Re-reporting and exchange trip to East Africa

Lowe Börjeson, Lars-Ove Westerberg and I have just come back from a 10 days field trip to Kenya and Tanzania. The aim of the trip was to conclude the research project financed by SIDA titled "Current expansion and past dynamics of small-holder irrigation farming in African dry-lands, measuring landscape, labor and climate interactions”. 

During this trip participants and research assistants from Tot, Sibou in Kenya and Engaruka in Tanzania had the opportunity to meet each other and visit the other study site. It was an insightful trip for all of them as they finally got to meet the people and see the places that I had been talking to them about in the last 4 years.

This 10 days were a great learning experience for all of us. Not only could participants and assistants share knowledge about farming and irrigation practices or reciprocal cultural customs, but it also created an amazing setting for us as researchers to share the results of our work.

The booklet that we had written in English and had been translated in Marakwet and Swahili was distributed among participants during several meetings we had with local farmers and women´s groups, for instance. In this setting, participants and research assistants could discuss about similarities and differences between their villages without our intermediation, which was truly the first objective of this trip: facilitate reciprocal learning. 

Often participants when they received the booklet asserted that we were the first researchers to come back to present the results of our study, especially in the form of a book. That was a rewarding comment, which made us reflect on the ethics of doing research. Research should primarly be for the benefit of participants. However, this principle is often bypassed due to lack of funding or time in the final stage of many research projects. 

Popular science publications

Fresh from the print three publications from the Dept of Human Geography on the SIDA financed research project that has been going on in Marakwet, Kenya and in Engaruka, Tanzania. 

These are popular science publications where we tried to simplify the language of our findings to report them back to informants and participants in our upcoming trip which will close the research project. 

The overall project looks at three variables: soil, climate and labor. These aspects can give an indication of the type of changes that happened in these irrigation systems and what have been the triggers behind them. In this booklet results are presented according to location and focus on: agricultural practices, women´s and men´s labor tasks, soil and water characteristics, adaptation weather variability and how all of these aspects have changed over time. 

Research results are seldom reported back to informants and participants. They can sometimes be of benefits for the community involved, but they most important can trigger further debate between researchers and participants. We are convinced that knowledge is situated and constructed with participants. Hence, trustworthy and socially responsible research must openly and critically engage participants until the end of research projects.  

PDF versions of these booklets are available here. 

A guest blogger from Burma

In this blog we host Emelie Svensson who is a MA student at LUMID at Lund University and received a MFS scholarship to do her research in Burma. Here are some of her reflections. 

Burma is often called ‘the land of the golden pagodas’, even though I have not visited any of them; it is certainly true, as there is a golden stupa at every mountaintop and city corner. I often think about the far better use this gold could have done if it was sold and the money used for hospitals, roads and education for the people. Burma has since the coup in 1962 been ruled by an authoritarian military junta, now lead by the ‘civilian’ president U Thein Sein. Both political freedoms and ethnic minorities have been heavily supressed during this long period of ruthless dictatorship, which have been using the so-called ‘dived and rule’ principle instituted by the former suppressors, the British Empire. However, reforms have been visible in the political system in Burma during at least the last six years. The military junta changed their uniforms into suits and began with what they call the ‘Seven-step roadmap to democracy’. Ceasefire agreement and peace negotiations between the national military and armed ethical minority groups have been initiated. These changes have open up the country to both curious tourists, international investments, and it has enabled both press and parts of the democracy movement to return from years in exile.

It might sound like a saga were the bad guys finally realise that their actions have been bad and now are trying to genuinely change the situation. Thus, this is not the case. Burma is still very unstable and the power remains solely within the government and the military, and the changes mostly benefit the government and it’s crony’s. Journalists are continually being imprisoned (and there have recently been cases of extra-judicial execution) for writing about issues that are sensitive to the government. Members of the student movement get imprisoned for protesting and demanding their rights. In addition to this, several fighting between the military and ethnic armed groups are currently on-going both in the north of Shan state, in Kachin state and in Karen state.

So what am I doing in Burma if I am not visiting temples and pagodas (which seem to be the main destination of most tourist that are visiting the country)? Currently I am collecting data for my Master thesis in development studies. I have had the opportunity to do this, as I got a MFS (Minor Field Study) scholarship from the department of human geography at Stockholm University.

In this study I am looking deeper into young women’s participation in the Burmese student and youth movement to understand how these women perceive the current political situation in Burma. This study is especially relevant as Burma is undertaking this democratisation process, or at least this is what the international community seems to believe even if the national opposition, the Burmese civil society together with many scholars are sceptical toward the direction of this process. The civil society, especially the student and youth movement, are important actors in the political landscape in Burma. I will look at the participation and role of women in the civil society using feminist democracy theory, which discuss on the importance of bringing women’s (and other marginalised groups) experiences to the arena to make an inclusive community democratic dialogue.

So how is my study going? I have travelled across the country to meet with youth organisations and the young women working in them. I started in the very south of the country in Dawei and I have travelled to Lashio the north of Shan stat (close to the Chinese border) and tomorrow I am taking a 17 hour bus to the town of Kalay in the north east, close to the Indian border. The women that I have talked to have very interesting both horrifying and more hopeful stories including everything from imprisonment, working underground, having babies, taking important steps toward democracy, war, people fleeing, and loud protest against the new education system. Even though a new night-bus awaits, and my stomach is grumpy as a 5-year old, I am loving this amazing experience and the opportunity to meet so many smart, brave and hard working women in this intriguing and important movement!

  

Canals and furrows now published in Azania

Furrow irrigation

In the summer 2013 I posted a comment on terminology on the Farmlands blog Furrows in Africa -- canals in the Americas ? With some additional comments and references it is now published in Azania;

Abstract _This brief comment argues that the use of the term furrow system for locally developed irrigation in Eastern Africa is misleading in an international comparative perspective. It is at odds with the terminology in irrigation engineering and also with the archaeological terminology used outside Eastern Africa. Internationally, the term canal is used for the artificial watercourses that bring water from the source to the field, while furrow irrigation refers to one specific way of applying water to the individual field.

Find the published version at this link. Do not hesitate to write to mats.widgren@humangeo.su.se if you want a digital offprint.

In response to an earlier blog post

Last week Prof. Martin Jones published a blog post on food plants in Marakwet. He writes about the market in Kolowa in East Pokot "A link between cash crops and men as posited by recent writers such as Caretta and  Börjeson (2014) was not as immediately evident, as the market and other places contained many entrepreneurial women." and then he adds " Caretta and  Börjeson detail a series of crop varietal names which overlap with, but do not entirely match the longer list compiled by Helena.  This is unsurprising as all parties are recalling varietal names, sometimes from their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.  Further enquiries would clarify these, and indeed some terms may have multiple usages." 

In response to Prof. Jones´ statements I would like to add two points. First of all, our article referred mostly to women´s and men´s labor as in cultivation, not in trading. However, it is true that women are the principal, if not the sole, sellers at market, especially at the one in Kolowa and at Tot centre. This circumstance however does not mean that women have control over cash crops or, if you like, more recently introduced crops that have brought about livelihood diversification through sale. Women in fact sell minimal quantities in these local markets, while men deal directly with wholesalers. Yet another instance in which local patriarchal structures are manifested. This power configuration points also to the fact that the informal economy is often feminized and feeds off the care economy i.e. unpaid work. Moreover, as showed by Carney (1993) in The Gambia, markets risk being saturated by women selling vegetable decreasing their returns.  

Secondly, Prof. Jones correctly states that crop names have changed through generations and that the ones mentioned in our articles constitute a partial listing. In fact, while I never heard some of the name mentioned in his blog post, I could remember other ones. Indicative of this multiplicity of names is the fact that once when I was carrying an interview, also with the assistance of Helena Chepto, a lady who was originally from a Chesongoch used a different name than Helena to indicate the same long term millet seeds that we were looking at. Hence, crop varietal names are not only generation specific, but also place specific within Marakwet. As Prof Jones indicates, it is high time to record and archive seeds and crops varieties in Marakwet. This cultural richness risks being lost with the commercialization of seeds which the new Red Cross-sponsored Tot-Kolowa irrigation project could be the dawn of. A forthcoming publication by me and Wilhelm Östberg will discuss this project and the projects in the last 40 years by of Kerio Valley Development Agency more in depth. 

Finally, I welcome Prof. Jones´ blog post because I think it is the perfect examples of how academic communication and debate can be enhanced through new and quicker forums, such as blogs. While articles drafts are not often shared among academicians hence, missing an opportunity to improve a colleague´s work, blogs can be useful straightforward and easy means to make early work visible and open up for comments. 

Bill Gates and innovations in African agriculture

I am not very well informed about Bill Gates activities concerning the development of African agriculture. I am aware of the recent critique from GRAIN, but this is not the reason for this blog post. Before that critique was published Bill Gates tweeted the following (Oct 28th).

"Most poor farmers’ tools haven’t changed in ages. These 4 inventions are making a difference: http://b-gat.es/1wA8DRB   "

He illustrated his tweet with this picture:

I replied in a tweet

Mats Widgren ‏@MatsWidgren  28 okt

@BillGates @erleellis Do not know how Bill Gates counts ages, probably the great grandmother used a different hoe, not industrially made

The reason I answered was that this misconception, that no technological innovations have happened in African agriculture "in ages", is so common. It is not strange that Bill Gates also has this misconception. What worries me is that so many development "experts", philantropic billionaires, not to talk of agro-business directors and land grab promoters are led by this total lack of understanding of the role of innovations in the history of African agriculture and in what small-holders do to today. If you do not know the history of what you want to change, how can you be credible then? How is it possible to argue that African farmers need innovators mainly from outside?

