The Great Land Grab:
Rush for LAND RIGHTS
The purchase and lease of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier nations and international private investors has led to debate about whether land investment is a tool for development or force of displacement.
THE FACTS:Over the last four years, there has been a significant increase in land-based investment, both in terms of the number of investment projects and the total land area allocated. Industrialized nations and private foreign investors have driven demand for arable land in developing regions, particularly in Africa, but also in South America, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. Governments are interested in the lands for purposes of food security and biofuel production. Both governments and private investors are attracted by policy reforms that have improved the investment climate in developing countries, as well as arbitrage opportunities afforded by the extremely low cost of leasing land in these regions.
While only fractions of arable land in developing regions are being used for agriculture, demand for strategic swats next to irrigation and shipping sites is growing with greater investment. These areas and other lands are frequently in use even though occupants’ have no legal rights to the land or access to legal institutions. As demand for land assets increases and governments and multilateral institutions promote investment in national lands, displacement and affected livelihoods are becoming serious sources of international concern.
WHAT WE ARE DOING ABOUT IT:Media coverage of land acquisitions has been sparse and lacking in investigative detail. The Oakland Institute is committed to increasing transparency about land deals including the terms of negotiation, theoretical consequences of investment, real impact on the ground, and ultimate impact on development in several African countries.
World’s Farmland Threatens
Food Security for the Poor
The Oakland Institute sounds the alarm on the threat that land grabbing poses to food security and livelihoods. Land grabs--the purchase of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors--have become a widespread phenomenon, with foreign interests seeking or securing between 37 million and 49 million acres of farmland between 2006 and the middle of 2009.
Download File:__________________________
Claims of African 'land grab'
spark controversy
June 12, 2011 -- Updated 0836 GMT (1636 HKT)Claims of African 'land grab'STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Think tank claims hedge funds buying African land cheaply, displacing farmers
- China, Libya want to grow food, Oakland Institute says
- U.S. universities among investors, institute director says
- Company calls allegations "grossly inaccurate"
(CNN) -- A new report published this week claims farmers in Africa are being driven off their traditional lands to make way for vast new industrial farming projects backed by European hedge funds seeking profits and foreign countries looking for cheap food.
But some firms named in the study are hitting back, saying they are providing desperately needed jobs and cash to impoverished regions on the continent.
The Oakland Institute, a left-leaning social development think tank, says investors have bought up nearly 60 million hectares (148 million acres) since the financial crash in 2009 -- land equal to the size of France, in what it calls a "land grab" in Africa.
"The same financial firms that drove us into a global recession by inflating the real estate bubble through risky financial maneuvers are now doing the same with the world's food supply," said Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute.
"It's kind of shameful that while we in the Western world paint Africa as a basket case -- we talk about its hunger, we talk about its corruption -- but we are responsible for trying to steal the land and turn it into a breadbasket for the North" Mittal said, referring to developed economies.
The report, "Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa," focuses on seven African nations and claims to uncover a tangled web of deals being obscured by shell companies and governments.
It concludes that the alleged "land grab" is leading to the potential displacement of hundreds of thousands of farmers, often in deals with far-off government bureaucrats or naive local tribal chiefs.
"We're told over and over that the key to development is by helping small farmers," Mittal told CNN. "But instead, in this rush for mechanized farming, for growing bio-fuels, for growing grains for export, we seem willing to sacrifice women farmers and indigenous communities with no solutions for what happens later to them in Africa."
The study by the California-based group pins much of the blame on London-based Emergent Asset Management, which runs one of Africa's largest land acquisition funds, and is headed by former JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs currency traders and investment bankers.
European and U.S. agribusinesses are singled out for buying hundreds of thousands of hectares for future biofuel development.
And the report says the current rush for cheap land is also backed by China, Libya and other Mideast and Asian investors looking for ways to secure food sources and farming for their growing populations.
But Mittal says she was most surprised to discover deals by U.S. universities that she claims are investing in deals set up by hedge funds buying up some of the continent's best farmland on promises of annual returns of 25% or more.
Universities such as Harvard "have chosen to go ahead just so they can see their endowments grow," Mittal said. She called on university backers to honor goals of socially responsible investing and to hold back money in a campaign similar to the one that helped bring down apartheid in South Africa.
"It's time to get out of these funds and invest in ways that build communities and don't devastate them," she said.
Some of the companies and investors named in the report are disputing the claims.
