reported on several such encouraging and inspiring initiatives in recent times involving small farmers. These have brought new hope to small farmers by improving their livelihoods, nutrition and earnings on sustainable basis, by improving the main base of water and soil, while at the same time contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation. This is highly creative work which is best promoted by those who have a good understanding of these villages, their people, their needs as well as their strengths.
At the same time as reporting on these encouraging initiatives, this writer has recommended repeatedly that attempts should be made to find at least some land for the poorest landless households as well so that they too can benefit from progress based on similar ecologically protective initiatives. Such efforts can also benefit from small-scale renewable energy which is suitable for these small farmers and does not have any adverse impacts. One of the most inspiring efforts in this direction is in the form of Mangal Turbine, the invention of a farmer scientist which helps to lift water without using diesel and electricity by using the energy of flowing water. Once creative conditions for people-based self-reliant development are created, people’s innovations suitable to local conditions keep making important contributions.
However far removed from this vision of combining climate friendly farming with promotion of sustainable livelihoods of small and landless peasants, a very different and ugly situation has also been seen in some rural areas—that of displacing villagers, particularly small farmers, under the false pretext of various so-called climate actions. This should be opposed, while the work related to combining climate actions with protecting livelihoods of small farmers must be supported.
In this context, ahead of the World Bank’s 2025 Land Conference starting in Washington on May 5, the US-based Oakland Institute has very recently issued a report warning that the World Bank should not support the kind of climate actions which displace people and small farmers. This report on the World Bank’s fresh offensive on land rights reveals how “the Bank is appropriating climate commitments made at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to justify its multibillion-dollar initiative to ‘formalize’ land tenure across the Global South. While the Bank claims that it is necessary “to access land for climate action,” this report also called Climatewash uncovers that “its true aim is to open lands to agribusiness, mining of ‘transition minerals,’ and false solutions like carbon credits – leading to dispossession and environmental destruction. This report points out that alongside plans to spend US$10 billion on land programs, the World Bank has also pledged to double its agribusiness investments to US$9 billion annually by 2030.
This report details how the Bank’s land programs and policy prescriptions to governments dismantle collective land tenure systems, paving the way for private investment and corporate takeover. These reforms that are often financed through loans taken by governments, this report argues, force countries into debt while pushing a “structural transformation” that displaces smallholder farmers, undermines food sovereignty, and prioritizes industrial agriculture and extractive industries.
Drawing on a detailed analysis of World Bank programs from around the world, including case studies from Indonesia, Malawi, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Argentina, the Climatewash report documents “how the Bank’s interventions are already displacing communities and entrenching land inequality.” According to the Oakland Institute, this report debunks the Bank’s climate action rhetoric. “It details how the Bank’s efforts to consolidate land for industrial agriculture, mining, and carbon offsetting directly contradict the recommendations of the IPCC, which emphasizes the protection of lands from conversion and overexploitation and promotes practices such as agro-ecology as crucial climate solutions.”
Andy Currier, co-author of this report has stated, “There is a blatant contradiction between the Bank’s narrative of accessing land for climate action and its support for industrial agriculture, which is a major driver of climate change biodiversity loss. The Bank’s new offensive on land rights highlights an untenable position of the institution. It claims to support climate action while it stands by its core objective of catering to corporate and financial powers seeking more economic growth and profits.”
One hopes that this timely report will help to check some disturbing trends before these go too far. The way forward is simple—support those climate response efforts which also protect small farmer livelihoods but oppose the trend of using the climate pretext to promote big business interests at the cost of peasants and common villagers.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food, Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071, and Man over Machine
Comments