17 April 2012 Land grabbing: the new global power play 119 Comments Alana Mann A visit to the local farmers market has become a weekly event for many Australians. Meeting a real live farmer, coffee in hand, is part of the experience. Do it while you can. Small-scale producers are a dying breed around the world as the security of rural communities is undermined by land-grabbing - large-scale land acquisition by foreign investors. Today the international farmers movement La Via Campesina calls on governments to stop the global-land grab that deprives rural communities of their livelihoods and threatens to spark civil war in countries already crippled by poverty and hunger. Prompted by the 2008 food crisis, wealthy food-importing nations such as China, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and South Korea are securing their future food supplies in poorer, resource-rich nations. The World Bank reports that foreign investors acquired 111 million acres of farmland in 2009. Nearly 75 per cent of this land is in sub-Saharan Africa. Controversial land acquisitions have contributed to conflicts in Sudan, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Chinese multinationals Sino-Cam and Chongqing Seed Corp have leased land from the governments of Cameroon and Tanzania for future rice production. Bahrain has secured agro-fishery reserves in the Philippines. Indian interests are buying palm oil plantations in Indonesia. The backlash is fierce. Chinas attempt to secure 2.5 million acres of land in the Philippines was thwarted by a public outcry, and Madagascans sacked their government over the proposed sale of 3 million acres to Daewoo Logistics of South Korea in 2009. However land deals are often made without consultation with local people. In Ethiopia, 150,000 people have been relocated from eastern Somali to make way for Saudi and Indian investment projects. The impacts of these ventures, including displacement, food insecurity and water shortages, are rarely considered. A 2010 survey of private investment in agriculture in the Sudan, Pakistan, Tanzania and Mali by the New York Center for Human Rights and Global Justice identified an absence of transparency and regulatory frameworks within the host countries. Supporters of the investment initiatives describe opportunities for technological development and increased yields that will feed local populations. They describe the leased land as undeveloped – a highly contested notion in regions where peasant farmers have no formal tenure. What governments consider empty or marginal land is often all that local people have to sustain their livelihoods. In reality local people are unlikely to benefit from food production on land leased to foreign investors. World Bank analysis suggests only 37 per cent of foreign investment projects will be for food crops. The food that is not exported to the home countries of investors will be converted to bioethanol produced from soya, palm, rapeseed and other oil-rich plants - the staple food of some of the poorest people in the world. In 2009 an estimated 100 million tons of grain were diverted for lucrative biofuel production. This volume will escalate as developing countries set ambitious targets to replace fossil fuels. In March the UN Committee on World Food Security adopted draft guidelines against land grabbing to better protect rural communities. Though non-binding, these guidelines are the latest step in the long campaign to reassert the importance of local agriculture. The Food and Agriculture Organisation says local production by small-scale farmers is the most efficient way to ensure food security at the household level in developing countries as it increases food availability, income and employment. La Via Campesina, a social movement of 150 rural organisations across 70 countries, calls this food sovereignty. Food sovereignty grants nations control over their food security policies, including the right to impose tariffs against the dumping of cheap exports, and the support of local markets. It also puts the onus on governments to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of citizens to food and the productive resources to produce it, including land. April 17 is the anniversary of the 1996 massacre of 19 members of the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil. Two per cent of Brazilian landowners own 56 per cent of available land. On large estates, the latifundos, nearly 100 million hectares of fertile agricultural land lie fallow while 22 million go hungry. For Brazilian farmers land-grabbing is just their latest challenge. Alana Mann is a lecturer in the Media and Communications Department at the University of Sydney. View her full profile here. • Email • Share o x o del.icio.us o Digg o Kwoff o StumbleUpon o Facebook o Reddit o • Print House Rules 119 Comments Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. • Gogozep : 18 Apr 2012 1:09:10pm In the past week, the New South Wales Government and some businesses have called for the Renewable Energy Target to be scrapped. See the reports on the ABC website and The Australian. The Renewable Energy Target (which you can read about on the Department of Climate Change website) is one of Australias most important renewable energy laws. It previously enjoyed bipartisan support. There have also been calls from the Federal Opposition and a number of business groups to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) – the $10 billion green investment bank set up as part of the Clean Energy Future package. The onslaught is part of the great global corporatisation of our country facilitating the sell off and doing what the buyers desire. Alert moderator • Checkmate : 18 Apr 2012 11:38:46am Jane Hansen of the Daily-telegraph ran the story which exposed that FOREIGN countries are secretly buying up large chunks of NSW farmland by establishing shelf companies, trust funds, and extended settlements to avoid scrutiny. More than 800,000ha of prime and fertile land, from Moree in the north to Deniliquin in the south, is foreign owned, with Koreas Ho Myoung Farm company the largest stakeholder with 500,000ha. According to the latest figures from PRDnationwide Research, Koreas investment has almost doubled in the past six months, while Switzerland ranks third with 74,448ha of crop and livestock properties scattered throughout NSW. In a special investigation, The Sunday Telegraph reveals that overseas ownership was likely to be much greater but complex business structures were hiding the true picture. People are being very secretive, they are negotiating settlement over a year so no one finds out and agents are advised to keep a low profile, said PRDnationwide research analyst Oded Reuveni-Etzioni. He said big jumps in Korean and Qatari land holds reflected the protracted settlements that were taking place, but most farm purchases escaped scrutiny of