"The allegations set out in the Oakland Report are grossly inaccurate," wrote Emergent's CEO Susan Payne in a statement e-mailed to CNN. "We are consulting our lawyers and will be issuing a full statement rebutting the allegations."
A spokesman for Harvard said he was unable to find any direct documentation for the claims in the study, and was seeking clarification for any involvement on its part from the firm that handles its endowment.
The report essentially says investors are being promised cheap land with no questions asked while the hedge fund buyers are searching for ways to displace traditional farms that often have no clear formal ownership for small fees and promises of employment.
The study's authors say that land in the war-torn Sierra Leone sometimes leased for as little as $2 per hectare.
"Foreign investors often employ local 'agents' or 'coordinators' to identify land for lease and negotiate leases with local communities, chiefs and landowners," the report charges.
"There is evidence that these 'agents' take unfair advantage of local traditions, perceptions and vulnerabilities in order to convince local populations that they will benefit from the lease deals, while refraining from discussing potential risks such as loss of farmland or negative environmental impacts," the report says.
Mittal pointed to Zambia, where she claims that 94% of the country's land is held informally through customary rights, and where land use and ownership must be negotiated with local chiefs.
"I was told that you would go with a bottle of Johnnie Walker, sit on the ground with him and clap three times and make your offering of whiskey," Mittal told CNN. "Then you have secured the title to the land with no problem."
The study also points to programs in Ethiopia where hundreds of thousands are being driven off their traditional lands and placed in new government-planned villages, while foreign investors move in to start new export-driven farms.
"We have seen cases of speculators taking over agricultural land while small farmers, viewed as 'squatters,' are forcibly removed with no compensation," Frederic Mousseau, policy director at the Oakland Institute, said in a press release.
"This is creating insecurity in the global food system that could be a much bigger threat to global security than terrorism," Mousseau added. "The majority of the world's poor still depend on small farms for their livelihoods, and speculators are taking these away while promising progress that never happens."
However, one investor group tied to Emergent in South Africa says that the projects it backs are boosting incomes and market access in places once totally cut off from anything beyond growing enough food for themselves.
"We've really created something out of nothing in Africa," said Anthony Poorter, Africa director for EmVest Asset Management. "There are no shady deals."
He pointed to three land projects his firm backs in Mozambique, including a $12 million, 1,000-hectare farm (2,471 acres) that employs 350 people and provides rising income to the surrounding area.
"Our projects in Mozambique have caused a real boost to the income of local communities," Poorter said, pointing out EmVest tries to source as much of its labor and supplies locally as possible.
"The GDP of Matuba village has risen significantly and we are the biggest employer."
Poorter summed it up by saying, "We have people lining up for jobs every day, so it can't be that bad a place to work."
__________________________
Hedge Funds Create
Volatility in Global
Food Supply with
Land Grabs Across Africa
Financial backers – including U.S universities and pension funds – are lured by high returns and turn a blind eye to theft of land, displacement of people
Oakland, CA – Hedge funds and other foreign speculators are increasing price volatility and supply insecurity in the global food system, according to a series of investigative reports released today by the Oakland Institute. The reports are based on the actual materials from these land deals and include investigation of investors, purchase contracts, business plans and maps never released before now.
The “Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa” reports also reveal that these largely unregulated land purchases are resulting in virtually none of the promised benefits for native populations, but instead are forcing millions of small farmers off ancestral lands and small, local food farms in order to make room for export commodities, including biofuels and cut flowers.
“The same financial firms that drove us into a global recession by inflating the real estate bubble through risky financial maneuvers are now doing the same with the world’s food supply,” said Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute. “In Africa this is resulting in the displacement of small farmers, environmental devastation, water loss and further political instability such as the food riots that preceded the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions.”
Mittal added that for people living in developed countries, 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 risks of climate change.
“The research exposed investors who said it’s easy to make a land deal – that they could usually get what they want in exchange for giving a poor, tribal chief a bottle of Johnny Walker,” Mittal said. “When these investors promise progress and jobs to local chiefs, it sounds great – but they don’t deliver, which means no progress and relocating people from their homes.”
New reports and materials on these deals examine on-the-ground implications in several African nations including Ethiopia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Tanzania and South Sudan – and expose contracts that connect land grabs back to institutional investors in these nations and others. In addition to publicly sharing – for the first time -- the paperwork behind these deals, the reports demonstrate how common land grabs are and how quickly this phenomenon is taking place. Investors in these deals include not only alternative investment firms like Emergent Asset Management – that works to attract speculators, but also universities including Harvard, Spellman and Vanderbilt.
