The new African land grab
THIS NEW scramble for African land has visited a multitude of problems on ordinary Africans and set the stage for ecological crisis and widespread hunger.
As many critics have pointed out, African governments have falsely claimed that land available for sale is unused. As journalist Joan Baxter writes:
Some defend the investors' acquisition of land in their countries, saying it is "virgin" or "under-utilized" or "uncultivated" or "degraded" land... This suggests they know precious little about the importance of fallows and the resilience and diversity of agroforestry systems, or about sustainable agriculture and the knowledge base of their own farmers.
Communal land, small farmers and even entire villages are often displaced in the drive for land purchases. The Oakland Institute think-tank released a report on the African land grab, which points out:
Experts in the field, however, affirm that there is no such thing as idle land in...Africa...Countless studies have shown that competition for grazing land and access to water bodies are the two most important sources of inter-communal conflict in [areas] populated by pastoralists.
According to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition, "If land in Africa hasn't been planted, it's probably for a reason. Maybe it's used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land...that has no owners and users."
In other words, as activist Vandana Shiva puts it, "We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline."
In fact, because much of its food is produced for export, sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world where per capita food production has been declining, with the number of people that are chronically hungry and undernourished currently estimated at more than 265 million.
Nations with large amounts of land sold or leased to foreign owners are often food importers, and their inability to feed their own populations is exacerbated by the displacement of food producers who grow for local use. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reports that Africa has lost 20 percent of its capacity to feed itself over the past four decades. Ethiopia alone has 13 million people in immediate need of food assistance, yet its government has put over 7 million acres of land up for sale.
And worsening hunger is still to come. This year's World Food Program (WFP) budget of $2.6 billion for sub-Saharan Africa falls short of meeting the targeted need by $1.1 billion. According to the IFPRI, climate change will sharpen food scarcities in semi-arid countries such as Sudan.
Large-scale land acquisition poses massive ecological threats to the African environment. The dangers are numerous: hazardous pesticides and fertilizers cause water contamination from their runoff, the introduction of genetically modified seeds and other problems. Land previously left to lie fallow is now threatened with overuse from intensified agricultural development, a trend further exacerbated by speculative investment and the drive for short-term profits.
Yet deals transferring vast tracts of land are typically taking place far removed from local farmers and villagers with virtually no accountability. As Khadija Sharife writes on the Pambazuka Web site:
The deals involving these concessions are often cloaked in secrecy, but African Business has learned that they are usually characterized by allowing free access to water, repatriation of profits, tax exemptions and the ability for investors to acquire land at no cost whatsoever, with little or no restriction on the volume of food exported or its intended use, in return for a loose promise to develop infrastructure and markets...
[L]eaders, and provincial and national governments have been all too willing to sell land already inhabited by citizens lacking land titles--often the product of communal customs--with the best land and water resources going free of charge to multinationals.
300,000 hectares * $ 1 * 20 birr *12months = 72,000,000 birr
where as the fertile soil occupied by more than 160,000 eritrean refugees is costing us 96,000,000 dollars every year. now which deal does turn your eyes so green that you can't even do this simple calculation. Leasing to india or to your refugees for free displacing thousands of farmers ?
4 camps which could have been leased to India : 20,000hectares*4*$1*20 birr*12months = 96,000,000 Birr lost annually.
THIS NEW scramble for African land has visited a multitude of problems on ordinary Africans and set the stage for ecological crisis and widespread hunger.
As many critics have pointed out, African governments have falsely claimed that land available for sale is unused. As journalist Joan Baxter writes:
Some defend the investors' acquisition of land in their countries, saying it is "virgin" or "under-utilized" or "uncultivated" or "degraded" land... This suggests they know precious little about the importance of fallows and the resilience and diversity of agroforestry systems, or about sustainable agriculture and the knowledge base of their own farmers.
Communal land, small farmers and even entire villages are often displaced in the drive for land purchases. The Oakland Institute think-tank released a report on the African land grab, which points out:
Experts in the field, however, affirm that there is no such thing as idle land in...Africa...Countless studies have shown that competition for grazing land and access to water bodies are the two most important sources of inter-communal conflict in [areas] populated by pastoralists.
According to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition, "If land in Africa hasn't been planted, it's probably for a reason. Maybe it's used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land...that has no owners and users."
In other words, as activist Vandana Shiva puts it, "We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline."
In fact, because much of its food is produced for export, sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world where per capita food production has been declining, with the number of people that are chronically hungry and undernourished currently estimated at more than 265 million.
Nations with large amounts of land sold or leased to foreign owners are often food importers, and their inability to feed their own populations is exacerbated by the displacement of food producers who grow for local use. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reports that Africa has lost 20 percent of its capacity to feed itself over the past four decades. Ethiopia alone has 13 million people in immediate need of food assistance, yet its government has put over 7 million acres of land up for sale.
And worsening hunger is still to come. This year's World Food Program (WFP) budget of $2.6 billion for sub-Saharan Africa falls short of meeting the targeted need by $1.1 billion. According to the IFPRI, climate change will sharpen food scarcities in semi-arid countries such as Sudan.
Large-scale land acquisition poses massive ecological threats to the African environment. The dangers are numerous: hazardous pesticides and fertilizers cause water contamination from their runoff, the introduction of genetically modified seeds and other problems. Land previously left to lie fallow is now threatened with overuse from intensified agricultural development, a trend further exacerbated by speculative investment and the drive for short-term profits.
Yet deals transferring vast tracts of land are typically taking place far removed from local farmers and villagers with virtually no accountability. As Khadija Sharife writes on the Pambazuka Web site:
The deals involving these concessions are often cloaked in secrecy, but African Business has learned that they are usually characterized by allowing free access to water, repatriation of profits, tax exemptions and the ability for investors to acquire land at no cost whatsoever, with little or no restriction on the volume of food exported or its intended use, in return for a loose promise to develop infrastructure and markets...
[L]eaders, and provincial and national governments have been all too willing to sell land already inhabited by citizens lacking land titles--often the product of communal customs--with the best land and water resources going free of charge to multinationals.
300,000 hectares * $ 1 * 20 birr *12months = 72,000,000 birr
where as the fertile soil occupied by more than 160,000 eritrean refugees is costing us 96,000,000 dollars every year. now which deal does turn your eyes so green that you can't even do this simple calculation. Leasing to india or to your refugees for free displacing thousands of farmers ?
4 camps which could have been leased to India : 20,000hectares*4*$1*20 birr*12months = 96,000,000 Birr lost annually.
No comments:
Post a Comment