English home 

Von: "A. Wosni" <>

Betreff:

 The new land grab in Africa

Datum: Sonntag, 22. Jänner 2012 18:51

http://sfbayview.com/2012/the-new-land-grab-in-africa/

Siehe auch:

Koloniale Profitgeilheit mitschuldig an Hungerkatastrophe in Afrika (LabourNet-Austria)

The new land grab in Africa

January 1, 2012

An alarming scramble for the continent is on

by Agazit Abate

Graphic: Bob Brooks, PanafricanistInternational

The recent phenomenon of land grab, as outlined in the extensive

research of the Oakland Institute, has resulted in the sale of enormous

portions of land throughout Africa. In 2009 alone, nearly 60 million

hectares (over 148 million acres) of land were purchased or leased

throughout the continent for the production and export of food, cut

flowers and agrofuel crops.

Land grab was in part spurred by the food and financial crisis of 2008

when international bodies, corporations, investment funds, wealthy

individuals, and governments began to re-focus their attention on

agriculture and food as a profitable commodity. As outlined in the

reports, the consequences of land grab include increased food

insecurity, environmental degradation, community repression and

displacement, and increased reliance on aid.

Meet the investors

While media coverage has focused on the role of countries like India and

China in land deals, the Oakland Institute’s investigation reveals the

role of Western firms, wealthy U.S. and European individuals, and

investment funds with ties to major banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP

Morgan. Investors include alternative investment firms like the

London-based Emergent, which works to attract speculators, and various

universities like Harvard, Spelman and Vanderbilt.

Several Texas-based interests are associated with a major

600,000-hectare South Sudan deal which involves Kinyeti Development LLC,

an Austin, Texas-based “global business development partnership and

holding company” managed by Howard Eugene Douglas, a former United

States ambassador at large and coordinator for refugee affairs. A key

player in the largest land deal in Tanzania is Iowa agribusiness

entrepreneur and Republican Party stalwart Bruce Rastetter.

U.S. companies are often below the radar, using subsidiaries registered

in other countries, like Petrotech-ffn Agro Mali, which is a subsidiary

of Petrotech-ffn USA. Many European countries are also involved, often

with support provided by their governments and embassies in African

countries. For instance, Swedish and German firms have interests in the

production of biofuels in Tanzania. Addax Bioenergy from Switzerland and

Quifel International Holdings (QIH) from Portugal are major investors in

Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone Agriculture (SLA) is actually a subsidiary of

the U.K.-based Crad-1 (CAPARO Renewable Agriculture Developments Ltd.),

associated with the Tony Blair African Governance Initiative.

As the media has reported, Indian firms are involved in land grab with

relation to Ethiopia in particular. Food insecure nations like those of

the gulf region are also participating in these land deals for the

purpose of food production for their home countries.

Economic development?

A major argument by governments and investors is that these investments

will lead to economic development for the home countries. The Oakland

Institute reports reveal, however, that the land transactions are either

for free – in the case of Mali – or very cheap – in the cases of

Ethiopia and Sierra Leone. These transactions are largely unregulated

with no stipulation or guarantees that they will help the local

populations or create infrastructure. While land grab actors focus their

rhetoric on foreign direct investment, there is no evidence to show that

foreign direct investment will come into the countries in any

substantial amount.

Graphic: Bob Brooks, PanafricanistInternational

Most of these deals come with huge tax breaks and other investment

incentives, which is a great deal for the investors but means less money

coming into the country that could possibly go to infrastructure or

social services. For instance, Sierra Leone allows 100 percent foreign

ownership; there are no restrictions on foreign exchange, full

repatriation of profits, dividends and royalties and no limits on

expatriate employees.

Another justification for the land deals includes the idea that they

will increase employment in the areas involved. Again, the lack of

stipulation and on-the-ground research reveals that this is overstated

at best and completely untrue at worst.

The Emvest Matuba investment project summary and staff at Emergent and

Emvest promise job creation with majority employment from the local

community. A recent head count provided by Emergent reveals that

currently only 17 permanent positions are in security out of a staff of

36. In Mali, the area targeted by recent large land deals, which could

easily sustain 112,537 farm families (over half a million people,

686,478), is instead in the hands of 22 investors and will create at

best a few thousand jobs.