Contracts also reveal a bonanza of incentives for speculators ranging from unlimited water rights to tax waivers.
“No one should believe that these investors are there to feed starving Africans, create jobs or improve food security, Obang Metho of Solidarity Movement for New Ethiopia said. “These land grab agreements – many of which could be in place for 99 years – do not mean progress for local people and will not lead to food in their stomachs. These deals lead only to dollars in the pockets of corrupt leaders and foreign investors.”
In 2009 alone nearly 60 million hectares – an area the size of France – was purchased or leased in these land grabs. Most of these deals are characterized by a lack of transparency, despite the profound implications posed by the consolidation of control over global food markets and agricultural resources by financial firms.
“We have seen cases of speculators taking over agricultural land while small farmers, viewed as “squatters” are forcibly removed with no compensation,” said Frederic Mousseau, policy director at the Oakland Institute. “This is creating insecurity in the global food system that could be a much bigger threat to global security than terrorism. More than one billion people around the world are living with hunger. The majority of the world’s poor still depend on small farms for their livelihoods, and speculators are taking these away while promising progress that never happens.”
These reports, as well as briefs on other aspects of land grabs, are available at http://media.oaklandinstitute.org.
###
The Oakland Institute is an independent policy think tank whose mission is to increase public participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic, and environmental issues (www.oaklandinstitute.org).
June 13th, 2011 at 9:59 am
too many literalists in this story. what if it were an art project? and what IS truth? and why so much effort and twitter hype around this, when far more serious issues are worthy of time and attention?
people’s expectations were not met. so?
June 13th, 2011 at 10:19 am
You need an editor. The word “musings” should have alerted me.
June 13th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Ethan, I’m a longtime reader of your blog. On the subject of amplifying real people’s voices, I thought you and your readers might be interested to hear about the project Tahrir Documents (tahrirdocuments.org) that I have done some translation for. The site quite simply is a repository for documents coming out of the Egyptian revolution and subsequent protest movements. The documents include pamphlets, position statements, newsletters and many other genres coming from groups large and small. A global team of volunteer translators translates from Arabic, and both the Arabic original and the English translation are hosted on Tahrir Documents permanently.
June 13th, 2011 at 10:25 am
[...] This article was originally published on Ethan Zuckerman’s blog. [...]
June 13th, 2011 at 10:26 am
[...] Hamwi and Daniel Nassar (two actual Syrian LGBT activists), Zeynep Tufekci, Mircea, Liz Henry, Ethan Zuckerman, Sappho, Maya Mikdashi, Jillian York, and Helen de [...]
June 13th, 2011 at 10:45 am
‘MacMaster’s project is going to complicate the work of anyone who tries to bring marginal voices into the dialog through citizen media.’
Doesn’t it rather point to the level of scrutiny that has always been required of professional journalism?
June 13th, 2011 at 11:47 am
MacMaster also gave an interview to The Lede, the NYT media blog. You can find it on their site today.
June 13th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
[...] Reading: Understanding #Amina by Ethan [...]
June 13th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
[...] try{Typekit.load();}catch(e){} ABOUT ARCHIVES CONTACT SUBSCRIBE TWITTER http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/06/popular-on-twitter-the-amina-hoax-the-hamsterization-of-journalism-and-high-stakes-twitter/ THE MOST TALKED-ABOUT LINKS ON TWITTER RIGHT NOW: Ethan Zuckerman on the Gay Girl in Damascus hoax [...]
June 13th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
No one likes to be fooled and you, sir, bought it hook, line, and sinker. I understand your anger, but your flimsy attempts to demonize MacMaster resound like someone who can’t admit they were duped. It is my sincere hope that individuals like MacMaster continue to make journalists work to become better journalists by pointing out vulnerabilities in reporting. Chalk it up to a lesson and move on. Try exercising caution and critical thinking as opposed to naive credulity.
June 13th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
[...] Reading: Understanding #Amina by Ethan [...]
June 13th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
He is simply stupid. Full Stop. Do not buy his “novel”.
June 13th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Kobe, GregoryLent, Elliot, trying to defend the erasure of real voices, as if truth is just a game, or a security exercise.
It has been my experience that news sources everywhere depend on trust. I’ve handled a major human rights story that was impossible to independently verify, and found that the ability of news agencies to deal with us depended on the credible sources we could attach to the story. A degree of this is inevitable, it is the nature of things. Truth usually comes out.