Hedge funds are behind "land grabs" in Africa to boost their profits in the food and biofuel sectors, a US think-tank says. In a report, the Oakland Institute said hedge funds and other foreign firms had acquired large swathes of African land, often without proper contracts. It said the acquisitions had displaced millions of small farmers. Foreign firms farm the land to consolidate their hold over global food markets, the report said. They also use land to "make room" for export commodities such as biofuels and cut flowers. "This is creating insecurity in the global food system that could be a much bigger threat than terrorism," the report said. The Oakland Institute said it released its findings after studying land deals in Ethiopia, Tanzania, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Mali and Mozambique. 'Risky manoeuvre' It said hedge funds and other speculators had, in 2009 alone, bought or leased nearly 60m hectares of land in Africa - an area the size of France. "The same financial firms that drove us into a global recession by inflating the real estate bubble through risky financial manoeuvres are now doing the same with the world's food supply," the report said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13688683 I think its time the UN begins to put together some regulations for international business firms. I mean they do so for almost everything else. If you brutalize your citizens they sanction you and attempt to arrest people for crimes against humanity. I think the same, perhaps stricter rules should be applied towards financial institutions and individuals who engage in the swindle of nations and citizens of their financial stability, land and resources. Think about it you could actually have the globe DEMAND the arrest of the CEO's and financial institutions for the ponzi schemes they create. Goldman Sachs could be first on the list: Greece joined the European Union in 1981, but it took 20 years for the country to be economically stable enough to replace the Greek Drachma with the euro. The E.U.’s strict policy with regard to economic viability, including country debt limitations, prompted Greece to resort to less than savory tactics to fabricate a pristine fiscal condition. It appears the same Wall Street tactics that caused the mortgage crisis in America were employed to boost the balance sheet of Mediterranean state. The Greeks invited investment bank Goldman Sachs and hedge fund the John Paulson Group, to spray paint the elephant in the room invisible. Goldman Sachs was on the scene in Athens in 2001 to arrange large transactions with the goal of reducing public debt (which had by that time exceeded annual Greek gross domestic product) but instead hid billions from overseers in Brussels. According to the Financial Times, bankers and officials say that the swaps were legal. http://dailytrojan.com/2010/02/18/economy-in-greece-is-in-financial-ruins/ Now the same institutions that caused the global collapse are about to indulge in the same risky behavior in the area of food. Why are these institutions above regulation? Why are they above the law in terms of engaging in all sorts of risky endeavors without any oversight? Its madness. The UN should get their heads out of their ass and introduce something. But really I shouldn't be surprised, they are inept in every other fashion so its already probably a bad idea. Any thoughts on hedge fund firms dabbling in food & land in the worlds poorest but resource rich continent?
What about the trashing of Ogoniland in Nigeria by Shell oil? http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html They were able to buy off the Nigerian government and trash the environment: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025080-503543.html I still usually avoid buying Shell for that...forget about BP, that's my backyard they just trashed. Also Exxon. also Chevron: http://amazonwatch.org/work/ecuador Hugo Chavez's Valero stations are the least ethically nasty gasoline dealer in my vicinity, and that's not a great thing. Oh, and for sheer nauseating gall, check this bullfeces out... http://www.fpif.org/articles/time_to_clamp_down_on_vulture_funds
@chimpkin What I fear is that their dealings in food will adversely affect global food prices. Don't you think there should be an international agency designed to regulate these financial firms? A corrupt government like the ones who engage the oil companies without giving anything back to its people in terms of investment is bad enough, but when institutions can completely level an economy as it did in Greece and Iceland leaving whole nations bankrupt I think there needs to be some assess kicked. I would be interested in what Billy T has to say in terms of how this would affect the global food market. Maybe another bubble? The article goes on to say: "The research exposed investors who said it is easy to make a deal - that they could usually get what they wanted in exchange for giving a poor tribal chief a bottle of Johnnie Walker [whisky]," said Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute. "When these investors promise progress and jobs to local chiefs it sounds great, but they don't deliver." The report said the contracts also gave investors a range of incentives, from unlimited water rights to tax waivers. "No-one should believe that these investors are there to feed starving Africans. "These deals only lead to dollars in the pockets of corrupt leaders and foreign investors," said Obang Metho of Solidarity Movement for New Ethiopia, a non-governmental organisation in Addis Ababa.
And if they are allowing their investors unlimited water rights it means the locals would be disenfranchised of their access to water. Remember what the happened in Bolivia when US companies monopolized water reserves? They were taxed for collecting rain water and thrown off of their property if they refused to pay the company who claimed they held all rights to the water in the country. They went as far as to shut down community wells claiming they were illegal. I think we could be looking at the same insidious act. Every time I hear a story like this I ask myself what is the swindle, what do they have to gain, what are they trying to control and at who's expense. Is the term 'corporate monetary fascism' too harsh?
It probably will. When you factor in the costs of shipping, fertiliser, etc. It is actually quite obscene that these organisations are actually able to do this and for the most part, get away with it. You would probably find that there is a stupid amount of corruption involved regardless.. to provide the land tracks in the first place, at times even illegally. It's quite disgusting, isn't it? It is criminal. And the Governments letting them get away with it are equally criminal.
They don't already? This would be an intensification of things that already occur in multifaceted ways. That was my point. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/logging-palm-oil-malaysia-borneo.php I think it's well past time there was a good way to strongly regulate international corporate power, as its' ability to devastate both the planet and the people is well-demonstrated. The UN does not seem to be the regulatory body we're looking for.
IMO, a FAIR and JUDICAL international regulatory body of any sort with REAL power is a pipe dream. Even the UN has never been such an organization, being mostly dominated by the most powerful countries (i.e. the USA) who drive UN agenda to favor their own selfish interest. In the end, the UN is just another way to project power onto weaker countries while claiming the mantle of "internationl legitmacy". Any new organization will most likely have the same problems.
Yeah, I know. The corporations have taken over anyway, and we really haven't the wherewithal to stop them anymore. And thinking we could is a pipe dream indeed *Chimpy lights bowl, hits pipe, you hear gurgling sounds* *exhales blissfully* ....I dunno why I quit this stuff when the world sucks so f'ing bad.... ...Dude, we are all SOOOO screwed. Like, wow, totally... ...Umm, yeah....let's go get some Oreos. :m:
Periodically I try to review B&E posts, saw request for comment, so will. There are several complex things mixed in this tread: What raises price of food, Corruption in Africa, corporate exploitation to name the main ones. In general it is a good idea to produce more food, and large, modernly run farms do that better than small family plots; however, almost by definition they will not need as many farmers and those that work the farms need more education, can follow written instructions and don't think phase of the moon when planting is important or seeds planted by an infertile woman give a poor harvest but by fertile one a good harvest, etc. Problem is what do the ignorant displaced farmers do? The powers that be often want to see their Swiss bank accounts grow more than local crops. Don't provide schools, etc. I don't want to sound like a radical but I tend to think, social revolutionaries may be the only route to change. A few well placed bullets could do a world of good, but much more likely is sea of blood. Currently, in much of Africa, the local farms can not sell in the nearby town as cheaply as those in the US mid west can, even after paying the shipping costs. Perhaps local large efficient farms can get some work for some locals and without the shipping cost deliver locally produced food cheaper than the US mid west can - IMHO, from an African POV that is better. If the new big farms are raising "energy crops" for export they will at least increase local economic activity too. (In the ports and in alcohol distillation plants, etc. as well as manual harvest and planting by cheap labor) So in general bigger corporate farms are better than what now exists, but will not solve the many problems corrupt self interest government make. China is interested in growing food in Africa as well as getting oil and other minerals. Unfortunately, currently they are very willing to pay bribes, etc. so not much of force for change, but perhaps eventually some of their socialistic doctrines will surface, especially if they come to think the local revolutionaries in power might be better for China.
