The Fleecing of African Farmland

What's the result of a country reaching its maximum level of agricultural productivity, or more simply, what happens when a country runs out of enough farmland to meet its own citizens' food needs?

As many industrialized countries in Europe and Asia -- and soon the United States as well -- begin to grapple with this question, it seems as though the initial answer is to simply buy up inexpensive farmland in an area of the world with cheap labor and the greatest untapped agricultural potential: Africa.

The practice is called "Land Leasing," and describes the decade-long contracts governments in African countries, such as Ethiopia, are entering into with wealthy countries and businesses.  In this model, wealthy nations effectively "export" their need for staple agricultural products to nations in Africa, where farmland is widely available (for the moment) and where the product can be produced even more cheaply than at home.

This is not only seen as a need for food security in wealthy countries, but as an opportunity to make a quick buck in one of the fastest-growing investment sectors in the world.  In the first half of 2009 alone, private equity firms raised more than $2 billion to invest in farmland.

Proponents of this system argue that it will increase efficiency and spur industrialization of the African agricultural sector.  While this may very well be true, what this system also does is increase consolidation and force African farmers off their land.  Instead of helping African farmers compete in the global marketplace, land leasing effectively turns these farmers into a giant pool of cheap labor to be used by the giant agribusiness companies moving in.

Even with this practice being fairly new, disputes between smaller farmers and agribusinesses -- also being called the "new colonialists" -- are already becoming commonplace.  Farmers are often kicked off of land their ancestors have worked for generations when their government (without any input from or payment to the farmers) sells their land to a foreign government or corporation.

Perhaps the worst of this is the potential for disaster for African food security.  As rich countries sure up steady supplies of their staple products on farms throughout Africa, many poor nations are quickly becoming net importers of food, leaving them susceptible to widespread hunger.

Here's a worst case scenario: a country in Africa begins to focus its production on specialty-crop products (green beans or baby corn, for example) to be sold in American and European markets.  This is accomplished through technology and innovation advances made with private equity from investment firms and foreign governments.

However, after a drought or outbreak of disease (or really any small kink in the production chain), these wealthy western countries decide not to buy from the African nation.  The result is that nation losing millions of dollars in anticipated export revenue and holding onto a surplus of tons of produce that the people in their country aren't even accustomed to eating.  So not only does this nation not have enough money to purchase food, they are also holding onto a product no one wants to buy.

Does any of this resource exploitation sound familiar, like something that has already happened before? Yeah, I see the similarities too and wonder how long the international community is going to sit on their hands and let rich countries exploit, once again, the resources of poorer ones.

African nations, or more accurately the African people, are assuming all of the risk and are being denied any of the reward.

(Photo credit: luigig on Flickr)