Trends in large-scale land acquisitions in Africa

(1)

4

2 _{M29. Total Number of dea/s in Africa}

Source landmalnx. 2018 Wtstern Sahara

®

D Mauritania Çape Verde in_ Cb

'. •

'28'

III.

~~· ~ "' -;;;;;;;;;;.a.

0

Algeria 0

"'

@

n

~

·-MaH

l.h.

-=-,. Tunisia

l)

~

~·

l

.

~

1.

i:, "' [l:,

©

Niger ~ ,,__ ,'.;

,=--

:

~]

r

0 _®

libya D Egypt

'

• '-....,:..;:

~

Eritrta Sudan Chad

11,

@

_5

••og•I

~

0

Gambia

©

Burtàn.a ~ / 8 [h_Faso Be~in

fl

~

Guin:;;ss~

~

Ï

[[

'

fl..,o'.,,@

~

©

LI.L

Nigeria c,ntral

@

ni

Et

Ojibouli

u.i;

...

9=i

~

0

African Republic, S.uth SudM

@

/

...:

d'ivoire.

1 '\.Togo c:a:- '

Sien a Leone

18 ®

Equatorial Cameroon / [ ..._ -

~

n

•

Libtfia Ghan, Gu1ne~

~

L /

Lb.

0 _

©

[a

ffi:Cong'

@

(z)

U@a

~

. \Gabon

©

Rwa~

Sao Tome·and·Pnnapt Oemoaatic Republk ,J Burundi

\ ...:_ 1 of Ille Congo

®

n

___r

Tanzanla

[r.

1

@

Kenya[l_ Somafla Comoros Angol• Malawi

~8

'··, 0 Total number of deals [L

i

0·25

D

25.50 - 50·100 - 100+

D

Missing data

Alu of deals O,a)

5000000- ,...

3000000-+1 1 000 000- -i-1,.,

1-1-- SOOOOO

= ~- 1000

• lntended <lèals

• Concluded <leals

Il

Production

[l,

\

®

l N~ia \

0

Botswana Cbo Swaziland

©

[b

'

South Africa le<otho

©

Cb...

-qut

Fig.16. Numberofcontracts

and area acquired per year

Sourœ

L

andmatr,x

2016 Madagam,

l

~

4000 3500 ~ 3000 ..:

!

2500 .Fi C 0 2000 w ~

.,

.., C ~ 1 500

.,

N ;;; 1 000 500 0 Sty<helles D

0

Mawitiu.s 80 167 642 < 20 60 129 31 25 617

Fig. 14. Numberofdea/s

according

to

negociation

status (2000

to

2015)

Source land Ma!nx. 2016

Failed lntended Acquisitions Concluded No Information Contract cancelled Negotialions failed Under negotiation

Expression of interest Oral agreement

Contract signed

Fig. 15.

Main investor

countrie's

(%

of

al/ concluded deals)

Source

l

and Matr,x 2016

Othet 125 28,0

3% 8elgium _ _ __.., Il 3!1i Portugal Canada...:1_.:..₂_{_} _{___,,}_._, ,1 _N_e-_the,r_l_a_n_ds Norway --"'13 _ _ ....J UnftedKingdom

56conduded deals

lndl• 39 Unitt-d St.ltes 32 China 17

United Arab Emirates

22 Singaport .___ haly 12 14 Fran-<e _ _ _ J --4:.,.;;. I 5 Saudi Arabia 19 20 60 ~-~

ef

-

₅₀

.

~

7~

..,

_.,

..,

40 ~ C

e

"'

•

30 ., ~

..,

-

0

· -

.

~ 20

.,

~

.

..,,...

.

...

I;

/

.

/"'

~ 10 z

·

_-,-.

-

·

₊

_..,..

-

_"-,=

_«

/

. -

~

₀ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year

(2)

TRENDS IN LARGE-SCALE LAND

ACQUISITIONS IN AFRICA

Africa has seen

a

significant increase in

large-scale land acquisitions (LSLA}. Although

LS-LAs have since slowed down and their impact on production remains limited, they provide evidence of long-term trends of growing

com-mercial interest in land. lnvestment by

domes-tic

actors receives less media

attention,

but is

growing in importance.

