food crops vs. export crops

It’s not that investment in agriculture is a bad thing. Indeed, it’s sorely needed. But unless we have the conversation about what kind of investment, in what kind of agriculture, and in whose interests, then the investment does more harm than good. Land grabs, as the label implies, have been overwhelmingly negative. They are associated with weak institutional capacity (and sometimes corruption) in the recipient country governments, as well as authoritarian governments in the investors’ home countries, making it hard to bring pressure there for better practices. The communities whose land is leased or bought are not adequately protected.

In accordance with its dual mandate of reducing poverty and boosting shared income equality, the IFC aims to implement a sustainable ‘worker-shareholder’ model. In theory, when workers become shareholders, they gain decision-making power in a company’s operations and lift themselves out of poverty. Yet in this case, seven years on, not only has the IFC investment failed to yield meaningful changes for workers, but APPL continues to breach a number of national laws (most notably the Plantations Labour Act, 1951) and is expected to be found in breach of the World Bank’s own standards.

While there are several unions offering membership in Assam, only one union – the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha (ACMS) – is recognised by the state as having to the right to negotiate with the tea industry through collective bargaining agreements. ACMS’ dominance stems from its close relationships with both tea plantation management and the political establishment.

Firstly, the complainants cited concerns about labour rights violations, including long working hours, poor sanitation and health conditions, and a lack of freedom to associate. They questioned the worker-shareholder programme, contending that many workers were pressured into buying shares, often without proper information about the nature and risks of investment. Secondly, the complainants argued that the IFC violated its standard on Indigenous Peoples, claiming that APPL threatens the