 |
| Water Grab. Source |
Whilst my last post examined the continued problems with water policy left behind by colonialism this post will examine the impact of another dominant force, corporations. Investment by agribusinesses as well as governments wishing to offset their own food shortages has led to a new water grab in Africa. Water grabbing, much like land grabbing is large-scale acquisition of water by companies or governments which leads to inequitable distribution.
Large scale investors have been buying vast areas of fertile agricultural land in African countries such as Mali (Provost, 2011). There are debates over the efficacy of this investment, a small number of agricultural companies and foreign governments own an area large enough to support 500,000 small scale farmers, in a country where less than 5% of the land is arable it is potentially unsustainable to give such a large proportion of this land to foreign investors who will grow food for export (Oakland Institute, 2011).However the issue goes further than this to make the most of this lands potential these investors also want to secure access to water in a continent where water is expected to become more scarce, this has led to a situation where governments are agreeing to sign away water rights to these investors (Provost, 2011). Giving investors water rights is clearly not in itself an issue, rather the concern comes from the specifics of these agreements. In Mali and Sudan investors have been given rights to use an unchecked amount of water (Hands Off The Land Alliance, 2014). For example around the village of Samana Dugu 20,000 hectares of land have been given to Moulin Moderne (a wheat company) free of charge along with unlimited water with the advice that they should grow less water intensive crops between January and May (Oakland Institute, 2011). This land was given on the basis of a Public-Private partnership but there has been no evidence as of yet as to what the public benefit is.
 |
| The Moulin Moderne site. Source |
Clearly this allocation to agribusiness has the potential to be devastating to others relying on this water, particularly in Mali where much of the land being purchased is on the banks of the Niger and thus this is where a lot of the water is coming from. The water from this river is vital for both irrigation of farmland and fishing both in Mali and the wider West African region, thus it is troubling that the Oakland Institute report that there is no legal duty for investors or the government to conduct environmental or social impact assessments before water use begins (Oakland Institute, 2011).
In cases such as this there is a temptation to place blame in the hands of investors however I believe that in fact much of the issue has come from poor governance from the Malian government. Around the Moulin Moderne site there is debate around whether the land was even the governments to offer, and whether Moulin have the financial capability to develop and farm the land that they have been granted for the next 50 years (Oakland Institute, 2011). On top of this there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in the governments dealings with investors, within the space of a year the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Habitat and the environment signed two contracts with two entirely different methods of charging for water, one charging through volumetric billing and the other charging per acre irrigated (IIED, 2011). To make this governance yet more confusing it is in fact the Ministry for Mining, Energy and Water Resources that are in charge of governing water in Mali, yet they were not involved in the signing of these agreements , rather it was a collaborative effort between the Office Du Niger, the Investment Promotion Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture (HLPE, 2011).
Whilst this post has made the issues with such water grabbing apparent this is not to say that there are not benefits of the involvement of such investors, whether international or national. Firstly they can bring much needed revenue to governments of developing nations through land purchase or water tariffs. Also common is agreements for investment in infrastructure in return for land and water, for example the Libyan government agreed to build an irrigation canal in return for 100,000 hectares of land in Mali (however again this is not without issue as this land is to be utilised to grow food for Libya to deal with their shortage) (HLPE, 2011).
When looking for solutions to these issues around investments in agricultural land and associated water grabbing I believe the HLPE's recommendations may represent the most sensible way forward. To paraphrase their lengthy suggestions they say:
- Host country governments should: engage in transparent consultation with indigenous people and ensure their land and water policies are clear and equitable
- Corporations should: Follow their legal duty to not infringe on human rights and do their due diligence to make sure their operations are respecting human rights before initiating any projects.
Thoughtful post - do have a look at this text (https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Land-and-Water-Grabs-in-Africa-Foreign-direct-investment-and/Allan-Keulertz-Sojamo-Warner/p/book/9781857436693) as well as other peer-reviewed sources for further details on Land and Water Grabs.
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! I have investigated the topic as well and I think it is interesting that African governments largely promote large-scale land acquisitions, as they expect benefits for their economies. Some Scholars even argue that foreign investors are the key players in Africa´s modernization of agriculture. It is dicussed for example that smallholders can benefit from infrastructure built by these foreign investors to gain better access to markets, but also technologies that might increase their productivity. Other outline that the productivity of large-scale farms is vital to sustain food security in large parts of South Saharan Africa. What doyou think about these positive implication of foreign investments in Africa?
Hi Alina,
DeleteGlad you enjoyed the post. Obviously I accept that there are nuances involved when looking at the involvement of foreign investors there are clearly going to be both positives and negatives. Foreign investment in nations such as Uganda has had great benefits for infrastructure such as improved roads. However when looking at food security I feel little is being done by FDI, for example if you read into the large scale investment by nations such as Saudi Arabia (https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-invest-over-us-11bn-in-farmland-projects-473653.html) you'll see that it is in fact their own food security they are looking to solve. Thus they are worsening existing water scarcity by exporting 'virtual' water by removing crops from these nations.