• Africa - The main target

for investo ·s

Large-scale land acquisitions (LSLA) are the

result of a global. ongoing phenomenon. which

has accelerated since 2000. The multiplication

of acquisitions has several converging roots.

which. besides the long-term trends of popu

-lation growth and dietary changes. include:

agricultural commodity price fluctuations.

incentives to produce biofuels (crude oil prices and EU policies). and pre- and post-crisis new

financial rationales to include land in the diver

-sification of asset portfolios. As such. not all

investments are dedicated to food production.

with a large number focusing on biofuel pro

-duction and other crops characterised by in

-creasing demand (such as rubber and cotton).

Africa is by far the most targeted continent

where deals for agricultural purposes are concerned. According to the Land Matrix. it accounts for 642 concluded LSLA deals ini

-tiated since the year 2000. covering an area of

nearly 23 923 007 hectares (equivalent to Ken

-ya's agricultural land area). The top 10 African target countries concentrate half of all listed

land deals worldwide.

This focus on Africa is strongly related to the host countries' agricultural and

pro-invest-ment policies. Numerous African g overn-mentsconsiderthese large-scale investments as a way to diversify their sources of funding

in a context of decreasing development aid.

to generate new income. and to modernise

their agricultural sector (in response to the

loss of confidence in small-scale family-based

structures and to the misreading of their real

capacities). This focus on Africa also results

from the continent's reputation. often seen as

fertile and water-rich with large tracts of und

e-rutilised land.

• Competition over land

and conflicts

The most targeted regions. often characte

-rised by high fertility and water access. are.

however. also those vvith the most developed

infrastructure and are often the areas most

intensively used by local people. This obser

-vation therefore challenges the image of LS

-LAs as a development tool. lt also highlights

land use competition and potential and actual

conflicts over land.

"Empty" lands are indeed rare in Africa. The

diverse and complex local land tenure sys-tems are often poorly understood and are not taken into consideration by national law. host

governments and. subsequently. by exter

-nal investors. which may potentially lead to

conflicting forms of appropriation. Reactions

to LSLAs at the local and national levels vary.

from open conflicts with strong opposition in

Senegal. Mozambique and more recently in

Ethiopia. to "smooth" implementation pr o-cesses in Zambia and Malawi.

A r-E>N EMJ0-0 RIJW. VvffiD

• Great expectations? Land

ownership changes without

rapid changes in land production

lnvestors are (initially) seen by local commun

i-ties and state representatives as developers: in regions with few or even no public services.

ex-pectations in terms of benefits are high and the

numerous direct and indirect fînancial promises are welcomed.

However, even though interest in land remains

high and LSLAs are ongoing. very few deals are actually implemented. Of the 642 deals concluded. only 199 are operational. with just

4% of the land contracted actually cultivated (representing only 1 000 4 70 ha).

ln addition. for those projects that are impl e-mented. information regarding the actual types

of investment remains extremely limited: little is known about the level of mechanisation. the number of jobs created or the development of outgrower schemes with local farmers. and this

questions the real impacts of LSLAs on local development.

• A number of large foreign

stakeholders and an increase

in domestic investors

The Western countries are still the main inves

-tors in land in Africa: the UK is the leading inves

-tor in the continent in terms of the number of cases considered. The emerging economies are also very present. This is the case of the BRICS countries (except for Russia). especially

Bra-zil. South Africa. and China (although the latter.

contraryto popular belief. is not the main player).

other Asian countries (Singapore) and Middle Eastern countries -which are more active in the northern and eastern parts of the continent due

to their geographic and cultural proximity. Whe-reas the Western countries are expanding their

markets and economic influence in the food

and agricultural sector. Asian and Middle Eastern

investors. from countries rich in capital but with

limited natural resources. are aiming to secure their national food requirements.

But LSLAs are not only a phenomenon led by foreign investors. The growing commercial inte -rest in land has triggered domestic dynamics.

with host country governments. local admin is-trations. ruling classes and local entrepreneurs acting as partners. intermediaries and also stakeholders and direct benefîciaries. However.

very little quantifiable data and information is available regarding the involvement of domes

-tic actors in the rush for land on the continent.

This information is necessary in order to reflect

on the agricultural models to be promoted for sustainable and inclusive development in Africa.

MONITORING LARGE-SCALE LANO ACQUISITION

The data presented here is based on the Land Matrix. which may on/y reflect partial information; it is never

-theless a good basis to achieve a better understan

-ding of the phenomenon, to formulate hypotheses and to develop initial analyses.

(see note page 69 ror details on the parameters of monitoring).

Ward Anseeuw, Perrine Burnod, Jérémy Bourgoin, lkageng Maluleke, Saliou Niassy