Land Grab. From the Guardian:
Rich governments and corporations are triggering alarm for the poor as they buy up the rights to millions of hectares of agricultural land in developing countries in an effort to secure their own long-term food supplies.
Click on the map to enlarge.
The US National Intelligence Council – which supports the Director of National Intelligence and is the centre for long-range analysis in the US intelligence community – has just published a major report on global trends to 2025 (pdf).
The timing’s no accident: the report was deliberately scheduled to emerge after the election but before the inauguration, in order to set out a bipartisan, big picture view of the global context for the incoming President, and to be at the top of the in-tray of his National Security Advisor. In keeping with the increasingly open stance of the Office of the DNI (see David’s post on the DNI Open Source Conference, which he attended in DC earlier this year), the NIC report has been based on intensive engagement with external stakeholders around the world, including two Chatham House seminars.
Although most UK coverage focuses on the report’s key message of the ‘sun setting on US power’ (almost identical headlines in the Guardian and the Times), the other standout story here is the prominence given to scarcity issues. Energy, food and water constraints, together with climate change, are all mentioned in the very first paragraph of the report’s executive summary; by contrast, you need to search through the next four pages of the report before you’ll find any mention of the word ‘terrorism’.
It’s a sobering analysis – and one that poses the question of whether US and international policymaking systems are up to the job. David and I have an analysis piece in the Guardian this morning arguing that the answer to that is a resounding No.
Yesterday I did a post linking to a piece by Javier Blas in the FT, who had learned that Madagascar had agreed to lease half of its arable land – an area half the size of Belgium – to Daewoo, the South Korean conglomerate, for palm oil and corn production.
A few hours later, a truly astonishing new angle on the story emerged. Guess how much South Korea had paid for its 99 year lease? Answer: Zip. Zero. Nada. Not a cent. The sum total of the benefts for Madagascar, according to a Daewoo spokesman? “We will provide jobs for them by farming it, which is good for Madagascar.” This in a country where 3.5% of people are on WFP food aid…
Blimey. I’ve written here before about the growing importance of security of supply concerns in agricultural trade, and the fact that some countries – notably China – are seeking to forge long term purchase agreements with third countries, or indeed to lease or buy land outright.
But the news that South Korea has just struck a 99 year deal with Madagascar to lease an area half the size of Belgium to grow palm oil and no less than half of South Korea’s corn demands, is arresting nonetheless. As Carl Atkin, one of the authors of the Bidwells report on competition for land at the start of the year, comments in the FT: “The project does not surprise me, as countries are looking to improve food security, but its size – it does surprise me.”
As with previous projects along the same lines, the big question is whether developing countries (and particularly their poor people) will really benefit from such projects. After initially making very enthusiastic noises about the potential for such projects to bring vital investment to bear, the World Bank and the FAO are now sounding a notably more cautious note about who benefits from them, as Javier Blas’s excellent in-depth piece on the trend a few months back noted.
In the case of South Korea’s project, it looks as though benefits for the poor may be very limited indeed: although fully half of Madagascar’s arable land is to be leased, the labour is to be shipped in from South Africa.
Update: unbelievably, it turns out that South Korea acquired the lease for free – see this later post for more.
Ahead of this weekend’s G20 summit, David and I have published a short paper entitled A Bretton Woods II worthy of the name. Key points:
– The summit is unlikely to be able to live up to its billing. Leaders do not yet understand the nature of the problem well enough to be able to implement viable solutions. However, the problem is more fundamental than a simple lack of shared awareness.
– History suggests that leaders will only think the unthinkable on institutional reform once the challenge they face has really hit rock bottom. But history also suggests that we are wrong to think that the worst of the crisis is now past, given that many past banking crises have taken five years or more to unravel.
– Bretton Woods 1 looked across the whole international economic waterfront in 1944, while this weekend’s summit will be much more narrowly focused. Leaders will make a big mistake if they try and tackle finance in isolation, given the growing impact of resource scarcity, and that 2009 is supposed to see another ambitious global deal – on climate.
– We need to recalibrate what we expect from globalization through a serious debate about subsidiarity. Where has globalization gone too far, too fast? Where do we need more integration at a global level? These were exactly the questions that preoccupied Keynes in 1933, when he weighed the relative benefits of global versus local across a range of variables. We need a similar debate today as a precursor to serious international economic reform.
– Leaders need to extend their horizons in (at least) five directions: onto longer time scales; beyond financial regulation into wider resource scarcity challenges; into other international processes, especially climate; towards grand bargains with emerging powers; and beyond government, to non-governmental networks.
Full version after the jump, or better yet here’s the pdf.