From 2000 to 2010 there have been negotiations over more than 1,2 billion square kilometres of land in Africa: an area bigger than the whole of South Africa. This kind of foreign investment can create work and increase welfare, but oftentimes poor farmers are left behind in land deals that mainly benefit western corporations.
The ownership of land in Africa is often informal. Land that has been used for farming by families for generations may be legally owned by the state. Therefore the farmers often has little say in whether the land is sold, since it has never legally been theirs. – It turns out that many investors abuse weaknesses in the systems, and influence or convince the governments to give them land—often as a favour for promises of investment, says Steve Muchin i Eastern African Farmers Federation to Bistandsaktuelt.
Big promises
The idea is that investments in African land are to be a win-win situation, where the companies and the locals both benefit from economies of scale and better technology. This may be partially true; the foreign companies have given work to a lot of people. The Norwegian company Green Resources has for example invested heavily in forestry in Mozambique, and want to employ 12 000 workers on the Lurio-field. This is a blessing for many, as the wages makes it possible to improve their standard of living. Green Resources has also promised to build a school on the plantation.
Mediocre results
In reality, the results are a bit grimmer. The school has not been constructed yet, five years after the promise was given. Green Recources had to face heavy criticism when Bistandsaktuelt visited the Lurio-plantation in 2011.The workers complained, among other things, about late paydays and a dangerous work environment. In addition, the work contracts are only temporary. According to Amelia Amis (28), a mother of four, the work is good, but the contracts only last for ten months. When the contract expires, she might be out of job. For many of the workers the prospects are not good. Amis and her colleagues are working in a district where Green Resources only owns a limited tract of land. If the company fails to acquire more nearby land, they will probably not get more work.
A nuanced picture
Whether companies like Green Resources actually improve the conditions in Africa is an open question. There are certain benefits of foreign investment in land in Africa. Undoubtedly, the investments can give added economic activity in poor countries. It’s also hard to overestimate the impact of employment and education on the populace. Still, the investments have a few drawbacks. It turns out that the foreign investors rarely prioritize environmental issues. This can be a threat to the locals. The development of land often is not sustainable, and Africa risks being emptied of natural resources, which are sold to the foreign export market. The government also often portrays the land offered to investors as unused, while in reality it might be important for agriculture or grazing. In short: because of the skewed balance of power between the locals and large international corporations the deals are often hugely in favour of the foreign investors.
09 February 2013
