(Source: Afro Empath Ascension)
Throughout the world, 75% of those who are starving live in farming areas, the majority being former smallholder farmers who have been forced off their land by land grabbing. Land grabbing is defined as “the large-scale purchase or lease of farmland in natural resource-rich developing countries” and has been on the rise particularly since the 2008 financial crisis (Robertson et al, 2010). Africa has the largest percentage of unused arable land and in a study by the International Food Policy Research Institute, they estimated that during 2006-2009, “15 to 20 million hectares of land were the subject of negotiation” (Kugelman, 2009). However, the actual figure may be much higher as many transactions have been completed in secrecy.
(Source: IIED)
Mass Food Production
During the late 20th century, agricultural yields were high and levels of starvation were relatively low. In more recent times, this has changed dramatically and some agricultural scientists believe that the world is entering an ‘insecure food period’ (Schiffman, 2013). A number of investors have been purchasing land in developing countries and evicting the ‘unproductive’ population in order to use the land ‘more productively’. They claim that through capitalisation, large-scale industrial agriculture will reduce food costs for the poor, improve rural income and address the food crisis (McMichael, 2012).
On the surface, this sounds like a promising and viable solution as it seems like countries are buying land in order to increase productivity to reduce food insecurity worldwide. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Middle income countries such as China and India are experiencing a rapidly growing population and there are concerns surrounding the potential for a shortage of water in the years ahead, resulting in insufficient food production (Schiffman, 2013). China is currently home to around 20% of the world’s population but possesses less than 9% of the world’s farmland. Through the land purchased, staple crops are grown such as rice, soy and wheat are exported back home with little to no benefit to those living in the host country. The majority of these foreign investors are located in countries who are capital-rich but natural-resource poor who suffered especially from the 2007-8 food price rise (Robertson et al, 2010).
There are also environmental concerns surrounding the agribusiness as sustainable local farming methods (for examples of methods, see posts 1, 2) will be replaced by large-scale irrigation practices that will diminish local water supply and contaminate the environment with agrochemicals. Agribusiness companies also do not have the adequate knowledge of local conditions that is needed to ensure the long-term viability of the land. In a report by Oakland and Polaris Institutes, they warned that “if all the 40 million hectares of land that were acquired on the continent in 2009 come under cultivation, a staggering volume of water would be required for irrigation … approximately twice the volume of water that was used for agriculture in all of Africa in 2005” (Oakland and Polaris Institutes, 2012). Given the already water scarce nature of many countries in Africa (see post on water scarcity), it is visible that large-scale irrigation schemes are not sustainable in the context of these countries.
(Source: Mandote)
Government motives behind land leasing
Governments who are leasing the land to international corporations advertise it as ‘underutilised’ and ‘uncultivated’ despite the number of smallholder farmers who currently use the land. They see it as an opportunity for economic development as the current returns are very low and their ability to meet the world’s demand for food is unattainable without investment. In 1979, 18% of development aid was used for agriculture but by 2007, this had dropped to 4.6%. As a result, countries turned to other ways to receive foreign direct investment (Woodhouse, 2012). In order to make them more attractive to investors, host governments remove their short-term property taxes and land user fees. In Ethiopia, the Karuturi Company was allowed by the government to use their ‘undesirable land’ rent free for the first 6 years and for the remaining 78 years in the 84 year contract, Karuturi pays only $1.18 per hectare every year to the government to use the land (Robertson et al, 2010).
Impacts on local population
Land grabbing has lasting effects on the local population as their reliance on subsistence farming is removed. Farmers are evicted and moved to locations where they can only rely on employment in the informal economy to provide wages for food (Robertson et al, 2010). These areas often lack adequate drinking water, educational facilities and roads. In a report by Human Rights Watch in Ethiopia, they state that “the relocation program has already caused endemic hunger and numerous cases of starvation” (Schiffman, 2013). 18 of the 20 most undernourished nations are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, as seen in table 1, and are all net sellers of land.
Table 1 – The most undernourished countries in the world
(Source: Roberson et al, 2010)
The lack of equity is alarming and while the government is partly to blame for land grabbing as they are the ones who are making the decisions to sell the land, we must not turn a blind eye to the investors themselves. The decisions made in wealthy countries have consequences for the population in the developing countries. Studies have shown that if peasant farming is done correctly, it can have higher productivity than industrial agriculture, despite only producing half of the world’s food supply currently (Schiffman, 2013). A number of partnerships have been formed and in 2009, the World Bank suggested a proposal to set voluntary regulations to govern the sale of land in African countries. The future of populations in food scarce African countries remains uncertain and although there are proposals to regulate the deals, time is running out and something effective must be done soon.
Comments
Post a Comment