Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Food inflation: The math doesn’t add up without factoring in corporate power

Published

on

Large farmers’ protests broke out in at least 65 countries over the past year. From India to Kenya through Colombia and France, desperation has hit a breaking point. Farmers warn that without better prices and more protection, their future is at risk. Peasant movements like La Via Campesina, for over three decades now, have denounced the World Trade Organisation and the growing number of bilateral free trade agreements for destroying their livelihoods.

However, these protests unfold against the backdrop of record-high global food prices. The prices spiked first during the pandemic and then again at the start of the war in Ukraine hitting an all-time high in 2022. Food prices have been rising faster than other products: if the global general consumer price index (CPI) doubled between 2021 and 2022, the food CPI inflation almost tripled. According to the World Food Organisation (FAO) food price index, even if international prices have moderated in 2023, they are still higher than in 2019 (see Graph 1). And all indications are that this is a crisis of prices, and not a food shortage at the global level. For the past 20 years, world grain production has exceeded available stocks.

The impact of these food price increases on millions of people, especially the poor, is devastating. In 2022, 9.2% of the world’s population was chronically hungry, an increase of 122 million people since 2019.

But, as this year’s farmers’ protests make clear, the increase in food prices is not going into their pockets. So, who is benefiting from these food price rises?

Volatility by design

The FAO and corporate executives have attributed recent food price increases to disruptive supply chains for oil, gas, fertilisers and staple goods. This is a half truth, and thus deceptive. They don’t mention how the current structure of the food system encourages and amplifies such disruptions.

For decades, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have promoted structural adjustment policies, and green revolution technologies (hybrid seeds + chemical pesticides and fertilisers) across the world. We now have a global food system designed around the production of a small number of agricultural commodities (wheat, rice, maize, soybeans, palm oil) in a few areas of the world totally devoted to the massive industrial production of monocultures dependent on the supply of inputs, and concentrated in the hands of a few companies. Any disruptions within this global system, be it war or drought, can have major impacts on people’s access to food.

This is particularly acute in countries of the global South that are now highly dependent on food imports because of policies imposed on them through multilateral banks and free trade agreements. Moreover, we are entering a period of intense climate crisis, water crisis, geopolitical tensions, and declining crop yield gains that are set to generate more frequent and more severe disruptions.

For some, however, this volatility is an opportunity. Because of deliberate policies implemented since the 1980s (see box), there is today a large and growing part of the financial sector that profits from shifts in food prices using what are called “derivatives”. In theory, the use of these instruments helps buyers and sellers to lock in prices and protect themselves against the risk of price fluctuations. The most common and important of these instruments are futures contracts, which are agreements to buy or sell agricultural commodities at a specified future date. In futures markets, it is not the agricultural product itself that is traded, but the contract. The price of the contract changes according to supply and demand. But price variations on the futures markets have a direct influence on price fluctuation of the goods to which the futures contract relate. For example, if the price of a wheat futures contract rises, this indicates that the estimated future price of wheat is high. Consequently, the real current price of wheat rises. With increased activity in the financial futures markets, food trading has come to be referenced to futures prices. In a vicious circle, the volatility of food prices attracts more speculative money into the commodity futures market. This, in turn, amplifies the volatility of the futures markets and pushes up or down real food prices.

The price volatility experienced during the 2007 – 2008 food price crisis was partly a result of a surge in financial speculation. Similarly, when the war in Ukraine began, investments in commodity futures and commodity-linked funds rocketed. Speculative positions in the Paris wheat market increased from 35 million euros in January 2021 to 1 billion euros in March 2022. A report by IPES-Food found that the price of wheat on futures markets rose 54% in nine days, and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission noted that volatility was 20% higher than normal. While this drove price increases that penalised consumers, hedge funds and pension funds speculating on food markets made huge profits.
The world’s agricultural trading companies have also benefited massively from this situation, including through their participation in financial markets. In 2022, profits achieved by the top five firms in this sector doubled and even tripled compared to the period 2016 – 2020. A report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development found that corporate profits of global food traders “appear to be strongly linked to periods of excessive speculation in commodity markets and to the growth of shadow banking – an unregulated financial sector that operates outside traditional banking institutions”.

They have some important advantages over purely financial players. For one, as ‘commercial actors’ they are not subject to the same restrictions or regulations of financial actors on commodity trading markets. Also, because of their global presence they have the most in-depth and up-to-date information about the availability of products and are the first to know about poor harvests or bumper crops. A study by SOMO found that the largest agricultural commodity trading companies ADM, Bunge, Cargill, COFCO International and Louis Dreyfus (usually referred to as “ABCCD”) control 73% of the global grain and oilseed trade as well as a combined 1 million hectares of farmland.

A perverse and well prepared alignment of the stars in the 1980s

Three parallel developments in the 1980s were key to financialising the global food system. First, the liberalisation of agricultural markets was promoted by the World Bank and other international agencies. Until then, governments in different regions had adopted policies to protect farmers from production risks. Second, financial markets were deregulated in the United States and investment banks and commodity trading firms began marketing index funds that tracked the prices of various commodities. In addition, large institutional investors (such as pension funds) sought to diversify their investments. To hedge their risks, they increased their investments in commodity derivatives and physical assets. As a result, a growing number of financial players began to speculate on food prices.

Third, like other companies, agribusiness companies experienced a dramatic shift in ownership with the entry of large asset management firms. CEO salaries became linked to the value of shares, creating a strong incentive to restructure companies in ways that generated more profit for shareholders. To this end, mergers and acquisitions multiplied, laying the foundations for today’s deep corporate concentration in the agri-food sector.

Source: Jennifer Clapp and S. Ryan Isakson, “Speculative Harvests: Financialization, Food, and Agriculture”, Agrarian Change & Peasant Studies, 2021.

Price manipulation and sellers’ inflation

Financial markets are not the only space where big agribusiness and food companies have an impact on food prices. A growing number of voices, such as the economist Isabella Weber, point to the monopoly power of corporations as a major factor in recent price inflation, including with food. What they call “sellers’ inflation” happens in contexts of supply-chain bottlenecks and cost shocks. When price hikes in upstream sectors (such as the gas needed for fertilisers) spread along the supply chain, companies in downstream sectors pass on cost increases to protect margins and even take the opportunity to increase margins. They can raise prices knowing that all their competitors will do the same.

Such strategies are only possible in contexts where a handful of companies have the power to set prices, as is the case in the food and agriculture sector. For example, just four companies, Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta and BASF control half of the seed market and 75% of the global agrochemicals market. Since 2018, their profits have nearly doubled. On the fertilisers side, the global market is controlled by a small number of companies. Four of them control a third of all nitrogen fertiliser production. From 2018 to 2022, the profits of the top 9 fertiliser corporations more than tripled, as they increased prices far beyond the production costs. Another example can be found in the world’s second largest meat processor, Tyson. The company more than doubled its margins and profits at the end of 2021. This was due to price increases it initiated and then continued to raise to protect margins against cost pressures from grain prices. A similar strategy was followed by large branders as Nestlé, Unilever and Mondelez who increased prices and ended by recording high profits in 2022.

This combination of monopoly power and unregulated activity in financial markets allows agricultural commodity traders, big agribusiness and food companies to make huge profits from food price rises.

Countering corporate power in food systems

The big culprit when it comes to today’s high food prices for consumers and low prices for farmers is corporate power. The climate crisis will only make this situation worse, unless urgent actions are taken to dismantle corporate power and shift to more localised food systems, based on diversified food production and catered to people’s food needs. The struggle against free trade agreements, at the forefront of many of today’s farmers’ protests, is therefore critical.

At the same time, actions are needed to reign in the power of those actors in the casino economy who are amplifying food price volatility and increases. When it comes to financial speculation, an important driver in food price volatility, regulations need to be tightened. And, to tackle the so-called “sellers’ inflation”, we need measures to prevent profiteering, which could include taxes on windfall profits anti-trust measures, and, more importantly public controls over food prices and programmes that ensure a fair, equitable and secure distribution of nutritious foods to everyone.

Source: grain.org

  • TXJCX1 Jason Kelly, a trader in the Wheat Options pit at the CME Group throws up his arms as traders toss confetti at the closing bell for the year on December 31, 2009 in Chicago. UPI/Brian Kersey

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Govt orders fresh valuation of land for Rubanda iron ore project

Published

on

Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja has ordered officials from the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development to repeat the valuation and compensation assessment for land acquired for an iron ore mining and processing project in Rubanda District following complaints that some affected residents were under-compensated.

Ms Nabbanja issued the directive on Wednesday while officiating at the handover of 60 acres of iron ore-rich land in Mufumba Village, Butare-Katojo Town Council, to Devki Steel Mills (U), which plans to mine and process iron ore in the area.

Some local leaders told the Prime Minister that several project-affected people were dissatisfied with the compensation they received, saying the money was insufficient to enable them to acquire alternative land for farming and settlement.

Ms Nabbanja later handed a land certificate to Devki Steel Mills (U) chairman Raval Narendra and directed the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development to expedite the company’s mining licence.

“I hereby order the officials from the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development that conducted this exercise to work with the local leaders and move house to house, piece of land to another and ensure that the raised concerns on under-valuation are fully addressed and everybody is satisfied,” Ms Nabbanja said.

“We don’t want to hear that our investor has land issues here and there because President Museveni was clear on this matter. After two weeks I will come back here to verify that everybody in this area is fully satisfied.”

