Kobojunkie:


You mean for sovereignty, other countries don't allow the very same companies/investors to lease/purchase for company use?

So, if we invite companies that want to farm our lands, we should never sell them land?

Also, on the post on Canada, can you also include information to show the amount of property sold to foreign investors in the same year.

How can you sell tracts of land that are rich in natural resources? Do you think we are talking about 10 acres here?

Why are they not heading to China to buy LAND?

Eish, some people are talking investment. Lol. Investment indeed! You buy land the size of France for peanuts and some Africans scream investment. No wonder they bought able bodied Africans for mirrors during the slave trade. SHAME!!!

violent:


I think you are a bit wrong here, you assume that these companies are investing in Agriculture to save the US economy once food becomes a scarce commodity- -----WRONG!!!!!!!!!

They invest to make money--simple and pure!. . .they don't give a fúck about America or if America is going to run short of food in the near future.  They are in it simply to make pure absolute returns.

The US economy is fledging, and on the verge of collapse, pension funds have since realized that investing in government bonds might no longer be as safe as they thought it might be, it will also be very dumb to invest in money instruments like t-bills because once the US starts printing out dollars, inflation is likely to wipe out any tangible gains to be made on t-bills.
This therefore mean that Pension funds will have to invest in asset classes that are less susceptible to the fledging US economy, and the only place you can find such asset classes is in Africa, as the African economy is less correlated with the economy of the rest of the world. 

Additionally, agricultural commodities have a long steady pay out rate which is actually a good thing for pension funds in a world where life expectancy has increased and an average person is likely to live longer and thus collect more money as pension.

Food scarcity is actually a good news for those invested in the funds. . . .what else could be?

There is nothing wrong with your analysis, except you are implying that the presence of one factor negates the other. Because investors are trying to acquire land and food resources so they can make money does not imply that they CANNOT or are not doing it for National food Security reasons too. Don't be quick to offer dismissals when your own analysis is supported largely by your own opinion.

My post is supported by the articles presented which includes the analysis of experts in the field. I specifically emphasized the interests of those Arab and South East Asians and not necessarily America so as to stress the issue of Food Security, scarcity population growth and drought as a central reason. It does not mean that profit and monetary gain is not a factor, there is no need for an absolute EITHER/OR analysis.

Read the links already provided and read this one too: http://m.npr.org/news/Politics/136394365

Those are experts speaking not conspiracy theorists. I doubt you know more about the issue than those folks.

So in summary, I'm not saying your idea is WRONG, I carefully worded my point, by starting with "while these companies want to make money"

Try to read more closely and be more patient before you reply, that's all I'm saying. These are serious issues, because you are right does not mean I'm wrong.

@@@@@@@@@@@@

let the Uk government try selling mega hectares of land make we see wetin go happen

even moving common romanian refugees close to some borugh no wahala

virgo:

Eish, some people are talking investment. Lol. Investment indeed! You buy land the size of France for peanuts and some Africans scream investment. No wonder they bought able bodied Africans for mirrors during the slave trade. SHAME!!!

Hahaaaa.

Now, I know why.

Those are experts speaking not conspiracy theorists. I doubt you know more about the issue than those folks.

and how do you know this?

People should read this and stop talking as far as this thread is concerned.

In the past, rumours of Chinese companies' interest in acquiring majority stakes in Canadian natural-resource companies have prompted sharp negative reactions. If a potential Chinese buyer were to materialise, public opposition might well lead Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, to disqualify it on national-security grounds, by declaring that potash is a strategic resource that needs to remain in Canadian hands. In 2005, CNOOC, a Chinese company, withdrew its bid for Unocal, an American oil firm, after the United States Congress voted to refer the offer to the president to guarantee it did not pose a threat to national security. Time will tell if Canadians, who pride themselves on being more worldly and open-minded than their southern neighbours, can resist the lure of such selective protectionism.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/08/bhp_billitons_bid_potash_corp


And, na ordinary company dem dey protect here oo. The US and Canada.

Wake up, guys. Read between the lines oo

virgo:

Eish, some people are talking investment. Lol. Investment indeed! You buy land the size of France for peanuts and some Africans scream investment. No wonder they bought able bodied Africans for mirrors during the slave trade. SHAME!!!

