Africa Science News Service | Friday, 16 October 2009
Written by Aimable TWAHIRWA
Kigali (ASNS) - In an exclusive interview with Africa Science News in Kigali, Cotula Lorenzo, a senior researcher from London based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) explains how large-scale land acquisitions by rich countries in Africa, failed to reach its target and why it is important to identify trends in these contractual practices with this move.
How can these land acquisitions improve local living standards rather than marginalise the poor?
Agricultural investment in Africa can bring capital, know-how, access to markets and infrastructure. But large land deals carry big risks – people may lose access to land, investors may not be able to deliver on their projects. The more promising investments seem to be those that involve supporting local smallholders, rather than large plantations.
It is often claimed that there is plenty of land to be allocated to investors – what did your research find on this?
Indeed, there is a perception that farmland is abundant in Africa , but these claims are not always substantiated. In many cases land is already being used or claimed – but people have no formal land rights. Investors are interested in lands with greater irrigation potential or those closer to markets, which are more likely to be already in use. Water may also be scarce, and priority in water use may prove a source of conflict.
Specifically, what are the key features of the land acquisitions in Africa so far?
Land leases, rather than purchases, predominate in Africa, with durations ranging from short terms to 99 years. Host governments tend to play a key role in allocating land leases, not least because they formally own all or much of the land in many African countries. An important problem is that host governments may contractually commit themselves to providing land before any consultation with local land users has taken place. Also, many people in rural areas have insecure land rights, and may lose out as a result. Land fees and other monetary transfers are generally absent or small, due to efforts to attract investment, perceived low opportunity costs and a lack of well-established land markets. This alone does not mean the deal is unbalanced: benefits to host countries may include investor commitments on levels of investment and development of infrastructure such as irrigation systems. The ‘land grab’ emphasised by some media is therefore only part of the story. But given the prominence of investment commitments in the economic equilibrium of land deals, enforceability of such commitments is particularly important – yet this area tends to remain weak in some of the deals we reviewed. Adopting a new contractual strategy in land acquisition by richer countries, what is a realistic duration for new contracts? It is difficult to suggest a one-size-fits-all duration. In a sense, what matters even more than overall duration are the mechanisms to periodically review progress with project activities. If the investor does not live up to its commitments, the government should be able to terminate the lease. In some of the deals we reviewed, at present this only holds for the first few years of the project, after which the land allocation is confirmed. But in the past African governments have rarely used this lever to hold investors to account. Also, one-off assessments at an early stage of implementation do not enable continued monitoring and sanctioning of investment performance over a project’s lifespan.How can food security for locals/African countries be guaranteed or strengthened while leasing prime agricultural land to external interests (assuming they lease in their own interests, it's easy to imagine local needs coming last)? Several host countries are at present food-importing countries, and in some cases recipients of food aid. This makes the issue of local food security all the more important – though a counter-argument is that if agricultural investment brings yield increases that can benefit food security in both host and investor countries. This issue should be explicitly dealt with in policies and contracts. One deal we looked at does provide for 30% of produce to be paid to local landholders, and determines percentages for export and local markets. But even here it is not clear to what extent the agreed percentages are adequate to meet local food security, and what would happen in times of food shortages. What is the most important thing that African countries should do? The most important thing is to have an inclusive debate about these issues, and make strategic policy choices on that basis. Some investor countries did go through this process, but some recipient countries have been dealing with requests for land on an ad hoc basis. Mozambique and Tanzania are good examples where the government has put a halt on land allocations while clear policies (on biofuels) are established. It is important to realize that decisions taken now will have major, lasting repercussions for the shape of agriculture, food security and land access. Haste is no friend of good deals – today’s choices must be based on strategic thinking and vigorous public debate, rather than piecemeal negotiations.
