The conflicts over the control of natural resources have been a
constant in Africa’s history. At the beginning of the century, however, a set
of new processes of transformation of the rural areas involving new and old
actors are taking place in the continent. Two main land grabbing processes have
to be differentiated. On the one hand, those links to agribusinesses to produce
crops with multiple uses (e.g. soy, sugar cane, oil palm, corn, etc.) for
export, replacing former agricultural production systems, with serious risks to
food security. And, on the other hand, those linked to extractive industries
(e.g. oil, gas, biofuel, mines, forest production, etc.), expanding the
frontiers of resources with serious risks to the ownership rights and use of
the territories by the local populations and the sustainability of the local
ecosystems. Cheap land and fairly easy access to water make Africa attractive
for industrial agriculture. Investors see Africa as an “un-crowded space of
opportunities,” and the prospect of accessing abundant water resources is a
focal point in business plans. The scale of land
deals being struck across Africa is so shocking, and the conversion of African
small farms and forests into a natural-asset-based, high return investment
strategy can drive up food prices and increase the risk of climate change.
According to research by the World Bank, nearly 60million hectares-the size of
France-has been bought or leased by foreign companies in Africa in the past
three years. The deals are characterized by lack of transparency, and cases of
investors taking over agricultural land, while small holder farmers, mostly
viewed as squatters on their land, are forcibly removed without any or proper
compensation. These trends are creating insecurity in the global food system
that could be a much bigger threat to global security than the threat of
terrorism. More than a billion of the world’s population is living in hunger,
and the majority of the world’s poor depend on small farms for their
livelihoods, and investors are taking away the land while promising progress
that never happens.
African governments in cohorts with foreign investors falsely
claim that the land available for sale is “unused”, “virgin”, “under-utilized”,
“uncultivated” or “degraded” land. This suggests that they know preciously very
little about the importance of fallows and the resilience and diversity of
agro-forestry systems, or about sustainable agriculture. There is no such thing
as idle land in Africa; countless studies have shown that competition for
grazing land and access to water bodies are the two most important sources of
inter-communal conflicts in areas populated by pastoralists. If land in Africa
has not been planted such is probably for a reason, maybe it is used for
grazing or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient deficiency or erosion.
The unilateral acquisition of such land has caused more conflict and political
instability and cultures have been uprooted. The Loliondo case, east of
Serengeti National Park in Tanzania is one such example that has caused
conflicts between community and the government and investors on the other side.
The conflict has been going on for over twenty years as a result of the
government’s allocation in the early 1990s of the area for use by a foreign
hunting company, an action that did not take account of the existing community
land use/rights of the resident Masaai, who are pastoralists.
Nations with large amounts of land sold or leased
to foreign owners are often food importers, and their inability to feed their
own populations is exacerbated by the displacement of food producers who grow
for local use. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reports that
Africa has lost 20 percent of its capacity to feed itself over the past four
decades. Ethiopia alone has 13 million people in immediate need of food
assistance, yet its government has put over 7 million acres of land up for sale.
Furthermore, large-scale land
acquisition poses massive ecological threats to the African environment. The
dangers are numerous: hazardous pesticides and fertilizers cause water
contamination from their runoff, the introduction of genetically modified seeds
and other problems. Land previously left to lie fallow is now threatened with
overuse from intensified agricultural development, a trend further exacerbated
by speculative investment and the drive for short-term profits. Yet deals transferring vast tracts of land
are typically taking place far removed from local farmers and villagers with
virtually no accountability. The
deals involving these concessions are often cloaked in secrecy, but African
business has learned that they are usually characterized by allowing free
access to water, repatriation of profits, tax exemptions and the ability for
investors to acquire land at no cost whatsoever, with little or no restriction
on the volume of food exported or its intended use, in return for a loose
promise to develop infrastructure and markets. Proponents
of the land deals will dismiss the aforementioned concerns and claim that this
type of foreign investment will benefit the local people by providing jobs and
creating infrastructure. They will also say that the land being offered is
“unused.” These are hollow arguments. Investors
have been quoted as saying they will employ 10,000 people and use
high-tech, high-production farming techniques. The two promises are
completely incongruous. High-tech, high production devices are
appealing precisely because they reduce labor. Investors will
not hire significant numbers of people and simultaneously scale-up
their production techniques. And if they choose the former, they are
likely to create low-paying jobs and poor working conditions. I may be making
assumptions, but they are based on history—a history dating back to colonialism
and one that has exploited both natural resources and people. This has been a
source of conflict between villagers and Green Fuel, an ethanol producing
company through sugar cane in Chisumbanje, Manicaland, Zimbabwe, where
villagers have been complaining that they are being given peripheral jobs as
laborers in the sugar cane plantations while people from other places get
better jobs.
The controversy on large scale land based
investments will continue along with the demand for Africa’s agricultural land
in the face of ever increasing global population, dwindling agricultural land
resources most developed economies and rising global food prices. The urgency
is self-evident for African States to establish a framework for land
investments which provides profitable opportunities for investors while
supporting national development objectives and respecting the rights of local
communities in African countries. This is why the efforts to improve land
governance are so critical. And yet, improving governance is also about
bringing the citizens and their concerns to the center of the debate in line
with the guiding African aspiration ‘that it is the inalienable right of all
people to control their own destiny’. After all, the rationale for African
State engaging in large scale land investments is to promote development and
end poverty for Africa and her people, hence, for the Guiding Principles to be truly
African owned and promote African priorities, they must reflect the voice of
the diverse African citizenry.
Since poverty is predominantly rural,
agricultural investments have a significant potential in providing the rural
poor with jobs and income growth, however agricultural investment in rural
areas is expensive and financial returns are generally low. Where investment
has taken place, the rural poor take up low-paying jobs due to their lack of
education and skills. In addressing this problem governments should put in
place policies that promote inclusive investments in agriculture. Land policies
should strike a balance between the need for agricultural investments and the
interest of the poor farmers. Before land is allocated to and investor, governments
should take into consideration the present and future land needs of the local
people. The impact of large scale investments on demographic changes should
also be taken into account in estimating future land needs. Town and country
planning should be developed to the extent of taking into account the peculiar
conditions that obtain in rural areas. With increasing population and the need
for rural investments, it is becoming clear that land use planning should be
extended to the rural areas.
There is a tendency of investors taking
large tracts of land which they do not fully utilize and by so doing creating
artificial shortages of land in some cases. They should only obtain land which
they fully utilize within a reasonable span of time. Governments should
proactively protect the rights of the poor by making sure that investors do not
hold on to land which they are not utilizing. Depriving the poor of access to
land is socially and economically irresponsible. Mechanism should be put in
place to allocate land to investors, only which they can utilize within a
specific timeframe and withdraw unutilized land from such investors.
Furthermore, investment projects that include low-income groups as producers in
the supply chain and as shareholders in decision making and profit making are
more promising than those investments that only engage small holder farmers as
laborers.
In conclusion, often, financial returns of
large scale land investments are not known. Future studies could consider
investigating the financial returns of agribusiness in Africa. Such studies
could include the cost of developing a large scale farming operation.
Comparative analyses of performance of agribusiness and firms in other sectors
could also be done. Other studies could target sources of equity capital for
agribusiness in agriculture.
No comments:
Post a Comment