LMAO!!!

do you know exactly how much was paid?
how much will be paid in subsequent years?
was it an outright sale or a lease?
what the size of the land is?
the conditions of the land?

For instance, if i buy a land in an area for 3 million, chances are i might have to spend an additional 15 million in ensuring that the land is fit for use. . .you should learn not to be too brash without knowing exactly what is involved in the deal

violent:


LMAO!!!

do you know exactly how much was paid?
how much will be paid in subsequent years?
was it an outright sale or a lease?
what the size of the land is?
the conditions of the land?

For instance, if i buy a land in an area for 3 million, chances are i might have to spend an additional 15 million in ensuring that the land is fit for use. . .you should learn not to be too brash without knowing exactly what is involved in the deal

Say something about this:

In the past, rumours of Chinese companies' interest in acquiring majority stakes in Canadian natural-resource companies have prompted sharp negative reactions. If a potential Chinese buyer were to materialise, public opposition might well lead Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, to disqualify it on national-security grounds, by declaring that potash is a strategic resource that needs to remain in Canadian hands. In 2005, CNOOC, a Chinese company, withdrew its bid for Unocal, an American oil firm, after the United States Congress voted to refer the offer to the president to guarantee it did not pose a threat to national security. Time will tell if Canadians, who pride themselves on being more worldly and open-minded than their southern neighbours, can resist the lure of such selective protectionism.

They are SELLING the LAND. I can buttress this.

ola olabiy:



How can you sell tracts of land that are rich in natural resources? Do you think we are talking about 10 acres here?

Why are they not heading to China to buy LAND?

1. How many large/industrial scale farms do you know of that only farm 10 acres?

2. China currently leads in the quantity of land owned in Africa and all over. I am not certain why you need Companies, even Chinese companies, to purchase/lease in China, when there is abundance of fertile land in Africa that is open and uncultivated, some for half a century.

Kobojunkie:

1. How many large/industrial scale farms do you know of that only farm 10 acres?

2. China currently leads in the quantity of land owned in Africa and all over. I am not certain why you need Companies, even Chinese companies, to purchase/lease in China, when there is abundance of fertile land in Africa that is open and uncultivated, some for half a century.

And the ones they have in China are cultivated?

Answer the question about protectionism in Canada and the US first before we continue, please.

ola olabiy:

And the ones they have in China are cultivated?

Answer the question about protectionism in Canada and the US first before we continue, please.

1) Are you suggesting that the ONLY REASON a company/investor ought to be interested in land/property in Africa is if, and only if, there is no more land in it's country?

2) You mean to say that NO LAND(NONE) is sold/leased to foreign companies/investors in both America and Canada

In the past, rumours of Chinese companies' interest in acquiring majority stakes in Canadian natural-resource companies have prompted sharp negative reactions. If a potential Chinese buyer were to materialise, public opposition might well lead Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, to disqualify it on national-security grounds, by declaring that potash is a strategic resource that needs to remain in Canadian hands. In 2005, CNOOC, a Chinese company, withdrew its bid for Unocal, an American oil firm, after the United States Congress voted to refer the offer to the president to guarantee it did not pose a threat to national security. Time will tell if Canadians, who pride themselves on being more worldly and open-minded than their southern neighbours, can resist the lure of such selective protectionism.

The following are Canadian companies that have been acquired by foreign investors.

-------- MacMillan Bloedel, B.C. forestry giant acquired by Weyerhaeuser for US$2.45 billion in 1999

-----Eaton's, at one time Canada's largest retailer, with a history going back to 1869, purchased by Sears in 1999, and closed in 2000

-------Seagram distillery and entertainment conglomerate, sold to Vivendi Universal and Pernod Ricard in 2000

-------Corel, a software and programming company, taken over by Vector Capital in August 2003.

--------- CP Ships Ltd., acquired by the parent company of Hapag-Lloyd Container Line, TUI AG, in an all-cash transaction worth $2.3 billion US in 2005
------- Molson Breweries, one of the oldest companies in Canada acquired by Coors, in 2005.

