World Agriculture
Developments, trade, data, and topics in world agriculture
-
Indonesia begins development of controversial food industry projectIndonesia begins development of controversial food industry project Indonesia starts developing controversial food estate project Indonesia has started developing a food estate to grow rice, corn and other crops that should eventually span the archipelago and aims to curb reliance on food imports in the world's fourth most populous country, President Joko Widodo said on Wednesday. The project, which is spearhead by the president's former rival turned minister Prabowo Subianto, is expected to cover an area of 770,000 hectares (1,903,000 acres), or more than ten times the size of Singapore. The estate will allocate 148,000 hectares to rice and 622,000 hectares of non-irrigated land for crops like maize, said the president, who is widely known as Jokowi. The food estate will be first located in Central Kalimantan on Borneo island and in North Sumatra, and will be extended to West Papua, East Nusa Tenggara and South Sumatra, Jokowi said in a televised cabinet meeting. “Infrastructure support and road access will also be carried out in the field immediately so that... large modern agricultural tools will not experience difficulties," he said. Self-sufficiency in food, sometimes via ambitious projects, has long been a target for Indonesian politicians, given the country is a top importer of wheat and rice. In the case of rice, a high-profile attempt by former autocrat Suharto to restore Indonesia's self-sufficiency in the 1990s under Central Kalimantan's Mega Rice Project proved disastrous due to the ill-suited peat land. Green groups have also criticised the latest plan and warned of the risk that dried out peatland could trigger devastating forest fires. Defense minister Prabowo said after the announcement the project was needed now due to food scarcity warnings by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. He also said the government wanted to “ensure that we don't depend on foreign supplies ”. Prabowo said the project would initially grow 30,000 hectares of cassava and this would rise to 1.4 million by the end of 2025 with its flour used as an ingredient of staples like bread and noodles. Original source: Reuters published: 2020-10-8 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
UAE agricultural giant to invest 100000 hectares, (Indonesian) Minister of Environment and Forestry to prepare landUAE agricultural giant to invest 100000 hectares, (Indonesian) Minister of Environment and Forestry to prepare land UAE agricultural giant invests in 100,000 hectares, Minister of Environment and Forestry will prepare the land by Sugiharto (Translation from original in Bahasa) Minister of Environment and Forestry Siti Nurbaya said she would prepare the land needed for investment by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) agricultural giant, Elite Agro LLC. "The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) is ready to facilitate the provision of this land, because the government is indeed preparing a food estate agenda," said Siti Nurbaya while in a virtual meeting with the Indonesian Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Husin Bagis, Friday (25 / 9/2020). Based on a press release from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Elite Agro LLC, an agricultural sector company from the UAE, has initiated a collaboration with the Research and Development Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture since 2019 regarding "Research and Development Collaboration for Agricultural Crops Commercialization" in Lembang, West Java on an area of ??19 ha, but is constrained by the land supply. Elite Agro LLC has also started exploring cooperation in the agricultural sector or Food Estate in Central Kalimantan which requires 100,000 hectares of land, and is facing the same problem, namely access to land. Regarding the need for land for research, Minister Siti offered to use the Special Purpose Forest Area (KHDTK), in this case specifically for agricultural research, whose permits could be processed relatively quickly. Meanwhile, for production investment, Minister Siti explained, the food estate in Central Kalimantan has begun to be implemented by the Ministry of Public Works in ex-transmigration areas. Approximately 148,000 hectares have begun to be prepared with an irrigation scheme. "We are also preparing around 31,000 hectares of land for food estate and in strategic food management for the Ministry of Defense in the form of borrowing from areas that no longer function properly as forests," he said. Husin Bagis expressed his gratitude and appreciation to Minister Siti Nurbaya for providing solutions to accelerate the implementation of the UAE-Indonesia government cooperation. Husin thinks this cooperation will benefit both countries. "We are sure that investing in Indonesia will encourage other investors from the Middle East such as Qatar to also invest in Indonesia," he said. Original source: Agro Indonesia published: 2020-10-8 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
UAE Agricultural Firm to Invest in Subang (Indonesia)UAE Agricultural Firm to Invest in Subang (Indonesia) UAE Agro Companies Will Invest in Subang by Monica Wareza, CNBC Indonesia Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia - A producer and distributor of fresh fruit and vegetables from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Elite Agro will invest in Indonesia, to be precise in Subang, West Java. This cooperation plan was conveyed during a meeting between Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi and Minister of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) Erick Thohir during a visit to the country. Retno said that this is a continuation of the bilateral cooperation between Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates which continues to grow. Currently ongoing cooperation is in the energy sector and will be continued with cooperation in the health and agriculture sectors. "In the agricultural sector, Elite Agro has an agribusiness investment plan in Subang, West Java and is expected to be realized as soon as possible," said Retno in a virtual press conference, Saturday (22/8/2020). Erick Thohir said that this is part of increasing food security in the country so that it can improve the quality of domestic food products so that they have a selling value abroad. According to him, with this cooperation it is hoped that domestic food products will then be able to enter the African and Middle Eastern markets. "We see that there is a large market potential, not only in Indonesia and the UAE, but the UAE is a distribution center for Africa and the Middle East. We want to make sure the standardization is good. This is what we lack in producing food products, we are still inferior to neighboring countries. So, through cooperation with the UAE, we want to increase the quality of food production while at the same time securing food needs in Indonesia," Erick explained at the same opportunity. Previously, Erick also explained that the government would also attract investment in the energy sector, especially renewable energy. "We know that oil imports are still high. We don't want to just be a market, but we also want to get additional technology from a big country like the UAE, especially in the energy sector. We are not only cooperating in oil, but we are also working together to explore renewable energy sources. "Therefore, one of the meeting points we will conduct is how PLN can transform with Masdar's partners to build solar energy, which is currently in Cirata and we will explore it again in several other areas," said Erick. Original source: CNBC Indonesia published: 2020-9-3 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Since 2010, the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) has injected $1.8 billion into factory farming operations.Since 2010, the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) has injected $1.8 billion into factory farming operations. World Bank's IFC pumped $1.8b into factory farming operations since 2010 The World Bank's private investment arm has channeled more than $1.8 billion into major livestock and factory farming operations across the world over the past decade, despite calls for the global reduction of meat and dairy consumption due to its environmental and health impacts. International Finance Corporation (IFC) data reviewed by Mongabay and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism show that since 2010 the corporation has financed the expansion of major multinational meat and dairy firms across Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. While the World Bank primarily lends directly to governments, the IFC provides funds for private companies in the form of loans, direct equity investments and other financial vehicles. The IFC says by providing capital to the livestock industry, it is stimulating job growth and reducing poverty while meeting greater demand for meat and dairy products in countries where incomes are rising. “IFC has made agribusiness a priority because of its potential for broad development impact and especially strong role in poverty reduction," the IFC said in an email to Mongabay. But Mongabay's analysis of the data shows most of the beneficiaries of its livestock investments were large multinational corporations with plans to ramp up industrial-scale animal farming in their countries of operation, and in some cases expand into new markets. Among the projects approved by the IFC is an $85 million loan and equity investment for Brazilian cattle giant Minerva, which has been dogged for years by alleged links to deforestation and associated greenhouse gas emissions in the Amazon and Cerrado. Other major beneficiaries of IFC funding include Ukrainian billionaire Yuriy Kosyuk; Saudi businessmen Prince Sultan bin Mohammed bin Saud Al Kabeer and Abdullah bin Mohammed Noor Rahimi; Chinese venture capital firm CDH Investments; Scandinavian multinational Arla Foods; and New Hope Group, the biggest animal feed producer in China. Livestock production is associated with a litany of environmental and biosecurity risks, including the pollution of waterways, rainforest destruction, and the emergence of new diseases. While according to some estimates global food production capacity must increase by more than half to meet demand by 2050, critics argue that expanding the megafarm model of food production will deepen inequality and damage the environment. “What they're mainly trying to do is replace the production that's done by small-scale producers and food systems, and transform or almost steal that market share and impose a corporate industrial system," said Devlin Kuyek, a researcher with the farmers' advocacy group GRAIN. Of the $1.8 billion of IFC investments reviewed by Mongabay, the largest share went to dairy companies ($686 million), followed by producers of pork ($563 million) and poultry products ($353 million). The remainder was lent to or invested in companies specializing in cattle production, fisheries, and livestock feed. Campaigners say that by helping large corporations consolidate their control over food supply chains, the IFC is advocating an unsustainable model that contributes to climate change while hurting smaller producers. “They don't seem to be considering that they have a role in shaping the food system," said Daniel Jones, senior campaign manager at Feedback, a U.K.