The hydra head of land grabbing in Sierra Leone

Medium_hydra
The Ministry of Agriculture leases land from communities and subleases the same to the investors
Awoko | 16.03.2102

The hydra head of land grabbing in Sierra Leone

Thank you Lulu for taking your time to write a piece on the land debate, it is important that citizens air their views on this very important national issue. This article is intended to complement your effort of adding your voice to the whole debate on large scale land acquisition by foreign companies for agricultural business a phenomenon in today’s vogue referred to as land grabbing.

I would start by asking the simple question: is land grabbing really taking place in Sierra Leone? The answer from me is yes this observable fact is taking place and is occurring at a rapid rate. Often when land of 1000 hectares and more is acquired from unsuspecting persons in dubious and shady methods, this act is referred to as land grabbing. In Sierra Leone today there are foreign companies that have acquired through lease holds (50yrs and over)large swaths of land in the range of thousands of hectares from poor peasants in collusion with agents of the state and other private money hunters. The quantum or area of land that we are talking about is colossal and from our monitoring on deals reached those ongoing and those in pursuits of stands at 17% of the total arable land in Sierra Leone. In real terms we are talking of figures in the range of about one million hectares.

Let us closely look at some figures. The arable land in this country supports 75% of the population (accounting for some 730,000 farming households) for their livelihoods through farming. These farmers are contributing to about 50% of the gross domestic product of the country. The farmers by and large practice shifting cultivation that requires a farmer to farm his 2-3 acres of land for 2-3 years and move on to another plot. The land he/she leaves is left to rejuvenate naturally for a number of years before it is farmed again. In the past research has shown that this fallow period would take 15 20 years. In two separate methodologies investigating current fallow trends, the figure derived does not exceed 6 years for the national. In some district this figure is much lower or higher. For instance Pujehun records about 4 years, Port Loko 4.3 years, Kambia 2.4, Kailahun 0.5, and Bo 3.4 but Bombali is 8.3 and Koinadugu registers about 12 years. The question I want answered is what then happens to the fallow period if a million hectares is subtracted from the present arable land area of the country? Surely the fallow will further shrink and areas from which large scale land is leased will be most affected. At the national level its impact will manifest through the insecurity of food.

How would this happen? The lesser the fallow period the lesser it takes the land to gain fertility and stability for sustaining crop production, hence lowering yield levels. Furthermore, the impact of the elements on the land when biodiversity is lesser and cannot perform the required ecosystem service would only lead to land degradation and the effect of land degradation in agriculture is serious crop failure and an insecure food regime for the country.

Let us also consider population growth against land availability and food security. Using the conservative population growth rate of 2.25 we have calculated and projected that in 36 years starting from 2011, our population is likely to double reaching an estimated 12 million people. 75% of this population will be in rural communities and they will be depending on the land for farming and likely in much the same way producing food for the country, even where they will also be self employed.

Given the situation where as calculated 17% of the country’s arable land is taken for 50 years means that population doubling time will take place within the lease years and huge portion of Sierra Leone’s territory will be in the possession of foreign direct investors. A population trying to fend off the land that is less productive cannot feed a nation that will also be hungry and lacks security of food. A nation with food deficit is going to be dependent on external food sources. Considering the recent international food price spikes which is still being projected to continue in the future is bound to have great toll of hardship on a hard pressed nation and its people. This recipe will only be proximate cause of state insecurity.

Dwelling a little on process of land acquisition, it is pretty painful to see how the processes are subjected to abuse. The Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency (SLIEPA) has a fine even if less sufficient process for investors to use as guide to acquire large scale land for agri-investment. Cardinal in the process are consultation with communities; free, prior and informed consent; involvement of all including the land owners in the land agreement; and observing the equator principles. SLIEPA guidelines further states that the nucleus farm estate should not include community farm land, sacred groves, high biodiversity spots and burial grounds.

Our research findings have shown that the SLIEPA guidelines are ignored not only by the investors but also by the agencies of the state involved in the process. While some communities would say that consultations were lopsided and not informative enough to make an informed consent, others would tell you that information doled out were in piece meal and full of misleads. Some communities were even coerced and threatened to accept the deal. As for signing the agreement only chiefdom elders in most cases signed the lease agreement, legitimate land owners were ignored. Even the freedom to say no was not respected.

The equator principle largely has to do with undertaking an environmental social and health impact assessment (ESHIA).The production of an environmental assessment is in line with the Environmental law. What we have been observing in the field is that investors are normally far advanced in their field operations as their ESHIA make way to the Environmental Protection Agency Sierra Leone (EPASL). The EPA law is ignored and we are yet to see the measure taken by EPASL by defaulting investors.

Some large scale land lease agreements stumbled on are so bland, one would question the competencies of the solicitors who constructed them. A large scale land lease is virtually a replica of a normal one-town lot lease agreement. The communities are not assisted with solicitors that would support them in their negotiation of what should be in the agreement. Added to this problem is the fact that by ignoring the SLIEPA guidelines, the government through the Ministry of Agriculture also leases land from communities and sublease the same to the investors. This is perfect case of conflict of interest, since the interest of government and that of the investor will be the same. In the event where there exist discord between the company and the land owners would only mean that government’s interest will be affected as well. One such instance has been in Malen Chiefdom where the land owners peacefully protesting against the company saw them being arrested and incarcerated. Up until now they are facing the magistrate court in Pujehun. Their case continues to be adjourned since last year.

The million dollar question begging for answer is whether the country is deriving any benefit from these investments? A glance at the MOUs between the investors and the government impresses that tax and other investment concessions are accorded to the investors, making revenue unavailable to the government. But while the government gives concessions to the investors, it is taxing the poor land owners 50% on the meager lease rent of $12.5 for every 2.5 acre leased. How is this done? MAFFS designed a formula in which 20% of this rent is paid to the district council, 20% is paid to the chiefdom council and 10% is paid to government. This taxing regime completely defies government’s tax law on rent which is 10% of the amount paid for rent. This is truly an unfair arrangement. Even the cost for rent is set by government instead of being left for land owners to negotiate their rates. Why should this disparity be allowed? The double standards that obtains where individual property owners in urban areas are at liberty to fix a price for their piece of property as against property owners in the communities whose property worth is determined by the state is an unfortunate situation. The free market principles Sierra Leone is pushed to apply in this case works only in the interest of the investors and elites of the state. This free market allows the investors to repatriate all of their profits to their home states leaving Sierra Leone in an unstable economic state.

In the next edition I will examine the environmental, social and economic impact of large scale acquisition of land for agric-investments.

By Joseph Rahall
Green Scenery
  • Sign the petition to stop Industria Chiquibul's violence against communities in Guatemala!
  • Who's involved?

    Whos Involved?


  • 13 May 2024 - Washington DC
    World Bank Land Conference 2024
  • Languages



    Special content



    Archives


    Latest posts