The BBC programme on land grabbing versus economic development broadcast last week from Sierra Leone was an eye opener. It dealt with the current situation in many African and other developing countries where investors are pouring in and acquiring vast tracts of land for mining, growing of sugar cane for biofuel etc., and the implications.
I had the privilege of sitting in on the recording at the Bintumani Hotel and was completely bowled over by astounding revelations of facts which the ordinary Sierra Leonean knew nothing about or only suspected. The atmosphere was electric! Everybody wanted to talk, and the organizers Alex Jakana and Justine Roland had difficulty fitting in the lucky ones. The general consensus was that people are very unhappy about the situation, especially the way in which the population here has been kept in the dark about the deals and how they are handled. The panel included our Deputy Minister of Agriculture Mr. Ali Badari Mansaray, an environmental activist Mr. Joseph Rahall of Green Scenery and a dynamic expert on world land issues from the Oaklands Institute in California, Anurada Mital whose knowledge of the global scene was impressive. You could feel that all who took the microphone spoke with confidence and authenticity. They represented people and organisations from all over the country and you could sense that what they were saying was true and that it came from the heart.
Among revelations were the following:
1. The people are not involved in negotiations.
2. The communities have not benefited so far from these deals.
3. The only beneficiaries are the Government, chiefs and local councillors.
4. Landowners are often coerced behind closed doors to sign documents they hardly understand and their consent is not always sought.
5. Companies are taking everything away one has destroyed traditional water sources thus creating problems for the community.
6. Laws in place are not always conducive to fair deals
7. The whole system is flawed.
The answers/explanations given by the Deputy Minister and other government supporters were also revealing in the sense that they displayed the weakness of the government’s position and the lack of transparency in the handling of the deals. The Deputy Minister explained that there were two systems for investors. The first was to go direct to the communities and the second through government. One is tempted to ask: why two systems? Why is any investor allowed to go straight to the communities when only the chiefs and councilors, all male, will negotiate on behalf of illiterate landowners? Is this not a recipe for cheating and exploiting poor people? When asked why the general public was not sensitized and properly informed, the Deputy Minister replied: ‘Walk into my office and you will get the information’ a most irresponsible reply from the highest government representative present. So we should all go trooping to his office to find out how they are leasing our land at incredible prices, otherwise we deserve to remain in the dark. The Deputy Minister really exposed himself to ridicule when the firebrand world land expert heard him admit that he did not have any figures to show benefits to the nation so far accrued and how the money had been spent. She had been to see a foreign investor the day before and had heard that the latter had acquired land leases for $2.50 per hectare per year for planted land and $1.50 for land not planted. The Deputy Minister’s corresponding figure was $12.50 for all land leased, and he had documents to prove this, so he said.
And so, who was lying? Anurada Mital also pointed out that in the UK such land would cost $26.000, in the USA $16,000 and in Brazil $8,000. Are our leaders aware of what is going on ion the world? Do they themselves understand the seriousness of what they are doing? Why are investors streaming into Sierra Leone to lease land? Aren’t the reasons obvious? Of course, this is land grabbing with the connivance of the authorities!!. Anurada Mital kept harping on the necessity to produce figures while expressing surprise that she had found herself obliged to educate our Deputy Minister.
Mr. Patrick Caulker of the Import and Export Organisation also exhibited vagueness over figures. He was sure we stood to benefit but, as it was still early days, he could give no figures. What estimates had the government worked on with regard to expected receipts to give credence to the claims of prospective investors, or to convince owners to part with their land, or to compare with actual takings? These considerations did not feature in his contributions. He left listeners perplexed and mistrustful of his reassuring manner.
There was considerable disagreement over the question of availability of land. The government claimed that 85% of arable land was available for investment while the environmentalist reckoned that there was no such land available if calculations about population growth etc. were taken into consideration.
The deputy Minister affirmed that government encouraged investors because otherwise the land would be lying idle. He was reminded that fallow land was not necessarily idle land. He wanted to know what was the alternative to current deals and was advised to call a halt to the rush to give out land to foreigners while the whole land situation is reassessed, laws and policies revised so that there is more transparency and goals and benefits are much clearer.
The women speakers were particularly vocal. There was general agreement that investment was needed in Sierra Leone but that everything depended on the way the processes were handled. So far what is happening leaves much to be desired.
The so-called economic development myth was also exploded, at least as far as could be seen at present. The jobs created in Makeni and other mining areas are short term labour jobs and poorly paid. e.g. brushing land, cutting sugar cane and driving vehicles. The money earned cannot feed families. Economic growth can be seen only in hotels and guest houses patronized more than before by people rushing into urban areas. One M.P. and the Christian Aid representative stressed that the country had gained nothing so far. When the Deputy Minister claimed that investors interested in biofuel production were obliged to engage in some other form of agriculture alongside, the world expert commented that large-scale mechanised farming does not bring employment.
Speaker after speaker echoed the need for more transparency. It was significant that no representatives of the companies involved were able to be present knowing, I suppose, as they must do, that they could not stand up to the questions they would have to answer from the actual sufferers and critics. The Green Scenery spokesman’s advice on a moratorium on further foreign investment in the land area is sensible and should be taken very seriously by any government that genuinely intends to foster economic growth for the country as a whole and not for the benefit of a few selfish individuals. The shady deals must stop. We know, now that the cat is out of the bag.
The question asked by a perceptive speaker that remains in my mind is how a country with an agricultural deficit can even contemplate accepting investments on the bandwagon of biofuel production. The palliative measures to encourage and support small farmers to become bigger farmers as described by the Deputy Minister must be totally ineffectual if the stacks of bags of imported rice from floor to ceiling that we continue to see in the shops of rice dealers are anything to go by. Where is the rice that our farmers are growing?
Thank you BBC for setting us thinking and for the lessons that came out of that broadcast. It should have repercussions in all the countries affected by this new bug that has replaced colonialism.
By Lulu Wright
ADVERTISEMENT