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

More than 500 Masindi residents live in fear as a tycoon targets their land.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

Kyamaiso, Masindi District: Katushabe Charles is one of hundreds facing uncertainty after a businessman claimed ownership of land they’ve occupied for decades.

“He has issued threats, arrested some of us, and warned us that he doesn’t want us on this land anymore,” Katushabe, a father of seven and village defense secretary, said, emphasizing the community’s fears of eviction and displacement.

In 2002, Katushabe bought 30 acres of land and took possession with the intention of practicing large-scale agriculture. “I acquired this land from the citizens of Kyamaiso village, and I have lived here for over a period of twenty-four years,” The 50-year-old caretaker of a family of 9 told our journalist.

On his land, he says he grows sugarcane and other crops, such as cassava, which he sells to sustain his family. “I earn some good money from these crops, and I can ably take care of my children, pay their school fees, and look after my family.” He said.

Katushabe is among the 500 families whose survival is at risk after Masindi-based businessman Ahamed Ssewagudde surfaced claiming ownership of their land, on which they have lived for decades.

Witness Radio investigations reveal that the contested land spans 68.79 hectares (170 acres) and covers the villages of Kitinwa, Kyakatera, and Kyamaiso in the Kijunjubwa, Bikozi, and Bwijanga sub-counties.

Residents say some families have occupied the contested land since the 1960s, highlighting their deep roots and long-standing connection to the land.

Sylvia Karungi, a resident of Kyamaiso village, says the alleged land claimant does not have documents to prove ownership, building trust and confidence in the residents’ claims.

“He says he and his family own this land, but this is not true. We have been here for many years. They only have land in another village, Kyangamwoyo, but on this land, they have no proof of ownership,” she said.

Mr. Wobusoboozi Pius, another affected resident, accuses Ssewagudde of using the area police to intimidate and criminalize those opposing the alleged land grabbing.

“He first accused about eight individuals, claiming they had encroached on his land. He relies on police and courts, yet he does not have the rightful documents,” Wobusoboozi told Witness Radio.

However, Ahmed Ssewagudde maintains that his father acquired the land in 1968 and that the current occupants are encroachers who took advantage of his father’s absence.

He says the dispute is not new and has been in court for more than two decades.

“For over a period of twenty-three years, I have been in court with those people, and I have always won the cases, even though they do not want to accept the truth,” Ssewagudde said in an interview with our journalist. Ssewagudde added that evictions will proceed through legal channels.

“We are working on the legal process with my team to get the necessary documents and land title. We shall evict them because no one is above the law. I will only follow the directives of the court.” The tycoon told our journalist.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Kiryandongo farmer accuses minister of grabbing 100-acre land

Published

on

Farmer Edward Balikagira at Kinyara II Village in Kigumba Sub-county in Kiryandongo District during an interview with Monitor. PHOTO/DAN WANDERA

A Kiryandongo farmer accuses Minister for Karamoja Affairs Peter Lokeris of illegally occupying his 100-acre plot, sparking a decades-long dispute now under State House scrutiny. Despite interventions, the conflict remains unresolved amid conflicting claims and documentation. Source: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/kiryandongo-farmer-accuses-minister-of-grabbing-100-acre-land-5447308

Edward Balikagira from Kinyara II Village in Kiryandongo District alleges that Minister Peter Lokeris has forcefully taken over his 100-acre land, which he bought in 1996 from the late John Bitunda Bitagasa.

Balikagira holds a 1996 handwritten sale agreement in Runyoro, detailing payment of Shs170,000, 12 goats, a bicycle, and a blanket, witnessed by local land executives.

Lokeris rejects the accusations, stating he legally obtained the land in 1996 and has occupied it peacefully for over 20 years without issues. He questions Balikagira’s ownership documents.

Balikagira recounts that in 2007, as land committee chair, he negotiated with Lokeris for adjacent land at Shs500,000 per acre, but the deal fell through due to delays.

Tensions peaked in 2022 when Balikagira was arrested for alleged trespassing during the Covid-19 lockdown. A State House fact-finding meeting followed, where Lokeris reportedly admitted to applying for only 100 acres and agreed to return any excess.

A June 2022 State House letter to the Kiryandongo RDC, signed by Nathan Bwogi, halted all activities on the disputed land and noted ongoing fencing by Lokeris’s associates, warning of potential violence.

Despite this, Balikagira says the issue lingers without court action, citing the minister’s influence. Local leaders and the Deputy RDC confirm ongoing administrative reviews but no closure.

Land wrangles like this are rampant in Uganda, especially in Kiryandongo’s former ranch areas, with police reporting a surge in such cases.

Source: Daily Monitor

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

“We are facing increased violent land dispossessions and climate injustices” – African women.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team

 

Stories of displacement, land loss, and resilience filled the room as 45 women from six African countries gathered for the East Africa Women’s Land and Climate Justice Convergence in Nairobi, organized to raise awareness and explore resistance strategies against land dispossession and climate injustice.

 

Representing communities from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, the women came together not only to learn but also to speak, listen, heal, and feel the weight of their struggles, resisting destructive extractive projects and reclaiming what belongs to them, despite the immense impacts they have endured.

 

Africa is often described as having vast unused or underutilized land. This narrative has attracted investors, especially from the Global North, into large-scale industrial agriculture and other land-based investments. However, a 2025 report by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), PLAAS, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy challenged this claim, showing that such narratives have fueled large-scale land grabs, ecological destruction, and community dispossession across the continent.

 

In Uganda, the land eviction crisis has intensified due to increasing land-based investments that have dispossessed local communities with impunity, with oil development activities among them. According to human rights groups, this has led to more than 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania permanently losing their land to make way for the pipeline and related projects.

 

Jenniffer Kiiza, a resident of Hoima, is among those whose land was taken for oil development.

 

“The project has had severe negative impacts, especially on vulnerable groups like women,” she said, highlighting how delayed compensation, gender-based violence, and food insecurity disproportionately affect women and their families.

 

“We face dispossession, and sadly, we are paid very little money, which comes late and is no longer enough to buy land elsewhere. Hunger and malnutrition in adults and babies have increased, and this is affecting us as women and our families.” Kiiza added.

 

Kiiza has continued to speak out despite growing repression against dissent, advocating for justice for her community, especially women, even as opposing such mega-projects comes at a high cost.

 

“These developments have caused hunger, increased gender-based violence, family breakdowns, school dropouts, and early marriages. There has also been a rise in prostitution, as women struggle to provide for their children after losing their land.” She added.

 

Meanwhile, in Uganda alone, the Uganda Police’s Annual Crimes Report, 2025, released early April, recorded 663 cases of land fraud, an indicator of the country’s escalating land crisis.

 

In Zimbabwe’s Midlands province, particularly in Shurugwi, communities are facing similar challenges linked to mining activities, including land dispossession and environmental harm. Jecha Benenia a women’s rights defender from a community affected by Unki Mine, shared her experience during the convergence.

 

“We are facing many challenges from the miners. Chinese investors are coming into our area and evicting us. They tell us to leave, and if we refuse, they come with bulldozers and destroy everything, including our homes. We are left with no shelter and nowhere to go,” she said.

She added that abandoned open pits left by mining companies have become deadly hazards.

 

“When it rains, the pits fill with water. Our livestock fall into them, and even our children have fallen in. We are losing both animals and lives, and the danger is ever-present,” She added.

 

Communities in Zimbabwe also report water pollution from mining activities, which threatens their health and livelihoods. “The water we use is our source of livelihood, serving domestic needs, drinking, and our animals. However, after consuming it, we have experienced illnesses like cholera, and pregnant women face severe complications,” she added.

 

Her revelations echo concerns raised at the 2025 Zimbabwe Alternative Mining Indaba (ZAMI). The 14th edition of the Indaba, convened by the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Organization (ZELO) and partners in September 2025, highlighted multiple challenges within a sector that contributes about 12% to 13.3% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

 

In its December 2025 communiqué, ZAMI noted that unsustainable resource extraction is driving widespread environmental damage, including water pollution, habitat loss, soil degradation, and deforestation.

 

It further pointed to displacement, inadequate compensation, and the absence of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), particularly affecting marginalized communities whose exclusion from governance processes has resulted in violence, disempowerment, and the entrenchment of poverty in resource-rich areas, worsened by weak oversight that has enabled environmental violations and illicit financial flows.

 

Amid these challenges affecting their communities, the women shared, the convergence concluded with a renewed sense of solidarity, forming a network of resilient women committed to defending Africa’s commons—land, forests, water, and cultural systems—now under increasing threat.

 

According to the organizers, the meeting was particularly significant in creating a platform for women to share lived realities that are often excluded from formal land governance discussions. Participants exchanged insights on the challenges they face and identified collective strategies to strengthen their land rights.

 

“The convergence brought together women to reflect on their experiences with customary and communal land tenure systems. We will continue to build on this knowledge and strengthen solidarity plans at both national and regional levels with the women,” WoMin’s Sizaltina Cutaia told Witness Radio.

 

Participants described the gathering as a transformative learning space that not only exposed shared struggles but also equipped them with the skills and knowledge to defend their rights collectively.

 

“And a message I can give to a woman in the struggle is to keep fighting for her goal. She should not give up, but continue until she achieves what she wants. This cuts across countries and brings us together through networking. When we unite as women, we realize we share one goal—as mothers in our communities and countries—because land is our motherland,” said Sarah Osas from Nakuru in Kenya.

 

Despite powerful companies taking over their land, women defenders say they are determined to continue resisting and reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

 

“We are fighting back so that we can reclaim our natural resources, including land and water. Many women are facing serious health challenges, including stress and stroke, as a result of these struggles. But we are not going back. We are fighting to reclaim our commons through demonstrations, cultural resistance, and petitions led by marginalized communities.” Jecha mentioned.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter