Astronomers confirm the existence of an Earth-like planet

LIKE THIS ARTICLE52
Kev

By Kev Hedges
Dec 5, 2011 in Science
5 comments

+
Astronomers have confirmed the exoplanet Kepler 22-b as Earth-like and within the so-called "Goldilocks Zone", a habitable world orbiting its star at a distance not too far away as to be cold, nor too close to be too hot to support life.
The planet lies around 600-light years away from Earth and is just under two-and-a-half times bigger than our planet. Kepler 22-b, formerly a "candidate" planet had to wait for confirmation after its third orbit around its star. The Kepler Space Telescope is so sensitive it can detect planets when they cross (in front of) its host star. During the conference when the announcement was made astronomers also revealed they had seen 1,094 new candidate planets. Some of these exoplanets may well be upgraded from "candidate" to "confirmed" just like Kepler 22-b has.
The exoplanet offers best hope yet for a new Earth - or Earth 2.0, astronomers believe it to harbour water and land but are not sure if it is made of rock, gas or liquid. Nasa also said the exoplanets require follow-up observations to verify they are actual planets.
The Kepler Space Telescope looks at more than 155,000 stars and has so far found 2,326 candidate planets, reports the BBC. When the third pass of Kepler 22-b was made, William Borucki, Kepler principal investigator at Nasa's Ames Research Centre, said:
Fortune smiled upon us with the detection of this planet, the first transit was captured just three days after we declared the spacecraft operationally ready. We witnessed the defining third transit over the 2010 holiday season.
Any hope that citizens of planet Earth may one day travel and live on Kepler 22-b would be dashed by its sheer distance of 600-light years. It could be a millennium before we may colonise such a world.


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/315610#ixzz1h5xvB5J0

Indian Land Grab In Africa

The Indian Land Grab In Africa

By GOI Monitor

20 December, 2011
Goimonitor.com

Joining the neo-colonial bandwagon, Indian companies are taking over agricultural land in African nations and exporting produced food at the cost of locals



Indian companies venturing abroad is always regarded as a healthy trend, an indicator of India's new-found economic status. But little is known about how these companies are flexing their imperalistic muscles in poorer countries, grabbing the land and giving little in return. A report ‘India’s Role in the New Global Farmland Grab’ by researcher Rick Rowden brings forth these atrocities which are shockingly similar to what India used to blame rich western countires for.

Joiing the race with China, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, South Korea and the European Union, Indian and Indian-owned companies are acquiring land in Africa at throwaway prices, indulging in enviornmental damange and exporting the food while locals continue to starve. The origin of this unhealthy practice can be traced back to the food crisis of 2008 when rich countries were forced to confront the reality of how fragile the global food scenario can be, especially for those without sufficient cultivable land. To ensure more direct control over food, these countries started acquiring land in poorer African countries and shipping the produce back home. A recent World Bank report found that 45 million hectares of large scale farmland deals had been announced between 2008 and 2009.

The initial support to such forays was based on the belief that the world is facing scarce food supply because of long-term under-investment in the agricultural sectors of many developing countries. However, as stressed by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, "the diagnosis and remedy are incorrect…Hunger and malnutrition are not primarily the result of insufficient food production; they are the result of poverty and inequality, particularly in rural areas, where 75 per cent of the world’s poor still reside.”

Outsourcing farming, the Indian way

There are various factors driving the “outsourcing” of domestic food production in India. Primary among these are stagnation or drop in crop yield due to "green revolution fatigue”, government’s concerns related to long term food security besides the allure of much cheaper land and more abundant water resources in African countries. The subsidies being offered by governments of African countries is another enticement. In many cases, the companies have been offered special incentives, including the offer to lease massive tracts of arable land at very generous terms with access to water and the ability to fully repatriate the profits generated.

According to figures provided by governments of various East African countries in 2010, more than 80 Indian companies have invested around $ 2.4 billion in buying or leasing huge plantations in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique to grow food grains and other cash crops for the Indian market. The high input cost of farming is also driving these companies to explore Africa. Talking to news agency IANS earlier this year, S.N. Pandey, an executive with Lucky Group, one of the companies which have invested in Africa, stressed on the price factor. “The cost of agricultural production in Africa is almost half that in India. There is less need for fertiliser and pesticides, labour is cheap and overall output is higher,” he was quoted as saying.

Indian agriculture companies also complain that India’s small and fragmented land holdings are unsuitable for large-scale commercial farming, and there are too many bureaucratic hurdles to investment. Recent offers by African governments allow Indian farmers to acquire much larger tracts of contiguous land on lease for 50 years, and in some cases even up to 99 years at throwaway prices. According to a news report in the Indian Express, “The land lease rate in Punjab’s Doaba region is a minimum of Rs 40,000 per acre. In contrast, in most African nations, the land lease rate in terms of Indian currency comes to Rs 700 per acre. This means that for every one acre in Punjab, Indian investors can own 60 acre in Africa. With a per capita land holding of 1.5 acre in Punjab, agriculture is ceasing to be a sustainable activity.”

A sample of Indian companies investing in agricultural land overseas



Nobody bothers about locals

In some countries such as Ethiopia, where there is a lack of effective governance and democracy, local populations have reportedly suffered evictions with no recourse. Of all the land-grabbing deals in recent years, perhaps none has received as much attention as that of Karuturi Global's massive land leases in Ethiopia’s Gambela region. While the East African country claims the entry of foreign investors would help develop the large tracts of wastelands, experts say there is no such thing as “waste or idle land” in Ethiopia, or anywhere in Africa.

Several studies have shown that local competition for grazing land and access to water bodies are the two most important sources of inter-communal conflict in most parts of Ethiopia populated by pastoralists. Indeed, in almost every case of recent land leases involving foreign enterprises, locals have complained that they lost access to grazing land and water due to these projects. This has also been the case, for example, with foreign investments in both the Bako and Gambela regions of Ethiopia where many Indian firms operate. Proponents of the new land rush also often claim that the foreign investments in land will create jobs for locals, improve living conditions and increase national GDP. In Ethiopia, over 3 lakh families have been potentially displaced but only about 20,000 people are expected to get jobs on the new highly-mechanised farms.

According to a news report on BBC online, “there have allegedly been a number of arrests and killings of local people who oppose the recent land investments.” The indigenous Mazenger people of Gambela have been struggling to protect their ancient forest-covered lands along tributaries to the White Nile that have come into conflict with the lease given to the Indian company Verdanta Harvests Plc., which plans to clear their land and use it for a tea and spice plantation. According to the documents available with Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE), the locals were made aware of the plan to lease out their ancient lands and “secret forests” only in early 2010. They approached the Ethiopian President Girma Wolde-Giorgis, who mostly has representative powers, and won his support. The Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia (EPAE) also recommended that the lease project be stopped since the short-term benefits of leasing would not outweigh the long-term costs to the country. However, the local Governor announced that the 3,000 hectare of forests had already been leased out for 50 years. Despite another intervention by the President, the project is moving forward and the forests are being cleared.

“If what is going on in Gambela was happening in New Delhi, India, or in Oxford, England, Bismarck, North Dakota, or in Saskatoon, Canada, this would be unthinkable. If it is not allowed in these places, why is it justified in Ethiopia," asks Obang Metho of SMNE.

Environmental concerns and contracts

One of the most significant concerns about the trend of overseas investors relates to environmental impacts of establishing increasing numbers of large-scale, mechanised mono-cropping farms that are dependent on high levels of water usage besides heavy doses of pesticides and herbicides which impact both the soil and the underground water. “The ecological sustainability of land and water resources is an important concern, especially considering the relatively short-term orientation of the foreign investors versus the long-term outlook needed in considering the environmental impacts of land uses,” says D Byerlee, who presented a paper on “Drivers of Investment in Large-Scale Farming: Evidence and Implications,” at a World Bank conference in 2009.

Amid growing controversy around investments in Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development recently made public the 12 Land Rent Contractual Agreements for land leases including five contracts with Indian companies. All these contracts specified that the companies were to ensure that environmental impact assessments were undertaken and submitted to the authorities shortly after assuming operations and that the investors would otherwise abide by current Ethiopian conservation laws. They did not specify who exactly would undertake the environmental impact assessments, the quality and scope of such assessments and transparency of the process by which they are to be undertaken. Regarding water usage, each of the five contracts specified that the companies had the right to build dams, water boreholes and irrigation systems as they see fit. Only the smallest contract for Verdanta Harvests PLc.’s tea plantation did not mention water rights. Interestingly, only the biggest contract for Karuturi Agro Products Plc. included the additional clause that the company also had the right to “use irrigation water from rivers or ground water.” However, there was no mention of payment for this water usage, the quantity of water to be used and over what period of time.

All five contracts stated that the Indian companies have the “right”- not the obligation- to provide power, health clinics, schools, etc. It was not specified to whom these services might be provided –the local population or just the company workers. Yet, the provision of such facilities had been a high-profile claim made earlier by the government as to why the investors should be allowed to undertake these projects. None of the five contracts of the Indian companies mentioned labour laws or specified any wages or working conditions for their local employees. Nor did the contracts seem to justify the claim made by the companies and government regarding the increase in agricultural productivity and transfer of such new technologies to local farmers. If the omission suggests that the Indian companies alone shall retain the higher value technology, it is unclear how this will help local farmers in Ethiopia in the future.

Indian government's role play

Following a 2009 visit by Namibian President Hifikepunye Pohamba, the then Minister for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor said: “We are now in talks with Namibia after their President's visit, to use land for our purposes.”

At the sixth Agriwatch Global Pulses Summit in New Delhi in 2010, India's Food and Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar asked the delegates to ponder over the “viability of Indians leasing land abroad for growing pulses and exporting it back to India.”

Both these statements point towards India's objective to ensure food security by acquiring land in lesser developed countries. The Indian government acts as a facilitator to the whole process rather than the main player. It is supporting the conventional new greenfield foreign direct investments, merger and acquisition purchases of existing firms; public-private partnerships ; specific tariff reductions on agricultural goods imported to India through the negotiation of regional bilateral trade and investment treaties and double taxation (avoidance) agreements.

Another major way the Indian government has financially facilitated the process is by giving concessional lines of credit to various developing country governments, banks, and financial institutions, as well as to regional financial institutions, through the Indian Export- Import (Exim) Bank. Often such lines of credit are for the purpose of national development projects and where these projects involve agricultural development, Indian foreign investors stand ready to win concessions and contracts for agricultural development in the form of their foreign direct investment.

The largest single line of credit approved by the Exim Bank so far has gone to Ethiopia ($ 640 million) for its Tindaho Sugar Project and it is also widely expected to facilitate Indian investments. The soft loans, with an annual interest rate of 1.75 per cent, are to be repaid over 20 years.

In trade policy, a number of economic incentives such as duty-free tariff preference schemes have been put in place by the Indian government in order to encourage private companies to invest in land abroad. For example, Ethiopian farm produce entering Indian markets is now taxed less than produce from India, according to Anand Seth, the deputy director general of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations.

The defence put up by companies

Indian companies reject their characterisation as neo-colonials and insist they are just doing business. Many companies claim the land acquisitions are simply strategies for their expansion and vertical integration. Raju Poosapati, the vice president of India's Yes Bank, which advises Indian investors in Africa, said a government ban on non-Basmati rice exports had driven Indian companies to go abroad in order to be able to grow and sell it in global markets.

Karuturi Global Ltd. clarified that it pays its workers at least Ethiopia’s minimum wage of 8 birr, and abides by Ethiopia’s labour and environmental laws. Speaking to Bloomberg, Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi, founder and head of Karuturi Global Ltd., said, “We have to be very, very cognisant of the fact that we are dealing with people who are easily exploitable,” adding that the company will create up to 20,000 jobs and has plans to build a hospital, a cinema, a school and a day-care center in the settlement. “We’re going to have a very healthy township that we will build. We are creating jobs where there were none,” he said. However, Metho says so far there has been no sign or mention of any of this according to reports from the local people.

The situation seems quite similar to what foreign corporates are doing in tribal areas of Orissa and Chattisgarh in India. Metho believes a close coordination between Indian and African activists can help serve the cause of marginalised communities in both the worlds.

The research report ‘India’s Role in the New Global Farmland Grab’ can be accessed here

Ethiopian Land Grab "Foreign Energy Policy Fuels Famine in Africa " Oakland Institute

Pambazuka | 8 December 2011

Photo: indy_slug

Pambazuka News speaks to Oakland Institute about the findings of their latest round of in-depth research into land grabs in Africa, from the role played by the energy policies of rich countries and the World Bank to the dangers of a development agenda that fails to heed the negative social, economic and environmental impacts of industrial agrofuel and agroforestry projects.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Following your last set of reports, Oakland was looking to understand in greater depth the legal, social and economic implications of land grabs, in particular better data on land availability, better understanding of land deals, and issues around land rights. You have carried out detailed studies on a number of countries in Africa: What do they tell us about common themes related to land acquisitions in these countries that we didn't already know? And are there any important differences between the countries studied that would inform any response to these deals?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: The new set of research informs us of the following common themes:

First, energy policies of rich countries play a key role in the current trend of land grabbing:

The trend of converting fertile African land to agrofuel plantations is accelerating as more governments and corporations promote agrofuels as a solution to climate change and dependency on fossil fuels. The United States and the European Union, for example, have set targets to replace 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, of their gasoline with agrofuels. They both provide subsidies to the agrofuel industry so that these targets can be met: The US government gives US$6 billion a year in federal tax credits to fuel blenders to support ethanol production, and recent European subsidies supporting agrofuel production have topped US$4 billion per year. Corporations such as Europe's largest airlines - including Lufthansa - are also increasing their reliance on agrofuels purchased from African countries. This growing market for agrofuels has set off a chain reaction of land grabs in Africa that are displacing people from their homes, draining rivers to the point of extinction and replacing valuable food crops with industrial fuel crops.

Second, so-called solutions to climate change, including carbon trade and carbon credits are green-washing the land grabs that some companies are making through land intensive Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects:

For example, a Norwegian timber company, Green Resources Ltd., plans to replace almost 7,000 hectares of natural Tanzanian grassland with monocultures of pine and eucalyptus that the company would grow to obtain carbon credits to sell to the government of Norway. In Sierra Leone SLGreen Oil has acquired 40,468 hectares for biodiesel production that will generate carbon credits through the CDM. Canadian corporation Sierra Gold has obtained 45,527 hectares of forest and grasslands destined for carbon credit programs, including a land-use CDM project that is expected to be worth more than US$714 million over 50 years. With one hectare being approximately the size of a football field, this accounts for a lot of land. The expansion of the carbon credit system will generate billions of dollars in profits through the commodification of air and forests, but is likely to turn into a disaster for indigenous and forest dependent communities in Africa who are losing their rights over grazing land and forests, which are essential elements of their livelihoods.

Third, international development agencies are playing a key role:

So-called 'socially responsible' or 'ethical' investment funds, backed by several western governments, involved with land grabs in Africa. The trend of large-scale land investment in Sub-Saharan Africa could not take place without World Bank Group support. The Oakland Institute's research uncovers World Bank Group's orchestration of a business-friendly environment for investor access to land. From helping attract investors, to shaping policy and law that allows for streamlined and lucrative investor contracts, World Bank Group's agencies - including its private-sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, in conjunction with the Foreign Investment Advisory Service - clearly enable and promote land investment.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: A sobering point that you make is that there is 'no going back once the damage is done' - once people have been moved off land or virgin forests and grasslands cleared to make way for agroforestry or agrofuel plantations, irreversible damage is caused to human and ecological communities - and the atmosphere. This means we need to take preventative measures rather than hoping we can reverse actions in the future. What mechanisms are open to Africans to take a stand against land grabs, when investment in agrofuels is being encouraged even at the African Union Level?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: First of all, given the general secrecy surrounding most deals, we have seen over the past few months how important it was to expose land deals and inform communities about what was happening.

For instance, in June 2011 OI released a brief on a land deal in South Sudan and made the contract available. Signed in 2008 with the Texas-based firm NTD, the 49-year land lease of 600,000 hectares for US$25,000 includes unencumbered rights to exploit all natural resources in the leased land. Local communities did not know about this deal until they heard media coverage of the OI report on the local radio, and it is only then, in July 2011, that they started to mobilise against the project.

Similarly, OI's brief on the giant agricultural enterprise being developed in Tanzania and known as the AgriSol deal, informed civil society groups and media about this land investment. Knowledge of this deal, which was being secretly negotiated between US investors and the Tanzanian Prime Minister, has mobilised media and civil society groups locally and internationally, and the matter is now being debated intensely in Parliament.

To state the obvious, in an ideal world, communities should be aware of the deals prior to the signature of contracts between governments and foreign investors. Ideally an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study should be conducted in a systematic way, i.e. for every large investment, and its results communicated to all those concerned. Ideally communities should be consulted on that basis, so people can make informed decisions about their land and their future. Unfortunately, our analysis of over 50 deals in seven countries show that in most cases people are not consulted, or ESIA are generally not conducted, and when they are, they are not made public.

Proper information and consultation of communities is therefore critical. But it is far from enough: One should not just rely on local communities to take action for the land where they live. What is urgent is for citizens, civil society organisations, farmer groups, parliaments and political parties to engage with governments and challenge them not just on individual land deals but more broadly on the very policy choices they are making in regards to land investment and agricultural development.

This is what happened in Mozambique where different problems with foreign investors led to a freeze in large land concessions in 2009 (this governmental freeze on land grabs lasted two years, but large-scale investments have resumed in October 2011). In Tanzania too, the government has actually taken into consideration the interests of the people: some land deals were revised or cancelled because individual ministries weighed the interests of investors against the current and future land needs of the Tanzanians. Moreover, several of the large-scale investors identified did not obtain the amount of land they requested from the government - for instance the UK firm Sun Biofuels requested 18,000 ha but only obtained 8,200 ha from the government.

At international level, citizens and civil society organisations must also question the development and energy policies pursued by rich countries. Many of them are encouraging land grabs through these policies and through the direct support they provide to investors. Furthermore, as seen in Mozambique, USAID has been pushing hard to privatise land and to make it available to foreign interest.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: In your study of 50 deals in seven countries, you've found no evidence for fair financial returns to countries or their people. And not only do agrofuels plantations displace food crops, they also need twice as much water. Weighing the lack of economic benefits against the social and environmental costs, it's irrational for countries to make deals with investors. What's driving this destructive behaviour? Why are governments so willing to accept poor deals from investors?


OAKLAND INSTITUTE: Many African governments fervently encourage foreign investment in agricultural land and often offer what some investors have called ‘mouthwatering’ incentives. Some officials seem to genuinely trust that land deals will spur growth with incoming capital, assist with infrastructure, and create employment for local people. This belief that large-scale land investment will result in much needed economic development has been strongly promoted by white-collar experts from the World Bank and officials from donor countries.

The trend of large-scale land investment in Africa could not take place without the work of the World Bank over the past two decades, which has been orchestrating the establishment of business-friendly environments for investor access to land. From helping attract investors, to shaping policy and law that allows for streamlined and lucrative investor contracts, the World Bank has clearly played a key role to enable and promote land investment.

Investors also make bold promises of economic development, ‘modernisation’ and numerous jobs. AgriSol Energy Tanzania LLC, for instance, claims they will transform Tanzania into a ‘regional agricultural powerhouse’ using genetically modified crops and other technologies to increase yields.

But not all African leaders are under pressure from rich countries or are being misled by foreign experts. While OI hasn’t documented cases of corruption related to land deals, we have identified a number of instances of collusion between government officials and foreign firms. For example, the AgriSol project in Tanzania employs several former Ministers, including one, Lawrence Masha, who, while Minister of Home Affairs, has ensured that the targeted land will be cleared of its inhabitants. In Sierra Leone, Franklyn Kargbo, the head of a legal firm involved in several land deals was appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General, with a key role in the development of land leases and the responsibility of the ongoing land reform process.

Such conflicts of interest should not be so surprising given the money involved in land deals: Some investments are expected to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of net profit per year to the investors. We therefore believe at OI that citizens and the justice system in Africa should exercise the highest scrutiny over the land deals that are negotiated by their governments, especially when such deals involve large fiscal incentives and little direct public revenue, as seen in many cases studied by the Institute.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: There have been a number of reports saying that the carbon markets have collapsed. Is the proportion of land grabs driven by carbon speculation significant enough that land acquisitions could start to decrease or slow? Or is this simply, as you call it, a 'green cover' for land grabs, in the way that proselytising and 'civilising' missions provided cover for land grabs in Africa in the 19th century?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: Carbon markets are only one of the drivers of land grabs in Africa. So far it seems to have been less determinant in the recent increase in land investments than the promises for high returns from timber, food, and agrofuels plantations. In particular, agrofuels, produced on a large scale by agribusinesses and promoted by many governments and institutions as a solution to the world’s dependence on fossil fuels, have become a driver of land grabs in Africa. The developed world’s demand for agrofuels is being stimulated by the United States and the European Union which have set targets to replace 30 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively, of their gasoline with agrofuels. US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has stated that the American investment in agrofuels is designed to ‘end [our] dependence on foreign oil and address the climate crisis.’ It is estimated that the European Union target may result in seven million hectares to be used for the production of agrofuels.

Policymakers and the bioenergy industry have promoted agrofuels as a sustainable clean energy source. However, agrofuels are neither sustainable nor low-carbon. Agrofuel crop monocultures require large amounts of water, nutrients, and pesticides, and most agrofuel refineries and transportation methods still rely on oil and coal. In addition, agrofuel can be processed into biodiesel, which fuels the same standard diesel engines whose emissions contribute to climate change.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: With COP17 currently taking place in Durban, there is a strong focus on climate change and the environment. What impact will land deals have on the ability of communities and countries to deal with climate change?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: Taking over water, forest land, and other natural resources, current investments are transforming the African agricultural landscape into large monocultures while undermining the capacity of resilience and the traditional coping mechanisms of local populations. This is particularly obvious for pastoralists, practicing semi-nomadic livestock herding. Pastoralists do not have any formal title over the land they use, and their pastures are being eroded year after year, reducing their ability to cope with drought years.

OI research in Tanzania shows for instance that the Maasai have lost critical land that they used for seasonal grazing or access to water sources for their cattle. Current construction of dams and large-scale irrigation schemes for sugar cane plantations in Ethiopia are about to take over hundreds of thousands of hectares of pastures used by the agropastoralists populations in the South Omo Valley and around the Turkana Lake.

It is safe to say that the establishment of plantations and large scale irrigation schemes reduces the amounts of water available for farming and the availability of pastures, which will make the effects of climate change, especially droughts, far worse in the future. Furthermore, the loss of forests and the development of monocropping will increase erosion and land degradation, which will in turn, make the effects of climatic shocks, droughts and floods, more dramatic in the future.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Given all the evidence to suggest the major role industrial agriculture plays in swelling the GHG emissions which exacerbate climate change, why is the World Bank so set on exporting these harmful techniques to Africa? And why have the EU and US retained targets for increasing their dependence on biofuels despite evidence that they increase, rather than reduce carbon emissions?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: Whereas rich countries have declared the development of agrofuels as a priority in order to fight climate change, it seems obvious that a more significant reason is to reduce the dependency of the so-called ‘developed’ world over fossil fuels. The reduction of carbon emissions thus seems to be only a secondary objective for these countries.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: In 2009, Mozambique stopped large-scale land acquisitions, but in 2011 this moratorium was lifted and large-scale acquisitions continued. What measures, if any, have been put in place during the period between 2009 and 2011 to protect small-scale land users from being pushed off their land? Will these measures be effective?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: Some genuinely believe, like the current Ethiopian government, seem to have decided that whole segments of their population, especially indigenous groups and pastoralists communities, don’t matter. As a result, as seen in Gambella and South Omo region of Ethiopia, people’s land is taken away by force to make it available to investors for the development of large scale plantations.

The World Bank Group describes the exchange between developing countries and foreign investors as having enormous potential – a ‘win-win’ situation – and over the past two decades, has established a host of pro-investment structures in African countries to promote private sector development, improve countries’ investment climates, and remove barriers to foreign investment in agriculture and other sectors.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: South Sudan's transition to a newly independent state has made it especially vulnerable to land acquisitions. Can you explain how large companies and international financial institutions have taken advantage of this situation?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: Legacies of conflict have left a South Sudanese state that is weak and unable to effectively extend its control into rural areas and lacks a regulatory framework for managing an influx of investment. At the same time, cash strapped new government is supporting land investments, believing that large-scale projects are the quickest way to improve food security and bring in the necessary revenues. As a result, as long as the agreement has a gloss of legality, the companies can claim that they have obtained leasehold rights. Companies rarely consult with residents in affected communities, or conduct environmental and social impact assessments, as required by the 2009 Land Act. Nor do they feel pressure from government institutions to abide by ‘good practice’ social and environmental protections. In many respects, investments in postwar South Sudan are managed like those during the war: If you have the political and military clout, anything is possible.

This situation is compounded by international financial institutions (IFIs) and donor countries who are encouraging the government of South Sudan to make land available to foreign companies for industrial agriculture. The government of South Sudan has embarked on a campaign with a consortium of development partners, including the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), to promote agricultural investment in South Sudan, despite the above-mentioned concerns.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: You looked extensively at the 325,000 ha AgriSol project in Tanzania, that will rely on the relocation of 162,000 people. In terms of the structure of the deal (price per hectare, length of lease, corporate tax, other incentives), please describe how this shows the way in which these deals are structured in favour of large agribusinesses?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: While claiming to benefit Tanzanians and contributing to the country’s food needs, promoting livelihoods of small holder farmers, AgriSol’s internal documents reveal its true intent and the true cost for Tanzania in promoting such foreign investments. For instance, our new Brief rebutting Agrisol’s PR campaign reveals:

- AgriSol Energy will pay Tanzania .55 cents a hectare in fees and rent for a 99 years lease.
- AgriSol’s push for ‘Strategic Investor Status’ includes its demand to receive incentives including a waiver of duties on diesel, agricultural and industrial equipment and supplies ; a 30 per cent exemption from corporate tax, production of agrofuels, and request of the government to commit and provide a timetable for the construction of a rail link for Mishamo.
- Its feasibility studies call for it to negotiate with the government for input subsidies, which for now are targeted for the smallholder Tanzanian farmers. This demand will divert scarce public resources from smallholders to large foreign investors.
- The model of ‘modern agriculture’ envisioned by Serengeti and AgriSol links crop production, livestock production, and agrofuel production through partnerships among various agribusiness conglomerates in the value chain. Its partners include Monsanto, Stine, and John Deere, among many others (as evident from the slide presentation to its investors) and the application of this model in Tanzania will basically open the country to a massive influx of the world’s largest agribusiness companies.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: You raise an interesting point about the relationship between the structural adjustment programmes of the last three decades and current land grabs in Zambia. How have SAPs paved the way for land acquisitions to take place?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: As evidenced in our country report, during Zambia’s economic crisis of the 1970s/80s, World Bank/IMF SAPs were forced upon Zambia in 1990s, as a condition of debt-servicing loans. These loans came attached with conditionalities including efforts to promote economic liberalisation, privatisation, and foreign investment.

This resulted in Lands Act passed by the Parliament in 1995 which facilitates investment in mining, agriculture, and tourism and with its passing, land could now be bought and sold freely like a commodity. Traditional leaders, civil society, church leaders, and other stakeholders expressed concern with the Bill, arguing it would put poor people at a disadvantage and undermine the authority of traditional leaders with regards to administration of customary land. The Lands Act combined reserve/trustland into customary land, strengthened state leasehold rights at the expense of customary rights, eased restrictions on foreign ownership of land, facilitated the conversion of land from customary to state, and removed the ability of the state to repossess undeveloped land. In 1996, the Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) was formed to be a ‘one-stop shop’ to facilitate private investment, to privatise state assets, and assist investors through various government processes while the creation of the Zambia Investment Centre (ZIC) was a requirement of the 1995 Investment Act, mandated by the WB/IMF’s PIRC II loan.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: You mention that the World Bank’s policy glosses over critical issues of human rights, food security and human dignity, while the IFC’s ‘Performance Standards for Social and Environmental Responsibility’ lack appropriate measures on community engagement, transparency and human rights. To what extent do you think that the inclusion of such criteria would compel investors and governments to implement ‘responsible’ land acquisition deals?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: If the World Bank was to emphasise human rights, food security, and human dignity, it would mean it would stop advocating for investor friendly climate at all costs. Its ‘doing business’ ranking would be based on the prevalence of social and environmental standards instead of the lack of such basic principles. While that might not compel investors and governments to implement responsible land acquisitions, deals, it would definitely take away the pressure that “development” agencies have over the poor country governments.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: You’ve said in the past that decisions about how to use water and land resources in Africa for Africans should be determined by Africans through democratic processes. What examples of good practice we can build or draw on?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: Our new research shows that unlike large-scale irrigation, a focus on efficient small-scale irrigation, sustainable agriculture and water management methods can improve the lives of local smallholders, enhance food security and prevent environmental degradation from water depletion. All over Africa, sustainable water management and smallholder irrigation schemes have led to substantial increases in crop yields.

For instance, In Zimbabwe, sustainable water management and water harvesting systems such as those established by the Zvishavane Water Resources Project have proven very effective in increasing yields, building resilience to climate shocks and improving income and food security. In Burkina Faso like in other Sahelian countries, the introduction of Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) techniques such as planting pits (i.e. zai), stone lines (i.e. bunds) and level permeable rock dams has led to enhanced productivity, economic security, population stability, enhanced biodiversity and improved water tables. With the introduction of such techniques in the 1980s, farmers achieved 50-60 percent higher yields of both millet and sorghum.

- In Mali, the establishment of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) among smallholders in the region of Timbuktu resulted in reduced quantity of water used while rice yields increased to 9 metric tons per hectare, an increase of 50 to 100 percent over yields obtained under conventional irrigated production techniques.
- In Ghana, the production of staples such as millet and sorghum show, on average, better yields under small-scale irrigation than under large-scale irrigation. Research has showed that small-scale irrigation in Ghana contributed to 1.5 metric ton / hectare of millet compared to 0.50 metric ton / hectare under large-scale irrigation.
- In Kenya, biointensive agriculture, a low-cost agricultural technology designed for small farmers, has been shown to use 70 to 90 percent less water than conventional agriculture (due to the establishment of higher soil organic matter levels, continuous soil coverage by crops, and adequate fertility for root and plant health).
- In Lesotho, the improvement in peasants’ access to the water supply and the use of small-scale irrigation technologies, such as drip irrigation and treadle pumps have improved water conservation and the crop yields of subsistence farmers, who have been increasingly able to sell excess produce in the local market

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What has the Oakland Institute have in store for us in the next period?

OAKLAND INSTITUTE: Stay Tuned ☺

Indian Land Grabber -Ramakrishna Karuturi: Man behind Karuturi Global - world's largest producer of cut roses - The Economic Times

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.

BSE

100.05

-0.40 (-0.40%)

Vol:13509 shares traded

NSE

100.35

-0.35 (-0.35%)

Vol:110926 shares traded

Prices|Financials|Company Info|Reports

Three years ago when Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi set up shop in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, his company was already the world's largest producer of cut roses. But the founder and managing director ofKaruturi Global didn't want to do in Addis Ababa what he was doing in Kenya in the past seven years. The 45-year-old mechanical engineer wanted to move beyond the company's mainstay, floriculture.

With the government of Ethiopia leasing out land at low cost to hi-tech foreign agriculture companies, there was indeed an opportunity in commercial farming; Ethiopia plans to transfer 3.3 million ha of land to such investors for the next four years.

"We were looking at becoming one of the top five agro-commodities [rice, maize, etc] producers in the world and a significant player in the global food business," says Karuturi who has steered Karuturi Global, once confined to Bangalore alone, to an international entity.

He started the company in 1994, a few years after finishing his engineering degree from Bangalore University. But doing business isn't as easy as pie in Ethiopia, where land is increasingly becoming a sensitive subject, and experts are divided on the extent of risk Karuturi has taken in the East African nation. Price of Risk The company is skating on thin ice, argues Bharat Kulkarni, an East Africabased consultant who advises Indian corporates looking to do business in Africa.

Narendra Dokania, senior analyst of ICRA's rating services, too, has a word of caution for Karuturi: "Although Karuturi enjoys the first-mover advantage compared with other Indian companies because of its good track record in East Africa, it would have to deal with local issues related to land, labour and climate." Karuturi Global is the first Indian company to invest in commercial agriculture in Ethiopia. He adds, "Logistics could also prove to be a challenge given the poor road connectivity and significant distance of Gambela, where Karuturi's biggest land holding is located, from key markets and ports.

However, if river transportation, as planned by the company, becomes a success, most of the transportation concerns could be resolved," he says. Karuturi Global has a land bank of 311,700 ha of agricultural land - or eight times the size of Mumbai. Land was leased to the company by the government. Problems galore, warns Kulkarni. "Karuturi will have to bring in a lot of heavy equipment, a lot of which cannot be classified as farm equipment and hence will not be duty-free," he notes.

In fact, he is also sceptical about the "low cost" of land which is seen to work out to $10-15 per ha for the company, with no lease rental being charged for the first few years. "The actual expenses would be much more than that since the land has to be converted to farmlands, and that could be as high as $1,500 per ha." For someone who has fought off numerous business challenges, Karuturi is unperturbed.

"We have finalised deals with four big agro companies in India for joint ventures for different crops that we are looking at growing - rice, maize, oil palm and sugarcane," he says. The company has also tied up with a consortium of agro-entrepreneurs from Punjab who have now set up operations in Ethiopia as registered agri-consultants. Further, Karuturi is in talks with agri companies in Latin America for tie-ups.