land grabs in africa text en -...

LAND GRABS IN AFRICA LAND GRABS IN AFRICA A THREAT TO FOOD SECURITY

Prague Global Policy Institute – Glopolis

January 2012

This document has been produced with the fi nancial assistance of the Euro-

pean Union within the project EuropeAfrica: Towards Food Sovereignty (DCI-

-NSAED/2010/240-529). The contents of this document are the sole responsibility

of Prague Global Policy Institute - Glopolis and can under no circumstances be

regarded as refl ecting the position of the European Union.

Author: Dagmar Milerová Prášková

Useful comments have been given by: Aurèle Destrée

Published by: Prague Global Policy Institute – Glopolis

Design: www.creativeheroes.cz

Prague, January 2012

© Copyright 2011

Pražský institut pro globální politiku – Glopolis, o.p.s.

Soukenická 23

110 00 Praha 1

Tel./fax: +420 272 661 132

www.glopolis.org

Prague Global Policy Institute – Glopolis

January 2012

LAND GRABS IN AFRICA LAND GRABS IN AFRICA A THREAT TO FOOD SECURITY

2 Land grabs in Africa - a threat to food security

Introduction

In the fi ght against hunger and poverty, small-scale farmers are key. With about 50 % to 80

% of population in developing countries depending on agriculture for their livelihood, the-

re is no doubt that investment in agricultural development is crucial. This has been widely

recognized by the international community as a whole in the aftermaths of the food prices

crisis. Yet, the type of investment, rather than its overall size, is determinant of whether or

not MDG1 may be met one day. The recent global rush for farmland in developing count-

ries, particularly in Africa, poses many questions in that regard.

Water and natural resources are essential for food production, sustainable livelihoods, and rural

development which all in turn lead to ensuring food security. Increased pressure has been put on

natural resources recently, especially after the economic and food crisis of 2007/2008, through

large-scale investment in agricultural land in developing countries. On one hand, this investment

in land has the potential to support local agriculture suff ering from longstanding under-fi nancing;

but on the other hand, its scale raises concerns about potential negative impacts on local people

and the environment. That is why some institutions and non-governmental organizations call this

large scale investment a “land grabbing”, thus emphasizing the negative connotation of the phe-

nomenon.

The aim of this paper is to off er Czech audience an overview of the issue of land grabbing in

African countries, an issue so far only sporadically covered by the media. In the Czech con-

text, this term is used mainly in relation to the recent expiration of the exemption for foreign

investors to buy Czech land (this was an exemption arranged within the negotiation process

of further European Union enlargement). We hope to open up room for refl ection, and advise

Czech stakeholders (civil society organizations from development and human rights groups

to government and business) on the conditions for responsible foreign direct investment in

farmland abroad.

The term land grab refers to the “purchase or lease of vast tracts of land by wealthier food-in-

secure nations and private investors from mostly poor, developing countries in order to pro-

duce crops for export”.1

Link between Investment and Agriculture

For a long time, African governments have neglected agriculture despite the fact that this sector

directly or indirectly engages from 50 % up to 80 % of the population in their countries. In devel-

oping countries agricultural spending as a percentage of agricultural GDP has averaged 10 % or

less over the period from 1980 to 2002. In Africa, agriculture expenditure as a percentage of agri-

cultural GDP remained between 5.4 % to 7.4 %.

“This is in contrast to the Maputo Declaration (July 2003) whereby the heads of state of the As-

sembly of the African Union committed their support to the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture

Development Programme (CAADP) and pledged to raise spending on agriculture to 10 % of the

budget within the next fi ve years (i.e. by 2008).”2 So far, 8 African countries have exceeded the 10 %

1 S. Daniel, A. Mittal, The Great Land Grab, Oakland Institute 2009.

2 S. Akroyd, L. Smith, Review to Public Spending to Agriculture, World Bank 2007.

Available at: www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/pfma07/OPMReview.pdf

3Land grabs in Africa - a threat to food security

target (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Malawi, Mali, Niger, and Senegal) and most have

made signifi cant progress towards it.3

In order to halve the world’s hungry by 2015, as targeted by the First Millennium Development

Goal, Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) calculations show that at least US$ 30 billion of

additional funds are required annually. Yet, public investment into the agricultural sector keeps

lagging behind.

Developing countries’ capacity to fi ll the gap is limited and offi cial development assistance (ODA)

off ers no real alternative. In fact, the share of aid going to agriculture has been on a downward trend,

dropping below 5 % in recent years (Figure 1).4 To respond to the 2008 food crisis, donors have com-

mitted yet again to supporting agricultural policies. In 2009, the G8 leaders pledged €20 billion over

the next three years for development aid for agriculture at the Summit in L’Aquila in 2009. Two years

later, there is little evidence that aid has been scaled up as a result of the pledge. Critics5 point out

that donors, such as EU and Japan, have not made the data available and that Italy, Germany, and

France have counted previous aid commitments as part of the delivery of the pledge.

