Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
- State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement
Popular content
Today's Top News
Regulating the Rush for Land
FREETOWN - The adoption of international guidelines to regulate so-called land grabs has been pushed to next year after negotiators failed to agree on conditions for large-scale land investments and enforcement.
More and more investors have flocked to the developing world over the past decade, snapping up huge tracts of farmland. Investment has intensified since the 2008 food and fuel price crisis.
The guidelines, in the making for several years, were sparked by fears that a "land rush" is leading to hunger, conflict and human rights abuses.
More and more investors have flocked to the developing world over the past decade, snapping up huge tracts of farmland. Investment has intensified since the 2008 food and fuel price crisis.
Once in place, the United Nations’s Committee on World Food Security guidelines are meant to protect people, mainly in poor countries such as Sierra Leone, from "land grabbing".
Earlier in October, a brief flurry of attention from media and civil society surrounded the sessions of the Committee on World Food Security in Rome, where a stamp of approval on the guidelines on tenure of land, fisheries and forests was expected.
However, Olivier De Schutter, the U. N. special rapporteur on the right to food, said in an email following the meetings that details of conditions for large-scale investments remained an unresolved sticking point.
"Another major potential difficulty will be how the (voluntary guidelines) shall be followed up on," said De Schutter.
Another week of negotiations should take place in January or February to hammer out a consensus on guidelines that will "hopefully" be adopted early next year.
"These are complex issues and I'm not surprised more time is required than expected," said De Schutter. "I think it is remarkable we are heading towards a very detailed text despite the wide range of interests involved, in which decisions are made not by vote but by consensus."
A September 2011 report by Oxfam International estimated as many as 227 million hectares of land in developing countries has been sold or leased since 2001. Most of that acquisition has occurred since 2008 and most has been into the hands of international investors, says the Land and Power report.
"There is a fear that arable lands will be scarce in the future and the price of land will continue to increase," said De Schutter. "There is a sudden realisation that land is something that is in increasingly short supply.
"So there is now a rush for land."
De Schutter said developing countries agree to sell or lease out large amounts of land in exchange for infrastructure and agricultural development - things cash-strapped governments could not afford on their own.
"They (feel) they have no choice," said De Schutter.
And corruption remains rife in many countries, with local elites receiving kickbacks for land and inking agreements that benefit their own interests. Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer reported that 15 percent of people dealing with land administration services had to pay bribes.
Foreign direct investment to Africa continues to rise to unprecedented levels. The growth in production of biofuels, as well as carbon credit mechanisms and speculation, are key driving forces.
The majority of land deals in Africa are for export commodities, including biofuels and cut flowers, rather than food production, according to Oxfam International's report.
In Sierra Leone, a small West African country of about six million people that emerged from a long civil war in 2002, the democratically elected government of President Ernest Bai Koroma makes no secret of its desire to lure foreign investment.
In a recent presidential address, Koroma pointed out that agriculture contributes to nearly half the country's GDP and a quarter of its export earnings, as well as employing about two thirds of the population.
While touting the government's small-scale farming programmes, Koroma hailed "huge investments" by the private, mainly foreign, sector.
"These private sector enterprises have not only made substantial investments in the agricultural sector but have created thousands of jobs for our people," said Koroma, whose government offers an array of incentives and tax breaks to foreign investors.
According to a report by the California-based Oakland Institute in early 2011, nearly half a million hectares of Sierra Leonean farmland had been leased or was under negotiation, while the World Food Programme estimates that about half the population remains food insecure.
The Sierra Leone country report of Oakland Institute's Understanding Land Deals in Africa series suggested that large-scale land acquisition is characterised by a lack of transparency and disclosure, weak legal frameworks and confusion surrounding land availability.
"Land is being cultivated for agrofuel production as opposed to food production for local markets, raising serious doubts about the value of investments for local food security," says the report.
The report stressed the conditions "are ripe for exploitation and conflict" and called for international institutions and donor partners to withdraw support for large-scale land acquisitions in the country.
Earlier in October, dozens of people were arrested in southern Sierra Leone following protests against a land deal. Locals said they were not consulted or given information regarding the deal, which leased 12,500 hectares to a Belgian company, Socfin. More than 100 protesters blocked access to the site.
Joseph Rahall, of the Sierra Leonean non-governmental organisation Green Scenery, said local government and landowners are vulnerable to exploitation.
"Sierra Leone is very new in this business, the business of large-scale investment in land," said Rahall. "I know there could be a balance, if it is properly thought out. But we have not, we're just jumping into it without critical analysis, without proper research."
He stressed any principles adopted internationally need enforcement in Africa and cannot be something companies just say they adhere to.
Employment and economic development is simply "the bell they ring to sweet talk people into accepting these things," said Rahall.
A 2009 report, "Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa", noted land acquisitions have the potential to result in loss of land for large numbers of people.
"As much of the rural population in Africa crucially depend on land for their livelihoods and food security, loss of land is likely to have major negative impacts on local people," said the 130-page report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the International Institute for Environment and Development.
"These may only partly be compensated by the creation of permanent or temporary jobs."
De Schutter said benefits are rarely spread across the board to the most needy and decisions are not necessarily transparent or in the interests of the poor.