To make matters worse, the limited employment created by these land

deals is low wage, seasonal and primarily benefits the investors with

cheap labor to compliment cheap land.

Community displacement

While those involved firmly contend that communities are not being

forcibly removed from their lands and those that are asked to move are

being compensated, the opposite proves true. Ethiopian government

officials, for instance, have stated that the lands being leased are

unused or abandoned. Meanwhile, there is a villagization process that

has relocated 700,000 indigenous people who lived in a land that was

targeted for investment.

In 2010 in Samana Dugu, Mali, bulldozers came in to clear the land and

when the community protested, they were met by police forces who beat

and arrested them. In Tanzania, the land investments of AgriSol Energy

are focused on Katumba and Mishamo refugee settlements. The MOU between

AgriSol Energy and the local government stipulates that these

settlements, which house 162,000 refugees who fled Burundi in 1972 and

have been farming the land for 40 years, have to be closed.

In June 2009, Amnesty International reported refugees being pressured to

leave camps. Some of them lost their homes to a fire set by individuals

acting under the instructions of the Tanzanian authorities to get them

to vacate the camp. Refugee leaders who have attempted to organize

affected refugees have been arrested and detained.

Many of the communities interviewed stated that there was no prior

notification of the land investments. They only realized what was

happening when the bulldozers arrived in their communities.

Investment sites in various African countries visited by the Oakland

Institute revealed a loss of local farmland where the lands held a

variety of different uses and social and ecological value. Some of the

lands that are claimed to be unused are those where the communities

practice shifting cultivation – where plots of land are left idle after

periods of cultivation in order to re-vegetate – pastoralism and those

considered communally used areas.

Forests and national reserves that are home to vital animal, fish and

plant species, where communities have found alternative sustenance in

times of food scarcity, have been burned and cleared out. These lands

are being destroyed without an understanding of their significance and

without assessments to determine how this will affect local communities.

Many of the communities interviewed stated that there was no prior

notification of the land investments. They only realized what was

happening when the bulldozers arrived in their communities.

Food insecurity

While most of the countries and regions targeted suffer from food

insecurity, these land deals focus on producing export commodities,

including food, biofuels and cut flowers for foreign consumption. In

Mali, half of the investors with large land holdings in the Office du

Niger intend to grow plants used to produce agrofuels such as sugarcane,

jatropha or other oleaginous crops. In Mozambique, most of the

investments concern timber industry and agrofuels rather than food

crops. Food crops represented only 32,000 hectares of the 433,000

hectares that were approved for agricultural investments between 2007

and 2009.

While most of the countries and regions targeted suffer from food

insecurity, these land deals focus on producing export commodities,

including food, biofuels and cut flowers for foreign consumption.

In Ethiopia, much of large scale land deals have focused on food

production for a foreign market. Because land grab throughout Ethiopia

has led to the clearing of communal lands and plots used for shifting

cultivation as well as forests, the communities’ primary source of

sustenance along with their buffer systems are threatened. Additionally,

commercial farming on these lands will affect fish habitats and other

wildlife hunted in times of food scarcity and the loss and degradation

of grazing lands will further increase food insecurity.

Water is of particular concern, as runoff from commercial farms will

lead to the contamination and reduction of water supplies. Dam

construction in investment site areas like the proposed Alwero River dam

spark additional concern of the consequential uncertainty of access to

water for local and downstream communities. No clause has been found in

the lease agreements that discusses water use and there is no evidence

that water use from commercial agriculture is managed, monitored or

regulated.

In Ethiopia, not only is there no clause in any of the lease agreements

that require investors to improve local food security conditions or make

food available for the local populations, the federal government has

actually provided incentives for those investors that grow cash crops

for a foreign market. Abera Deressa, federal minister for agriculture

stated, “If we get money, we can buy food anywhere. Then we can solve

the food problem.”

A major concern of the communities interviewed is that they believe the

government is intentionally creating a situation where communities must

rely solely on the government for their food, in an attempt to

marginalize and disempower them.

The environmental factor

Environmental degradation is a major concern in these land deals that

have limited transparency and regulations in terms of their

environmental impact. Forests have many uses for the local communities,

including as a source for food, medicine, fuel wood and building

materials. Forests also retain cultural and historical significance.

Expected outcomes of clearing the lands and forests include loss and

degradation of wetlands, decrease in wildlife populations and habitat,

proliferation of invasive species and loss of biodiversity.

