As you might be aware of, I am currently busy writing my thesis about ‘land grabbing’ in the least developed countries (see here and here). The thesis is separated into three parts: general descriptions and processes, threats and opportunities, analysis of current strategies and policies to tackle the problem. I’m in the middle of finishing the chapter on threats for the local population and found it to be quite intriguing how devastating negative impact can be on local landholders and farmers. Some excerpts:
In the literature available, as well as in media reports, there is a general concern – from mild to apocalyptic – regarding land grab deals. VOX terms it a “cause of concern” (2009) and STWR envisages “more losers than winners” (2009). Von Braun and Meinzen-Dick (2009) say rather differentiated that “the scale, the terms, and the speed of land acquisition have provoked opposition in some target countries”, whereas the New Scientist prophecies that “the wars over oil of the recent past will pale in comparison to the global struggle for food that could result from the land grabs going on now” (2008). However bad it may be, we will, says De Schutter from the FAO, “experience more and more in future the situation that the Sudan, the Republic of Congo or Ethiopia export maize and biofuels, while facing difficulties to nourish their own populations” (quoted in Spiegel 2009).
As my theoretical approach focuses, amongst others, on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, I have come up with a before/after model by utilising data from literature, case studies (from Mali, D.R. Congo, Burkina Faso, Benin, Pakistan, Angola, Mozambique, Kenya and Madagascar) and interviews (Uganda, Liberia and Sierra Leone). The threats that I identified are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Redistribution of ownership to large industrial estates; Land is declared ‘unused’ |
|
Use of resources; Intensive farming (and hence devastated soils, dry aquifers, chemical infestation); Investors’ interest in quick return; Industrial mode of agriculture (resulting in poverty, environmental destruction, farm-chemical pollution) |
|
|
|
|
|
No environmental standards, no conditions to provide job opportunities; simplified contracts; Few new job opportunities |
|
Control over food chain passed into private investments |
|
The result for livelihoods of local farmers and landholders is alarming:
Already little available financial and social capital vanish, while human and natural capital reduce significantly. The repercussions of this are, again, devastating and can be translated into rising poverty, an increasing number of famines, a poorly (read: non-existing) organised civil society, and more. This will have larger structural and aggregate effects on the already poor economy let alone furthering political instability and consequently corruption and conflict.