Africa
Land Grabs Continue as Elites Resist Regulation
15 April 2010By Hilaire Avril
A year after the
purchases of vast swathes of farm land in Africa first
drew public attention, transactions remain as opaque
as ever.
Private companies are resisting a global code of
conduct that would ensure transparency and local
elites continue to benefit from deals that encourage
corruption and increase food insecurity.
The hunger riots witnessed in parts of the developing
world in the past two years were the most visible and
direct effect of sky-rocketing food prices.
Simultaneously, international investors started
purchasing agricultural land in some of the most
fertile regions of the world, particularly Africa.
Often described by recipient governments as
"agricultural investments", many such ventures were
decried by sections of African and western civil
society as "land grabs". Some of these million-dollar
projects have pitted host countries and corporations
against local subsistence farmers.
South Korean firm Daewoo’s announcement that it had
leased some 1.3 million hectares of land in Madagascar
in November 2008 sparked furious opposition,
contributing to riots which toppled the government.
In 2009, the arguments in the raging controversy were
soberly analysed by the London-based International
Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), an
independent organisation that aims at infusing
national and international policy with the agendas of
marginalised people.
In its report, titled "Land grab or development
opportunity? Agricultural investment and international
land deals in Africa", the institute concluded that
"these investments can either create new opportunities
to improve local living standards, or further
marginalise the poor".
The deals could indeed work for development, it
argued, as "increased investment may bring macro-level
benefits (GDP growth, greater government revenues),
and create opportunities for raising local living
standards. Investors may bring capital, technology,
know-how, infrastructure and market access". (GDP
stands for gross domestic product.)
But, "as governments or markets make land available to
prospecting investors, local people could lose access
to the resources on which they depend – not just land,
but also water, wood and grazing," the report
cautioned.
Almost a year on, the debate persists.
Non-governmental organisations insist there are few
reasons to be optimistic.
"Tanzania, for instance, has declared a moratorium on
investments in biofuel plantations last November, due
to pressure from small tenure farmers," says Antoine
Bouhey, who follows the issue for Peuples Solidaires
and ActionAid, two organisations campaigning for
farmers’ rights in developing countries.
"But we still lack a binding regulatory framework
compelling investors to account for local populations’
interests," he adds.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation,
the World Bank and other concerned institutions
convened in New York last September to sketch
principles for such agricultural investments.
But according to a close observer who spoke on
condition of anonymity, "the topic is still very
sensitive: some donor countries would like to draft a
code of conduct, but the private sector has been very
difficult to engage".
The report by the IIED observed that "effective
safeguards in national law, and skilfully and
transparently negotiated contracts, are key to
securing local land and water rights."
But according to Camilla Toulmin, who heads the
institute, "a lot of these contracts are being
negotiated behind closed doors. Some are pathetically
thin and a few grant substantial preferential rights
to access water to the investors."
Despite some national laws requiring investors to
consult with local populations before land is
allocated, as in Mozambique, "lack of transparency and
of checks and balances in contract negotiations
encourages corruption and benefits ending up with the
rich and powerful," says Toulmin.
Fatou Mbaye has monitored the issue in Senegal for
ActionAid. She is disillusioned: "In theory, all land
allocation is supervised by local officials, but in
practice national authorities assign them to investors
by means of all-powerful injunctions, without ever
engaging with local residents," she says.
"Some 320 thousand hectares have been assigned to the
production of biofuels, mostly by foreign investors
who sometimes use local shell-companies to navigate
regulations," she explains. "And yet, Senegal imports
about 60 percent of its food, and these land purchases
keep farmers from expanding their food production,"
she says.
The issue regularly makes the headlines in many
sub-Saharan countries. But figures are scarce and
trends hard to quantify. "The reality on the ground is
not as simple as some media reports would have it,"
says Toulmin.
"There is evidence of speculative claims to
agricultural lands, but many of these deals do not go
through in practice," she observes.
"Still, if I were a small farmer, I would be
increasingly nervous, having limited access to water
and markets as governments are gradually tempted to
take land away from what they deem to be customary,
traditional and unproductive use," she adds.
The IIED recently published a guide detailing how to
draw up contracts for fairer and more sustainable
natural resource investments.
"Government capacity to negotiate and manage contracts
and civil society capacity to scrutinise government
dealings can make a real difference to getting a
better deal from natural resource investment," it
argues.
"The real question is how we can persuade governments
and the private sector that it’s in their best
interest to have a broader social consensus as
agricultural land is vulnerable to sabotage and, if
the local population is not on board, it is not an
easy asset to protect," Toulmin concludes. (END)
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments