Credit: Meags Fitzgerald

Nova Scotian Joan Baxter spent decades in Africa reporting for the BBC, CBC, AP and newspapers without acronyms. She’s written four books on the continent.

For three years, she’s worked for a bevy of multi-faith organizations, visiting African farms and researching the 21st-century land grab, the biggest since colonialism. She’s now in Sierra Leone, which she says has given up about 20 percent of its arable land to foreign companies.

At least 83 million hectares of land in poor countries—1.7 percent of the planet’s agricultural area—have been sold or leased for foreign agricultural use since 2000. Seventy percent of that was in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The process accelerates when food prices spike. Call it a crisi-tunity. Surging populations, weak economies and vulnerability to climate change—caused mainly by western over-consumption—make Africa a plucking ground for the same venture capitalists who brought you the 2008 financial crisis.

According to a study by international NGOs and research institutes, the land deals are orchestrated by four groups: private companies (accounting for two-thirds of them), state-owned companies, investment funds and private-public partnerships.

They’re doing well. “Some companies are getting a 30 percent return on investment,” Baxter says.

The families who ran the farms, which were successfully based on complex and abundant natural resources, are paid a pittance—some land is leased for as little as $0.07 per hectare annually. As a result, Baxter says some rural women and children in Sierra Leone have gone from eating three square meals a day to eating just once.

Diverse traditional crops have been bulldozed: “It’s just oil palm seedlings, as far as you can see.” In other cases the single crop is sugar, or one of the high-sugar crops used to make ethanol. These are our fuels and sweeteners and makeup. Rural Sierra Leoneans have seen new diseases, as well as prostitution for the first time.

Baxter adds that the World Bank and international NGOs like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Tony Blair Foundation are “pushing this hard. They call it a win-win. They think this is how we’ll feed the world, making massive profits.”

Who do these sustenance farmers in sovereign countries think they are to stand in the way of all that? “People in Sierra Leone don’t care if their diamonds are taken,” Baxter says. “They don’t wear them. But this is their livelihood. People are saying the wealthy elite once took people away to work in plantations. Now they are bringing the plantations here.”

Land tenure in Africa is extremely complex. In traditional systems, the land is often considered a public good, communally owned. “It’s not something you buy and sell as a commodity. The chiefs are imposing these deals on their people, with governments pushing them,” Baxter says.

The deals are done privately between companies and host countries, so it’s impossible to know what local governments are getting. The people who steward and rely on the land are not seeing the benefit.

The companies involved are often oil and precious metal extractors—heavy contributors to the crises that make land grabs profitable. Western consumption has long kept them going, and the exponential growth of tech devices has tremendous impact on Africa.

For example, more than half the world’s coltan—an ore used in wind turbines, nuclear reactors, hybrid cars, cell phones, DVD players, video game systems and other electronics—comes from Africa. Chances are you haven’t seen children mine coltan at gunpoint. But they do in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Miners, desperate for food, hunt bush meat, critically endangering mountain gorillas.

On this side of the ocean, we’re often oblivious to the faraway impact of our gadgets. Baxter describes endless piles of discarded western televisions and computers in the shanty towns of Ghana’s capital.

To help, she says we should start with breakfast: “Look at the impact of the banana, sugar, cereal. Fair trade and organic labeling, with all its flaws, is so important.”

But we should also fight the lowering of our own standards for the sake of foreign investors. “Look at fracking,” she says. “We’re scrambling for resources at great environmental cost. Since when should development look like destruction?”

Join the Conversation

9 Comments

  1. A lot of economists and business people will insist that the advent of a global market in agricultural commodities is an unqualified ‘good’ and further that this global market means increased food security for all players. But as others like Joan Baxter have known for years, the reality is significantly different.

    The reality is that food corporations support and, in fact, insist upon a global agricultural commodities market because it enables them to make a lot of money. That is the beginning and the end of the story as far as they’re concerned. Concepts such as ‘fairness’ and ‘food security’ and ‘feeding the hungry’ don’t enter into the equation in any way, shape or form. By definition food corporations exclude such motivations.

    It doesn’t even carry the cynical justification that it’s either “us or them”, in other words there is no security component to ‘our’ use of ‘their’ land. If things were structured differently and global food corporations did not have such access to arable land in developing countries, ‘we’ wouldn’t ‘go without’. We may or may not notice a difference on the dinner table, but the owners of capital would notice a definite difference in their already bloated profit margins.

    Imperialism never died. It just got a name change.

  2. …and its all done with the strong approval of the UN, of which most of the readers of this column are supporters of. The UN does not believe an individual should be allowed to own a piece of earth. They do not believe in individual home ownership. There was a conference and resolution regarding this…I think 1976 in Vancouver. The International Council of Environmental Communities is the result. Halifax belongs to them. This group is part of whats called Agenda 21…which is a UN program. The Clinton’s, the Gates, and the other 99% belong to it. Agenda 21 is about sustainable development..otherwards, what we have to do in order to sustain them.

    The land that’s being exploited for our use involves a lot of “Green” commodities like Eucalyptus tree’s. The UN, through another of its clubs, the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, promotes this and has schemes that pay CO2 credits to the developers because the genetically engineered Eucalyptus grows so fast and use so much CO2. Same goes for the Palm oil. A lot of the time the land is not even bought. A local Militia is used to just remove everyone.

  3. raisin,

    I think you are misrepresenting the U.N.’s position on land ownership. When some large food corporation ‘owns’ 10,000 hectares of agricultural land in a developing country, would you call that “individual ownership”? Your criticisms may also be invalid in locations where the tradition has been communal ownership of land resources.

    Furthermore, concerted international efforts to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions (currently almost non-existent considering the magnitude of the threat) will inevitably be imperfect at first. If you have a link to information regarding the use of local militias to remove residents from their land to further a CO2 credit trading scheme I’d be interested in reading it.

    The climate change that experts have been warning us about for more than two decades is upon us. It’s going to get worse – just how much worse depends on what we do collectively to deal with the threat. Do nothing and events like Hurricane Sandy and the worst drought in recorded U.S. history (this year) will seem like “the good old days”.

  4. http://www.africareview.com/Special+Report…

    The 2012 drought was not the worst in U.S recorded history. The 1930’s were worse.

    Climate experts lol

    There were no hurricanes that hit the U.S mainland between 2005 and 2012. 1955/57 there 6 hurricanes that landed on just the East coast. What does that mean? Galveston Texa’s was destroyed in 1900 by a extremely powerful hurricane. The storm then moved north towards the Great lakes and on to New York with winds at 60 mph. It then went up to Newfoundland and sunk a lot of the fishing fleet. Pretty freaky storm….and there have been lots of them.
    New York 1821….hurricane….like Sandy, 12/13 ft storm surge…at low tide, no full moon.
    Dollars damage does not determine the severity of a storm. The cities are getting bigger, more people are moving to water frontage etc.

    Humans are changing the climate but CO2 is not the major issue. There has been no measureable Global warming in 15 yrs. The Climategate emails released onto the internet. The emails are from your “climate experts” and the IPCC.

    “What would they do to us if they found out that climate change is mainly multi-decadal natural fluctuations as most of the evidence shows.”

    “What would the scientific community say if we told them theres been no warming since 98”

    “we know the science is week, but its the policy thats important”

    ” we know the science is being used for political purposes”

  5. raisin,

    The information at your link http://www.africareview.com returned the message “The Requested Resource is No Longer Available”. The New York Times also returned the message “Page Not Found”.

    Do you have anything more recent?

    Your reference to “Climategate emails” must be a reference to the hacking of computers in the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 2009 and the subsequent media hype.

    There was/is no ‘scientific conspiracy’ to fudge the data with regard to climate change. The term “Climategate” was coined by critics of climate science and accepted by a gullible media. Those critics who claim that the hacked emails reveal a vast conspiracy on the part of climate researchers are hallucinating. Numerous scientific bodies (oh no! more scientists!) reviewed the content of the emails and found no evidence of professional misconduct or ‘fudging’ of the data. Unfortunately, the media had already moved on and spent little time (if any) on correcting the impression left with the general public that “something was wrong with the data”.

    Aside from there being “no smoke” and “no fire” in the U of East Anglia emails, many observers think that the timing of the release of the hacked emails (just prior to the Copenhagen Conference in 2009 and another repeat just prior to the Durban Conference in 2011) and the misrepresentation of their contents was an attempt to derail further discussion of international agreements to tackle climate change.

  6. Scientific bodies? You must mean the four quickly arranged separate reviews by panels made up of “independent”experts that were carefully vetted to ensure they had no connections to the University, the Scientists, or any Green or CO2 related companies or projects. lol
    …and they called only one person to testify, Phil Jones, the suspended head of the Climate research Unit at the University.
    The Media moved on because their in the emails. Heres the BBC joking with the same Phil Jones about them having to at least appear impartial.

    date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: RE: something on new online.
    to: “Alex Kirby”

    At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:

    Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
    spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
    say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.

    So the Wikileak hacked emails of US Government employee’s and politicians is good and the hacked emails, assuming it was not a insider, from a Government funded Climate Research Unit is bad. Okay…

  7. raisin,

    The BBC email, if legit, only confirms my own experience in discussing the science of climate change in online forums: “constantly being savaged by the loonies” sums it up perfectly.

    Wikileaks has obtained and released information that has embarrassed a few governments. Some of these have claimed that Wikileaks has endangered their national security.

    The CRU emails, on the other hand, contain nothing, nada, zip that would invalidate the body of evidence for global warming and it doesn’t matter how much ‘spin’ or creative editing is applied to the material. The science is sound.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *