A new take on the bottom (three) billion

Three billion individuals. That's the approximate number of people that would be scrapped if we were to eliminate the bottom 5% global GDP contributors, the vast majority of which are found in either Africa or Southeast Asia. 81 countries comprise this bottom 5%. Together they represent half of the 192 UN member states and nearly 43% of the world population.

What would the world look like without them? Via Strange Maps we are offered a glimpse:

In reverse order of magnitude the 81 countries are:

Zimbabwe, Burundi, DR Congo, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Malawi, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Niger, Afghanistan, Togo, Guinea, Uganda, Madagascar, the Central African Republic, Nepal, Myanmar (Burma), Rwanda, Mozambique, East Timor, the Gambia, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Mali, Lesotho, Ghana, Haiti, Tajikistan, the Comoros, Cambodia, Laos, Benin, Kenya, Chad, the Solomon Islands, Kyrgyzstan, India, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Mauritania, Pakistan, Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, Ivory Coast, Zambia, the Yemen, Cameroon, Djibouti, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Nigeria, Guyana, the Sudan, Bolivia, Moldova, Honduras, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Bhutan, Egypt, Vanuatu, Tonga, Paraguay, Morocco, Syria, Swaziland, Samoa, Guatemala, Georgia, the Congo, Iraq, Armenia, Jordan, Cape Verde, the Maldives, Fiji and Namibia.

It is equally curious to note which countries are not included among the bottom 5%. Any surprises?

Land grabs in poor countries: blessing or curse?

Apologies for my recent absence: I dashed off to Nantucket for the Memorial Day weekend and - to be perfectly frank - postponed my return to the 'real world' (for me part of which entails blogging) for as long as humanly possible thereafter. It was such a lovely time! Alas, one can only put off the inevitable for so long, so here I am: back at long last.

While doing a bit of sunbathing on the beach over the weekend, I happened to stumble across an excellent overview of the issues surrounding present-day land grabs (or "outsourcing's third wave") in last week's Economist. I wrote about this matter earlier this month when a similar story appeared in Canada's Globe & Mail, though I feel the Economist does a much better job of teasing out the issues at stake.

As the Economist piece aptly observes, land grabs are particularly common among countries that export capital but import food (think the U.S. and China, for instance). Countries such as these outsource their farm production to countries that need capital but have land to spare; the vast majority of which are found in Africa (see map). And while investments in foreign farms are not a new phenomenon, there are several factors that differentiate today's 'land grabs' from those of the past, foremost among which is the scale (in Sudan, for instance, South Korea has signed deals for 690, 000 hectares! Before, a 'big' land deal use to be around 100,000 hectares) and the fact that the investors are no longer private entities alone: governments (and their state-run enterprises) have now likewise taken to investing in global farmland. China, for instance, has set up 11 research stations in Africa to boost yields of staple crops, and has secured several large deals across the African continent.

Duncan Green writes: 

The obvious motives for the deals are the spike in food prices and the subsequent decision of governments in several key producer countries to restrict their exports, threatening the food security of food importing countries such as the Gulf states, China and South Korea (the main participants in the deals). However, water shortages are another, hidden driver. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the chairman of Nestlé, claims: “The purchases weren’t about land, but water. For with the land comes the right to withdraw the water linked to it, in most countries essentially a freebie that increasingly could be the most valuable part of the deal.” He calls it “the great water grab”.

According to a newly released report by the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, farmland investments in the past five years total approximately 2.5m hectares - equal to about half the arable land of the UK. Other estimates posit the total farmland investments in Africa, Latin America and Asia at over 15m hectares, about half the size of Italy. While supporters of such deals argue that they are a tool for development, providing new seeds, techniques and money for agriculture, mounting evidence suggests they produce quite the opposite effect, driving out local farmers and in many cases depriving poor people of access to land, water and other resources.

Among the many underlying problems is that of the conflict between customary and statutory laws in the countries where the investments are transpiring. Writes the Economist:

Host governments usually claim that the land they are offering for sale or lease is vacant or owned by the state. That is not always true. “Empty” land often supports herders who graze animals on it. Land may be formally owned by the state but contain people who have farmed it for generations. Their customary rights are recognised locally, but often not accepted in law, or in the terms of a foreign-investment deal.

So the deals frequently set one group against another in host countries and the question is how those conflicts get resolved. “If you want people to invest in your country, you have to make concessions,” says the spokesman for Kenya’s president. (He was referring to a deal in which Qatar offered to build a new port in exchange for growing crops in the Tana river delta, something opposed by local farmers and conservationists.) The trouble is that the concessions are frequently one-sided. Customary owners are thrown off land they think of as theirs. Smallholders have their arms twisted to sign away their rights for a pittance.

The mechanisms for averting such losses would entail measures such as respect for customary laws, stable property rights, and increased transparency surrounding the land deals (among countless others, to be sure!). The trouble is that the majority of the countries which are party to today's land investments lack these very mechanisms and have been struggling with them for quite some time; in many cases decades. A potential solution might be the formulation of some international code, though I'm not quite sure as to what that would look like or what, exactly, it would entail. It would appear that our best option presently remains one of 'wait and see.'

P.S.  I doubt that this falls into the category of 'land grabs,' but the story does speak to the increased prevalence of the phenomenon of giving away land: touched by Biden's speech to the Bosnian parliament last week, a local farmer and war veteran offered Biden a piece of his land as a gift. Go figure.

A 21st century scramble for African land

A reader from the University of Toronto alerted me to the following article in Tuesday's Globe and Mail on the issue of land acquisition in Africa:

Wealthy foreign investors have acquired, or begun negotiating for, an estimated 15 to 20 million hectares of farmland in the developing world – equal to roughly half the size of Newfoundland and Labrador – since 2006. Most of this is in Africa, where the soil is fertile, costs are low and the owners are weak.

Critics are calling it a “global land grab” with neocolonial overtones. The African Union has warned that Africans could be exploited by the massive farmland deals because of their weak bargaining position. Overwhelmed by the rapidly developing trend, they are failing to get sufficient benefits in return, the AU says.

The buyers and leasers of African farmland are the rich and powerful (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates) or the hugely populous and land-hungry (China and India). For all of them, Africa is the jackpot, a region where vast tracts of land are cheap and underutilized.

Madagascar, one of the poorest countries in the world, is a prime target of those hungry for land. But there are plenty of other African targets, too. China is seeking 2 million hectares in Zambia to grow crops for biofuels. Saudi Arabian investors are spending $100-million to acquire land in Ethiopia, $45-million for land in Sudan, and millions more for 500,000 hectares in Tanzania. Libya has secured 100,000 hectares in Mali to grow rice. Qatar has obtained 40,000 hectares in Kenya.

The land deals are a sign of a shift in the world's priorities. Farmland is becoming as much of a strategic resource as oil fields.

The issue is admittedly one about which I am not too well educated, though now realize I ought to be: implicit in the notion of 'China in Africa' (i.e. the arrival of Chinese in Africa) is the question of how they are acquiring land! Obviously! While the article tends to focus on larger-scale investors, I'd venture to guess that the matter is even more pronounced on the micro scale, with entrepreneurs scrambling for spaces from which to run their shops, restaurants, etc. Chinese in Africa tend not to be particularly active in any farmland activities at present, so my guess is that much of their 'land grabs' center around urban areas. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they began to diversify their interests in the not too distant future. This may well be worth looking into in greater detail.

Madagascar's post-coup update

The prognosis: Not. Good. (Shockingly enough).

Nearly a month after the coup d'état which overthrew then-sitting president Marc Ravalomanana, Madagascar appears to have spiraled from a political into an economic crisis - or some horrible agglomeration of the two. The country has been suspended from the African Union, and bloody protests continue to rage as the government cracks down on civil liberties, most recently curbing the media (ironically, the very matter over which opposition-leader-turned-president Rajoelina waged all-out political war on Ravalomanana). Recent findings from the World Bank further suggest that the country's economy is in as dire a state as are its politics, with the GDP growth rate expected to be negative for 2009 - down from a pre-crisis projection of 7.5%. More details can be found here.

[HT: Africa Can]

What's happening in Madagascar?

It's all a bit frustrating, really - the fantastic lack of coverage some countries receive. Consider, for instance, Madagascar: a country now sitting on the brink of a coup at best, civil war at worst. The present state of affairs has been unraveling since January, and has until recently (when the Financial Times jumped on board) been covered by only the BBC, the NYTimes (tangentially), and insightful bloggers like Ethan Zuckerman.

I suppose it's fair to say that Malagasy politics don't carry the same far reaching geopolitical implications in the same way those in oh, China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, the US and other such states do, but they do quite obviously bear heavily on regional stability, which should be reason enough for us to pay attention. Indeed, the risk of yet another destabilized African state is a risk no one should wish to take.

So, what's been happening in Madagascar? In short, a political showdown between President Marc Ravalomanana and Andry Rajoelina, mayor of the capital city of Antananarivo. Rajoelina is an entrepreneur who manages a television network that has been somewhat of a thorn in the side of the president. Ethan Zuckerman observes:

In December, Rajoelina's network broadcast an interview with Madagascar's former president, who is now in exile in France. President Ravalomanana responded by closing down Rajoelina's station. They mayor accused the president of dictatorial behavior, and call on supporters to protest in Antananarivo.

And protest they did. Well over 100 people have died in anti-government protests. Rajoelina has proclaimed himself in charge of the country's affairs (announcing this during an anti-government rally). The defense minister has resigned. Ravalomanana refuses to. On Sunday Ravalomanana proposed to hold a referendum, saying he would only step down democratically. Rajoelina responded by calling for his arrest. Tanks stormed the presidential palace yesterday. Rajoelina continues to claim none of this is a coup d'etat, but has failed to come up with a better name. The French are involved. African Union and United Nations calls for calm are falling on deaf ears. It's all one big mess.

Update: Ravalomanana is to stand down and hand power to the military (my goodness, so much can happen when one is writing a blog post!). Well, brilliant. This will be another political experiment worth keeping our eyes on. ::sigh::

[HT: Elizabeth Dickinson]