Figure 1: Capital fl ows to Developing Countries (in billion USD)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

7 %

6 %

5 %

4 %

3 %

2 %

1 %

0 %1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Private ODA Agr/ODA

Source: OECD, Creditor Reporting System, 2009.

Characteristics of Foreign Direct Investment

in Agricultural Land

Beside public funds (national or aid-oriented), foreign direct investments constitute another large

source of support for the agricultural sector. Although it is not a new trend, foreign direct invest-

ment in farmland has considerably taken up speed in the last decade. Large scale land-based in-

3 Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).

Available at: http://www.nepad.org/foodsecurity/agriculture/about

4 Policy Brief: From Land Grab to Win-Win, FAO 2009.

5 Action Aid, G8 fudged fi gures wont feed hungry,press release, May 2011. Dostupný z: http://www.actionaid.org/

news/g8-fudged-fi gures-wont-feed-hungry-says-actionaid


vestment of signifi cant level (including allocation above 1000 hectares) has been rising since 2004,

and the so-called “global rush for land” took off in 2007 as a response to the global food prices and fi -

nancial crisis. In this part, we will outline the motivations and key players driving these investments.

Drivers of the Investment in Land Investors ‘motivations

There are three main drivers of foreign investment in farmland: food security, biofuel production,

and security of investments. A strong incentive to invest abroad is to guarantee food security. It

concerns particularly rich countries who face food supply problems and/or constraints, such as

low agricultural productivity due to limited water supply or productive land (land degradation,

soil erosion) or population growth, and trends in diet changes (shift to greater consumption of

dairy products and meat increasing the need for animal feedstuff ).

For some countries this is extremely signifi cant. The geographic region where water shortages are most

immediately aff ecting food security is the Middle East. For instance, in 2008 Saudi Arabia announced

that it will decrease wheat production and phase it out completely by 2013 due to water reserves deple-

tion.6

The state of food security is not exacerbated only by problems of natural character. Food prices are

also concerned. During 2007 - 2008, several food-exporting countries (e.g. Russia, Argentina, Viet-

nam, and India) restricted their food exports in order to prevent a spike in food prices and social

unrest at home. These bans have taken large amounts of grain supplies from the global market,

pushing prices even higher; consequently, the food security of countries dependant on imports

of staple foods deteriorated.7 In an eff ort to avoid expensive imports bills in the future net food

importing countries have been looking for more direct ways to supply their markets with agricul-

tural commodities. Outsourcing food production through investment in agricultural land abroad

appeared to be a more secure option for them.

A second driver is the production of biofuels. The rapidly growing consumption of fossil fuels,

energy security concerns, as well as the requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has

pushed rich countries to diversify energy sources over the past decades. The European Renewable

Energies Directive from April 2009 set a minimum 10% share of renewable energies in transport

by 2020 as one mandatory target for Member States. The 10 % will be supplied mainly by biofuels

and “as much as two-thirds are likely to be imported, the majority from developing countries”.8

“To meet the target alone, the total land area directly required to grow biofuels in developing countries

could reach 17.5 million hectares, well over half the size of Italy. Additional land is then required in rich

countries, displacing food and animal feed crops onto land in new areas, often in developing countries”.9

Besides the problematic competition between food and fuel (biodiesel or bioethanol) for land, there are

other indirect problems relating to the production of biofuels. Bioethanol is produced from staple crops,

such as maize and wheat – the most important crops in many developing countries. Biodiesel is made

6 L. Brown, World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, Earth Policy Institute 2011.

7 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Land Grab? The Race for the World´s Farmland, 2009, ed. M.

Kugelman, S.L. Levenstein.

Available at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ASIA_090629_Land%20Grab_rpt.pdf

8 T. Rice, Meals per gallon, ActionAid, 2010.

Available at: http://www.actionaid.org/micrositeAssets/eu/assets/aa_biofuelsreportweb100210.pdf

9 T. Rice, Meals per gallon, ActionAid, 2010.

Available at: http://www.actionaid.org/micrositeAssets/eu/assets/aa_biofuelsreportweb100210.pdf


of vegetable oils, such as palm oil, which are also important food ingredients and can be used to cook

other foods. The greater demand for maize or wheat for energy consumption drives their prices up. The

International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that biofuel demand has accounted for 70 % of the increase

in maize prices in 200810 pushing thousands of people into poverty. And the pressure of biofuel produc-

tion on food prices is likely to continue. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) calculates

the long term impact of the acceleration of biofuel production on cereal prices to be 30 %.

The third key driver of foreign direct investment lies with the fact that land is considered a safe and

profi table investment in an unsteady fi nancial context. There is a growing conviction among

some large investors (W. Buff ett, G. Soros, J. Rogers) that “farmland is going to be one of the best

investments of our time”.11

Reports indicate that more than 90 funds from all over the world are investing in farmland.12 Oth-

ers are seeking “available” land with a view to exploit mineral resources or to produce agricultural

commodities for industrial sector including rubber, cotton or soybeans (used to feed livestock),

horticulture, and oil; or to exploit mineral resources and precious and rare metals within the so

called scramble for resources.

Yet, the safety of the investment is relative. Investing in land can be risky as most of the host coun-

tries are involved in both internal and external political confl icts. On one hand, this brings great

political risk; yet on the other hand, it represents a huge potential for greater long-term gains. If

an investor successfully develops a project through solid partnership with the host country repre-

sentatives there may be high returns.13

Host Countries´ Motivations

Host countries’ governments make a big eff ort to attract foreign investors in order to boost foreign

exchange. Large-scale land acquisitions are considered an opportunity in many regards: increased

economic growth, contribution to tax revenues through investment in agriculture with possible ben-

efi ts for the rural poor, including the creation of farm and off -farm jobs, development of rural infra-

structure, transfer of new agricultural technologies or construction of schools and health centers.

Let us look at the example of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Investment Agency literally says that “the

potential for the private sector in agro-processing and out growers’ scheme of development is

signifi cant. The country off ers excellent opportunities for production of wheat“ or ”investment

potential exists in large-scale commercial tea production and modern tea blending and packing

industries. The tea industry in Ethiopia has been lacking investment.”14

Key Investors and Host CountriesThe main host countries of investment are the countries from Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Af-

rica (Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique,

Sudan, Tanzania and Zambia).15

10 D. Headey, S. Fan, Refl ections of the Global Food Crisis, IFPRI 2010.

11 Some Large Investors‘ Views on Farmland. Available at: http://farmlandgrab.org/5867

12 P. Makutsa, Land Grab in Kenya, EAFF 2010.

13 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Land Grab? The Race for the World´s Farmland, ed. M. Kugelman,

S.L. Levenstein, 2009.

14 Ethiopian Investment Agency: http://www.ethioinvest.org/agriculture.php

15 Outside Africa, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Southeast Asian countries (Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Indonesia) and part of

Eastern Europe (Ukraine) appear to be signifi cant countries for investment in farmland.


Go Africa! - Total area of reported land deals*, 2001–11 (Hectares, m)

Total:

79,9m

Africa

50,7

Asia

19,3

Other

1,1

Latin

America

8,8

Source: Oxfam, CIRAD, CDE at University of Bern, International Land Coalition *Preliminary estimate

Source: The Economist16

According to analyses of more credible reports, some companies from East Asian states (China, India,

South Korea) and Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates), are among the key investment

players.17 But dependence on food imports makes other countries invest in agricultural production be-

yond their borders, such as in Egypt or Libya. The investors from the United States and the European

Union (above all Italy, Norway, Germany, France, Denmark, and United Kingdom) are equally active.

Investment in farmland is dominated by the private sector, albeit often with strong fi nancial or

other support from the government, and signifi cant levels of government-owned investments.

The majority of the investors is made up by foreign investors, but domestic investors are also

playing a huge role. Moreover, land acquisitions by private entities are a less frequent phenom-

enon; nevertheless, it is widespread. There are inter-governmental agreements showing evidence

of widespread land acquisition by national elites and urban middle classes in several African coun-

tries, such as the 2002 Special Agricultural Investment Agreement between Syria and Sudan.

Another way to get the land might be through a local company as was the case in Sudan where an

American company The Jarch Capital acquired a lease of over 400 000 hectares by taking a 70% stake

in a Sudanese company, LEAC for Agriculture and Investment. In fact, this company is controlled by the

son of a high offi cial in the Sudan People´s Liberation Army.18

DealsThe main problem facing experts and analysts who specialize in land grabbing issues is the fact that

primary as well as secondary data is scarce or highly unreliable. It is sometimes based merely

on media reports or on offi cial local government sources; discrepancies can be found among such

facts. This is due to several reasons. Such investment deals normally lack transparency because the

negotiations take place behind closed doors. Deals are generally not made public, or they are com-

pletely secret; occasionally, some announced plans end up not being executed. Frequently, there is

a lack of checks and balances in contract negotiations which, in turn, creates room for corruption.

16 The Economist, May 5th 2011: http://www.economist.com/node/18648855?story_id=18648855

17 IFRPI, FAO, IIED, IFAD, FIAN, Oakland Institute

18 L. Cotula, S. Vermeulen, R. Leonard and J. Keeley, Land g rab or development opportunity? IIED, FAO and IFAD, 2009.

Available at: http://www.ifad.org/pub/land/land_grab.pdf


The main form of investment lies in long term leasing of agricultural land rather than its purchase.