"In general, the development of plantations increases inequality, instead of decreasing it," said De Schutter.
"The majority will not benefit."
The guidelines on the security of tenure of land, fisheries and forests "could be a significant advance," said De Schutter. "It can make it more difficult for governments to ignore the demands of the local community."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



10 Comments so far
Show AllThe question of "civilization"...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkEmLRCP078
Understanding the language of the exponential function in growth - how we misinterpret the use of statistics in media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related
"As much of the rural population in Africa crucially depend on land for their livelihoods and food security, loss of land is likely to have major negative impacts on local people,": And this is the point. Stop the land grab! De-colonize Africa!
Land grabbing is a time honored custom in Latin America. The need to launder drug money adds a new twist: biodiesel. With demand for biofuels going up, and grants and subsidies for scams purporting to provide sustainable energy, there is a boom in plantations of oil palms and soy beans.
The biggest problem that drug lords and other investors have in laundering their funds by buying into vegetable oil production is that the land they want to use is populated by peasant farmers. In Honduras Miguel Facusse, for example, employs decommissioned Columbian paramilitaries and other thugs to drive the peasants out of their homes. In Paraguay and lowland Bolivia they crop dust them until they take their poisoned children to live in the slums of some city.
Peasants grow about twice as much food per acre as mechanized farming, and they are much easier on the environment. Moreover they have at least a chance at a better life than they can find in the vast slums of Latin American cities. Neoliberal pseudoscience tells us that they will find jobs in maquiladoras. It also tells us that driving hundreds of people off their farms and providing employment to a couple of tractor drivers is more "efficient." But this official imperial philosophy is being challenged in many places in Latin America.
It would be nice if Common Dreams focused on these processes in Latin America rather than shying away from the one continent where revolutionary movements are breaking new ground and making headway. Why does Common Dreams avoid Latin America?
In Mexico we see international syndicates, from Spain, Saudi Arabia, etc. being given large tracts of valuable land by corrupt politicians.
The work that it brings for the majority is ill paid and often unhealthy. The privilege systems we have today are really no different than they were during the colonialist era. And, it is still the military systems created by the Euro empire that keeps all this inequity structured. In Mexico, if one even camps on land (public) slated for a land grab, the Mexican military will be sent in to harass the 'transgressor' (It happened to us). I have even heard of murder of small landowners (in Baja!) when a large Euro corporation wants to take land for development.
Yes, there is tokenism where a percentage of a largely exploited population obtains elite privilege by serving the interests of the imperialists and selling out their countrymen (Chinese business men are a good new case in point). But, none of this will ever 'trickle' down to the majority. It is structured to work in such a way that the majority remain a 'resource' of the world's elite to be used, abused, or disposed.
There is simply no good excuse for giving land to offshore entities. The monopolization of agriculture (and other industries) by corporate syndicates and the centralized control of the global food supply means that what is grown locally is intended to be shipped to far off places and what is grown in some distant land, picked green, cold stored, blasted with chemicals is what will be available for purchase, at ridiculous prices.
The whole idea of agribusiness is control and this control impoverishes and robs from populations around the world.
What a wonderful gambit. The hedge fund and big bank speculators drive commodity prices up which makes the land more valuable. Meanwhile they are acquiring the land and as the prices of commodities are speculated up the profit from the agricultural production goes up and so does the value of the land. The solution, short term, is a well placed tax like the oil tax imposed by Venezuela.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/28-4 This tax imposed in April brought the price of gas down and reduced speculation. It also reduced the oil stockpiled for speculative purposes in the Cushing, OK tank farms.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=DOESCROK:IND. Well placed and stuctured taxes on any vital commodity will drive out much speculation and bring the price down to a true supply-demand-cost of production equilibrium.
Show that to a neoliberal economic zealot and listen to him stutter.
Of course Mr. Global will game the system, whatever the system until we make all food production local. It can be done and eventually will be done. Mr Global knows that what he is doing is going to lead to worldwide regime change. He just can't help himself and even if the ship is foundering he is guaranteed the finest suite.
We're back to the colonial days again, with the shameful and shameless complicity of Governments and of the local puppets who don't give a damn about people or country ,but only have their own pockets to line.
What's happening in Africa (sub-Saharan) is way beyond and far worse than colonialism. And again the US is doing the bidding of corporate greed by sending in Special Ops to secure areas that do indeed need to be secured for the local populations, but the US delayed acting on this until corporations wanted the areas secured for land grabs. It seems to have nothing to do with freeing local populations from really inhumane factions. Another US intervention for commodities.
Local leaders who demand benefits for the population, and are not willing to give away the farm to outside corporations, are targeted for assassination by soldiers supported by colonial countries, often, but not always, US or Israel, possibly China. That is the nexus between corporate greed, poverty and the killing of democracy.
It's not that complicated. The right course is clear - no foreign investment without guarntees of benefits distributed evenly within the population. It's just that money rules and is very powerful.
I find it so hard to read items like this one, I feel so sorry for these folks. we need to be helping each other. The most important job we have now is to SAVE THIS PLANET. We are in great danger from the rising temperature of the earth.
If big business ie oil, fracturing, filthy dirty coal, and commercial farming continues at this pace, we will have no water. Hell is comming and it will have no mercy......Q