----------Terasen Inc., previously BC Gas (a public utility company), sold to American-owned energy giant Kinder Morgan for $6.9 billion. The deal was approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission[b] despite 8,000 letters of protest, 2005[/b]. Terasen was subsequently sold to Newfoundland-based Fortis Inc. in 2007.

--------Canadian Pacific hotels the owner of many of Canada's most historic hotel properties (operating under the name Fairmont Hotels and Resorts since 1999) is sold to Colony Capital, LLC of California and Kingdom Holding Company of Saudi Arabia for $3.9 billion, in January 2006.

-------- Dofasco, Canada's largest steel maker acquired by Luxembourg-based Arcelor, January 2006.

-------- Noranda (mining company) & Falconbridge Ltd., purchased by Swiss mining company Xstrata in 2006. Noranda had earlier been a target of state-owned China Metals Corp., but had backed out in 2005 amid public concern in Canada of Chinese state control of such a major company.

----------ATI Technologies, Canada's graphics chip maker, acquired by Advanced Micro Devices, July 2006.

------- Stelco, Canada's last major independent steel producer, taken over by United States Steel in August 2007.

--------Alcan purchased by Rio Tinto in 2007.

--------Addax Petroleum, one of Canada's 9 fortune 2000 2009 oil and gas companies was acquired by sinopec of China for C$8.27 billion in June 2009 and approved by the Chinese government on August 12, 2009.

violent:

The following are Canadian companies that have been acquired by foreign investors.

-------- MacMillan Bloedel, B.C. forestry giant acquired by Weyerhaeuser for US$2.45 billion in 1999

-----Eaton's, at one time Canada's largest retailer, with a history going back to 1869, purchased by Sears in 1999, and closed in 2000

-------Seagram distillery and entertainment conglomerate, sold to Vivendi Universal and Pernod Ricard in 2000

-------Corel, a software and programming company, taken over by Vector Capital in August 2003.

--------- CP Ships Ltd., acquired by the parent company of Hapag-Lloyd Container Line, TUI AG, in an all-cash transaction worth $2.3 billion US in 2005
------- Molson Breweries, one of the oldest companies in Canada acquired by Coors, in 2005.

----------Terasen Inc., previously BC Gas (a public utility company), sold to American-owned energy giant Kinder Morgan for $6.9 billion. The deal was approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission[b] despite 8,000 letters of protest, 2005[/b]. Terasen was subsequently sold to Newfoundland-based Fortis Inc. in 2007.

--------Canadian Pacific hotels the owner of many of Canada's most historic hotel properties (operating under the name Fairmont Hotels and Resorts since 1999) is sold to Colony Capital, LLC of California and Kingdom Holding Company of Saudi Arabia for $3.9 billion, in January 2006.

-------- Dofasco, Canada's largest steel maker acquired by Luxembourg-based Arcelor, January 2006.

-------- Noranda (mining company) & Falconbridge Ltd., purchased by Swiss mining company Xstrata in 2006. Noranda had earlier been a target of state-owned China Metals Corp., but had backed out in 2005 amid public concern in Canada of Chinese state control of such a major company.

----------ATI Technologies, Canada's graphics chip maker, acquired by Advanced Micro Devices, July 2006.

------- Stelco, Canada's last major independent steel producer, taken over by United States Steel in August 2007.

--------Alcan purchased by Rio Tinto in 2007.

--------Addax Petroleum, one of Canada's 9 fortune 2000 2009 oil and gas companies was acquired by sinopec of China for C$8.27 billion in June 2009 and approved by the Chinese government on August 12, 2009.

Those companies are NOT strategic.

Why PREVENT the sales of a company (POTASH C.)? That's the question

violent:

and how do you know this?  

I will be glad to hear that you know more about this issue than Lester Brown. Google him bro.

Kobojunkie:

1) Are you suggesting that the ONLY REASON a company/investor ought to be interested in land/property in Africa is if, and only if, there is no more land in it's country?

2) You mean to say that NO LAND(NONE) is sold/leased to foreign companies/investors in both America and Canada

List them please. And, how many hectares.

ola olabiy:

Those companies are NOT strategic.