the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). Under current legislation, only purchases of agricultural land over $244 million trigger a review and as most farms in NSW sell for between $500,000 to $10 million, few attract scrutiny. FIRB chairman John Phillips, has told a government inquiry into the board that it reviews more purchases of one bedroom apartments in Sydney than any of the farms purchased in recent years. Mr Phillips said companies had been able to acquire dozens of smaller farms without triggering a review and that the board would not notice if a foreign investor acquired 10 farms in a single year for $30 million each. The Sunday Telegraph reveals that foreign government-controlled companies are eluding closer examination by: Establishing Australian companies to skirt review. Employing scouts to identify and secure prime agricultural land. Using wealth funds funded by countries like China without the regulators knowledge. The government report that found 99 per cent of Australian agricultural land was wholly owned by Australia was rushed and deeply flawed and therefore inaccurate. Inquiry chairman Senator Bill Heffernan said: You have to jump through more hurdles to buy a bedsit in Sydney than if you want to buy a farm under $240 million. Oppose this sell off and you are called xenophobic by those with a vested interest. Alert moderator • john of wollongong : 18 Apr 2012 11:09:08am Any Country which allows a foreign national to one one square metre of freehold land is asking for trouble. Alert moderator • sarah : 18 Apr 2012 9:50:00am Control of food equals control of population. If all famines are studied there has always been enough food for people who supported the politics of the day. Dissenters always starved. Sieges will always exist unfortunately. Much cheaper to starve people than to lock them up. Check history. Every conqueror did it. Alert moderator Globalization : 18 Apr 2012 10:05:54am Right. Every aspect of the global corporate political stage is managed and interconnected. The push to change Australian IR legislation by the Coalition, and the downright disinformation by the Murdoch gutter press which is facing ever expanding criminal proceedings, is tied in with the WTO, globalisation, foreign ownership and the ever increasing control of food, resources, manufacturing and banking to mention a few on the world stage, and ex PM Johnny Howard spent $12,000 a week of taxpayers’ money in his pursuit last year of their BIG agenda; part of which taxpayer’s went to his launching of Pilmer’s book! Alert moderator Ostrich : 18 Apr 2012 10:29:06am There would be real concern if New Zealands foreign investment policy was as lax as Australias. Thats the opinion of the president of New Zealands peak farming lobby group. It sounds like we have far closer scrutiny of our overseas investment of rural property than you guys do, Federated Farmers of New Zealand president Bruce Wills told The Weekly Times. A lot of people would be throwing their hands up in horror if we were to adopt the Australian system of a $231 million trigger. Mr Wills said anything of such a size would be examined by the countrys Overseas Investment Office. Since 1996, the office has required foreign investors to apply to purchase properties of more than 5ha. Prior to that, the threshold had been 2ha. Foreign purchases are also tracked and recorded on a public register. In contrast, potential foreign investors in Australia must apply to the Foreign Investment Review Board only when they plan to spend more than $231 million. Foreign ownership is not tracked or recorded. Alert moderator • Soldtohighestbidders : 18 Apr 2012 9:43:32am The WTO does nothing for our nations security, but a lot for the wealthy. The global economy’s winners are the rich countries the big multinational corporations - mostly based in the rich countries - which now almost completely control trade within and between nations. The world’s largest 500 corporations control over 70% of world trade . For example, in the 1990s, 80% of the entire production of world grain was distributed by just two companies: Cargill and Archer Daniel Midland . The AWB have been consumed by this lot. Global trade liberalisation allows corporations to relocate to countries with low wages and low labour and environmental standards. It allows them to manufacture products and to cheaply extract natural resources from poor countries without having to pay the costs which wages and environmental regulations demand. The economic cost of the social and environmental damage inflicted by corporations in the US was $2.6 trillion, according to study by US professor of business administration Ralph Estes Individuals are benefiting from the global economy too. Between 1994 and 1998, the 200 richest people in the world more than doubled their net worth to more than $1 trillion. Meanwhile, disparities continue to grow: In 1960, the income gap between the richest fifth of the worlds population and the poorest fifth was 30 to 1; in 1997 it was 74 to 1 . The Losers: Workers Workers in both rich and poor countries have been badly affected as trade barriers have been liberalised and corporations have run a race to the bottom to find the cheapest labor markets and the most lax labour regulations. Alert moderator Globalization : 18 Apr 2012 10:00:56am And those who whinge about how we are importing food, here is the reason why we HAVE to now, the irony of course is that the Coalition under Howard went full steam ahead with Bush signing these agreements and it is the unholy child of an unhappy marriage, the NFF political arm, the Nationals or whatever they call themselves nowadays, who are not benefiting from Howards global corporate groveling. How is that? The WTO allows countries to challenge each others laws and regulations, but the Dispute Settlement Process is conducted in almost absolute secrecy. Documents, hearings and briefs are confidential. Only national governments are allowed to participate, even if a state or local law is being challenged. National parliaments do not have to be informed that their law is being challenged. WTO disputes are decided by a panel of three unelected trade bureaucrats on the basis of trade law. There are no conflict of interest rules and the panelists often have little appreciation of domestic law or of government responsibility to protect workers, the environment or human rights. Thus, its not surprising that - with only one exception - every single environmental or public health law challenged at the WTO has been ruled illegal. There are no outside appeals. Once a final WTO ruling is issued, losing countries have a set time to implement one of only three choices: change their law to conform to the WTO requirements, pay ongoing compensation to the winning country, or face trade sanctions.
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:45:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015