http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/india-landgrabs-ethiopia/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Most+Recent%29
The African country helping India feed 1.2 billion people
By Mohammad Amir Anwar
Updated 11:56 AM ET, Wed June 3, 2015
Editor's note:Mohammad Amir Anwar is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
at the University of Johannesburg focusing on the broader field of
human geography. The opinions expressed are solely those of Mohammad
Amir Anwar. CNN is showcasing the work of The Conversation, a
collaboration between journalists and academics to provide news
analysis and commentary. The content is produced solely by The
Conversation.
(CNN)The global food price crises between 2008 and 2009 led countries
that bore the brunt of the catastrophe to look elsewhere for
agricultural land to mitigate the effects.
In 2008 prices of some foods, including wheat, soared by 130% in a
single year and the United Nation's Food and Agriculture
Organisation's food price index shot up 40%.
The result was a frenzied scramble that saw countries acquire an
estimated 40 million hectares of land in foreign countries, most of it
in Africa.
There is a strong sense that land deals in Ethiopia have benefited
both the foreign investors and domestic private capitalists with close
ties to the ruling party
Mohammad Amir Anwar, University of Johannesburg
A great deal of attention has been paid to the role of the US, the
largest investor in land in the world, China and Middle Eastern
countries. Much less attention has been given to the role of India. A
global land monitoring initiative, Land Matrix, ranks India as one of
the top 10 investors in land abroad. It is the biggest investor in
land in Ethiopia, with Indian companies accounting for almost 70% the
land acquired by foreigners after 2008.
Indian land deals in Ethiopia are the result of the strong convergence
in the two countries' domestic political-economic policies. Both
advocate the privatisation of public assets and increasing reliance on
free trade and open markets.
India's investment in land has been driven by the need to obviate the
effects of spiralling food prices by outsourcing food supply.
Ethiopia's decisions are driven by its development policy based on
commercialisation of agriculture and reliance on foreign investments.
Rough estimates suggest Indian firms have acquired roughly 600 000
hectares of land in Ethiopia. This is more than ten times the size of
land acquired by firms in India under the country's special economic
zones policy. India is followed closely by Saudi Arabian firms, with
500 000 hectares of land, in Ethiopia.
What drives Indian firms to Ethiopia
India's ability to feed its 1.22 billion people is under increasing
strain. This is due to a rapidly growing population, low agricultural
productivity, reductions in farm sizes, declining water tables,
increasing control of the seed sector by multi-nationals and a gradual
withdrawal since the 1990s of the farm support system.
India introduced special economic zones in 2005 hoping it would lead
to agricultural development through the consolidation of land
holdings. The intention was that this would lead to industrialisation.
But the policy exposed the oldest contradiction of capitalism --
primitive accumulation which includes privatisation of land, the
forced expulsion of peasant populations and the conversion of common,
collective and state property rights to exclusive property rights.
Widespread resistance movements began in many states, stalling some of
the biggest zones, most notably in Nandigram. The protests led to the
fall of the Left Front state government of West Bengal in 2011 after
34 years in power.
To meet consumption needs the Indian government started encouraging
firms to seek land abroad for growing crops. This was driven by two
factors: it was struggling to make more land available for investors
and the spike in global food price crisis in 2008.
The lure of Ethiopia
The Ethiopian agricultural sector lies at the heart of the
government's development strategy. It has set out to attract more
foreign investment in large-scale commercial agriculture as outlined
in its 1993 policywhich was later reformulated in 2005.
The policy marked a move towards a more trade-orientated approach, and
a desire to attract foreign investors. Over 3.5 million hectares of
land has been earmarked for investment by foreign firms.
Need for caution
Foreign investors need to tread carefully when acquiring land in
Africa. This is best illustrated in the Gambela region of Ethiopia
which I visited earlier this year. The area has been the centre of
large-scale land acquisitions by Indian as well as other foreign
investors.
According to the Ethiopian constitution, land is administered by the
regional government. However, the federal government's move to govern
land investments through a centralized agency called the Agricultural
Investment Land Administration Agency has led to discontent among
Gambela regional government officials.
The concern is that the behaviour of foreign companies is not being
managed adequately. There is a strong sense that land deals in
Ethiopia have benefited both the foreign investors and domestic
private capitalists with close ties to the ruling party.
A recent study found that foreign investors are farming less than 8%
of the land they have acquired. During my visit I learnt that Karuturi
Global Ltd, an Indian firm which has 100 000 hectares of land in
Gambela, had only 1 000 hectares under production.
A lack of consultation with people living in the area is also a
problem. Gambela is an ecological hotspot with Gambela National Park
at its centre. It is home to Nuer and Anuak people whose livelihoods
are threatened by investors illegally clearing trees in the park.
These clearances happen mostly without consultation. This has led to
conflict in the region.
Given the political nature of international land deals and the role
states play in shaping policy and practice, there must be scrutiny on
the role governments play in such deals because of their close
alliance with private capital.
This is especially so for India. It can ill-afford to be tainted by
accusations of complicity in land deals that disadvantage the people
of Africa given the role it sees for itself in promoting co-operation
among countries in the south to mitigate the effects of skewed power
relations with the north.
More from Marketplace Africa
Received on Thu Jun 04 2015 - 21:43:58 EDT