Why PREVENT the sales of a company (POTASH C.)? That's the question

Chei!  see defense ooo!   Candian's largest steel maker is not strategic!!! \

Dude, the sale of Potash C was close, but investors in the company refused to give up their majority stakes, the whole drama led to an extent where the stock price of Potash on the exchange was higher than the price it was being bidded for by the BHP, a phenomenon which is always rare in the history of acquisitions.  Canadian government did not save Potash, it's shareholders did!!!

ola olabiy:

List them please. And, how many hectares.

List what? I asked you a question. I want to be sure you did not just say what I think you did.


By the way, someone already gave you a list of properties acquired by foreign investors in Canada, but I see how you have decided to BRUSH all that aside just so you can hone in on the irrelevant, yet again!

violent:


If you have a company that runs a monopoly market in rice sale.

Let's say I for instance, being the president. I've observed that rice has gone out in supply, i simply declare a ban on exportation of rice. . .what it will mean is that you will have to sell your rice tothe local market, and NO, you simply can't increase your price, cos if you do, investors in the local market will take advantage of that opportunity to import rice and sell at a price that is ridiculously lower than yours. so in essence, it's either you watch your inventory get bigger without turnover or you simply sell at a price that is competitive for market rates.

very few african nations have the leverage to negotiate in the way you are describing.

why do you think these foreign investors are interested in africa in the first place? well first of all because land in africa is dirt cheap and secondly because these sort of transactions are negotiated with african leaders who are imperialist puppets who simply do as they are told.

What many of you guys are failing to realize is that most of these firms, by investing in economies outside their own, face a lot of political risk as well, at the same time, it doesn't make any sense that a company can produce food commodities ----for export only!!. if their is a short supply in local markets!

what risk? there is absolutely no risk to these foreign investors - all of the african govts that they are doing business with are loyal to western interests, most of these african  leaders are in  receipt of millions of dollars in military aid from some of these western nations (the western nations work hand in hand with their multinational corporations)  therefore it doesnt matter to them if the deals they negotiate shortchange their own people, because all the african leaders are interested in is perpetuating themselves in power. this is how Mobutu of Zaire remained in power for 32 years by granting mining concessions at giveaway prices to belgian, french and american mining companies.  
The same was true of Omar Bongo of Gabon who gave Elf very extensive oil concessions in his country enabling the French to make billions whilst leaving his people impoverished.

violent:

Chei!  see defense ooo!   Candian's largest steel maker is not strategic!!! \

Dude, the sale of Potash C was close, but investors in the company refused to give up their majority stakes, the whole drama led to an extent where the stock price of Potash on the exchange was higher than the price it was being bidded for by the BHP, a phenomenon which is always rare in the history of acquisitions.  Canadian government did not save Potash, it's shareholders did!!!

That is NOT true and you know it.

Read this:

The federal government rejects Australian-based BHP Billiton's $38.6 billion US hostile takeover of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. Industry Minister Tony Clement made the announcement at 5:45 p.m. in Ottawa, several hours ahead of the midnight deadline for the government's decision on whether the bid represented a net benefit for Canada. He said Canada wants to attract investment and business, but "some decisions can only be made once … and there's no turning back, ever." He also noted that BHP has 30 days to respond to the government's decision, adding that "At the end of that period, I will make a final decision." BHP said it will continue to co-operate with Clement and Industry Canada and will review its options.

Nov. 2, 2010: In a letter to Industry Minister Tony Clement, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall implores the federal government to "stand up for Canada and defend Canada's national strategic interests" by denying the foreign takeover bid. Clement hits out at media reports citing unnamed sources that Industry Canada has already come to a decision in favour of the bid, saying people should "cool their jets" and wait for his announcement.

Nov. 1, 2010: Reports based on unnamed sources say BHP may or may not increase its bid.

Oct. 30, 2010: Wall says he would consider imposing a resource transfer tax on BHP if the federal government backs the takeover.

And this:

Oct. 25, 2010: Saskatchewan ministers go to Ottawa to lobby against the bid. If the deal is to go ahead, the federal government must approve the BHP offer. The stock closes at $146.90 in Toronto.

