By Jaime Ortega-Simo.
Both India and China for the past few years have made large agro-investments in countries like Sudan, Ethiopia and other eastern African countries. The purpose is to take control of the abundant natural resources by growing crops inside Ethiopia’s native, soil-rich farmlands then exporting these products to western markets. The agricultural bloom has noticeably been accepted by the rulers of the East African Association league. One enterprise in particular, Karuturi Global, run by a wealthy Indian investor, seems to have had increasing problems with locals for not allowing its inhabitants to farm inside their cultural lands and prohibiting the use of basic resources such as water, that were once available.
Meles Zenawi, the prime minister of Ethiopia has been keen on allowing these transnational investors to take control of many farmlands inside Ethiopia, and overlooking the concerns of his indigenous counterparts, who are not happy with his policy.
An article brought by the university of Addis-ababa says, “Yet, these acts pose a threat to the viability of peasant agriculture; they will lead to loss of farmland, deprivation of pasturage and grazing rights, and of access to water resources, firewood and flora. There has already been displacement and resettlement of people away from their home areas in order to provide the investors “unencumbered access to land and other resources”. What about the claim of additional employment? This is merely for short-term and seasonal work. Of course, Indian companies like Karuturi Agro Products have employed casual labourers in land clearing and other heavy work, but for relatively skilled work, even for work Ethiopians could have done, they have brought employees from India.”
The questions …
1) Is it good for these countries to allow foreign investors to maximize the countries GDP, in the short run and in the long run?
2) Are we heading to a world where the rules of privatization will eventually allow transnational corporations to lobby governments to take control of natural resources and landmarks, perhaps even in western countries?
3) Is Ethiopia’s policy, just alike Bolivia, Republic of Congo, Sudan … another case of economical mismanagement to eloquently help poor countries arise from political corruption?
Claude Nougat
“The expansion of investments (mainly but not exclusively) from Chinese and Indian agricultural corporations that started in Africa has in fact extended to wherever there are relatively free land resources to take control of, including Eastern Europe.
Such investments are driven by a need to ensure food for the home population of the investors and the produce is in fact largely shipped back to the investing country, though some of it is exported to rich, industrialized countries to make a profit. Indeed, these investments are largely profit-driven and typical of the ‘one percent’, i.e. transnational corporation with the financial power to bend weak governments to their will. There is no question that there is space for corruption.
Politicians in many developing countries are giving up the rights of peasant communities and the end result is already apparent: populations are displaced, agricultural resources are squandered or threatened as the transnational corporations are mostly interested in reaping a maximum return from the land without particular concern for long-run environmental preservation.
Unquestionably there is a need to bring this issue to the attention of the international community (inter alia at the United Nations) to defend the rights of local people to their own resources.”
Baldr Odinson
“The primary responsibility for any government is the welfare and security of its people. As such, that government must weigh the value of increased GDP enhanced by land management by foreign entities and resultant exportation with the cost of loss of resources. Sometimes it is worth it in terms of GDP, and can be offset by increasing investment in other ways with local peoples. An example would be the role that foreign petroleum companies have in waters and lands owned by the United States (environmental organizations would disagree).
In a true democracy or republic, if the balance has shifted too far to the interests of the foreign investors, then the people could vote out those who are in power. Sadly, this is not likely in Sudan and Ethiopia and some other African countries, since they, though technically parliamentary, are authoritarian regimes. In the cases mentioned here, it seems likely that those who benefit from the foreign investment are too far removed from those who suffer from it.
What can the international community do to change this? Diplomatic pressure on the both the host and investor countries would be recommended. Trade sanctions would be a likely imposition, which would directly affect those who are profiting from it, combined with international aid (food, medicine) to those who suffer at their hands. Changes are slow to come from such sanctions, and could come too late for many of those affected.
It would behoove the international community to intervene diplomatically, since that region is already unstable and has suffered from civil war, and further instability may have significant effects on the entire region.”
Betre Yacob
“What the Ethiopian government do is something terrible. It gives to the Indian, Chinese … investors the land occupied by indigenous subsistence farmers, who are able to feed their families without receiving government or foreign aid. It turns these indigenous farmers into plantation workers with false promises that result in cheap seasonal jobs which can’t even feed their families.
Furthermore, as far as the land is the property of the indigenous people, they have to get appropriate compensation. But the government gives nothing to them. It even doesn’t ask their permission to use their land. It just forcibly relocates people and gives their fertile land to investors. It is a serious human rights violation.
The Ethiopia’s government says the foreign investment in the agricultural sector helps transform the traditional Ethiopian agriculture sector and ultimately lead to economic development. However, I don’t see which is the development since the government is selling its fertile land for a knockout price that even surprise the buyers themselves, and forcefully turning local farmers, who are better performers in agriculture, into very low paid plantation workers.
In fact, the GDP may show some increment for the time being, but when we see the long term impact it is a most terrible strategy to sell the land of indigenous people. For instance, the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security has stated in its second report in 2011 that large scale investment in indigenous people’s land damage food security, incomes, and livelihoods for local people in the long run.
And several studies also clearly indicate that foreign investment companies in developing countries has failed to deliver its promise of jobs, infrastructure, schools, and health facilities, except leading host countries to huge environmental, social and psychological problems.
For example in Ethiopia land is not just an economic asset, but also has spiritual, cultural, ancestral, and sentimental values. Ethiopians livelihood has an important cosmic link to their land where they were born and have defined their humanity. So what will be the consequence of forcibly taking their land? Social and psychological destruction.
In some areas of Ethiopia, it is even resulting in public unrest. Natives are standing to fight the government in order to keep their ancestral land.
For instance, on April 28, 2012, five people, including one Pakistani worker and four Ethiopians people were killed in a conflict, in the Gambela Regional State, a very affect area by ‘land grab’. And, as a counter attack, the government troops are now committing many horrible crimes.”
