The questions about agriculture—food, really—in the coming years is the subject of this piece appearing in tomorrow’s print edition of The New York Times. Judging by the adjectives he uses, the writer isn’t thrilled by one prospect, at least. He seems to think there might be something morally wrong with a new approach toward increasing global food supplies: private investment in agricultural production in foreign lands. Saudi investors are the ones he looks at most, but others, from S. Korea to Japan to India, are also in the game.
The article does give both sides of the story, both of small farmers who have to deal with corrupt governments and global forces of and for change and of those who see their investments as benefiting them, as individual investors, their countries, and the local populations. The article is, if nothing else, a good place to start the debates.
Is There Such a Thing as Agro-Imperialism?
Andrew RiceDr. Robert Zeigler, an eminent American botanist, flew to Saudi Arabia in March for a series of high-level discussions about the future of the kingdom’s food supply. Saudi leaders were frightened: heavily dependent on imports, they had seen the price of rice and wheat, their dietary staples, fluctuate violently on the world market over the previous three years, at one point doubling in just a few months. The Saudis, rich in oil money but poor in arable land, were groping for a strategy to ensure that they could continue to meet the appetites of a growing population, and they wanted Zeigler’s expertise.
There are basically two ways to increase the supply of food: find new fields to plant or invent ways to multiply what existing ones yield. Zeigler runs the International Rice Research Institute, which is devoted to the latter course, employing science to expand the size of harvests. During the so-called Green Revolution of the 1960s, the institute’s laboratory developed “miracle rice,” a high-yielding strain that has been credited with saving millions of people from famine. Zeigler went to Saudi Arabia hoping that the wealthy kingdom might offer money for the basic research that leads to such technological breakthroughs. Instead, to his surprise, he discovered that the Saudis wanted to attack the problem from the opposite direction. They were looking for land.
In a series of meetings, Saudi government officials, bankers and agribusiness executives told an institute delegation led by Zeigler that they intended to spend billions of dollars to establish plantations to produce rice and other staple crops in African nations like Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Ethiopia. “They laid out this incredible plan,” Zeigler recalled. He was flabbergasted, not only by the scale of the projects but also by the audacity of their setting. Africa, the world’s most famished continent, can’t currently feed itself, let alone foreign markets.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
November:21:2009 - 10:03
It is nice to see that the good old days are back, at least in some parts of Africa. European colonialism did little good for Africa. The Saudis are more sensible, they aren’t conquering countries. No pompous colonels and long supply lines but it is still colonialism, just modernized and sanitized. Its not white man’s burden but “the going rate”. Does anyone think that renting land at 50 cents an acre is a good deal for Ethiopia? Does anyone think 75 cents a day for labor is going to lift those laborers out of poverty?
One cannot blame the Saudis for trying to make a good deal for themselves, but for a country whose law is supposed to be based on religion, I can only ask them, is this justice?
Is this argo-imperialism? Yes!
November:21:2009 - 10:03
I think there’s one major factor that distinguishes ‘colonialism’ from what’s going on now: ownership. The Saudis, and others, are not buying up the land and turning them into provinces of their countries. Instead, they’re renting properties, or when purchased, purchased with the full agreement of the local governments. Again, you can argue that those governments are corrupt and venal, but who should be making the decisions instead? The UN? A putative ‘Lawyers without Borders’?
There is not a global democracy in existence. Instead, the only way law works is to grant local governments the autonomy and sovereignty to make those decisions, good or bad. Those not involved in the actual contracting have limited means to affect them. Public denunciation, were it loud enough, might dissuade some, but certainly not all.
November:21:2009 - 10:03
@1
75cents might be change to you but it does alot in africa. i think this will be good over all; but there needs to be caution as there can be ethical issues involved.
@2
john, if a foreign entity buys land, isn’t that pretty close to an outright province of the entity?
November:21:2009 - 10:03
No it isn’t, unless that entity is protecting its land with an army. The state in which the land is found ultimately controls it. It can expropriate the land–as several African states, including Libya, have done–or it can take it over, as the Indian gov’t did to Portuguese-controlled Goa in the 1960s. As long as the land is held through contract, a state can over-ride the contract. That even happens within the US, through the doctrine of ‘eminent domain’.
You’re right, though, that $0.75/day is not to be sneezed at in much of the world. Sure, it’s nothing for someone in the West, but it can and does make the difference between eating and hunger, between life and death in many countries. I’ve no desire to be hired at the wages and benefits (hah!) that would go to a Bangladeshi, for example, day-laborer, but that’s not the lot I was born into.
November:21:2009 - 10:03
Apart from energy security, food security is a growing problem across the world and especially in Africa.
Food Security implies that the general population has Availablity, Accessibility, and Proper usage for their food resources.
The problem with Africa is more of Food Accessibility and Usage. As of now it is very costly to transport, store, and distribute food in Africa because of the lack of infrastructure.
What Africa needs today is significant investment in agro-based industries and infrastructure, which it never gets for some reasons from the donors. And yes Return on Investment is very low so no corporates would be interested in investing in Africa at least for now.
But as Saudi Arabia forays in a large billion dollar scale in Africa it would significantly help establish agro-based industries, infrastructure and revive the agricultural economy for sure. Which in turn would solve the problems of Accessibility of Food for Africans. So this is a win-win solution for both Africans and Middle East.
But however with corruption rampant this could also dampen some of the cash flows as well.
BTW Saudi Arabia is not alone in this, even other GCC countries like UAE are doing the same, also apart from Africa even South American countries are also being used. Recently the Brazilian President Lula was in Saudi Arabia a few months back to discuss the agricultural investments in Brazil
November:21:2009 - 10:03
@John:
BTW on a side note, Goa was Portuguese colony in India not a contracted land, and India had to fight a mini-scale war with the Portuguese in India.
The leasing of Hong Kong to Britain by China could be a good example though may not be exactly as this case.
November:21:2009 - 10:03
True, Goa was not contracted land. I think it still represents an example of how a country can take back ‘what is its own’, though, even the the face of international condemnation.
November:21:2009 - 10:03
I recall from one of my university courses–Economic Geography of Africa–that either Sudan or Uganda, if either had a developed infrastructure, could feed all of Africa. Unfortunately, African governance has not been of the highest order, shall we say.
As the article noted, it is most assuredly not just the Saudis… Japan, Korea, and India are also among the investors.
November:21:2009 - 10:03
Hmmm. Wonder what the Moroccans will do with Ceuta and Melilla (Spanish enclaves) in light of the show of armed force over the Isla de Perejil (Parsley Island) uninhabited except for grazing goats by Spain when Moroccan cadets tried to take it back. Gibraltar–the Brits don’t want to give that back either.
Sounds like Uganda, as a better bread basket than Sudan (too much Sahara) but that is only a guess. Tragic though.
I just read that African countries still have the highest AIDS numbers and South Africa the highest of all, despite having 1st world medicine available. The attitude of the previous administration in South Africa, that AIDS didn’t really exist and similar ills could be treated with herbs has created a problem, or more of a problem where there shouldn’t be.
Done correctly this agro-business could benefit all, but I guess that is the caveat. Unfortunately it does seem that local corruption in Africa is the worst enemy of its people.
Sending surplus wheat (from Canada) or tied food aid is not as effective as building up local growing capacity and infrastructure. However the mistakes of the post WWII USA agro-industry shouldn’t be repeated.