Oct. 21, 2010: Premier Wall rejects the BHP bid. He says the proposed deal does not provide a net benefit to the people of Saskatchewan and Canada. The stock closes at $146.68 in Toronto.

Oct. 20, 2010: Liberal MPs said Ottawa should block the PotashCorp deal. The stock closes at $145.90 in Toronto.

Oct. 15, 2010: The Reuters news agency reports from Singapore that the Chinese chemical giant Sinochem Corp. wouldn't make a competing bid for PotashCorp.

Montreal-based billionaire investor Stephen Jarislowsky, a large shareholder in PotashCorp, said the BHP bid should be rejected. The stock closes at $146.78 in Toronto.

BHP Billiton says a Conference Board of Canada report understated the benefits a proposed new potash mine will bring to Saskatchewan.BHP Billiton says a Conference Board of Canada report understated the benefits a proposed new potash mine will bring to Saskatchewan. (CBC)Oct. 4, 2010: A BHP takeover of PotashCorp could cut Saskatchewan government revenues by at least $2 billion over a decade, the Conference Board of Canada says. The stock closes at $147.60 in Toronto.

Sept. 2, 2010: Saskatchewan commissions the Conference Board of Canada to review the proposed takeover.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/02/f-timeline-postashcorp-takeover-bid.html

Kilode?!:

I will be glad to hear that you know more about this issue than Lester Brown. Google him bro.

No one can ever lay claim to being an authority on issues like this.  There will always be arguments and counter arguments, for every Lester Brown, there are several other renowned economists or investors who share opposing views.  In as much as i can't lay claim to ever coming an inch in measures of quality of experience when Lester Brown is mentioned, i work in an industry where i have constructive arguments with some of the best minds ever, and I am positive that i have gained an experience good enough for me to come up with my own ideas and stand by them.

and if this is regarding your initial statement, i realize i might have gone out of line by stating that you're wrong.

Kobojunkie:

List what? I asked you a question. I want to be sure you did not just say what I think you did.


By the way, someone already gave you a list of properties acquired by foreign investors in Canada, but I see how you have decided to BRUSH all that aside just so you can hone in on the irrelevant, yet again!

Uhn?

In fact, you are so right they have just sold 2 states to China.


Are you kidding me?

List those sales, please.

virgo:

Eish, some people are talking investment. Lol. Investment indeed! You buy land the size of France for peanuts and some Africans scream investment. No wonder they bought able bodied Africans for mirrors during the slave trade. SHAME!!!

Who are you mad at ? The group that sold the land, knowing what it is to be used for? Or the group that made the offer to lease/purchase the land, and paid the price deemed acceptable by the original owner?

Read this. This is an eye opener - sort of :

When others are grabbing their land
Evidence is piling up against acquisitions of farmland in poor countries

May 5th 2011 | from the print edition

THE farmers of Makeni, in central Sierra Leone, signed the contract with their thumbs. In exchange for promises of 2,000 jobs, and reassurances that the bolis (swamps where rice is grown) would not be drained, they approved a deal granting a Swiss company a 50-year lease on 40,000 hectares of land to grow biofuels for Europe. Three years later 50 new jobs exist, irrigation has damaged the bolis and such development as there has been has come “at the social, environmental and economic expense of local communities”, says Elisa Da Vià of Cornell University.

When deals like this first came to international attention in 2009, it was unclear whether they were “land grabs or development opportunities”, to quote a study published that year. Supporters claimed they would bring seeds, technology and capital to some of the world’s poorest lands. Critics, such as the director of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, dubbed them “neo-colonialist”. But no one had hard evidence to back up their claims. Now they do. Two years on, a conference at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) of the University of Sussex, the biggest of its kind so far, examined over 100 land deals. Most judgments are damning.*

IMAGINE!

Land grabs have been strikingly popular. Preliminary research by the International Land Coalition, a non-governmental organisation, reckons almost 80m hectares have been subject to some sort of negotiation with a foreign investor, more than half in Africa (see chart). This estimate is far higher than a previous one, by the World Bank, which last year said that foreign investors had expressed interest in 57m hectares. It is higher still than one by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) which put the figure in a 2009 study at 15m-20m hectares. It would be wrong to draw a line between these numbers so as to conclude that land deals have grown fourfold. Since most are secret, knowing what to count is difficult, and the figures refer to different periods.
Related topics

Tanzania
Mozambique
International Food Policy Research Institute
World Bank

Yet each time someone has looked at the phenomenon, the result has been a figure roughly twice the earlier estimate. It is also clear that the overall scope is vast: 80m hectares is more than the area of farmland of Britain, France, Germany and Italy combined. And land deals are continuing, possibly even speeding up. Over a tenth of the farmland of South Sudan has been leased this year—even before the country has formally got its independence. GRAIN, an advocacy group, says it has seen proposals that would allow Saudi business groups to take control of 70% of the rice-growing area of Senegal.

It is not just the size of land deals that remains uncertain. Their contractual basis often is, too. Few contracts have been made public, so details are sketchy. But an investigation of 12 that have been, by Lorenzo Cotula of the International Institute for Environment and Development, declares many “not to be fit for purpose”. The rights and obligations of each side, Mr Cotula says, are usually extremely vague, while traditional land-use rights are frequently ignored. As one farmer asked when a British company acquired forestry rights in Tanzania: “How come others are selling our land?”

Even after the contract is signed, there is no guarantee a land deal will go ahead in accordance with it. A survey by the World Bank† showed that in the Amhara region of Ethiopia, only 16 of 46 projects were working as intended (the rest lay fallow or had been rented back to smallholders). In Mozambique only half the projects were working as planned.

China holds about a trillion dollars worth of american treasury bills but when the chinese tried to use some of it to buy up american companies it was BLOCKED by the US govt because they understood the importance of keeping valuable assets in the hands of their own people or at the very least the hands of other friendly nations, there is no way europe or america would just hands over valuable assets to their competitors all in the name of investment.

Oh my God. Sad; really sad

Where are the jobs?

[b]Still, some conclusions seem warranted. When land deals were first proposed, they were said to offer the host countries four main benefits: more jobs, new technology, better infrastructure and extra tax revenues. None of these promises has been fulfilled.

Locals usually regard jobs as the most important of these. But so far they have been scarce, and only partly because many projects are not yet up and running. In Mozambique, the World Bank found, one project had promised 2,650 jobs and created a mere 35-40 full-time positions. A survey by Thea Hilhorst of 99 smaller projects in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger reported “hardly any” rural job creation. Only one of the publicly available contracts studied by Mr Cotula even specifies a number of new jobs to be created. And when there are jobs, foreign investors often bring in outsiders to staff them, leading to “conflict or accusations of cheating”, according to the World Bank. The manager of one project was killed during an argument about jobs.
[/b]

violent:


LMAO!!!

do you know exactly how much was paid?
how much will be paid in subsequent years?
was it an outright sale or a lease?
what the size of the land is?
the conditions of the land?

For instance, if i buy a land in an area for 3 million, chances are i might have to spend an additional 15 million in ensuring that the land is fit for use. . .you should learn not to be too brash without knowing exactly what is involved in the deal

'
Dear "violent", before the news of this deal got here on NL, I read it extensively and I know what is involved. No amount of your "intelligent" calculations and economic evaluations can change whitewash these deals to give them a good look. The alarm was raised by a firm in the US that you people are being bought for the cheap, and you Africans in Nigeria are acting like you speak English better than the Queen of England.

I am not going to waste my time getting into an argument with you. Out of all the intellectual balderdash most of you are presenting in favour of this 21st century invasion, all I can see is a bunch of African sheeple seeing nothing wrong with the way your people who are already being screwed over by IMF and its sister agencies, are being given up to be further deprived of their own lands. No wonder, the whites always find willing accomplices during their misadventures in Africa. Like one of them said on the CNN website during the Halliburton scandal, "you play dirty in a dirty place." PATHETIC!

The story of Madagascar.