The duration of the lease ranges from 50 years or even up to 99 years. Moreover, land is very

cheap in Africa and land fees are not an important component of negotiations. In Ethiopia, the

rent of one hectare ranges from US$ 3 to US$ 10 per year.19

In general, the power relation between the host country and the investors is not equal. Many of the

investors are well-established transnational companies or governments of wealthy countries. To the con-

trary, most of the host regimes are neither democratic nor stable. With a few exceptions, strong invest-

ment protection is always included in land deals with regard to expropriation, non-discrimination, and

standards like “fair and equitable clauses” but there are no provisions for the public interest because the

deals are largely written and shaped by the investors. On top of that, the deals are negotiated under pres-

sure. This undermines the governments’ authority to speak and act on behalf of the aff ected communities.

EU Involvement

European involvement in land-based investments is directly or indirectly stimulated both by the EU

and individual Member States, particularly due to biofuel policies. A number of European compa-

nies have planted biofuel crops such as jatropha, sugar cane, and palm in Africa, Asia or Latin America

to tap into the rising demand.

There are six European countries among the biggest investors in terms of outwards Foreign Direct

Investment in agriculture (Italy, Norway, Germany, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and France).

During the last 20 years, we have witnessed a boom in the number of Bilateral Investment Treaties

(BIT) between governments to facilitate private investments. These treaties may include provi-

sions that strengthen the legal power of the investors and reduce the policy space for host gov-

ernments and the power of host local communities.

With regard to the EU agreements, civil society organizations consider that, for instance “the Eco-

nomic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), heavily promoted by the EU, provide further incentives for

land grabbing by curtailing the respective states’ policy space to protect their resources and mar-

kets for domestic use.”20 This is in contradiction to the EC claim that all its investment agreements

should be consistent with other policies, including policies on the protection of the environment,

decent work, health, cultural diversity, and development policy.

Despite the fact that the offi cial information is limited as well as the number of the deals made

public, media and reports of civil society organisations have brought evidence of large-scale

land deals. Here are some numbers: the German company Flora EcoPower has secured 56 000

hectares for its biofuel production in Ethiopia and 15 000 hectares in Madagascar, the Swedish

Skebab company has assured 100 000 hectares for biofuel crops in Mozambique, and the British

Sun Biofuels has signed a lease agreement with Ethiopia for 80000 hectares of land and it has

also purchased 80 % of the National Biodiesel Corporation of Ethiopia as part of its program to

strengthen its presence in Ethiopia prior to investing in the whole of East Africa.21

19 L. Cotula, S. Vermeulen, R. Leonard and J. Keeley, Land grab or development opportunity? IIED, FAO and IFAD, 2009.


20 Foreign land grabbing in Africa: 2009 Monitoring report by European Civil Society Organizations of European

Commission´s proposal for Advancing African Agriculture (AAA).

21 A. Graham, S. Aubry, S. Künnemann, S. Monsalve Suárez, Land Grab study, FIAN 2010. Available at: http://www.fi an.

org/resources/documents/others/report-on-land-grabbing/pdf


Reported cases of land grabbing and biofuel development across Africa

Ethiopia 700,000 ha

earmarked for sugar

cane, 23 million has

suitable for jatropha.

UK-based Sun Biofuels

operated 5,000 ha,

Acazis AG (German)

leases 56,000 ha with

concessions for another

200,000 ha.

Kenya Japanese, Belgian

and Canadian companies

plan to up to 500,000 ha.

Sierra Leone Swiss

based Addax Bioenergy

obtains 26,000 ha for

sugarcane.

Tanzania 1,000 rice

farmers forced off their

lands to make way

for sugarcane.

Mozambique Investors

aim for 4,8 million ha.

Over 183,000 ha currently

allocated to jatropha

Companies: UK, Italy,

Germany, Portugal,

Canada and Ukraine

Swaziland UK based D1

Oils suspends expansion

of jatropha despite

promotion by rockstar

Bob Geldof.

Congo Chinese company

request 1 million ha.

Italian energy corpora-

tion ENI plans palm oil

plantation of 70,000 ha.

Angola 500,000 ha of

land designated for

agrofuel. Angolian,

Brazilian, Spanish and

South African companies.

Cameroon Cameroon/

French company

expanding palm oil

plantations including

60-year lease on 58,000 ha.

Ghana Italian-based

Agroils obtains 105,000

ha, UK company Jatropha

Africa acquires 120,000

ha, ScanFuel (Norway)

cultivates 10,000 hectares

and has contracts for ca.

400,000 ha, Galten (Israel)

acquires 100,000 ha.

Benin Proposed 300,000 -

400,000 ha of wetlands to

be converted for oil palm.

Nigeria Land acquisi-

tions by the state using

foreign capital and

expertise. Over 100,000

ha grabbed.

Source: Africa up for grabs, Friends of the Earth Europe, 2010.

Main Problems

Nowadays, some actors of the civil society are calling for a moratorium on land deals, given the

poor democratic character of the way such deals are negotiated and the threats they pose for rural

livelihoods.

Countries that attract foreign investment in farm land are mostly those whose greater portion of

rural population suff er from hunger and poverty and depend on land the most. This brings consi-

derable problems related to human rights, food security, land tenure, and the environment.


Human Rights BreachAccess to land for indigenous people has been given a specifi c form of protection under interna-

tional law at the 1989 ILO Convention. Moreover, every state is obliged to progressively ensure

that everyone has access to the minimum essential food which is suffi cient, safe, and nutritionally

adequate.22 Therefore, depriving local populations of access to productive resources is a violation

of their right to food. The states should also take into account the rights of current land users

as well as the rights of workers employed on the farms; furthermore, they should be guided by

the need to ensure the right to self-determination and the right to development of the local

populations.23

Moreover, there is practically no consultation process with local communities even though there

are formalized backing provisions stipulated in the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indige-

nous People. It is called the Free, Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) and its underlying principle says

that indigenous people have the right to make the decision on proposed plans concerning their

lands.

Food Security Most allocated land is dedicated to production which will be exported although, paradoxically,

most of the host countries are net food importing countries or food aid recipients. Ethiopia, for

example, gets US$ 116 million in food aid from the World Food Programme (WFP). On the other

hand, Saudi Arabia is paying US$ 100 million for its grain production there.24 The question about

whose food security is at stake has prompted public concern especially in those regions where ar-

eas prone to food shortages have been targeted. The regulated distribution of production is very

often left out of the land deals. In some contexts, all of the crops produced are exported to the

investor’s country, which can be detrimental to local food security.

Large-scale land acquisition results also in family farming marginalisation, although, as it has

been said many a time, most of the hungriest and poorest people in the world are small-scale

farmers in developing countries. While these farmers have no access to land, water, and other nat-

ural resources they lose the ability to produce food and earn money. Moreover, the mono-crop,

intensive agricultural model promoted is likely to dualize the farming sector in Africa and further

exclude small-scale farmers.

Land TenurePrimarily, large-scale land acquisition can undermine access to land and control over natural

resources of the local people, the resources on which they depend and without which their food

security is severely threatened. In Africa, access to land and land tenure rights are mainly based on

tradition, custom, or culture, and they are not embodied in the domestic legal framework. Even if

the law contains provisions about land rights, there are big gaps between theory and practice due

to lack of enforceable status or proper defi nition.25

22 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.

23 O. de Shutter, Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: A set of core principles and measures to address the human

rights challenge, UN 2009.

24 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Land Grab? The Race for the World’s Farmland, ed. M. Kugelman,

S.L. Levenstein, 2009.

25 Foreign land grabbing in Africa: 2009 Monitoring report by European Civil Society Organizations of European

Commission’s proposal for Advancing African Agriculture (AAA).


Offi cials claim to lease idle or waste land but as a matter of fact the situation might be quite dif-

ferent. What is categorized as wasteland might very well be important land for local rural house-

holds. Uncultivated land is used for grazing, as a source of water, wild foods, and medicinal plants,

or simply a path to get to the needed resources. For instance, in Ethiopia, all land allocations are

classifi ed as wastelands with no pre-existing users because land is under government control and

cannot be sold; however, experts in the fi eld claim there is no unused land in this country.26

The gender implications according to IFPRI

“Poor rural women face disadvantages in land access and ownership in both customary and formal

titled systems, even prior to a deal. In contexts where customary land tenure dominates—such as Sub-

Saharan Africa—most women gain access to land only through a husband or male family member.

Beyond, local men and women may not benefi t equally from new employment or income generation

opportunities, which are most commonly cited as the main benefi ts of large-scale farming. It is impor-

tant to know if men and women will be hired equally to work as laborers because in some contexts

investors or local communities assume that wage labor is largely or exclusively for men.”27

Environmental DegradationInvestment in agriculture promotes large-scale farming, usually intensive, focusing on monocul-

ture/single crop farming and using chemical fertilizers. This agricultural model also tends to use

high amounts of fresh water and soil and depends heavily on fossil fuels. There is also pressure

on higher-value lands because the investors focus on regions with more fertile soil, land with

greater irrigation potential, or places with easier access to markets. Yet, access to land without wa-

ter is pointless for agricultural investments. In essence, what we witness now as land grabs could

also be considered water grabs.28

This results in grave environmental degradation which can include soil degradation, deforesta-

tion, loss of biodiversity, and depletion of water resources. In addition, according to agricultural

experts many tropical soils are not suitable for intensive modes of agriculture. Besides, the health

of plantations workers and communities is put in jeopardy. The development of more suitable

farming approaches is directly linked to the right to food because there is a strong link between

the state of the environment and food production.

The Tana River Delta case study

“The Tana river delta is a vast triangle of land in Kenya. It is an immense patchwork of palm

savannah, seasonally fl ooded grassland, forest fragments, lakes, mangroves, sand dunes, bea-

ches and the river itself. It covers an area of 130,000 ha. Communities living in the delta have

adapted to its seasonal extremes. Farmers cultivate on the receding river edges, seasonally

fertile fl oodplains and where the river spills fresh water into their fi elds with the tidal fl ow.