In a confrontational protest, farmers stand immediately outside a Mount

Elgon National Park boundary in Kenya and yell provocative remarks at

the rangers inside. If improperly managed, climate change mitigation

strategies may amplify both the extent and frequency of evictions for

farmers. These strategies provide incentives to convert fertile,

agricultural land to mono-species forests, which are known in some

circles as green deserts, and could drive up food prices. – Photo:

Connor Cavanagh

These environmental concerns are exemplified in Ethiopia’s Gambela

National Park, where the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority

(EWCA) estimates that 438,000 hectares of land have been leased in the

vicinity of the park. While the park boundaries are not set, lands that

the local population considers a part of the park have been cleared by

large-scale investors, including Karuturi and Saudi Star. Wetlands have

been altered and forests have been cleared. According to recent surveys,

the Gambela National Park is home to 69 mammal species, valuable wetland

habitat, hundreds of bird species and 92 fish species.

To compound matters, the practice of industrial agriculture will lead to

increased toxicity, disruption of nature’s system of pest control,

creation of new weeds or virus strains, loss of biodiversity, and the

spread of genetically-engineered genes to indigenous plants.

Additionally, it will put these countries at a disadvantage for

mitigating and adapting to climate change.

For many of these land deals, environmental impact assessments are not

widely used or enforced, making this situation all the more alarming.

The verdict and way forward

Investment in agriculture is crucial to combating hunger and climate

change and in ensuring the livelihoods of farmers. However, as pointed

out by United Nations Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De

Schutter, the issue is not one of merely increasing budget allocations

to agriculture, but rather “of choosing from different models of

agricultural development which may have different impacts and benefit

various groups differently.”

In December 2010, the United Nations came out with a report that stated

that the benefits of agro-ecological methods far outweigh those of

industrial farming techniques. It added that we can double the world’s

food supply if we support small farmers.

The research of the Oakland Institute echoes the same conclusion. For

instance, in Mali, where the system of rice intensification has been

adopted along the Niger River near Timbuktu, farmers have been able to

attain yields of five to 15 tons per hectare per year, for an average of

nine tons per hectare. This is more than twice the conventional

irrigated rice yield in the area, and more than the previsions of the

Moulin Moderne du Mali, one of the major investors. This irrigation

system involves plots of 35 hectares of land, shared by as many as 100

farmers, meaning each household has access to only one-third of a

hectare. Still, from that piece of land, they are able to earn $1,879 –

more than double the average annual per capita income of $676.

We can double the world’s food supply if we support small farmers.

While research proves one thing, government officials and investors do

the opposite. Instead of supporting small farmers, these land deals

support industrial agriculture while displacing and disempowering the

very people that have the ability to shift their communities from

insecure to sustainable populations and environments.

Land grab puts these countries on a path that will surely lead to

increased food insecurity, environmental degradation, increased reliance

on aid and the marginalization of farming and pastoralist communities.

With regards to food, the issue at stake is not only one of increased

food insecurity, but an attack on food sovereignty or peoples’ right to

produce their own food.

Land grab is irrational at best and violent at worst. It’s a violent act

to take away peoples’ right to food, access to their ancestral land,

their social and historical ties, and their overall right for human

dignity. It’s a violent act to strip them of their future and the land

of its fertility.

The issue at stake is not only one of increased food insecurity, but an

attack on food sovereignty or peoples’ right to produce their own food.

Land grab is a violent act to take away peoples’ right to food, access

to their ancestral land, their social and historical ties, and their

overall right for human dignity.

While land deals are going on behind closed doors, communities are

resisting. The 2008 food uprisings, the revolt in Madagascar against

land grab and the recent protests in Guinea all show communities who are

standing up for their right for food sovereignty. In fact, in all of the

countries visited, the land deals were met by community organizing.

Knowing what we know, resisting these land deals on all fronts and

working towards investments in sustainable agriculture and empowering

local populations points to the only rational and humane way forward.

This article by Agazit Abate, a 2010-2011 intern scholar at the Oakland

Institute, is based on the research and publications of the Oakland

Institute. It first appeared in Pambazuka News. To learn more about land

investment deals in Africa, visit the Oakland Institute website.

BayView Classifieds - ads, opportunities, announcements San Francisco

Comcast