Her directive followed complaints from Mufumba LC1 chairman Paulo Tibenderana and Rubanda District LCV chairman Stephen Kasyaba over the compensation process.

“Although people in this area are welcoming the investor, they claim that the money given to them is not enough to facilitate them acquire alternative pieces of land for their livelihoods,” Mr Kasyaba said.

He said the district council had already earmarked 52 acres where an iron ore processing plant could be constructed, as requested by President Museveni.

Mr Kasyaba also asked the government to consider compensating owners of land neighbouring the acquired project area to avoid disputes and other inconveniences associated with mining and crushing activities.

However, the ministry defended the valuation process.

The ministry’s chief government valuer, Gilbert Kermundu, said officials had consulted the Rubanda District Land Board, the 161 project-affected people and other residents before setting the compensation rate at Shs40 million per acre.

He said the rate took into account land scarcity in the area and that compensation was calculated according to the size of each affected person’s landholding.

“We paid the project affected people using this measure because individual land size was different as some people had less than 0.03 acres of land,” Mr Kermundu said.

He added that the affected residents were entitled to an additional 30 per cent of the compensation as disturbance allowance to facilitate their relocation.

“Kindly accept what the government has given you,” he said.

The ministry’s Under Secretary, Dr Emmanuel Mugunga, said about 99 per cent of the project-affected people had been compensated, questioning the basis of the complaints raised during the ceremony.

The compensation dispute comes as the government seeks to clear outstanding land issues and enable Devki Steel Mills to commence the planned mining and processing operations.

Mr Narendra appealed to the government to extend hydropower electricity to the project area to support the company’s operations.

He also pledged to employ local residents and support schools in neighbouring communities through education sponsorships and school feeding programmes.

Source: monitor.co.ug

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Death Of Witnesses Cited Among Causes Of Land Case Backlog

Published

on

The death of witnesses, illness and repeated adjournments are among the factors contributing to the backlog of land cases in Uganda, the Deputy Registrar of the Land Division has said.

His Worship Ronald Kayizzi said land cases accumulate in court for several reasons, including litigants filing multiple applications in a single matter, forcing judicial officers to adjourn cases and schedule them for later dates.

Appearing on Salam TV’s Judiciary Show hosted by Mariam Busingye, Kayizzi said the availability of witnesses was another major challenge affecting the timely disposal of cases.

He said some witnesses are elderly or sick, while others die before their cases are concluded, further complicating proceedings.

“Some witnesses are sick or elderly, and at times cases are delayed as court waits for witnesses who eventually die,” Kayizzi said.

He urged litigants to take their cases seriously and cooperate with their lawyers to minimise unnecessary delays.

Kayizzi also called on lawyers and judicial officers to manage their diaries properly and avoid fixing too many cases for hearing on the same day.

He further urged all parties expected to appear in court to make every effort to attend scheduled hearings, saying cooperation among litigants, lawyers and court officials is essential to reducing delays.

The comments come amid longstanding concerns over delays in the disposal of land disputes, which can leave parties waiting for years before their cases are concluded.

Kayizzi said better preparation by litigants and lawyers, proper scheduling by judicial officers and timely attendance by all parties could help courts reduce the backlog and improve access to justice.

source: nilepost.co.ug

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Sweeping investments are fueling widespread land grabbing and deepening rights violations across Uganda – Report.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team.

For 16 years, Sulait Behangana has fought to reclaim his land in Kassanda District, where he says he was forced out to make room for a tree plantation run by the UK-based New Forest Company (NFC). Once the proud owner of over 15 acres lush with coffee, bananas, and sugarcane, Behangana lost not just his fields but the foundation of his livelihood.

Now, Behangana survives by toiling on other people’s plantations, a stark contrast to the life he once knew.

“I was beaten during the eviction, and this caused lameness and weakness of my body. I have been reduced to a pauper; I have to dig in other people’s plantations to get what to eat,” Behangana told Witness Radio.

Behangana was one of 901 families uprooted to clear space for the Namwasa tree plantation, as detailed in a report chronicling seven cases of development-driven forced evictions in Uganda. In his community, families recount being pushed off their land without compensation or genuine resettlement. While a few received land, hundreds remain in limbo, still waiting for justice. Julius Ndagize, who leads the displaced households, says repeated mediation with New Forest Company has brought no resolution.

“We secured 500 acres of land in Kampindu Village, Kitumbi Sub-county after the first mediation to resettle those people. Of the 901 affected families, 453 were allocated land and resettled. However, 448 families haven’t been compensated to date,” Ndagize says.

The ordeal faced by families in Mubende echoes a broader pattern uncovered in a report titled Foreign Investment Drives Systematic Forced Land Evictions in Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, presented at the recent Africa Business and Human Rights Forum 2026.

The report details seven major cases where large-scale development projects and investments swept across Uganda, displacing communities. It examines the roles of government and security agencies, and the uphill battle victims face in seeking compensation and justice.

