Header-farmlandgrab-en3
Icon-globe   Icon-fb   Icon-twitter   Icon-rss  
Home About events Gallery Publish
Subscribe
Help

Who's involved?

Archives

Languages

Special content

Farmland investments in Africa - Can they be both ethical and profitable?
Published: 18 May 2012
Posted in: 
Comments (4) Print Email this

Technorati | 18 May 2012

by Adam Waldman

As global stock markets fluctuate wildly, individual investors, private equity funds and other large institutions are increasingly looking to alternative investments to provide balance and stability to their portfolios.

As we discussed in a previous article on Technorati, given the rapid run-up in agricultural commodities and food prices recently, farmland investments are becoming an increasingly attractive asset class.  For both institutional and individual investors with long time horizons, agricultural land is an ideal method for diversifying beyond a portfolio of purely stocks and bonds, whilst also providing a steady stream of good dividend income and offering excellent upside potential for capital gains due to the ongoing agricultural "super cycle" as coined by noted farmland and commodities investor Jim Rogers.

In the UK for example, over the last ten years, agricultural land has appreciated roughly 13 per cent per year in the according to Investment Property Databank (IPD).  The US and other Western countries have seen similar farmland investment returns. Farmland prices have therefore skyrocketed, reaching as high as £17,300 (approximately $30,000) per hectare in the northwest of England to take just one example.

As a result, investors are increasingly turning their interest in agricultural land investing to areas of the world where farmland prices are starting from a much lower base, thereby providing much greater upside potential.  One area where this has been particularly prevalent is Africa, where hedge funds and other large institutions have been making large agricultural farmland investments.   Hedge funds and private equity funds alone have purchased 148 million acres of farmland in just the last three years.  Just to take one example, the UK’s well known Guardian newspaper just outlined how major a full 5pc of African agricultural land had been purchased or leased by outside investors, and that more than 200m hectares (495m acres) of land – roughly eight times the size of the UK – were sold or leased between 2000 and 2010.

Given the long history of colonial exploitation in Africa, there has been increasing resistance to what is perceived by many western Non-Governmental Organisations as well as Africans as a “foreign land grab.” Whilst some of these feelings may be based on old stereotypes rather than current conditions, there is no question that some abuses have occurred.  Just to take one example, farmlandgrab.org just published an article arguing that a US firm was running roughshod over the local population in Cameroon with one of its agriculture investment.

 It is undoubtedly true is that frequently large institutional investors make deals directly with the central governments of African countries.  Given the amount of corruption and generally poor governance that still exists in Africa, the investment capital frequently disappear into the pockets of corrupt local officials whilst local farmers are forcibly removed from their homes and lands.

By the same token, it is far from true that all foreign investments in African farmland are predatory and exploitive.  Global consultancy McKinsey recently produced a report on the future of Africa which noted that the continent had over 25 per cent of the globe’s arable land yet produced only ten per cent of agricultural output.  McKinsey argued that up to $50bn/year of African agricultural farmland investment would be needed to bring the sector up to global standards and allow African agriculture to maximize its potential output.

Given the need for investment in African agriculture, there is no reason that foreign farmland investment on the continent cannot be structured as a win-win for both private investors and the host country populations. With the right guidelines and intentions, foreign investment in African farmland can be both ethical and profitable.  The major issue is whether a set of basic principles for “win-win” farmland investment in Africa can be developed.  Just as an example, we believe that the following principles can be used to evaluate the fairness of foreign farmland investment in Africa:

1. The investment was directed at completely unused land, and none of the local population has been removed from any of the land since it was not in use as a food source;

2. The farmland investment was negotiated directly with local villagers and tribal chiefs, so there was no chance for corruption at senior government levels;

3. Farmland investments in developing countries should not simply be premised on food security concerns by the foreign investors, who may want to simply ship the entire crop production back to their home countries;

4. The workforce should as much as possible be local hires who should be paid a fair wage well above the minimum for that country; and

5. Finally, foreign investors in African farmland should also have at least some kind of community re- investment programme in the host country.

Whilst these principles will not solve every concern of local African NGOs, they are at least a starting point for considering examining whether a farmland investment is structured as a win-win for both the investor and the local population, or if the investor is behaving in an inherently exploitative manner.  One other interesting factor is that when farmland investment projects are structured such that retail investors can participate, we have seen that these types of individual investors demand that any project they are involved with be both ethical and profitable.

Source:Technorati


Comments
People who monopolize the value of nature and government-granted title without payment to the community for excluding and consuming that resource are not capitalists, they are in a way fascists or feudalists. Although true feudal lords had to fund their own military, so in a way that was a more just model. Our system of feudocapitalism is creating unnecessary and unsustainable extremes of wealth and poverty, crowding and sprawl, pollution and overconsumption. Let government be funded on the backs of those who use the government protections of borders and titles rather than those who do productive and creative work and commerce.
Rahul Jain

Posted on 29 May 2012
Even where compensation is paid, the bottom line is that in the face of agri business competition, soon enough people must sell off any land rights they have & move to the city where they (or their children) can't afford housing & must depend on charity if they can't compete there. The only ethical thing to do is to ensure that a land right (not ownership) follows a person so that wherever they are, city or country, they have a right to build housing and grow food if that is their choice. That is what they currently lose if they must sell off the farm. It is not ethical to just pay the current landholder who may be too self absorbed or desperate. Land is an inter-generational foundation for self sufficiency & self determination. "Ethical" also requires environmental sustainability since what is done with land anywhere is the business of people everywhere and always.
@landrights4all

Posted on 29 May 2012
My company Valagro is currently identifying unused and underused lands and entering a management agreement with the chiefs who own the land. We then invite investors to partner with us to use the land based on an equity model. The model has an inbuilt community development component. The lands are not sold and would revert to owners should the investors fail to use it as planned.
abdlah

Posted on 24 May 2012
In fact many investments have followed the guidelines above, but still local people are losing out on the benefits stipulated within the win-win paradigm. Identifying "unused" land is extremely difficult as these lands may be an important livelihood supporting factor, and also saved for future generations. Decentralized negotiations is not necessarily a solution, as it is in the rural areas where issues of power is most entrenched. Investors get their land based on populistic promises of employment generation and infrastructure development, and once thay have the land, nothing happens. It is important to remember that these are indeed profit seeking capitalists, and are not necessarily interested in undertaking projects which reduce their profits on behalf of the poor.
Mikael Bergius

Posted on 24 May 2012

Post a comment
Name

Email address (optional - if you want a reply)

Comment

The Declaration of the Global Convergence of Land and Water Struggles launched in Dakar at the African Social Forum in October 2014 and reworked in Tunis at the World Social Forum in March 2015 is open for signature and engagement.


Who's involved?


Languages



Archives