-based organization that promotes reform in food production. Reducing poverty or building a better balance sheet? Since its inception in 1956, the IFC has provided financing for private companies to expand their operations around the world. As a member of the World Bank Group, it played a crucial role in pushing for global deregulation and enabling venture capitalists to enter “emerging markets," a phrase coined by one of its economists in 1981. The IFC was also instrumental in establishing stock exchanges around the world, and it has provided seed money for burgeoning industrial titans such as the South Korean conglomerate LG. The IFC is owned by its 185 member-state shareholders, with the U.S. accounting for the largest share, at 22%. Unlike other development banks in the World Bank Group, the IFC is a profit-making enterprise. This profit motive, critics say, has led to a blind spot when it comes to the way it judges impact. Until recently, the IFC didn't evaluate the role of its investments in meeting development goals in the countries where they were located. “Investment officers at the IFC don't get an end-of-year bonus like bankers do, but what's really prized in career progression there is closing the deal, making a lot of money, and getting money out the door," said Luiz Viera, coordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, a watchdog organization that monitors international financial institutions. The IFC's largest investment into the livestock industry was $150 million in financing for a Dutch conglomerate to take a controlling share in a Pakistani dairy producer. Many others were made in middle- and upper-middle-income countries, including $350 million for nine companies in China. Only three countries where the IFC has invested in livestock over the past decade - Uganda, Madagascar and Ethiopia - are classified by the World Bank as low-income. Viera said this reflects a troubling pattern of the IFC investing primarily in companies that have a low risk of failure and which are more likely to bring higher returns. “I personally believe in the role of public banks," Viera said. “But the role of those banks is theoretically to take risks and provide capital for projects that provide a public good or have a developmental purpose where normal capital markets would be unwilling to invest ." The IFC points to job creation and increased incomes for farmers as a primary benefit of its investments in the sector. Many of the livestock corporations receiving funds from the IFC rely on medium- and small-sized farms to supply them with animals, entering into production contracts with the operators of those farms. “Our investments span different sizes of types of agriculture companies, and often include components to strengthen smallholder farmers and improve their capabilities and output, while promoting resource efficiency and savings for the farmers," the IFC said. But Shefali Sharma, director of the European branch of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, says the power dynamics between big companies and smaller contract farmers often don't favor the farmers. In the U.S., many have razor-thin profit margins and have been forced to shoulder hefty debts. Sharma said the same dynamic is likely playing out with the IFC's investments. “There's evidence that the more concentrated these markets become, the producers lose in that situation. It's clear that farmer indebtedness is going up, and that's because the price paid to producers is below their cost of production," she said. “You're actually catering to the upper-middle class that's over-consuming dairy products rather than looking at how you can help small and marginalized producers be able to diversify and have a sustainable future," she added. Kuyek of GRAIN said that the companies the IFC is investing in will encourage increased consumption of meat and dairy products, but that the resulting profits will be directed away from smaller farmers. “What this model really excels at is shifting agriculture towards a system where all that natural wealth can be concentrated and redistributed at the top," he said. An industry known for environmental degradation Production of meat and dairy products is one of the primary drivers of climate change, causing nearly 15% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Large-scale factory farming has also been associated with air pollution and toxic runoff into rivers. Experts say that overuse of antibiotics in factory farming reduces their effectiveness in treating human illnesses. In 2016, a review found that Suguna Foods, an Indian poultry producer that received more than $200 million from the IFC between 2007 and 2010, was using antibiotics that are typically prescribed to people suffering from pneumonia and other infections. Suguna was approved for an additional $67.2 million loan by the IFC in late March this year. To reduce the environmental and social damage caused by companies they invest in, the IFC requires that they release an environmental and social action plan prior to receiving funds. In addition, they must comply with a set of “performance standards ." “All IFC clients have an obligation to adhere to IFC's Performance Standards, which we monitor regularly," the IFC said. Philippe Le Houérou, the IFC's chief executive, has also written that the corporation should be more responsive to communities impacted by its investments and “do much better at meaningfully engaging with them ." But advocates say that while the IFC's performance standards look strong on paper, its record of enforcement is poor. “The performance standards have been very effective if you are looking at it from the standpoint of how widely they've been adopted and how much they've permeated the discussions on corporate accountability," Kristen Genovese, senior researcher at SOMO, a Netherlands-based organization that monitors corporate conduct, told Mongabay. “But I don't think that they have been very successful at doing what they're meant to do, which is protecting communities and the environment ." The IFC has a semi-independent internal watchdog body called the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, but even when it finds wrongdoing by IFC clients, its authority is narrowly limited to making private recommendations to the president of the World Bank. If it finds that a company has violated the IFC's performance standards, it can't withhold funds or order it to pay compensation. There is also no obligation for the IFC or the companies it funds to inform communities and workers that the CAO exists. Without the assistance of civil society groups, most are unlikely to know a complaint process is available, let alone how to navigate it. “The clients are meant to disclose to project affected communities what the adverse impacts of their projects are, so why wouldn't they then also be able to communicate to those people the availability of the CAO?" Genovese said. “Why have a CAO if you can't tell anybody about it ?" For those living under authoritarian governments, this means that the CAO is effectively toothless. In China, for example, restrictions on internet use along with fears of retaliation by state officials or corporate executives would likely be significant barriers to whistleblowers looking to raise the alarm over pollution or abuse of workers. Even in countries with more open access to information and fewer legal restrictions on civil society groups, engaging with the CAO can be dangerous. A 2015 report by Human Rights Watch documented numerous examples of intimidation and reprisals against community members and activists who brought complaints about IFC investments to the CAO. The requirement for the IFC's clients to implement their environmental and social action plans also appears to be spottily enforced. Some of the livestock companies funded by the IFC have implementation deadlines that are years old, with no information about whether or not the required actions were successfully completed. Sharma said that given the poor track record of the livestock industry in protecting workers and the environment, there is reason for concern. “I think companies use the performance standards as a fundraising exercise. If you say, 'we conform to the IFC standards,' it's easier for you to get money and lowers your risk profile. But as far as making sure companies are accountable to them? It's very low ." Original source: Mongabay published: 2020-8-3 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Kazakhstan seeks foreign investors to develop agro-industrial complexKazakhstan seeks foreign investors to develop agro-industrial complex Kazakhstan Seeks Foreign Investors to Develop Agro Industrial Complex By Aidana Yergaliyeva Kazakhstan has an immense potential to diversify and develop its economy through the agro industrial complex. The nation's vast agricultural resources can produce goods meeting the needs of both its population and foreign countries. Its strategic location grants it access to a combined market of more than 500 million people. The investment opportunities in the agroindustrial business in Kazakhstan were one of the key topics during the June 17 webinar for investors from Kuwait hosted by Kazakh Invest, which provides legal consultancy and support to all investors interested in working in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is the world's ninth-largest country with more than 210 million hectares of arable land and nearly 20 percent of the population employed in agriculture. “Agriculture remains the flagship of Kazakhstan's economy which boasts vast swaths of arable land as well as direct access to major trading partners - China and Russia. Kazakhstan has the potential to play an important role in addressing the challenges of global food security," said Diana Ablyakimova, the webinar moderator and a senior manager at Kazakh Invest national company. The most promising agribusiness projects are in the production and processing of oilseeds, meat, poultry, fish and vegetables. Kazakh Invest proposes projects worth anywhere from $12 million to $114 million for the construction of flax oil, sunflower oil, vegetable oils, and soybean processing plants. There is a great demand in Europe for flax seeds grown in Kazakhstan, which made the country a leading flax seed producer over the last few years. “Now they (Kazakh government) are ready to invest in the next stage - the conversion of flax seeds to vegetable oil. But they need expertise in processing, an understanding of the flaxseed oil market because this is an export product, additional sources of financing to make the project competitive. Now we are looking for foreign investors," Madi Kanafin told The Astana Times. In addition to this, the Kazakh government supports agricultural entrepreneurship in “developing new agricultural technologies, subsidizing the cost of fertilizers, and building irrigation," he said. The government also exempts investors from corporate income tax and land taxes for up to 10 years, as well as from property tax for up to eight years. The investment priority projects will receive a 25 percent standard rate of investment subsidy. Kazakh Invest is looking for “foreign investors who can share industry best practices in the field of agricultural science," he said. According to Kanafin, Dutch investors and agronomists have been working with local farmers in a potato processing project during the last two years. The project uses Dutch experience, standards, and technologies to get high yields of more than 100 tons per hectare, he said. Kazakh Invest operates based on the one window principle, where they clarify local laws and procedures, provide transparency on decision-making, and reduce the administrative burden. Original source: Astana Times published: 2020-7-5 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Cambodia urged to rethink relations with China and land policy to recover from outbreakCambodia urged to rethink relations with China and land policy to recover from outbreak Cambodia urged to rethink Chinese ties, land policies to recover from pandemic Chinese company Hengfu Group Sugar Industry, was reported to be leasing land in its concession area to communities in Preah Vihear province while its subsidiaries have indefinitely halted their operations. Both activities are violations of its contract with the Cambodian government. According to global network People's Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS), international research-based organization GRAIN, and Cambodian NGO Ponlok Khmer (PKH),Cambodia's “growing” relationship with China will only worsen landlessness and abuses to Cambodian rural peoples. The groups made this statement after the fifth meeting of China-Cambodia Inter-government Coordination Committee,which was held last June 16, 2020. “Cambodian farmers and Indigenous Peoples are already suffering from the consequences of the two countries' strategic partnership, which only works in favor of China.We stand with these communities. They have to contend with the continuing abuses of Chinese investors while looking for ways to cope with the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic," said PCFS. “The scale of China's outward investment in global farmland is clearly significant and is having an impact on local farmers across the world. We identified 61 deals of large-scale overseas land acquisitions by Chinese companies for food production covering over 3.3 million hectares that have been concluded or are in process including in Cambodia," added GRAIN. Since the inking of the strategic partnership, China has become Cambodia's top foreign investor in recent years according to government data. Chinese companies collectively have received over 280,000 hectares of economic land concessions (ELC) in Cambodia. Case in point: China's Hengfu in Preah Vihear The groups cited the case of Chinese company Hengfu Group Sugar Industry, which was reported to be leasing land in its concession area to communities in Preah Vihear province while its subsidiaries have indefinitely halted their operations. Both activities are violations of its contract with the Cambodian government. “Hengfu is employing illegal schemes to keep its control over the disputed land while it cannot carry on with its regular operations. It is taking advantage of the pandemic by collecting rent from villagers who only want to secure their food and livelihood amid pandemic," said PKH, which has been supporting these communities throughout these years. In 2011, the Cambodian government granted Hengfu's subsidiaries - Lan Feng, Rui Feng, HengNong, Heng Rui, and Heng You - ELCs covering about 40,000 hectares of land in Preah Vihear province. The investment reportedly amounted to USD 360 million and the government claimed that a sugar factory built by the company as part of this investment was the largest in Asia. Hengfu started its operations in 2012. “Hengfu displaced communities, destroyed livelihoods, degraded the environment, trampled on the indigenous culture, and violated human rights," the groups said. The Khmer and Indigenous Kuy communities in Preah Vihear have resisted Hengfu's operations for almost a decade now, and the groups credit this resistance for the sudden end of the company's operations in March 2019. But they pointed out that Hengfu's ELCs are still in effect, which allows it to harass these communities through the filing of trumped-up criminal charges. PKH shared that Hengfu recently revived a pending case it filed in 2014. At the time, villagers had to confiscate the bulldozers sent out by the company to stop the arbitrary clearing of their lands. The Preah Vihear Provincial Court acquitted eight community members and two of their staff of “illegal confinement and detention” last February, but another eight community members are still awaiting decision on the same accusation. The ruling is set to be released on July 8, 2020. The groups are also concerned that the company can always file another charge or revive any of its previous charges in an attempt to pacify the communities' opposition. PKH mentioned that government officials and police have taken advantage of Hengfu's closure by occupying parts of the disputed land. They have threatened returning communities who previously resided in these areas. More Chinese landgrabs in the 'new normal' The World Bank recently released a report that said Cambodia's poverty rate will increase and around two million jobs are at risk due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this, the Ministry of Economy said that it “will find any possibility to see if we can inject more cash” into the economy. It was in this context that PCFS, GRAIN, and PKH are sounding the alarm on the “stronger” China-Cambodia partnership declaration. The groups said more cases like Hengfu's will proliferate, and that it signals immunity from accountability for abusive Chinese investors. “Cambodia should terminate these Chinese concessions and all other ELCs and review its ties with China if the government is sincere in saving its economy," said the groups. They urged reforms that would prioritize and empower the country's farmers and Indigenous Peoples in developing their lands instead of awarding them to foreign companies. “Taking these actions is recognizing the inalienable right of the rural peoples to food and to produce food, which is ever more important amid the many economic uncertainties brought to us by the coronavirus pandemic," PCFS said. “We reiterate the demand of affected communities in Preah Vihear to revoke the ELCs granted to Hengfu and its subsidiaries in Cambodia. The countless human rights violations it committed in the past ten years and its blatant breach of contract are more than enough reasons to warrant its banishment from the country," the coalition said. “Instead of food security or investment, these land grabbers have produced misery and conflict among the villagers. Together with the Kuy communities and everyone who supports them to protect their farms and forest, it is important to affirm the only solution: stop these deals and give the land back to the people," said GRAIN. PKH said the government must uphold the rights of its people and protect rural communities against the transgressions of these Chinese companies operating in Cambodia. “State efforts should focus on uplifting rural communities from their poor living conditions instead of being complicit to the profiteering of foreign and corporate interests," PKH added. Furthermore, the groups urged the government of Cambodia to return the disputed land in Preah Vihear to the Khmer and Indigenous Kuy communities. “This would prevent other parties who might take the place of Hengfu in grabbing these lands, which is already taking place," PKH said. PCFS, GRAIN, and PKH expressed their solidarity with the Khmer communities and Indigenous Kuy people who continue to assert their legitimate land rights even amid the global health crisis. They will be relaunching petition they launched in 2018 in support of the campaign against Hengfu's landgrabbing. ### REFERENCES: Sylvia Mallari and Razan Zuayter, PCFS Global Chairpersons - secretariat@foodsov.org Kartini Samon, GRAIN - kartini@grain.org Sophorn Poek, PKH Executive Director - sophorn@ponlokkhmer.org Original source: PCFS published: 2020-7-5 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Chinese sugar company leases part of Cambodian land to farmersChinese sugar company leases part of Cambodian land to farmers Chinese sugar company leases parts of Cambodian land concession to farmers Korn Art, 38, shoulders sticks of sugarcanes to load onto an ox-cart at a farm in Kandal province, Cambodia. A Chinese sugar company with a large long-term land concession in Cambodia came under fire from NGOs Tuesday for leasing parts of the concession to local villagers, collecting rent instead of engaging in the activities stipulated in its contract with the Cambodian government. The Hengfu Group Sugar Industry, the mother company of five local subsidiaries in Cambodia, was awarded a 70-year concession in 2011 spanning 400,000 hectares (1,544 square miles) in Preah Vihear province in return for promising to invest U.S. $1 billion. The Cambodian government held an opening ceremony for a factory on the concession in 2016, where Prime Minister Hun Sen noted that the companies invested $360 million for stage one of the development scheme. But by charging rent to villagers that live there instead of using the land for sugar production, the company is in breach of contract, NGOs say. The Chinese companies should return the land concession back to the government, and the government should return the land to the villagers, most of whom are from indigenous minorities, Lor Chan, the Preah Vihear provincial coordinator for The Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association told RFA's Khmer Service. “Many Cambodian villagers are leasing land from the Chinese companies," he said. Lor Chan added that following the concession, the local villagers filed complaints against the companies that are still pending. “It is illegal. They breached their land concession contracts with the government. The companies have no legal ground to lease land to villagers," he said. The concession impacted thousands of villagers from 25 villages in three districts in the province, according to Phek Sophoan, of the Ponlok Khmer Organization, which advocates for the human rights of indigenous people living in the province's highlands. Phek Sophoan told RFA that outside villagers and government officials are also leasing the land as opportunists, taking advantage of the situation to encroach on land that should belong to the highlanders. “The companies were awarded the land concession for sugar plantations. So when they are out of business, they must return the land back to the government so the people who used to cultivate it can do so again," he said. The companies suspended operations due to internal problems, but promised to resume in 2020, according Preah Vihear Provincial Agriculture Department Director Peung Tryda. The director stated this some time after they suspended operations. RFA attempted to contact him Tuesday, but he could not be reached. RFA reached Preah Vihear Provincial Governor Prak Sovann, but he refused to comment about the situation. Farmers divided Local farmer Yeay Sok, told RFA that she leased 20 hectares (50 acres) of land at 200,000 riels ($48.70) per hectare per year from the companies to cultivate rice. She said she paid half first and will pay the rest after harvest. Yeay Sok, who has already planted on five hectares, said she thinks the cost of leasing the land is fair to the farmers. “Many Cambodians are leasing land from the Chinese," she said, adding that people from Kampong Cham and Prey Veng provinces have come to lease parts of the concession with annual contracts. “If they let us, we will continue to lease the land next year," she said. Yeay Sok said she had no idea why the companies stopped cultivating their sugar plantations, adding that there are now local cattle grazing where the sugar cane was once planted. But an indigenous Kui villager who refused to be named because of security concerns told RFA that he lost a six hectare communal plantation to the companies in 2012 and believes they shouldn't be allowed to rent out the land now. “It was my land. They took it because they said the government gave them [the rights]. But now why stopped [planting sugar] so they are leasing the land to people and I don't think that's fair," the villager said. He argued that the companies need to return the land, which has been in his family for generations, now that they are out of business. “So Cambodians are no longer in charge of the land, and Chinese own it. It's very strange," he said. RFA contacted Lan Feng Cambodia, one of the subsidiaries, but company representative Y Heng declined to comment. Economic land concessions (ELCs) have been at the heart of land disputes between the government and its citizens as residents are often forced off their land so that it can be exploited. Prime Minister Hun Sen's government has issued concessions to more than 2.1 million hectares of Cambodian land to investors, including major Chinese and Vietnamese companies and local firms with ties to the governing Cambodian People's Party (C.P.P.), according to a 2015 report by the human rights group LICADHO. Reported by RFA's Khmer Service. Translated by Samean Yun. Written in English by Eugene Whong. Original source: Radio Free Asia published: 2020-6-7 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
EPP proposes laws to protect small farmers from oligarchsEPP proposes laws to protect small farmers from oligarchs EPP proposes law to protect small farmers against oligarchs The European People's Party group called on Wednesday (13 May) for an EU law to prevent oligarchs and land-grabbers drawing on EU subsidies at the expense of small and medium-sized farming businesses. The practice is widespread in countries in Eastern Europe and Italy. The New York Times published in November 2019 a massive and well-documented cross-border investigative story titled" The Money Farmers: How Oligarchs and Populists Milk the EU for Millions". It illustrates how EU farm subsidies, worth €65 billion per year, help underwrite a form of modern feudalism in which small farmers are beholden to politically connected land barons. It says Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has auctioned off land to political allies and family members, with the subsidies following the land. And that a company formed by the Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš collected at least €37 million in subsidies last year. In Bulgaria, similar practices have also been reported. According to the EPP, the new law should cap subsidies per natural person, introduce a clear register of real company owners and prevent land theft”, said the EPP Group's Monika Hohlmeier MEP, who chairs the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee. “EU funds are systematically abused by wide-spread oligarchic or criminal structures in some member states. The conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister Babiš and other possible oligarchic structures are the ultimate call for a change in EU rules on how much money one single person can receive from the EU budget”, said Hohlmeier, who has authored a parliamentary report on the European Commission's management of EU funds. “The EU must also offer a direct reporting mechanism for small farmers, whose land, eligible for subsidies, has been stolen by criminal networks, as the European Anti-Fraud Office reported on cases in Slovakia and Italy”, she added. Her report will be voted on by Parliament today and tomorrow. “That a few businesses receive the vast majority of Union subsidies in some countries is neither fair nor in line with the intentions of EU structural funding. The majority of EU taxpayers should benefit from EU funds rather than see their contributions being paid out to oligarchs”, continued Hohlmeier. “This will be part of our requests in the upcoming negotiations of the long-term EU budget. The European Commission must propose budgetary rules setting a maximum amount that natural persons and big holdings owning several companies can receive from EU cohesion and agricultural funds”, she said. According to the EPP, the anti-oligarch measures should be accompanied by a register of final beneficiaries and their real owners to create transparency on who receives EU funds. “We want a reporting standard for who the natural persons behind the final beneficiaries of EU funds are across all пember яtates. If one person owns a parent company, it must be visible that funds received by the subsidiaries end up in the same hands”, explained Hohlmeier. Hohlmeier's parliamentary report on the European Commission's financial management pays special attention to land-grabbing practices too. “Farmers must know that they are protected by the EU if national authorities fail to act. The EPP Group therefore calls for a mechanism through which affected farmers can lodge complaints directly with the Commission”, concluded Hohlmeier. Original source: Euractiv published: 2020-6-7 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
The United States-Kenya Free Trade Agreement and the Right to Land and FoodThe United States-Kenya Free Trade Agreement and the Right to Land and Food U.S.-Kenya FTA and the rights to land and food By Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (Washington, DC) and Catherine Gatundu, ActionAid International You might be surprised to learn that while we're all sheltering in place and wondering what comes next, trade negotiations that could set labor, environmental and climate rules for decades to come are moving forward. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has announced plans to negotiate a free-trade agreement with Kenya. This would be the first free-trade agreement the U.S. has negotiated with an African nation. The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked some important new conversations about how to ensure access to food, some more sincere than others. In the U.S., meatpacking companies assert that they are essential industries and must be allowed to operate despite coronavirus outbreaks among their workers, neatly omitting the fact that they have millions of pounds meat in cold storage. Breakdowns in supply chains all over the world have exposed the fragility of systems dominated by just a few major corporations. While solutions must involve strengthening and diversifying local food production, trade in agricultural products - especially countries like Kenya that still depend on food imports - will remain an important part of the equation. Getting trade rules right matters. But trade agreements govern much more than exchanges of food or other products. The rules set in recent deals like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) limit governments' abilities to regulate risky pesticides or agricultural technologies or to shelter local production from volatile prices or supplies. After intense pressure from civil society and the U.S. Congress, the final USMCA left out unfair new patent protections on innovative biologic medicines, but there is every reason to believe those proposals will reemerge in other trade talks, potentially including this agreement with Kenya. Kenya already has access to most U.S. markets under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). We could certainly argue about the harsh economic conditions for participation in that agreement, but it does provide unilateral access to U.S. markets for many African exports. Given the economic disparities between the U.S. and Kenya, it seems extremely risky to insist on opening Kenya's market indiscriminately to U.S. goods. But that is exactly what various U.S. companies are demanding in their comments on negotiating objectives for this deal. More than 5,000 organizations, companies and individuals submitted comments on the negotiating objectives for the U.S.-Kenya FTA. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) submitted comments calling, first of all, for the suspension of talks during the pandemic. In fact, ActionAid, IATP and NFFC joined more than 400 organizations around the world to call for a halt in all trade talks until the COVID-19 emergency has passed. In IATP and NFFC's comment on the U.S.-Kenya deal, we also insisted that the AGOA benefits be made permanent. If the talks do continue, we insisted that they omit rules that undermine food sovereignty, rural economies and efforts to address climate change. The African trade network SEATINI also submitted comments, including one on the potential of a U.S.-Kenya deal to undermine the East African Community, an important regional effort at economic integration. All comments are available at regulations.gov and provide a useful overview of who's asking for what in these trade talks. USTR has also stated what it sees as problem areas in its annual National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. The section on Kenya lists restrictions in the Kenyan constitution banning foreign ownership of land as an investment barrier (somehow ignoring the fact that six U.S. states have similar restrictions). Kenya has a painful history of land grabs, including by foreign investors, that have robbed local farmers and their families of their homes and lands and undermined food production for the sake of speculative land investments. Immovable property and related property rights are included as a form of investment in USMCA and other U.S. free trade agreements, subject to binding dispute settlement. The question of foreign ownership of land in Kenya has a long history dating back to colonialism, which resulted in foreigners acquiring large swaths of land for a song and on ridiculously long leases of 999 years. The land debate was one of the main reasons the negotiations for a new constitution became a protracted 20-year battle. Communities whose land was leased for 999 years, had neither been compensated, nor consulted, and the demand for redress resulted in the compromise reduction of the lease period for up to 99 years. This is included in both the 2010 constitution and the 2009 National Land Policy. The process the USTR, in its trade report, now calls cumbersome and opaque is anything but. The constitution requires public consultation on such matters as large-scale land acquisition. It actually falls short of requiring Free, Prior and Informed Consent, which would better protect communities dependent on the land. This is the practice in most countries around the world and is also provided in most international instruments such as the Committee on World Food Security's Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) and the African Union's Guiding Principles on Large Scale Land Based Investments in Africa. Land, like food, is not just one more commodity to be bought and sold. It is the basis of livelihoods, cultures and communities. Land or real estate should be excluded from the definition of covered investment in any trade agreement. National-level land tenure reforms must be driven by national-level democratic institutions, with an extensive process of community-based consultation with rights-holders, and in line with international law and standards such as the VGGT and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, which Kenya has endorsed. In the U.S., this agreement would mainly serve to lock in an approach to trade that would carry over to future administrations. In Kenya, the stakes are even higher. Original source: ActionAid, IATP published: 2020-6-7 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Saudi Arabia buys wheat from overseas farmland investment for first timeSaudi Arabia buys wheat from overseas farmland investment for first time Saudi Arabia makes first wheat purchase from overseas farmland investment by Maha El Dahan DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's state grain buyer SAGO on Monday said it bought 60,000 tonnes of Ukraine wheat from investment firm SALIC, marking its first purchase from agricultural investments overseas aimed at enhancing the country's food security. The Ukraine wheat cargo was bought at $248 a tonne, after the kingdom asked Saudi private investors with farmland overseas on April 6 to supply it with around 10% of its local needs this year. The Saudi call comes as regional food importers scramble to beef up reserves as coronavirus lockdowns up-ended supply chains. The world's top oil exporter has long encouraged its private investors to pour money into agricultural investments abroad to shore up the country's food security, without tangible results - until Monday's purchase in terms of imports for SAGO. The state grain buyer had originally estimated it would need 355,000 tonnes from private investors this year. “The 60,000 tonnes were purchased from SALIC," a SAGO official told Reuters. The Ukraine wheat that was sourced is of 11% to 12% protein content. SALIC, the Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Co, was formed in 2011 to secure food supplies for the desert kingdom through mass production and foreign investments. It is an arm of the kingdom's sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund. Gulf states, dependent on imports for around 80% to 90% of their food, have poured cash into buying tens of thousands of hectares of cheap farmland and other agricultural assets elsewhere to enhance their food security for over a decade. SAGO renewed on Sunday its call for investors to subscribe to supply it with the remaining quantity of wheat. “This first round, the two companies that registered were SALIC and Al Rajhi International for Investment," SAGO said. “We will still buy more ." Investors who register with SAGO to sell wheat from their investments abroad have to be at least 51% Saudi-owned, according to regulations published by SAGO. The wheat produced abroad also has to abide by all of SAGO's wheat import specifications and the quantity produced from one origin country can't be less than 5,000 tonnes. Saudi Arabia normally imports wheat from the United States, South America, Australia and Europe. SAGO relaxed its bug-damage specifications for wheat last year, a move designed to allow for more imports of the grain from the Black Sea region. Its first Russian wheat purchase was shipped earlier this month. Original source: Reuters published: 2020-5-11 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
The United States-Kenya Free Trade Agreement and the Right to Land and FoodThe United States-Kenya Free Trade Agreement and the Right to Land and Food U.S.-Kenya FTA and the rights to land and food By Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (Washington, DC) and Catherine Gatundu, ActionAid International You might be surprised to learn that while we're all sheltering in place and wondering what comes next, trade negotiations that could set labor, environmental and climate rules for decades to come are moving forward. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has announced plans to negotiate a free-trade agreement with Kenya. This would be the first free-trade agreement the U.S. has negotiated with an African nation. The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked some important new conversations about how to ensure access to food, some more sincere than others. In the U.S., meatpacking companies assert that they are essential industries and must be allowed to operate despite coronavirus outbreaks among their workers, neatly omitting the fact that they have millions of pounds meat in cold storage. Breakdowns in supply chains all over the world have exposed the fragility of systems dominated by just a few major corporations. While solutions must involve strengthening and diversifying local food production, trade in agricultural products - especially countries like Kenya that still depend on food imports - will remain an important part of the equation. Getting trade rules right matters. But trade agreements govern much more than exchanges of food or other products. The rules set in recent deals like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) limit governments' abilities to regulate risky pesticides or agricultural technologies or to shelter local production from volatile prices or supplies. After intense pressure from civil society and the U.S. Congress, the final USMCA left out unfair new patent protections on innovative biologic medicines, but there is every reason to believe those proposals will reemerge in other trade talks, potentially including this agreement with Kenya. Kenya already has access to most U.S. markets under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). We could certainly argue about the harsh economic conditions for participation in that agreement, but it does provide unilateral access to U.S. markets for many African exports. Given the economic disparities between the U.S. and Kenya, it seems extremely risky to insist on opening Kenya's market indiscriminately to U.S. goods. But that is exactly what various U.S. companies are demanding in their comments on negotiating objectives for this deal. More than 5,000 organizations, companies and individuals submitted comments on the negotiating objectives for the U.S.-Kenya FTA. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) submitted comments calling, first of all, for the suspension of talks during the pandemic. In fact, ActionAid, IATP and NFFC joined more than 400 organizations around the world to call for a halt in all trade talks until the COVID-19 emergency has passed. In IATP and NFFC's comment on the U.S.-Kenya deal, we also insisted that the AGOA benefits be made permanent. If the talks do continue, we insisted that they omit rules that undermine food sovereignty, rural economies and efforts to address climate change. The African trade network SEATINI also submitted comments, including one on the potential of a U.S.-Kenya deal to undermine the East African Community, an important regional effort at economic integration. All comments are available at regulations.gov and provide a useful overview of who's asking for what in these trade talks. USTR has also stated what it sees as problem areas in its annual National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. The section on Kenya lists restrictions in the Kenyan constitution banning foreign ownership of land as an investment barrier (somehow ignoring the fact that six U.S. states have similar restrictions). Kenya has a painful history of land grabs, including by foreign investors, that have robbed local farmers and their families of their homes and lands and undermined food production for the sake of speculative land investments. Immovable property and related property rights are included as a form of investment in USMCA and other U.S. free trade agreements, subject to binding dispute settlement. The question of foreign ownership of land in Kenya has a long history dating back to colonialism, which resulted in foreigners acquiring large swaths of land for a song and on ridiculously long leases of 999 years. The land debate was one of the main reasons the negotiations for a new constitution became a protracted 20-year battle. Communities whose land was leased for 999 years, had neither been compensated, nor consulted, and the demand for redress resulted in the compromise reduction of the lease period for up to 99 years. This is included in both the 2010 constitution and the 2009 National Land Policy. The process the USTR, in its trade report, now calls cumbersome and opaque is anything but. The constitution requires public consultation on such matters as large-scale land acquisition. It actually falls short of requiring Free, Prior and Informed Consent, which would better protect communities dependent on the land. This is the practice in most countries around the world and is also provided in most international instruments such as the Committee on World Food Security's Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) and the African Union's Guiding Principles on Large Scale Land Based Investments in Africa. Land, like food, is not just one more commodity to be bought and sold. It is the basis of livelihoods, cultures and communities. Land or real estate should be excluded from the definition of covered investment in any trade agreement. National-level land tenure reforms must be driven by national-level democratic institutions, with an extensive process of community-based consultation with rights-holders, and in line with international law and standards such as the VGGT and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, which Kenya has endorsed. In the U.S., this agreement would mainly serve to lock in an approach to trade that would carry over to future administrations. In Kenya, the stakes are even higher. Original source: ActionAid, IATP published: 2020-5-11 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Ukraine: Opening up the land marketUkraine: Opening up the land market Ukraine: Opening the land market On 31 March 2020, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted the new Law No. 2178-10, which opens the Ukrainian agricultural land market. Ukraine has the largest volume of farmland in Europe, but its agricultural land is mostly leased by producers. Background A prohibition (moratorium) on the disposal of agricultural land was established in October 2001. The moratorium was designed as a temporary measure to allow parliament to put in place legislative infrastructure for the market. However, the temporary measure went on for almost two decades until now. What has changed? According to the new Law 2178-10: Buyers of agricultural land plots can be: Ukrainian entities with no foreign shareholders. These entities will be entitled to acquire agricultural land of up to 10,000 hectares from 1 January 2024. Before 1 January 2024, Ukrainian citizens may only acquire agricultural land plots up to 100 hectares from 01 July 2021; local communities; the state of Ukraine. Rules for foreign purchasers of agricultural land plots Ukraine will hold a referendum that will decide whether foreign entities will be allowed to acquire agricultural land plots. Foreign entities are and will be prohibited from buying agricultural land plots in a 50-km zone from the border of Ukraine regardless of the referendum results. Restrictions on purchasing agricultural land plots The following persons are and will be forbidden from purchasing agricultural land plots regardless of the referendum results: legal entities owned or beneficially owned by citizens of a state declared as an aggressor by Ukraine; members or former members of terrorist organisations; legal entities owned or beneficially owned by foreign states; legal entities in which the ultimate beneficiary cannot be determined; legal entities with ultimate beneficiaries registered in offshore zones as determined by the Ukrainian Government; persons and entities under economic or other sanctions imposed by Ukraine that restrict the acquisition of land plots, as well as their affiliated persons; Ukrainian legal entities controlled by persons and other legal entities registered in states that the Financial Action Task Force has included on the list of states that do not act to prevent money laundering. State- and municipal-owned agricultural land plots State- and municipal-owned agricultural land, as well as agricultural land plots located on the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and in Crimea, are under a prohibition of alienation. Citizens who have the right of permanent use, the right of trusted inherited ownership, as well as tenants of agricultural land plots that acquired their lease right by re-registering the right of permanent use before 2010, may acquire the ownership right to such land without conducting an auction, for the price that is not higher than the market value. Other issues Until 1 January 2030, the sale price of farmland cannot be lower than its market value. As of 1 January 2020, the average market value of agricultural land was UAH 27,500 or EUR 930 per hectare. Tenants have a pre-emptive right to purchase the leased land plot. The pre-emptive right can be transferred to a third party. Non-compliance with law If a person or a legal entity acquires a plot in breach of the new law (e.g. the area of the land exceeds 100 ha before 1 January 2024 or 10,000 ha afterwards), then such land plot must be disposed of within one year. Otherwise, a court will be able to confiscate the land. According to a special report by the World Bank, lifting the moratorium on agricultural land disposals has the potential to accelerate economic growth in Ukraine by 0.5-1.5% per year over the next five years. The moratorium was the biggest obstacle to attracting the necessary investment and increasing productivity in the sector. The absence of the land market resulted in the inefficient use of land and absence of sizeable investments. The abolition of the moratorium is expected to bring debt financing to the market, and increase productivity and total output. Original source: Lexology published: 2020-5-11 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
A prescription for disaster: The role of the IMF and the World Bank in the financialization of food and agricultureA prescription for disaster: The role of the IMF and the World Bank in the financialization of food and agriculture Recipe for disaster: The IMF and World Bank's role in the financialisation of food and agriculture by Flora Sonkin, Society for International Development (SID) Summary Past and present World Bank and IMF policies have provided key support for the financialisation of food and agriculture. This has resulted in land-grabs, exposure of small-holder farmers to high price volatility, the concentration of power in agricultural business and the expansion of climate-damaging industrial agriculture. These trends decrease policy space for states in a key area of life and the economy. Please find fully formatted PDF version here. The process of financialisation has profoundly affected food systems in recent decades, as financial actors, markets and other factors have expanded their role in society and across all sectors of the economy. Even though food and agriculture are not specifically part of the World Bank and IMF's mandates, their policy advice and loan conditionality have helped create the 'enabling environment' for the expansion of global finance across the economy, including in agriculture. This has implications for countries' food security and the capacity of their food systems to provide livelihoods and ecological sustainability over the long term, especially in the context of a global climate emergency. Market fundamentalism and the expansion of global finance Since the 1980s and 1990s, the policy prescriptions of the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) to aid-recipient countries have been driven by a firm belief that unregulated markets would efficiently allocate economic resources in a way that maximises overall wellbeing. This has also meant that, to receive assistance from these institutions, governments must implement a package of neoliberal economic policies. These include fiscal consolidation (austerity), reduction of cross-border capital controls, trade liberalisation, elimination of agricultural subsidies, privatisation of public services such as water supply or agricultural inputs/infrastructure provision, and other measures such as allowing foreign investors' ownership of natural resources. After decades of trial and error, their strategy has failed to deliver on its promises and is far from ending extreme poverty and promoting “shared prosperity” (see Briefing Bretton Woods at 75, A series of critical essays). Commodity-dependent and net food-importing countries, especially their low-income populations, are now increasingly at the mercy of volatile international food prices, which become even more unstable in the context of the global climate emergency. Yet, a new push for austerity and privatisation of previously public services, similar to the structural adjustment programmes and market liberalisation reforms advocated by the international financial institutions in the 1990s, has gained strength since the 2008 global financial crisis. Through different mechanisms including technical assistance and advisory services to governments, development policy lending, and its Doing Business and Enabling the Business of Agriculture rankings, the Bank has encouraged countries to enact regulatory reforms aimed at “improving the investment climate” for private investors (see Observer Winter 2019, Spring 2019). As Matthew Cummins and Isabel Ortiz demonstrated in their new report entitled Austerity: The new normal; A renewed Washington Consensus 2010-24, most governments are on track to reduce public spending as a percentage of GDP at least until 2024. The report concluded that the world is moving from “a decade of adjustment” to an institutionalisation of austerity as “the new norm” (see Observer Winter 2019). In line with this trend, policy reforms promoted by the Bank and Fund that led developing countries around the world to lift capital controls, cut corporate gains taxes, and facilitate greater access into their economies for foreign financial actors actually made states poorer. What was sold as a win-win situation has led to unsustainable levels of sovereign and household debt, and both the reliance on, as well as vulnerability to, volatile financial markets driven by profit instead of public interest. The agriculture sector is no stranger to this trend. Policy changes related to food and agriculture included opening up new markets for genetically modified seeds, facilitating the approval of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, and changing countries' land tenure arrangements to enable buying or leasing by international investors to “enhance productivity of land use." However, evidence suggests these market-led reforms, which aligned the Bank's interventions on agriculture and land to the Fund's macroeconomic agenda, often lead to the loss of livelihood for local communities while benefiting agribusiness investors and financial speculators. The former UN special rapporteur on the right to food warned of the consequences of these trends as far back as 2010 in his Food commodities speculation and food price crises report, which found that the effects of the 2008 food price crisis were “exacerbated by excessive and insufficiently regulated speculation in commodity derivatives." These activities in turn have a direct impact on the human right to food, as well as on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas. Financialisation of food and agriculture The financialisation of food and agriculture - or the increasing role played by financial actors (private equity funds, pension funds, insurance groups, asset managers, commercial banks) and markets within food systems can be seen in two main ways. First, by the significant growth in the sale and purchase of financial products linked to food commodities, for instance derivatives based on commodity futures. Second, the transformation of agricultural resources, mainly land, but also plant genetic resources, into a new financial asset class. The World Bank and IMF have played a pivotal role in facilitating the financialisation trend through their support for market-led land reforms and financial sector deregulations, which enabled private investors' access to large-scale land deals in developing countries and further speculation over commodity futures. First, decades of neoliberal economic reforms and structural adjustments prescribed by the BWIs facilitated an unprecedented globalisation of financial markets. The resulting proliferation of new financial instruments and increasing excess capital held by financial actors targeted land and food as profitable assets for shareholders to be able to extract high returns. Second, numerous World Bank and IMF programmes have involved the privatisation and commodification of public lands and of agriculture-related services. A 2019 study looking at IMF conditionality from 1980 to 2014 estimated that 43 per cent of IMF loan programmes include food and agriculture conditions, and that the majority of its interventions constitute a push for liberalisation of the sector by reducing the role of the state as a provider of price supports, agricultural insurance and credit provision, and further expanding the market-led development ideology. Especially after the 2008 global financial crisis, financial speculation on food commodities brought food prices to a record high, which in turn sparked a 'global land rush'. The sharp increase in international food prices triggered a peak of cross-border land acquisitions by players not only in the agribusiness industry, but also by financial actors that had little interest in actually feeding the world - sovereign wealth funds, private equity funds, pension funds and asset managers. These actors, fuelled by volatility in international food markets and speculation on future demand for food, saw land as a profitable investment opportunity. One of the most well-known financial actors that invested in this 'new venture' is the US-based pension fund TIAA. It escalated its agricultural investment strategy by acquiring the world's largest agricultural asset managers, Westchester Group, with over 8 billion dollars and 2 million acres in farmland assets under management in the United States, Australia, South America and Europe. A major issue is that these actors buying and selling land, many times without ever setting foot in the country where the land was purchased, were being driven by metrics like risks and returns on investments, while ignoring social concerns. Under the guise of 'improving the business climate' and attracting foreign investors, decades of financial liberalisation policies and privatisation measures in the agriculture sector, guided by the Bank and Fund, helped pave the way to the current problematic relationship between big finance and food systems. Increased financialisation in recent years has thus contributed to new opportunities for capital accumulation by financial elites and the consolidation of power and wealth among financial actors working within the food system. This has had strong implications for the choice of agricultural model being developed - industrial agriculture - and who it benefits most. The prioritisation of shareholder value encouraged greater corporate concentration as agrifood corporations restructured in order to meet investor demands for higher returns. At the same time, the higher exposure of food systems to volatile financial markets has increased their inclination to economic and environmental shocks, increasing insecurity for farmers and consumers. The wide-ranging implications of these trends are explored in a special issue of the Journal of Agrarian Change devoted to financialisation. Implications for food security and climate change The financialisation of food and agriculture has impacts for both people and planet. Large-scale land investments by new financial actors and speculation over food commodities have led to increased displacement and land-grabbing in the developing world, impacting land-dependent communities' capacity to provide for their own subsistence (see Observer Summer 2017). The case of a World Bank land regularisation[1] project in Matopiba, Brazil, illustrates this development. Under the Bank's land titling programme active since 2015, 11,000 farmers face possible eviction as 4 million hectares of land are being privatised and purchased by international companies. While some of the companies involved in the land business in this region are still linked to industrial agricultural production (for instance SLC Agrícola, one of the biggest Brazilian soy producers), others fully concentrate on acquiring, selling, leasing or managing land. One example is the company Radar Imobiliária Agrícola, which is a joint venture between the US pension fund TIAA and Brazil's largest sugar cane producing company, Cosan. The involvement of international financial actors that channel huge amounts of capital into the land business is one expression of the financialisation of agriculture. Affected communities have recently filed a complaint with the World Bank Inspection Panel and are awaiting a response. For people living and working in rural areas around the world, large-scale land deals and the industrialisation of agriculture has meant more pressure on land and natural resources, the undermining of diverse rural economies, as well as a loss of control over what kind of food is being produced. Resources have been increasingly transferred from the production of a diversity of crops needed to feed people in the territories, to export-oriented monocultures such as corn or soy, which are largely destined to feed industrial livestock production or turned into fuel. For the global food system as a whole, it means further expansion of capital and fossil fuel-intensive agriculture, which is a major contributor to water pollution by chemical pesticides, long-term soil depletion, and one of the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change. The long-term food security implications of the financialisation of agriculture not only affects farmers or people directly dependent on the land. Commodity-dependent and net food-importing countries, in particular their low-income populations, whose position in the global economy originates in no small part from the structural adjustment programmes implemented by the World Bank and IMF in the 1990s, now find themselves increasingly at the mercy of volatile international food prices, which become even more unstable in the context of the global climate emergency. As the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) noted, the number of undernourished people in Africa increased by 8 per cent after the price swings in key staple foods between 2007 and 2008. The 2019 edition of FAO's flagship publication, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, revealed a continuously worrying scenario: “more than 820 million people in the world were still hungry in 2018," especially in low-income countries. As financialisation drives inequalities within and between countries, its relationship with rising food insecurity within lower-income countries and population groups cannot be ignored. Maximizing Finance for (Agribusiness) Development As a response to decades of its own advice towards market liberalisation, which has reduced countries' capacity to tax corporate actors and financial transactions, the Bank developed a “new” approach to fulfil the public financing gap. The Maximising Finance for Development (MFD) approach is proposed as the best way to make up for the reduced public revenue by leveraging private finance as a means to support developing countries' economic growth. In the agriculture finance sector, the Bank focuses on “developing and implementing agriculture finance strategies and instruments to crowd-in private sector finance” and promoting market-based safety-nets. According to the Bank's own advice, public finance should be used as a last resort. However, this strategy, which essentially relies on public-private partnerships or pure privatisations to deliver on projects which should be in the public interest, ignores some of the dangerous consequences it has for communities (see Observer Spring 2020, Summer 2018, Summer 2017). The MFD approach, being implemented across the board as the main framework for the Bank's policy advice in agricultural development and beyond, suggests the use of already scarce public resources as a means to guarantee and make developing countries more “financially attractive” for private investments. According to the Bank, implementation of MFD in agricultural value chains will require an approach that is more oriented to the private sector. Through new financial instruments such as blended finance, these measures increase the integration of countries into already hyper-globalised financial markets, instead of focusing on domestic resource mobilisation for long-term public investments. Enough false promises The Bank and Fund's economic approach - where austerity is the rule and liberalisation the policy tool of choice - is leading us in the wrong direction. Too many governments have for decades extended incentives and protections to international finance and corporate actors in the hope of boosting economic growth. Instead, many states have been pulled into an unstable financial world geared towards short-term returns for shareholders and with little or no positive distributional outcomes. In the context of food and agriculture, this has created numerous negative consequences for food producers, consumers and the environment, while enriching global financial elites. Further reliance on private finance to achieve equitable and sustainable development outcomes will likely continue to fail to deliver on its promises. There needs to be a fundamental change in the rules of the game, in order to support investment (public or private) which contributes to peoples' overall wellbeing and respects planetary boundaries. Original source: BWP published: 2020-4-11 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
New GAI ranking report finds more than $131 billion in assets under management in the food and agriculture sectorNew GAI ranking report finds more than $131 billion in assets under management in the food and agriculture sector Over $131 billion assets under management in food & ag sector, new GAI Rankings Report finds BOSTO N(April 6, 2020) - A first-of-its-kind report that provides a comprehensive analysis of capital flows into the global food and agriculture (F&A) sector has been released by Global AgInvesting, entitled Global AgInvesting Rankings & Trends Report 2019. The GAI Rankings Report highlights nearly 700 organizations that are investing in the F&A sector with over $131 billion in Assets Under Management (AUM) in 2019. The authors of the GAI Rankings Report -- Philippe de Lapérouse and Mark Zavodnyik of HighQuest Partners -- will host a webinar on Wednesday, April 15 at 1 p.m. EDT to provide an overview of the report. Register for the webinar here, and view this interview with Lapérouse to get more details. The GAI Rankings Report provides details from the first methodical canvassing of organizations actively raising and deploying capital in the F&A sector, including asset managers, agribusinesses, sovereign wealth funds, family offices, pension funds, development finance institutions and more. Among the key points presented is the increase in the number of closed funds dedicated to F&A, which was up 79 percent from 2018 to 2019, with an average annual increase of 36 percent over the last decade. Additionally, the GAI Rankings Report highlights the significance of capital being raised and deployed to pursue farmland investments, confirming more than 50 million acres globally under management and $51.5 billion AUM, which was 39 percent of global ag AUM in 2019. The GAI Rankings Report also revealed insights on drivers that are expected to continue to support increased capital flows into the F&A sector. Overall, the results provide a picture of how this narrative will continue to play out with a variety of investors committing capital to this distinct asset class. From this report, agriculture investment stakeholders will better understand: Investment strategies and operating models used to deploy capital; Volume of capital (AUM) being deployed in the F&A sector globally by investment strategy and crops and activities being financed; Geographic focus of investment activity; and Vehicles being used to invest in the sector. “The F&A sector has developed an insatiable appetite for capital to address the challenges of producing increasing quantities of biomass for food and feed in the face of decreasing availability of arable land, shrinking water sources, and increasing weather volatility," said Lapérouse. “During this time of disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic, it is even more imperative to understand the opportunities and challenges that the F&A sector provides to investors. After all, food and agriculture are fundamental to ensuring the well-being of families and communities and crucial for supporting a dynamic and growing national and global economy ." Those interested in obtaining a more in-depth view of the data and analysis presented in the Global AgInvesting Rankings & Trends Report 2019, as well as companies, asset managers and LP investors seeking advice on how to address challenges and leverage opportunities in the global F&A sector presented by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, are invited to contact us at strategy@highquestgroup.com. The GAI Rankings Report can be downloaded at globalaginvesting.com/2019report/, and key findings will be presented during the April 15 webinar. Original source: HighQuest published: 2020-4-11 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
As the COVID-19 crisis spreads, 119 groups from 30 countries raise urgent needs for farming populationsAs the COVID-19 crisis spreads, 119 groups from 30 countries raise urgent needs for farming populations As COVID-19 crisis rages, 119 groups from 30 countries push urgent demands for rural peoples With governments around the world rushing to contain the further spread of COVID-19, often with restrictive lockdown measures, 119 organizations from 30 countries and five global regions today called for the assertion of the rights and welfare of rural and all toiling peoples. In a joint statement, the groups stressed that the rural people have been among the most vulnerable to the impacts of the COVID-19 global pandemic. The statement was released to mark the annual “Day of the Landless”, which various groups use as an event to highlight the issues on and struggles for land of peasant communities. Specifically, the groups outlined a five-point demand to protect the rights of rural people amid the pandemic: (1) Ensure that the lockdowns and quarantines are not carried out at the expense of the food security of the people, and that the right to produce and earn a living for small farmers, fishers and other direct food producers is duly respected; (2) Provide immediate and substantial economic relief (including food grains, cash, and other forms of aid that are essential and appropriate) and social protection that are readily accessible to the marginalized sectors, including the landless rural people, as well as other forms of government assistance such as production and marketing support for the small food producers; (3) Ensure that no further displacements of the rural people from their lands and livelihood are carried out in the pretext of COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) Allot sufficient public resources to the health sector and make reliable public healthcare services, including free testing for COVID-19 infection and treatment, available without delay or difficulty for everyone, including the rural communities; and (5) Call for accountability of public officials at all levels in addressing the urgent needs of the people and in respecting human rights at all times. “Amidst the spreading darkness and misery due to a pandemic caused by more than anything else an ecologically and socially destructive mode of production, the movement of landless rural people and their supporters, together with all oppressed and exploited toiling peoples, shall remain among the bearers of light and hope," part of the statement read. The “Day of the Landless” statement was initiated by Asian Peasant Coalition (APC), whose regional secretariat is based in Pakistan; the PAN Asia Pacific (PANAP), a regional NGO with headquarters in Malaysia; and the People's Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS), which has a global secretariat in the Philippines. Of the 119 groups, 21 are global and regional networks or organizations while 98 are national and local groups. The organizations are from or based in the following countries: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, United States, Uruguay, Vietnam and Zambia. Original source: PCFS Global published: 2020-4-11 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Indonesian official says no more new plantations in Papua regionIndonesian official in charge of palm oil says no new plantations will be established in Papua region indonesia's point man for palm oil says no more plantations in Papua A palm oil plantation in Indonesia Papua. Photo: Mighty Earth. The Indonesian minister in charge of investments has declared there will be no new permits approved for oil palm plantations in the country's Papua region, and that crops such as nutmeg and coffee will instead be prioritized. Luhut Pandjaitan, who owns several palm oil companies, said control of existing concessions in Papua was concentrated in the hands of foreign companies and wealthy domestic conglomerates and that their investments hadn't always benefited the locals. Activists are skeptical about the minister's U-turn, given that Luhut has been the government's most vocal defender of the palm oil industry amid the growing international backlash against the commodity and its associated environmental damage. They also warn that the move might simply replace large-scale deforestation for palm oil with large-scale deforestation for other crops. A top Indonesian official has declared a halt to new oil palm plantations in the country's heavily forested Papua region in favor of other, “greener," crops, apparently contradicting his vigorous earlier defenses of the industry. The remarks by Luhut Pandjaitan, the chief minister in charge of investments, including in the palm oil industry, come in the wake of a court verdict ordering the government publish maps and concession-holder details for plantations in Papua. “We agree that [we] no longer want palm oil development here [in Papua]," Luhut said on Feb. 27 as quoted CNN Indonesia. “We've announced a moratorium on [new] palm oil [plantations] but now we're strengthening it ." Luhut, speaking during a visit to the district of Sorong in West Papua province said the companies investing in the palm oil industry in Papua were predominantly foreign ones or those controlled by wealthy Indonesian businesses, and that their investments “don't necessarily benefit local people ." “Don't [let] only rich people cut down the forests and destroy us all," he added. 'Not being consistent' Edi Sutrisno, the executive director of TuK Indonesia, an NGO that advocates for social justice in the agribusiness sector, questioned the about-face by Luhut, widely seen as the Indonesian government's most vocal defender of the palm oil industry. “We're confused because he's not being consistent," Edi told Mongabay. “So far, he's been the main supporter of palm oil. So why did he issue such a statement ?" Luhut has led Indonesia's diplomatic battle against European Union's plans to end recognition of palm oil as a biofuel by 2030, even threatening to withdraw Indonesia from the Paris climate agreement in retaliation. He also owns, through his family-run conglomerate, a string of palm oil companies. Last year, he declared palm oil a key commodity for Indonesia, which is the world's top producer, and credited the industry with helping to alleviate poverty. (An estimated 20 million Indonesians are engaged in the palm oil industry.) “We'll fight whoever hampers the development of the palm oil industry in Indonesia," Luhut said last April as quoted by local media. “The palm oil industry has played a significant role in reducing the poverty rate and creating jobs ." Papua is home to a large variety of indigenous communities and Indonesia's last great expanse of tropical rainforest. It's an area increasingly targeted by the plantation and logging companies that have depleted much of the tropical rainforests of Sumatra and Borneo. The combined area of oil palm concessions in the Papua region, comprised of the provinces of West Papua and Papua, is 18,099 square kilometers (6,988 square miles), according to the latest figure from Papua Atlas. Papua Atlas is a real-time interactive map showing the spread of plantations and roads in Papua region developed by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). A fifth of that figure, or 3,914 km2 (1,510 mi2), was controlled by just seven conglomerates as of 2017, according to a report by TuK Indonesia. That figure includes both developed (cleared) and undeveloped land. “These figures show that palm oil plantation development in … Papua is almost exclusively in the hands of tycoon-controlled groups," TuK Indonesia said in its report. 'There's no point' Luhut said there were other crops better suited for the Papua region than oil palm, such as nutmeg, coffee, cacao and seaweed, which he presented to potential investors during his visit to Sorong in a "green investment" pitch. “With green investment, people will start economic activities," Luhut said as reported by CNN Indonesia. “The nature-based economy [will] grow and people can reap social benefits from it ." He added the concept of green investment would contribute to protecting the forests of Papua, home to the third-largest expanse of tropical forest in the world, after the Amazon and the Congo Basin, and maintain the region as an important carbon sink in the fight against climate change. The plan calls for $200 million in investments, said to directly benefit 60,000 households in the Papua region. He said Starbucks had agreed to invest there. But activists are skeptical about the proposed switch, raising concerns that large-scale deforestation for palm plantations will simply be replaced by large-scale deforestation for other crops. Franky Samperante, the director of Pusaka, an NGO that works with indigenous communities across Indonesia, said the problem with industrial-scale agriculture in Papua was not the commodity, but the development model. The top-down model as it works now, he said, fails to prioritize the needs of the local and indigenous communities, and fails to recognize their rights. He cited the example of nutmeg, now being grown on land from which indigenous tribes were evicted in the district of Fakfak in West Papua province. “So Luhut's statement needs to be clarified," Franky told Mongabay. “Green investment doesn't only mean sustainable but we also need to ask who does it side with? If it's only green but doesn't side with the people, then there's no point ." The governor of West Papua, Dominggus Madacan, also advised residents against selling out their land to investors. He said history had shown that those who did so were inevitably impacted by deforestation and environmental degradation, including landslides. “If you sell the land, the trees all around will be cut down and you'll be left with bare land," Dominggus said in Manokwari district on Feb. 25. “Then when disaster strikes, who will you blame ?" 'Textbook land grab' Edi said the plan to invest in crops other than palm oil was similar to the government's Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) program, launched in 2011 to turn Papua's Merauke district into the “future breadbasket of Indonesia." That project, pitched by the government as the answer to Indonesia's food security needs, has become a “textbook land grab," activists say. Only two of the 10 proposed blocks in the MIFEE project are supposed to include oil palm, but Greenpeace has noted that “significantly” more oil palm concessions will be included. “They said that MIFEE was aimed to develop rice fields, but instead it's oil palm plantations that are being developed," Edi said. “Don't let the statement [by Luhut] be a manipulation to make it seem like other commodities will be developed to make the public open to the idea, when in the end it's all about palm oil ." He said that despite the talk of prioritizing other crops deemed to be “green," the fact remains that palm oil continues to be the most privileged in terms of incentives and other favorable policies offered by the government. “The tendency is for the government to give incentives only for palm oil, not for other commodities," Edi said. “So if civil society is skeptical, it's normal because we don't see incentives for other crops, such as cacao. Are there any factories to process cacao in Papua ?" Franky said he was concerned the voices of indigenous Papuans would be silenced, as they have been during the palm oil rush, under the plan to attract “green investments” to the region. “In the meeting [on green investment in Sorong], I didn't see representatives from local communities," he said. “I only saw representatives from the local government. So I don't know what the people think about it. The voices so far continue to be those of the central [government] and the investors there ." Enforcing the moratorium Franky said that if Luhut was serious, he should follow up his latest stance with concrete action. “There needs to be a strong policy to support Luhut's statement," he said. “We can't just accept a statement from an official who's a politician and has investments there ." He said there needed to be stronger enforcement of a prevailing moratorium on issuing new plantation permits, as well as greater scrutiny of existing permits. President Joko Widodo imposed the moratorium in September 2018 in response to fires in 2015 that razed large swaths of forest, including inside oil palm concessions. The moratorium is expected to end no later than September 2021. But enforcement of the moratorium has been patchy, according to a report by Pusaka. It shows that the agrarian ministry, in charge of approving the plantation permits known as HGU, issued one to the company PT Permata Nusa Mandiri for a concession Papua's Jayapura district in November 2018 - two months after the moratorium was enacted. The report also identified continued instances of deforestation in areas earmarked for plantations, with 2,285 km2 (882 mi2) of forest cleared last year. Given how much land has already been allocated for oil palm plantations, the government must conduct a sweeping review of the issued permits and do more to recognize indigenous claims to disputed land, Franky said. Short of that, he said, Luhut's statement will ring hollow. The government's lack of recognition indigenous land rights is the missing key to the development of Papua, Franky said. Indonesia is home to hundreds of indigenous groups, but for decades their land rights were trumped by state control over all public land in the country. In 2013, a historic Constitutional Court ruling removed customary forests from under state control. Since then, President Widodo has vowed to grant customary forest ownership titles to indigenous groups. The Papua region, covering the western half of the island of New Guinea, is home to the greatest number of indigenous groups in Indonesia, but none have been granted titles to their ancestral forests. In Papua province alone, an estimated 6,400 km2 (2,500 mi2) of forest qualify as customary land. Original source: Mongabay published: March 14, 2020 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Saudi's Bhatir to expand agricultural operations in AfricaSaudi's Bhatir to expand agricultural operations in Africa Saudi-based Bateel to expand farming operations into Africa Joint-venture agreements to be signed this year for new date farms in South Africa and Namibia Saudi-based gourmet date connoisseur Bateel has revealed plans to expand the farming side of the business into the international market. CEO Dr Ata Atmar told Arabian Business the company is hoping to tie up joint venture deals to operate farms in South Africa and Namibia, with a view to planting later this year. It will mark the first time the company will farm outside of the region. Dr Atmar said: “We've been looking at it for three or four years to just find the right partners to work with and the right location. I think we're close to that. Within this year we will be in a position to announce and start planning ." Currently Bateel is able to harvest 4,000 tonnes of dates every year from six farms in Saudi Arabia, just to the north of the capital Riyadh. Harvesting takes place once-a-year around October with the dates sold throughout the next 12 months. Dr Atmar said the expansion into Africa will allow for a second harvest and help secure the future of the business. The company is currently active in 14 countries through its retail outlets and duty free offerings in airports. “Given that it's a once-a-year harvesting of this fruit, it's mitigating our risk," he said. “When you invest in such a network of marketing around the world, you need to also have some security on the supply side. “We've not had a real, major problem, but I think it makes sense, not only because we will have two seasons, but also because it will diversify supply. That's important for us ." At the same time, Dr Atmar said they would also be expanding locally, with plans to develop up to 600 hectares of land in Saudi Arabia. “For Saudi Arabia we are investing in our farms to grow the business because what we see, in the past three to four years, dates, in the west and the far east, people look at it as a healthy, almost super-food, and you will see a lot of new products in the market that are made with dates rather than normal sugar," he said. Original source: Arabian Business published: March 14, 2020 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
ANZ agrees landmark settlement deal with Cambodian farmersANZ agrees landmark settlement deal with Cambodian farmers displaced by sugar firm it funds ANZ agrees to landmark settlement with Cambodian farmers displaced by sugar company it financed The agreement, the first of its kind by a commercial bank, sets an important human rights precedent for the banking industry worldwide. (February 27, 2020) - ANZ has agreed to provide a financial package to Cambodian families forcibly displaced by a sugar company the Australian bank loaned money to in 2011. By agreeing to contribute the money that it earned from the loan to the families, ANZ has set a human rights precedent for the global banking sector. The money will help to alleviate the hardships faced by some 1,200 affected families, who have been struggling for years after losing their land and livelihoods. The agreement comes more than five years after a complaint was filed on behalf of the affected families by Equitable Cambodia and U.S-based Inclusive Development International to the Australian National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. After conducting an examination, the government body found in 2018 that ANZ's loan to Phnom Penh Sugar was inconsistent with the bank's own policies and the OECD's ethical business guidelines. On February 7, 2020, the Independent Examiner of the Australian National Contact Point facilitated a conciliation meeting between the parties, which resulted in the landmark agreement. “We have experienced huge difficulties with our livelihoods since the sugar company took our land almost ten years ago, and this contribution will greatly help our situation," said Soeung Sokhom, a representative of the affected families. “The whole affected community, including me, are deeply grateful that ANZ has resolved our complaint ." “This agreement sets an important precedent for the banking industry, and we welcome ANZ's leadership in this regard," said Natalie Bugalski, Legal Director of Inclusive Development International. “Going forward, all banks should recognize that they can't look the other way when they loan money to corporations that abuse people's rights and cause harm. If a bank contributes to adverse human rights impacts through its lending activities, it has a responsibility to contribute to a remedy ." In a joint statement issued by the three parties to the resolution, ANZ “acknowledges that its due diligence on the project funded by its loan was inadequate and recognizes the hardships faced by the affected communities." Equitable Cambodia and Inclusive Development International have consistently called on ANZ to divest the profit from the loan and provide it to the families as reparations for their due diligence failings. In October 2018, the bank's CEO, Shayne Elliot, told a parliamentary committee that this was “a dreadful situation” and that the bank would consider compensating the families. "We congratulate Shayne Elliot and ANZ for doing the right thing by returning the revenue earned from the loan to affected families in Kampong Speu," said Eang Vuthy, Executive Director of Equitable Cambodia. “This is an important recognition of the ongoing hardships that the communities have suffered all these years and it will make a big difference for them. But this does not in any way replace Phnom Penh Sugar's responsibility to fully compensate the communities for their damages ." The Australian National Contact Point, which facilitated the negotiations, praised the agreement in an accompanying statement. “Where a company has gained revenue in a manner inconsistent with the OECD Guidelines, and that has resulted in parties being impacted, the payment of the revenues to those parties may be one way a company can comply with the requirements of the OECD Guidelines," the government body noted. “This is only the third time out of more than 330 cases filed by communities and NGOs in the 20-year history of the National Contact Point system when a complaint process has resulted in a concrete financial remedy for complainants. That's an appalling record," said David Pred, Executive Director of Inclusive Development International. “We hope this outcome will help inspire a brighter future for corporate accountability, where the victims of corporate misconduct can expect legitimate complaints to result in effective remedies ." As part of the resolution, ANZ also agreed to review and strengthen its human rights policies, including its customer social and environmental screening processes and grievance mechanism. Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia welcomed this commitment. “We look forward to working with ANZ to establish an accessible and effective grievance mechanism for affected communities, and we urge other banks to follow suit," said Pred. Original source: IDI published: March 14, 2020 | Editor: Xie Jinli
-
Agricultural land market in Ukraine: final bill stipulates no more than 10000 hectares per personAgricultural land market in Ukraine: final bill stipulates no more than 10000 hectares per person Ukraine's farmland market: Finalized bill stipulates no more 10,000 ha per person A citizen of Ukraine will be able to buy no more than 10,000 ha of farmland, even if he or she has a company that can buy land as a legal entity. Head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy Mykola Solsky says under the draft law on the land market, which is expected to be submitted for the second reading, the area of farmland is limited to 10,000 hectares (ha) per entity - this concerns both individuals and legal entities. "The limit is set at 10,000 ha, according to the relevant procedures. That is, one individual cannot own more than 10,000 ha [of farmland], while one legal entity cannot own more than 10,000 ha" he told the RBC Ukraine news outlet on January 13. A citizen of Ukraine will be able to buy no more than 10,000 ha of farmland, even if he or she has a company that can buy land as a legal entity. "What happens if an individual - a citizen of Ukraine - has acquired 1,000 ha [of farmland], being a founder of a legal entity which also bought 5,000 ha. This means that the individual has 6,000 ha in total. So, the said individual or his/her legal entity may additionally buy only 4,000 ha to have the 10,000 ha," he added. Earlier, the Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy presented the finalized bill on the farmland market. The document says that only individuals who are citizens of Ukraine, legal entities established by citizens of Ukraine, the state, and local communities can be players on the farmland market. As UNIAN reported earlier, the Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy recommended at a meeting in late December that the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, pass a draft law on the farmland market. Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Dmytro Razumkov said that the parliament needed to adopt a number of documents so that the market could be launched in late 2020. Original source: UNIAN published: 2020-2-8 | Editor: Xie Jinli