Other communities raise livestock or engage in fi shing. The Delta is a critical dry season pastu-

reland for pastoralists who come from as far as Somalia during droughts as well as for the local

Orma and Wardei peoples. In the dry season cattle numbers can reach in excess of 60,000

while 20,000 are permanent throughout the year. Farming in the delta is done close to the

river banks by the Pokomo people and the Mijikenda who grow rice, maize, cassava, bananas,

melons, beans, mango and vegetables for mainly subsistence.

26 (Mis)Investment in Agriculture, S. Daniel, A. Mittal, Oakland Institute 2001. Available at: http://www.oaklandinstitute.

org/pdfs/misinvestment_web.pdf

27 J. Behrman, R. Meinzen-Dick, A.R. Quisumbing, The Gender Implication of Large-Scale Land Deals, IFPRI 2011.

28 C. Smaller, H. Mann, Thirst for Distant Lands: Foreign investment in agricultural land and water, IISD 2009.


The delta provides important ecological services. It is a fl ood plain for the Tana river during

the rainy season, storing the water for use during dry season. It has a rich diversity of wildli-

fe including elephants, lions, hippo, wild dogs, marine turtles, three endangered shark speci-

es, molluscs and other invertebrates and provides breeding ground for many species of birds

including 22 species which are near extinction.

Apart from the local communities’ subsistence activities, the Tana river delta is largely unde-

veloped with regard to large scale commercial investments. Land in the delta is either gover-

nment land or community land held by local authorities or by group ranches. These factors

have made it attractive to investors both foreign and local who would want to profi t from

the opportunities available in the region. In this respect various land acquisition deals are in

various stages for investment in agricultural production. These include sugarcane plantations,

biofuel farms, titanium extraction and vegetable farms.

Reported cases of land deals:

A British company, G4 Industries, is proposing to grow castor and sunfl ower on 28,911ha in the

delta. Bedford Biofuels, a multinational company incorporated in Canada, begun the process

of acquiring over 90,000ha of land in the Tana delta for cultivation of biofuel crops including

jatropha. Sugar company Mat International is in the process of acquiring 30,000ha of land in

the Tana delta and has already acquired another 90,000ha adjacent to that allocated Mumias

Sugar in the delta.. Jatropha Kenya Ltd, a Kenyan subsidiary of an Italian company has leased

50,000 ha of land in Malindi district to grow jatropha for biofuel extraction. Kenya would lease

40,000 ha in the Tana river delta for cultivation of fruits and vegetables to be exported to Qatar.

There are many impacts of large scale agricultural investments on the local communities. One

can speculate that should all the proposed agricultural investments take off in the Tana delta,

it will result in massive food defi cit in the area as communities will have to import all food

items or rely on food aid. Secondly, confl icts over natural resources will increase. There already

exists tension between the farmers and pastoralists over water and grazing land with farming

communities accusing pastoralists of grazing their livestock on their farms. As the available

land drastically reduces, it can only mean exacerbation of existing confl icts. Although not ex-

haustive, other impacts include insecure land rights, lack of information and deception, envi-

ronmental destruction and socio economic problems.”

Source: P. Makutsa, Land Grab in Kenya, Implications for Small-holder Farmers, EAFF 2010.

Good Practices Examples

There are a few examples of countries that are taking the serious issues of land grabbing into

account; subsequently, they are trying to act against the negative impacts and avoid them alto-

gether. The best practices are refl ected by those countries aiming to guarantee the rights of their

people, ensure their food security, and protect the environment.

“Some African countries have recently taken steps to strengthen the protection of local land

rights, including customary rights – even where land is state-owned or vested with the state in

trust for the nation.”29 For instance, customary rights are protected to varying degrees in Mali, Mo-

29 L. Cotula, S. Vermeulen, R. Leonard and J. Keeley, Land grab or development opportunity? IIED,FAO and IFAD, 2009.



zambique, Tanzania, and Uganda. Ghana, Mozambique, and Tanzania require that all land trans-

fers be approved by the concerned communities with further requirements for protection of ac-

cess rights and fair compensation.

Moreover, Cameroon set up a higher level of land fees and provides 60 % of this revenue to local

municipalities and villages. Mali requires an arrangement in which most of the land is allocated

to a company controlled by the host government and which involves application of international

social and environmental standards. Deals in Liberia specify investors’ commitments on jobs

and the partnership with local farmers. The Liberian contracts have been ratifi ed by the parlia-

ment and are available online.30

Some of the contracts also deal with the local food security situation to avoid a situation where

the whole production of food crops is exported even though the host country is a net food im-

porter or, even worse, a food aid recipient. Thanks to determined political leadership and a strong

negotiating team, some Liberian deals grant the investor the possibility to export rice “provided

domestic consumption demands are met” and Madagascar determines export quotas for specifi c

crops (rice, wheat, and maize) and allows exceptions where the “situation or circumstances other-

wise demanded” though no further details are given.31

Land Grab in Czech Terms

In the Czech Republic, the term “land grab” is used in a diff erent way. Especially in 2011,

