by Fred Oluch
African land experts and policymakers have finally woken up
to the adverse effects of the upscale acquisition of arable land on the
continent by foreigners.
For the last decade, multinational corporations and foreign
governments have acquired huge chunks of rich farmlands in Africa
to grow food and bio-fuels solely for export, but those in authority across the
continent have remained largely ambivalent to this phenomenon commonly known as
“new colonisation” or “land grabs.”
Most of these long-term leases or sales of large chunks of
land have been done clandestinely by a clique of people in governments across
the continent in collusion with foreign entities who are more interested in
quick profits. Yet such deals are likely to increase the continents food
deficit.
The worry is that investors are not looking for unused land
but fertile land near water sources, and that Africa
could be losing arable and agriculturally potential land to outsiders and thus
threatening food security.
But now, politicians and academics and civil society and the
private sector are looking at the trend from a fresh perspective and asking
questions and evaluating what impact these agreements have on food security.
A recent two-day high-level meeting in Nairobi
concluded that foreign direct investments in land in Africa
must become transparent, inclusive and must be preceded by evaluations on the
benefits and dangers.
The meeting was organised by the Coalition for Dialogue on
Africa (CODA), with the support of the African Union (AU), the UN Economic
Commission for Africa (UNECA) and the African Development Bank (AfDB).
According to Dr Mike Taylor, of International Land Coalition,
direct foreign investments in land in Africa is not a new phenomenon because it
started during the colonial time, but it has assumed alarming proportions in
the last three years.
“It is a phenomenon that may well change the face of Africa
and decisions made today may determine whether Africa
will benefit from these investments or lose,” said Dr Taylor.
There is consensus that Africa’s
agricultural sector needs need capital injection and technology transfers.
Besides, these investments have the potential of creating employment. Some
African governments are actually overtly encouraging these acquisitions.
Some governments are even lobby aggressively for them
because they hope that heavy injection of foreign capital will enhance
agricultural technology, boost local employment and revitalise sagging
agricultural sectors. Some are also drawn to the new roads, bridges and ports
that some land investors plan to build.
Kenya’s
Minister for Land, James Orengo, regretted that Africa’s
agricultural exports to the world market had remarkably declined in the last 10
years, mainly due to protectionist policies adopted by the industrialised
countries.
“This is the crux of the scramble for Africa’s
arable land. It is now apparent that industrialised countries are willing to
receive agricultural exports from Africa only when such
products are produced by their own multinationals.”
The Kenya
government has had to step in to stop leasing of large tracts of land to
investors before exhaustive consultations with the local people while his
ministry is busy trying to harmonise land laws with the National Land Policy
and the Constitution.
In Kenya,
the Tana River Delta and the Coast in general has been the main target, raising
questions where the local communities will get alternative land for
agricultural activities and become self-sufficient in food.
In the Tana River Delta, 40,000 hectares has been leased out
to the Qatari government, and 50,000 hectares more to foreign firms for
bio-fuels. In Nyanza province of Kenya,
over 17,500 hectares around Yala Swamp
has been leased to a US
firm, Dominion Farms Limited, to produce rice.
In Tanzania,
over 500,000 hectare have been leased out to a foreign firm to produce rice,
wheat, coffee, flowers, Aloe Vera and bio-fuels.
Uganda
has leased 840,127 hectares to Egypt
to grow rice, wheat and produce organic beef. Ethiopia
on the other hand has given out 600,000 hectares to foreign entities, a acreage
which FAO estimates to be 4 percent of the country’s fertile land.
But the flip side of it is that these acquisitions are
likely to result into local people losing access to their land-based resources,
massive displacement, environmental degradation and social conflict.
In Tana River for instance, the
development has brought increased tension between the local communities—the
pastoralist Orma and the settled Pokomo—due to reduced gracing and watering
areas.
According to a study by the International Institute for
Environment and Development (IIED) and the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD), nearly 2.5 million hectares have been approved for
allocations in just five African countries: Ethiopia,
Ghana, Madagascar,
Mali and Sudan.
Sudan
has leased 1.5 million hectares of prime farmland to the Gulf
States, Egypt
and South Korea
for 99 years. The Ethiopian government stated that 2.7 million hectares were
now available to investors from the Middle East and Asia
One of the largest recent deals that ultimately collapsed would have given the
South Korean firm, Daewoo, a 99-year lease to grow maize and other crops on a
1.3 million hectares farmland in Madagascar.
Gaetan Rimwanguiya, the Executive Director of the Coalition
for Dialogue on Africa (CODA), argued that while the intention might be good,
the clandestine deals are what is raising suspicions and that these agreements
should be transparent and inclusive.
“We cannot compel governments to be transparent but we are
advising and lobbying so that the leadership does not turn around later and say
they did not know the risks involved,” he said.
Trends reveal that most of these agreements are concentrated
in countries that are poor, at war or embroiled in internal political unrest.
Robert Ladu Luki, the chairman of the Land Commission of
South Sudan, revealed the new republic has three phases of land acquisition
that are being reviewed. They include land given to foreigners during the
21-year civil war, especially in Upper
Nile State
and sanctioned by Khartoum, land
acquired by foreign investors after the 2005 peace agreement, and the new
agreements currently under negotiations by the new government.
Most of these agreements have either been cancelled or are
being revisited.
It is a global phenomenon that started in 2005 reached its
peak in 2009 following the previous year’s global financial and food crisis.
Three quarters of investors in Africa are coming from
outside the continent, while those investors from Africa
are mainly from South Africa
and Libya.
In an effort to prevent food price hikes and public unrest
at home, some food exporting countries like India
imposed in 2008 bans on food exports. Such bans that took large amounts of
grain supplies off the global market exacerbated food insecurity.
And in a further effort to avoid costs and supply shortages,
some wealthy food importing countries tried to bypass world food markets by
acquiring land overseas to use for agricultural food production and supply
their own markets.
Another key factor for these acquisitions was the need for
energy security with many countries seeking land overseas to use for bio-fuel
production. The third factor was that private sector financiers recognised land
as a safe investment in the current shaky financial climate, and hoped to
capitalise financially on the growing food security and energy security-driven
demand for agricultural land.
Africa Review