First: the picture shows a woman carrying a steel hoe of the kind that you can buy on markets and in hardware shops all over Africa. It does not represent an implement that has not changed in ages. It is most likely a recent industrially produced hoe.  I own two such hoes - a small one produced in South Africa and a bigger one produced in China, but bought in Tanzania. I later bought hoe handles on a market in Chesoi in Marakwet and was happy to see them fit like IKEA pieces into my two hoes once I brought the handles back to Sweden. The spread of such hoes certainly makes the local innovations less visible. I do not know how long such industrially produced hoes have been on sale in Africa.  But what I know is that there are lots of places where locally developed hoes are still the rule. And I would bet that the great grandmother of the woman on the picture used a locally produced hoe. Such hoes were developed for different kinds of work and were the result of a series of innovations by farmers and local blacksmiths. African agricultural technology does not lack innovations and innovators.

The historical study of agricultural technology in Africa is not very well developed so perhaps Bill Gates can be excused. Even the academic literature on farming in Africa abounds with similar misconceptions. The works on the history African farming implements are few and off the cuff I can only suggest two readings on the tilling implements. This is the first point of departure:

Marzouk, Yasmine, Seignobos, Christian & Sigaut, François (ed.), Outils aratoires en Afrique: innovations, normes et traces, Karthala, Paris, 2000 

Already the cover of that book gives you an idea of the enormous variation of tools. Roger Blench has contributed a geographical broader overview in his chapter African agricultural tools: implications of synchronic ethnography for agrarian history from which an inspiring agenda for further research  is also developed. It is published in the edited volume Archaeology of African plant use (2013). The manuscript is available at Roger Blenchs own website  http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~tcrndfu/IWAA/Blench.pdf

In Mpumalanga in South Africa the intensive and terraced agriculture c. 1500 to 1850s was accompanied by a special heavy type of hoe with a bored stone as a weight. A replica is here tested in the field.

From the enormous variation of African tools we can draw the conclusion that they were the result of several phases of innovative change all of which must be understood in the context of innovations in farming systems and social factors.  An extreme case is illustrated above. Bokoni farmers in South Africa developed intensive and terraced agriculture long before colonialism. In the same area large bored stones are found and it has been shown that the stones functioned as weights for very large hoes. These probable reflect both the farming systems and the gendered division of labour with men taking a larger share of the tilling than in more extensive forms of agriculture.

If Bill Gates can be excused for not knowing the history of tilling implements in Africa, it is however a well-established and widespread fact that African farmers has shown innovation in other fields -- that of crop development and that of investments in terracing, irrigation and and other forms landesque capital.   The standard "common-sense" view of African agriculture as characterised by inertia and lacking innovative capacity is (as I argue in a recent paper) one of the Four myths in global agrarian history.

Does Agribusiness Contribute to Rural Development?

I will again summarize an article from Zerkalo Nedeli, again written by Elena Borodina, but this time not dealing with small-scale producers, but the largest producers in Ukraine. The article with the title “Unequal Marriage without Government Oversight” was published on August 21 and can be found here (in Russian). The point of the article is to question the degree to which the super large agroholdings will really contribute to national and/or rural development, which is sometimes claimed by advocates of agroholdings (including even the World Bank).

Borodina first gives an account of the polarization of the agrarian sector towards either really small or really large farms, where many people in rural areas are becoming landless while land is being concentrated more and more under agroholdings. At the beginning of 2014, she states, the number of agroholdings approached 140, which controlled 6000 separate farming enterprises (40% of the total), on about 8 million ha of land (40% of the land cultivated by farming enterprises). Of all registered farming operations, these agroholdings harvest about 50% of Ukrainian winter wheat, more than half of the corn and rapeseed, a third of the sunflower seeds, and over 80% of chicken meat. Because land reform has not been completed (among other things, agricultural land sales are as yet not allowed in Ukraine), a “shadow” land market has arisen, which these companies benefit from, and it helps them attract capital.

So these companies do attract capital, which they invest in operations, but, as Borodina points out, there appears to be an inverse relationship between the growth of investment in the agrarian sector and the number of people employed in the agrarian sector. Below I have reproduced a graph using the same data as in her diagram in ZN (note: the original graph measured investment in Ukrainian Hryvnia, but I changed that into dollars using the average annual exchange rate for that year. Export sales and many inputs are often dominated in USD so this makes sense, especially considering the devaluation of the UAH in 2008).    

Borodina also points out that the agroholdings are very good at attracting capital either through IPOs and stock emissions or thanks to their access to inexpensive credit from international financial institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) which is part of the World Bank, and export credit agencies of different countries like Austria and Denmark. For example, the Danish Export Credit Agency, from 2003 to 2011, insured the export of livestock products valued at 154 million Euro, from Ukraine. The International Finance Corporation has since 2010 provided financing in support of Ukrainian agribusiness to the tune of 282 million dollars, while the EBRD, over the last 5 years, has presented credits totaling 55 million Euro to some of the largest agroholdings in Ukraine.

The larger point that Borodina seeks to make is that all this support to large-scale agribusiness in Ukraine will not lead to the development of the countryside, but is rather a factor contributing to the ongoing distortion and polarization of the agrarian sector in Ukraine.