Abstract:
An increase in large-scale agricultural investments (LSAIs) in developing countries followed the 2007/8 food price crisis. The social and economic impact of increasing LSAIs is controversial among researchers, international agencies, and activists. Inadequate attention was provided to the potential effect of such investments on household food security. This study examined the impact of LSAIs on household food security in three communities in Kenya, Madagascar, and Mozambique. The study used secondary data collected from 1651 households from four distinct groups (those with employed members by an LSAI, contracted to an LSAI, non-engaged households in the same communities and counterfactual households from neighbouring communities). The data were analysed using descriptive and econometric models. According to the study findings, Kenyan households were more food-secure than those in Madagascar and Mozambique. Households in the three communities with LSAIs employees were more food-secure regarding the household dietary diversity score and the months of adequate household food provisioning than other households. This might be because households with LSAI employees received regular wages. The lack of assets to liquidate in times of stress and their adoption of more precautionary than contract farming households may indicate lower salaries than the net incomes of contract worker households. Most female-headed households in the three study areas were food-insecure except for contracted female-headed households in Kenya and counterfactual female-headed households in Mozambique. This might be because female-headed households in the study areas have limited access to LSAI employment and contract farming opportunities. Most of the employed households were migrants from the nearby districts, who may have displaced local women’s job opportunities. Households with LSAIs contract agreements adopted fewer coping strategies than other households. Contract farming households seemed less inclined to slip into deeper levels of food insecurity when encountering adversity. Non-engaged households in the investment zones enjoyed a similar food security status to counterfactual households in all three countries. This indicated that living in the influence zone had deficient adverse effects on the food security of non-engaged households. Most LSAIs jobs were seasonal and low-paid. Investors and governments hosting LSAIs should set a minimum wage to prevent labour exploitation and protect people against poverty. Some households lost their land rights. Governments hosting LSAIs and investors should protect the local community from losing their land rights. Policies related to quotas favouring female employment and preferences for contract farming are essential to improve the food security status of female-headed households. The impact of LSAIs in global literature is highly debatable. The study findings provide evidence and information for policy dialogues that LSAIs can benefit household food security through employment and contract farming. The study provides a framework for future multi-indicators assessment of food security. Further studies are needed to examine the impact of LSAIs on the surrounding communities besides food security. LSAIs may also harm the environment, land tenure, and community livelihood, further exacerbating food insecurity. A consistent project impact evaluation is essential to investigate these aspects.
