|
mw. Today, states and global companies buy up enormous areas of land in the poor countries of this world for little money, in order to produce food for the nutrition of the wealthier peoples or for the production of bio fuel. This is especially offensive in Africa: the local farmer families are driven away from their very small pieces of land that had enabled them, in the best case, just to survive. Now they are impelled to produce fruit for our cans or agricultural fuel for our cars on huge plantations. The authors of the “World Agriculture Report” 2008, who urgently call for maintainance and support of small-scale agriculture, because the increase of hunger can only be stopped that way, are to a large extent ignored.
A man, who does not remain indifferent about this inhuman action is Ruedi Küng, “Schweizer Radio DRS” (Swiss Radio DRS) correspondent for Africa. In a radio interview he talked about his journeys to Africa, about his observations and his discussions with people. When listening to his reports, you can feel the emphatic qualities of this journalist. In each sentence he draws our attention to the injustice that is done to the poorest peoples of this world, to ensure that the pots and gasoline tanks of the rich remain filled. “Current Concerns” reproduces the interview with some abbreviations.
Radio DRS: Ruedi Küng, when travelling across the countryside in Switzerland, one can see that everything is cultivated: land, houses, fields. Did you see empty, vacant land in Africa?
Ruedi Küng: For sure! When you fly over the continent, you have got the feeling that everything is empty. However, if you travel across the country, you can notice that this is a wrong impression. It simply does not have settlements, as we know them from our densely populated Switzerland. But there are people everywhere.
Do people make use of the land reasonably or would it be possible to do more respect to agriculture?
Agriculture in Africa is in a very deep crisis, indeed. And we have to realize that four fifth of all farmers live of a small bit of land, on which they are cultivate some food on which they and their families live. If they are lucky, there may be some space somewhere to keep a cow or some goats or chicken, and the wife can cultivate some vegetables, which she can sell and make some money of. This is subsistence agriculture that means it is farming that is just sufficient for the family’s survival. But – I made this experience over and over again wherever I got into contact with the farmers and wherever I could speak to them – they completely lack support.
Thus the yield could be higher? Is it conceivable that Africa and its enormous dimensions could become the breadbasket of the world some day?
Here we are in the middle of the discussion: What will be the future of agriculture? This does not apply to Africa alone, but it is of concern to the whole world. Two years ago, the FAO published “The World Agricultural Report” and surprisingly enough the FAO presented an opinion therein that completely contradicted the Western countries’ positions: i.e. big, industrial agriculture, mechanised, dung and pesticides etc. The FAO predicts that the future lies in subsistence agriculture, in small farming – but, of course, it has to be supported. The small farming economy, for example, can be supported by biological farming methods, it does not really need the big chemistry. But on the other hand, when I look at the huge plantations, which exist in Africa, as well, these have to function by modern methods. I should say – but I am not an agricultural expert, I only talk to the people concerned – it is possible to perform large-scale agriculture. And if it is done responsibly – if you want to take into considerations the individual country and its population, then it is possible to exert it for the good of the people. But we are dealing with land robbery, by people coming from outside who have nothing to do with the country. That is an important difference: These are people who do not have the population/people of the country in their minds and hearts, but they have very different interests.
This land grab, which has drawn our attention, two years now, to what dimensions has it grown today?
We don’t know this exactly. People are talking about areas of French of dimensions. Up to now, it were the critical organisations which started call-ups and mobilised the media. Subsequently, the World Bank ordered a report, but the parties concerned, the countries and private organisations which are buying up the land, refused to co-operate and gave no information about their investments. Since 2009, we have been waiting for this report of the World Bank, but it has not been published up to date. This is a very bad sign, indeed.
“Half of the land purchases known up to date take place in Africa”
You, Ruedi Küng, said countries and privates are buying land. Who is involved?
We have some information from the World Bank report: It concerns the countries with agricultural difficulties or great populations, for example in the Arab and Asian areas, also China, but interestingly African countries, as well. Moreover there are financial institutions, Swiss ones, as well, buying land as money investments in order to produce something there. According to the information of the World Bank half of the land purchases known up to now are performed in Africa, but also in Latin America, in Russia, and also Australia, which also offers farmland for sale. In Africa countries like Sudan, Ghana and Madagascar are offering land for sale, as well in Asia Philippines and Indonesia. The main players among the buyers are China, Great Britain, then Saudi Arabia.
Are the states themselves the buyers or do companies from these countries buy the land?
Both are actors. May-be there are joint ventures of both states concerned, contracts between the investor and the offering state. Mostly, there are no purchasing contracts but long-term leasing contracts, lasting 50 to 99 years. It probably doesn’t make much sense to talk about prices, because the land prices in Africa for example are not comparable to those in Switzerland. I learned from the Federal Office for Agriculture that prices there are forty times lower. This is confirmed by Grain, one of the most active institutions, but if you consider that, according to the World Bank, 50 billion dollars are at stake up to now, according to Grain it is even 100 billion, it becomes clear that big profits can be expected – perhaps there are also risks, but profits, above all. You must keep in mind what is happening, when – for example – 1,5 millions hectares of land are let out for lease for 99 years.
Wheat is cultivated there, not for the Sudanese population, but for Saudi Arabia, or vegetables for Jordan, or sorghum, a kind of millet – by the way a staple diet in Sudan – to feed the camels in the United Arab Emirates – this is really crazy!
“Lorries loaded with food, transporting the goods abroad, are passing the hungry.
You mean, the lorries loaded with food are driving by the starving people, transporting the goods abroad?
