Large-scale land acquisition and agro-investment

(1)

Large-Scale Land Acquisition and

agro-investment

Ward Anseeuw

Cirad / University of Pretoria

IWGIA Workshop on IP rights to land and natural resources, investment

and land grabbing

Copenhagen, 29th_{Oct 2014}

PP&G PP&G

(2)

Outline

1) A couple of flashes on LSLA…

2) Disaggregating “Large-scale land

acquisitions”

(3)

LSLA globally

table 1: projects according to negotiation status

Oral agreement 66 3.7 1.1

Contract signed 804 50.8 30.6

concluded deals 870 54.5 31.8

Expression of interest 42 5.5 n.a.

Under negotiation 144 9.1 n.a.

Intended deals 186 14.6 n.a.

Negotiations failed 50 5.3 n.a.

Contract cancelled 24 1.6 1.5

Failed deals 74 6.9 1.5

(4)

African countries are among the most

affected in the world

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 5 000 000 10 000 000 15 000 000 20 000 000 25 000 000 30 000 000 35 000 000 40 000 000

Africa Asia Latin Oceania Europe

size (ha) # deals 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 5 000 000 10 000 000 15 000 000 20 000 000 25 000 000

Africa Asia Oceania Latin Europe

Size (Ha) # cases

Conluded All

(5)

• Important concentration – top 20 countries, 74% deals, 80% size

• Top 20 – 9 African countries (insecure land rights)

African countries are among the most

affected

0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 # cases Size (ha)

(6)

African countries are among the most

affected

(7)

Western countries are still the main

investors in Africa, Emerging and Middle

Eastern countries are upcoming

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 Size # Cases

North West Central East Southern Saudi Arabia UK USA Egypt South Korea

UAE India Malaysia UAE South Africa

South Africa Italy Canada USA UK

Japan Liberia Singapore Jordan Brazil

- France Belgium Saudi Arabia India

(8)

Investors

• Traditional Western food-producing,

processing, and exporting companies seeking to increase market share

• Capital-rich / food insecure Land and water scarce populous but capital-rich (Asian countries, Gulf States - China: 20% of world pop / 9% of world arable land)

• New actors – Outside of agriculture (financial sector, …)

• Direct gov. involvement • Sovereign wealth Funds • State-owned enterprises

Avoiding markets

• Hedge funds, • Pension funds • Invest banks

• Asset management comp

Diversifying portfolio/ speculation

• Private investors

(9)

The rush for land is triggered by a wide

range of drivers, food becoming a main

driver

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000

Concluded deals (In 1000 ha) Concluded deals (# of deals)

(10)

Little effective production

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Central East North South West

Unknown

Project abandoned

In operation (production) Project not started

Startup phase (no production)

11% 20% 50% 17% Failed Intended

Concluded not operational Concluded operational, not producing yet

Concluded, operational, producing

1.7%

(11)

LSLA globally

table 1: projects according to negotiation status

Oral agreement 66 3.7 1.1 Contract signed 804 50.8 30.6

concluded deals 870 54.5 31.8

Expression of interest 42 5.5 n.a. Under negotiation 144 9.1 n.a.

Intended deals 186 14.6 n.a.

Negotiations failed 50 5.3 n.a. Contract cancelled 24 1.6 1.5

Failed deals 74 6.9 1.5

# deals ha intended _{ha under contract}

+115

+41

(12)

Slowing down overall, but evidence of

long-term trend of growing commercial

interest in land

Reasons: Credit crunch, high failures, less media focus, civil awareness, countries are getting better prepared

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 North West Central East Southern Total Africa AFRICA

(13)

Disaggregating “Large-scale

land acquisitions”

(14)

Different LSLA with different

outcomes

Independent farmer model Associative farmer model Cooperative farmer model Speculative 1000-day model Asset management and Investment funds model Nucleus estate model Agribusiness Estate model

(15)

Different LSLA with different

outcomes

Independent farmer model Associative farmer model Cooperative farmer model Speculative 1000-day model Asset management and Investment funds model Nucleus estate model Agribusiness Estate model Association with local farmers, looking for CF opportunities Based on bilateral agreements (more based on social inclusion) 1/3 of CF (tendency to full control) & Spot market CSR

(16)

Different LSLA with different

outcomes

o Uncertain institutional environments and the difficulty of doing business o Technicality of the projects

o The lack of markets

o Lack of financial services

o High settling and transaction costs

Independent farmer model Associative farmer model Cooperative farmer model Speculative 1000-day model Asset management and Investment funds model Nucleus estate model Agribusiness Estate model High failures

(17)

Different LSLA with different

outcomes

Independent farmer model Associative farmer model Cooperative farmer model Speculative 1000-day model Asset management and Investment funds model Nucleus estate model Agribusiness Estate model High failures Increased integration

Few inclusive models Invisible control

Strategy

(18)

Implications for agrarian

development and restructuration

• Corporization of agriculture

• Closed value-chains and foreign

powers

• Concentration and dualization within

the agricultural sector

• Proletarization of the agricultural / rural

society

(19)

Reflection related to local

farmers/indigenous people

(20)

Towards more equitable LSLA? Initiatives

and lessons learned…

1. Policies and governance

1. Investment policies 2. Land policies

2. Better international and continental guidance

1. VGs, RAI, AU Declaration on Land, Framework and Guidelines for Land Policy in Africa (F&G)

- Limited in scope and in effect

- Danger of legitimising LSLA as sole model

(21)

Towards more equitable LSLA? Initiatives

and lessons learned…

Governments

1. Transparency

1. Liberia decided to publish the land allocation contracts

2. Monitoring instruments

1. Ex: Cameroun Land Observatory

3. Challenging investment protection regimes, with some countries terminating BITs (Cotula, 2013).

Private sector

1. Development of more inclusive instruments

1. Inclusive Business Models (Contract farming, outgrower schemes) 2. Community Partnership Programmes

2. Need for more secure environments

1. Data

2. Governance instruments (secure land rights) 3. Credit

(22)

Normalisation process vs consolidation

and agrarian change

Going beyond ‘direct’ loss of land, indigenous rights …

…. Broader transformation of agrarian societies

- Land grab is only a ‘tipping point’

- Profound transformation of the food regimes, of our agrarian societies

- Self determination on your land vs agrarian system without room for manoeuver

- Questioning of the development model

(23)

Concluding thoughts

• Agrarian change in Africa?

o Yes, probably

o Very little # - With very few ‘positive’ results

o But enduring model/paradigm – tipping point

• Long term marginlisation…

• Externalisation of norms and regulatory mechanisms • …

o Change not there where expected/announced, by the

promotors of LSLA

• Lack of LT reflection, “alternative”

development trajectories

o Inclusive of sectors and actors

(24)

Thank you

Ward ANSEEUW CIRAD Researcher

Post Graduate School of Agriculture and Rural Development University of Pretoria

Pretoria 0002 South Africa