Czech farmers started to speak about the land grabbing of local land because the govern-

ment approved the amendment allowing foreigners to buy farmland. This new regulati-

on eff ectively ends the seven-year ban on foreign ownership of land in the Czech Republic

which was agreed upon by the European Union in 2004. “EU and Swiss investors – and tho-

se covered by European Economic Area pacts – will now be permitted to buy farm and fo-

restry acreage being sold by the Czech government.” Some new member countries (Slova-

kia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland) have asked for the prolongation of this ban. 32

The government has an estimated 147,000 hectares of land (or 3.5 % of the country´s agricul-

tural land) ready to be sold. Figures from the Czech Ministry of Agriculture show that farmland

costs € 1,200 - € 2,000 per hectare, depending on the quality of the land. These values are

approximately one-third of the sale price of agricultural land sin Britain.33 This is the reason

why there is such a strong opposition among Czech farmers. “Our farmers cannot compete

in capital with the foreign ones when buying land,” 34 says Jan Veleba, who heads the Agrarian

Chamber of the Czech Republic.

According to the Association of Private Farming, large-scale land acquisitions complicate the

situation of agriculturalists. Due to the fact that in the Czech Republic land is cheap in contrast

to other European countries (fees are still at the level of 1992), 10 - 15 hectares of agricultural

land diminishes every day because of the enlargement of agglomerations and massive hou-

se building. Another problem is land management because land is not protected adequately

30 L. Cotula, Land deals in Africa: What is in the contract? IIED 2011.

31 L. Cotula, Land deals in Africa: What is in the contract? IIED 2011.

32 http://www.asz.cz/redakce/index.php?clanek=52626&lanG=cs&xuser=&slozka=5880&xsekce=6068

33 http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/19143

34 http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/17311


even though it is a fundamental and irreplaceable commodity for agriculture.35 As a result,

there is a strong call for a law which would regulate the handling of agricultural land and te-

rritorial planning in general.

Ways Forward

The current rush for farmland in Africa as well as other countries and its negative implications,

especially the food security concerns, make various stakeholders call for guidelines and codes

of conduct. In response to these calls, several initiatives have emerged. Initiated at the Interna-

tional Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in 2006, FAO started to draft the

Voluntary Guidelines of Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Re-

sources to set up internationally accepted standards and provide guidance on how to implement

existing human rights obligations. So far, after the 37th session of the Committee on World Food

Security (CFS) held in October 2011, agreement on approximately three quarters of the package

was achieved, including important provisions on safeguarding the rights of smallholders in land

acquisitions.36

More recently, the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security

stated that large scale investment in land is damaging food security, incomes, livelihoods, and the

environment for local people. The HLPE called on governments to “recognize the right to free, pri-

or and informed consent in relation to the land and natural resources; to secure the access and use

of lands for peasants, pastoralists, forest dwellers, fi sherfolk and indigenous peoples; to under-

take redistributive land policies in settings marked by inequality in land control and ownership;

and to prioritize investment in the small farm sector and in alternative food systems that are so-

cially inclusive and just as well as environmentally sustainable, using agro-ecological principles”.37

Since 2010, the World Bank jointly with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),

the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the Food and Agricul-

ture Organization (FAO) promoted the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that

Respect Rights, Livelihoods and Resources (RAI). These principles include respecting existing

rights and local food security, promotion of transparency, consultation, industry best practices,

and social and environmental sustainability. However, many civil society organizations rejected

the RAI as a move to legitimize the long-term corporate takeover of rural people´s farmland, and

they prefer to promote the work achieved in a more democratic manner at the level of the CFS.38

Even African farmers’ organizations have expressed strong opposition to the massive sell out of

their lands. During the World Social Forum held in Dakar in 2011, farmers’ organizations released

the Dakar Appeal against Land Grabbing and called on parliaments and national governments

to immediately cease all massive land grabs - current or future - and return the plundered land.

The Dakar Appeal has been used since to mobilize public opinion at the international level.39

35 http://www.zemedelskytydenik.cz/webmagazine/articles.asp?idk=206&ida=2637

36 http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/

37 http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/en/

38 http://www.landaction.org/article.php3?id_article=570

39 http://www.petitiononline.com/dakar/petition.html


In general, essential recommendations can be summarized by FAO, IIED and IFAD:40

Investors• Need to make assessment of their capacity to manage large-scale farming projects and multi-

-aspect impact assessment of the project.

• Include innovative models that promote local participation in economic activities.

• Make careful assessment of local context as well as long-term engagement with local interest

groups (not just elites or specifi c groups).

• Should get the free, prior, and informed consent of the concerned groups and local population.

Host governments• Secure local land rights.

• Need to clarify what kind of investment to attract.

• Should set a minimum level of requirements for infrastructure, job creation, community benefi ts,

national fi scal benefi ts, and environmental protection.

• Should assess the economic, social and environmental impacts of investment proposals through

a long-term sustainability lens.

• Should ask about the capacity of investors to manage large-scale agricultural investment.

• Should demand maximizing of the investment contribution to sustainable development.

• Should discourage purely speculative land acquisitions.

• Should make decision-making transparent.

Civil society organizations (local poor and their support groups)• Need to increase advocacy to promote transparency in land deals.

• Need to raise awareness and call investors to account for their promises.

• Provide legal support to people aff ected by investment projects.

• Revive the debate on land titling in Africa as collective registration of community lands can be a

powerful tool for protecting local land rights.

International developmental agencies• Engage with investor and recipient governments, private sector, and civil society to ensure that

land deals maximize the investment´s contribution to sustainable development.

• Support the policy reform in host countries and the ongoing FAO-led process to develop Voluntary

Guidelines for Responsible Governance of Land and Other Natural Resources.

• Help address the lack of clear and easily accessible information on land acquisitions and agricul-

tural investments.

• Provide expert advice, capacity building, and other support for governments, the private sector,

and civil society.

40 L. Cotula, S. Vermeulen, R. Leonard and J. Keeley, Land grab or development opportunity? IIED,FAO and IFAD, 2009.



References:

AAA, Foreign land grabbing in Africa: Monitoring report by European Civil Society Organizations of European Co-

mmission´s proposal for Advancing African Agriculture, 2009.

ACTION AID, G8 fudged fi gures wont feed hungry,press release, 2011.

http://www.actionaid.org/news/g8-fudged-fi gures-wont-feed-hungry-says-actionaid.

ACTIONAID, T. Rice, Meals per galon, 2010. Available at: http://www.actionaid.org/micrositeAssets/eu/assets/aa_bio-

fuelsreportweb100210.pdf.

CAADP, Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme, Available at: http://www.nepad.org/foodse-

curity/agriculture/about.

EAFF, P. Makutsa, Land Grab in Kenya, 2010.

EARTH POLICY INSTITUTE, L. Brown, World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, 2011.

FAO, Policy Brief: From Land Grab to Win-Win, 2009.

FIAN, A. Graham, S. Aubry, S. Künnemann, S. Monsalve Suárez, Land Grab study, 2010. Available at: http://www.fi an.

org/resources/documents/others/report-on-land-grabbing/pdf.

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE, Africa up for grabs, 2010.

IFPRI, J. Behrman, R. Meinzen-Dick, A.R. Quisumbing, The Gender Implication of Large-Scale Land Deals, 2011.

IFPRI, J. von Braun, R. Meinzen-Dick, „Land Grabbing“ by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries: Risk and

Opportunities, 2009.

IFPRI, D. Headey, S. Fan, Refl ections of the Global Food Crisis, 2010.

IIED, FAO, IFAD, L. Cotula, S. Vermeulen, R. Leonard and J. Keeley, Land grab or development opportunity? 2009.

Available at: http://www.ifad.org/pub/land/land_grab.pdf.

IIED, L. Cotula, Land deals in Africa: What is in the contract? 2011.

IISD, C. Smaller, H. Mann, Thirst for Distant Lands: Foreign investment in agricultural land and water, 2009.

OAKLAND INSTITUTE, S. Daniel, A. Mittal, The Great Land Grab, 2009.

OAKLAND INSTITUTE, (Mis)Investment in Agriculture, S. Daniel, A. Mittal, 2001. Available at: http://www.oaklandinsti-

tute.org/pdfs/misinvestment_web.pdf.

OXFAM, B. Zagema, Land and Power, The growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investment in land, 2011.

UN, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.

UN, O. de Shutter, Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: A set of core principles and measures to address the

human rights challenge, 2009.

WORLD BANK, S. Akroyd, L. Smith, Review to Public Spending to Agriculture, 2007. Available at: www1.worldbank.

org/publicsector/pe/pfma07/OPMReview.pdf.

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS, Land Grab? The Race for the World´s Farmland, 2009, ed. M.

Kugelman, S.L. Levenstein. Available at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ASIA_090629_Land%20Grab_rpt.

pdf.


Links:

http://www.asz.cz/redakce/index.php?clanek=52626&lanG=cs&xuser=&slozka=5880&xsek-ce=6068

h p://www.economist.com/node/18648855?story_id=18648855

h p://www.ethioinvest.org/agriculture.php

h p://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/

h p://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/en/

h p://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/19143

h p://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/17311

h p://farmlandgrab.org/5867

h p://www.landac on.org/ar cle.php3?id_ar cle=570

h p://www.pe ononline.com/dakar/pe on.html

h p://www.zemedelskytydenik.cz/webmagazine/ar cles.asp?idk=206&ida=2637

Founded in 2004, Glopolis is an independent think-tank dedicated to creating

a more responsible economy, smarter energy policies and stable food markets.

We work with governments, businesses, experts, civil society and local commu-

nities to create innovative responses to the challenges of development from the

integrated perspective of a global polis.

land grabs in africa text en -...

Documents