Imagine, this is happening in Darfur, for example, where 2.5 million people are living in so-called refugee camps – absurdity is most obvious here. Another example is Sierra Leone, a country struck by a terrible civil war for many years, now. There, a company based in Switzerland, Addax Bioenergy, produces biodiesel for Europe. Knowing what conditions prevail in Sierra Leone, knowing that it has not yet come to its feet up to this very day – in this small country, overpopulated, where humans go hungry – something is produced which later fuels the cars in our countries afterwards.
Who actually leases the land? Are they local elites?
Studies have been conducted examining how such decisions come about. Kenya is such an example, where the Emir of Qatar and President Mwai Kibaki signed an agreement concerning the sale of land in one of the most fertile regions – the delta of the river Tana. Basically, Kenya finds itself in a comfortable situation with respect to the media: journalists investigate. Nonetheless, nothing has come of it. There is dead silence. This means, decisions are made within a small circle of people who are profiting by them. Ethiopia is another example, where a gigantic project of 3 million hectare has already been fenced in.
This is about the size of Switzerland!
This is enormous! Considering the fact that, for years now, thousands and thousands of people have been receiving daily food aid in Ethiopia, one has to come to the conclusion that something is going wrong.
In other words, one might assume that some people are doing quite well by it. If Switzerland’s Bundesrat should be wanting to sell an area of the size of the canton Thurgau to Qatar, this would not be easy at all, because there are land registers in Switzerland and I know that this land once belonged to my father and now it belongs to me. The law of the land is clearly regulated. – Are there no such regulations in Africa or do governments bluntly ignore what is right or wrong?
Yes, unfortunately the latter is the case. There are, of course, some laws originating from former times. Often, the land belongs to the state and quite a lot of mechanisms are in existence as to who is allocating which part of the land. In Kenya e.g. approximately five families own nearly 40 per cent of the arable land, because the government as the one to allocate, first allocated the land to themselves. Then, there is also community land, which is being allocated by sub-authorities. Then again, there are community laws, stating the right of land of each individual. But finally, once the deal with the foreign country is decided upon, no one is asked by the prime minister in Ethiopia. Money is washed into the pockets of the ruling party or the state, respectively. This is all that counts. The legal means cannot entirely be made use of. From the legal point of view, one would have to look to the actors of the companies and states in order to be able to find out whether they might be involved. The EU and the UN are trying to put forward rules for such acquisitions of land. Hence, with responsible acting such an agrarian investment could also have a positive effect and be of use to the public.
Yes, since there is indeed a reservoir of land in existence and the conditions for farmers are quite bad. – In some parts the persons affected are already defending themselves. They are taking to the street. In Madagascar e.g. the government has been brought down because of such a deal.
Yes, this is supposed to have been the main reason for the fall of the government. Former president Ravalomanana leased more than 1 million hectare of land to the South Korean company Daewoo without asking anyone. One has to be aware of the fact that such an agreement does always mean expelling people, since there is no empty land, except maybe in the desert. In Madagascar, this was clearly the case. But looking for other examples of where the peoples resist, I saw a gloomy picture. Farmers’ communities trying to resist are being played off against each other. At Lake Victoria in Kenya e.g. the American company Dominion was some land. Farmers are the rightful owners of the land and refuse to sell. Now, one is simply being played off against the other. It will be a question of time until Goliath will have won against David. In other words, as far as I can judge it, the resistance in affected areas is in one small place. Today, international resistance is rather forming up.
Ruedi Küng, do you see the chance today of creating a situation, where both may benefit from it? Do you see a chance here?
I am rather sceptical. Take for example the Del Monte plantation in Kenya e.g., you pass by endlessly expanding fields for about twenty to thirty minutes.
Those are the products which end up in our tins.
Exactly. You can say: it takes a lot of workers, partly seasonal (which is a problem in itself), but what they produce is of little use for the people. We are talking about food security. If a farmer owns a piece of land, then at least he has food. Maybe it is not enough throughout the year, but he has something. But if he becomes an underpaid farm laborer and food prices are rising – this was one of the consequences of the whole wave of land s so m eizures – that means he will lose twice. Or take those intensively cultivated flower plantations. They need much water so the farmers say: “since they are taking the water from the river for the flowers, we simply haven’t got anything left.” The water level has declined, the agriculture depends on rain. The World Agriculture Report of 2008 says that, especially from a climate change perspective, the promotion of small-scale agriculture should strongly be preferred over large-scale agriculture.
Talking about water: This is one of the crucial points, isn’t it?
Definitely. Today, water is the resource which is getting scarcer every day. A huge farm of a hundred thousand acres consumes so much water that the situation becomes more and more difficult for the small-scale farmers.
Even in Europe, there are problems like this, for example in Spain. In the beginning of the interview, you said that agriculture, as it is done today due to external influences, is pretty bad off. Something needs to be done there. A social and economic change for the farmers is needed. Do you see chances to influence this process in a reasonable way? Money will be necessary in this.
Yes, but there are not only investors with capital interests; there are also western governments who want to do something for the poorly developed agriculture in Africa and elsewhere. I think, the money necessary could be available, also from international organizations. Again it is the main problem to find a responsible government which has the whole population in mind and not just its own clan. Malawi is a very special case. It is a small country in South-East Africa which has refused obey the rules that prohibit to support the farmers. For a few years, the state has been supporting the farmers and since then the people have had enough to eat. Before, they had always been dependent on food aid. Now I just read that, yes, there has been a bad harvest and not sufficient rain, but there is still enough for the population. And there is no doubt that this is due to the fact that the state supports the farmers. Helping does not directly imply putting money in people’s hands but giving them credits to that they can buy new seed after the harvest, so that they can plant new crops. They will pay back these credits later. Support does not imply giving presents but enabling subsistence.
Thank you very much for the interview.•
Source: Radio DRS, Das Tagesgespräch, by Emil Lehmann with Ruedi Küng, 19 May 2010
Translation Current Concerns
|
The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,