Some projects’ operators have done better in building new schools, clinics and other “social infrastructure”. Madagascar may be a surprising example as it witnessed what is perhaps the most notorious land grab of all: a South Korean company was offered half the country’s arable land—a proposal that fuelled protests which eventually toppled the government who approved the deal. Two years later Perrine Burnod of CIRAD, a French research organisation, found that the number of land deals on the island had fallen by two-thirds. And those that remained had begun to look more like aid projects, with investors committing themselves to building schools and clinics. Local mayors were welcoming them in to help finance projects no longer supported by the cash-strapped central government.

Modern means of enslavement

Local elites have also played a vital role in spreading land deals. In a Tanzanian project described by Martina Locher of the University of Zurich, “local people who refer to customary law have a very low level of knowledge [and cannot] defend their land rights.” In contrast, she writes, “state law is mainly represented by district officials, who…enjoy a high level of respect by local people.”

Then there is corruption. Many of the west African “land grabbers” described by Ms Hilhorst are local politicians, civil servants and other urban elites who bribe local chiefs with gifts of motorbikes. Madeleine Fairbairn of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, argues that in Mozambique, an informal division of the spoils has emerged. Local bigwigs use their influence to get “facilitation fees”, while national leaders manipulate the law and promote (or obstruct) projects to their own and their supporters’ advantage.

Many development projects work this way. What makes land grabs unusual is their combination of high levels of corruption with low levels of benefit. Ruth Meinzen-manliness, one of the authors of the IFPRI study, says that in 2009 the balance of costs and benefits was genuinely unclear. Now, she argues, the burden of evidence has shifted and it is up to the proponents of land deals to show that they work. At the moment, they have precious few examples to point to.

http://www.economist.com/node/18648855

virgo:

'
"you play dirty in a dirty place." PATHETIC!

FACT!

Kobojunkie:

Who are you mad at ? The group that sold the land, knowing what it is to be used for? Or the group that made the offer to lease/purchase the land, and paid the price deemed acceptable by the original owner?

I am mad at the people who sold the land (naive Africans and their ignorant leaders who never read between the lines). I am mad at the hypocritical American universities/corporations/government (the ones who use their "superior" knowledge to manipulate unsuspecting Africans). And lastly I am totally mad at the people who are supporting this irresponsible behaviour. Yes kobojunkie, I am fricking pissed.

Get this, Africans are seen as vermin to be rid off the rich fertile soil of Africa, so coming across developments like this just plain irritate me.

virgo:

I am mad at the people who sold the land (naive Africans and their ignorant leaders who never read between the lines).

You are mad at people for selling their own land to those they wanted to in this case?

virgo:

I am mad at the hypocritical American universities/corporations/government (the ones who use their "superior" knowledge to manipulate unsuspecting Africans).

Please bow your head in shame for pretending that even to this point, you still tbelieve that Africans are not mature enough to make decisions of their own. Guns were not brought in to make these deals.

China currently owns majority of the land that has been sold/lease in the last decade or so, to foreign investors. Are you going to tell us as well that your people were OUT-witted by the Chinese?? Please, enough of the "THEY HOODWINKED US" nonsense. It is OVER-USED at this point.

virgo:

And lastly I am totally mad at the people who are supporting this irresponsible behaviour. Yes kobojunkie, I am fricking pissed.

Get this, Africans are seen as vermin to be rid off the rich fertile soil of Africa, so coming across developments like this just plain irritate me.

I am an African and I have met no one who considers me, or africans vermins that need to be rid off.

3 years ago, at the height of the global food crisis, it became more than clear to the world that Africa, if left to it's own devices would starve itself out. Soon after that, agricultural investors started looking carefully at africa and it's agricultural potentials . . . potentials that not been reaped for so long now by, yes, the Africans. Why blame investors for deciding to purchase or lease land in Africa? What is wrong with that? Why villify them for that? Our Governments/People have said no so many times before now. Why not mention that? 

If you are really irritated, then attack the right party here. The buyers are only able to buy what they are allowed to. If you do not like the price the land is being sold at , tell your government/companies to increase their prices. If you however feel you don't want anyone to own land in Africa, then I suggest you expect the consequences to follow.