These cases span the Kaweri Coffee Plantation, Namwasa Forest Reserve, Formosa Three Planting Company, Agilis Partners, the Bunyoro Ranching Scheme in Kiryandongo, the Wadelai Irrigation Scheme, the Tilenga Project, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, and conservation projects impacting the Batwa.

Witness Radio, ORRA, AFIEGO, FIAN-Uganda, BIRUDO, and BIDO, in collaboration with EDLC-NOVA, compiled the report. Drawing on community testimonies, court records, and grassroots documentation, the report claims these seven cases displaced 56,400 people. Even more striking, civil society monitoring suggests over 360,000 Ugandans may have been affected by forced evictions in the first half of 2024.

Mr. Jeff Wokulira Ssebaggala, Executive Director of Witness Radio, notes that while the cases span different investments and regions, affected communities’ stories share striking similarities. He points out that communities were frequently sidelined in decisions about their land, while those with political or financial clout often influenced the very processes that led to displacement.

“We noticed key agencies but also middlemen or government officials who are politically and financially connected,” Ssebaggala said, adding that such actors can be involved from the start, especially where communities live on land without formal tenure, making it easier to disregard their claims when the land is identified for investment or government use.

Ssebaggala explains that the roots of the problem stretch back to historical land decisions, when communities were left out of government planning and later discovered they were living on land earmarked for other uses.

“There are others whose land was gazetted to be a ranch by governments in the 1970s, but they were never consulted when the national exercise of planning was taking place,” he said.

He warns the stakes grow higher when communities resist these projects or question their removal.

“Those who stand against these projects are arrested, intimidated, or imprisoned. Communities regard land as everything because it defines their livelihood and heritage,” Ssebaggala said, adding that the report raised concerns about state institutions supporting investments rather than protecting affected communities.

The report reveals that women and young people were largely shut out of decision-making around land-based investments. Ssebaggala notes many projects moved forward without seeking communities’ voices or meaningful input, leaving those most reliant on the land excluded from choices shaping their destinies. As gender equality is concerned, the report shows an exclusion of women and youth in all these processes as projects really exist on their own without expressed opinion or contribution from the communities,” he said.

Examining these cases and the struggle for justice, lawyer Peter Arinaitwe, who represents land eviction victims, says affected communities face many obstacles: institutional backlogs, delays, and the heavy financial toll of legal battles that can drag on for years.

“We face judicial capture. Recently, we had the Chief Justice warning judges not to grant injunctions, stopping any investment project, and said that doing so amounts to prison,” Arinaitwe said.

Arinaitwe says Uganda has constitutional and legal protections for land rights, but these have not always protected communities on the ground. He cited cases involving the oil refinery and Kaweri Coffee Plantation, where communities pursued claims in court. Even when cases were decided and compensation awarded, legal processes continued to prolong disputes.ws because the constitutional provisions and protections exist in the book. Still, it’s a different story when it comes to practice,” he said.

For those stripped of their land, drawn-out court battles add another burden, forcing them to spend time and money seeking justice while struggling to rebuild their lives. Arinaitwe adds that the scars of eviction run deep, with psychological and emotional wounds lingering long after the land is gone.

“They are traumatized by the atrocities committed in the course of the eviction which go beyond the land and instead cause mental and emotional drain,” he said.

Participants from across Africa echoed Uganda’s concerns. Edmund Matotay described how Maasai communities in northern Tanzania now face mounting pressure as government interests in conservation, tourism, agriculture, and development clash with the pastoral way of life.

He said the Maasai depend on access to grazing land and that physical displacement therefore affects more than where people live. “The issue of physical displacement disrupts the way of life considering that Maasai people are typically nomads and pastoralists who depend on the grazing of the cows and cattle,” Matotai said.

He also reported intimidation of people supporting the communities, saying lawyers, faith leaders and others involved in defending land rights had faced threats and arrests. “There were a lot of intimidation issues, not only to the lawyers, to other actors, but also to the faith leaders who are leading some of the discussion around the area,” he said.

Back in Uganda, the report insists that stopping forced evictions is not the government’s burden alone. Companies profiting from land-based investments must also identify human rights risks before projects start, engage with affected communities, and create accessible ways to hear and resolve grievances.

Ssebaggala urges investors not to wait until communities are uprooted and legal battles erupt before tackling human rights issues. He calls for ongoing human rights due diligence throughout every stage of investment, and for companies to set up grievance mechanisms so affected people can voice concerns and seek solutions.

“Investors should integrate human rights due diligence across project cycles and also establish a grievance mechanism, policies, structures and awareness of these processes,” he said.

He also urges the government to put in place systems that verify free, prior, and informed consent, making human rights due diligence and environmental impact assessments mandatory before any land-based investment can proceed.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates