Business News

Foreign investors land acquisitions worry CSOs

Civil society organisations (CSOs) in Malawi have expressed concern with the large-scale of land acquisition by foreign investors in Malawi.

Mining: Investing in land can strengthen and contribute to food security
Mining: Investing in land can strengthen and contribute to food security

Presenting preliminary findings of a study entitled Large Scale Land Investment: Implications on Food Security in Malawi, Landnet Malawi national coordinator Yvonne Mmangisa said large-scale land deals is an issue because poor people, especially those in semi urban and rural areas, are being pushed out of their good arable lands to pave way for investments in mining, timber, food and bio-fuel production.

While appreciating the contribution of foreign investments in job creation and income generation through leases and sales of land, the report exposes some dark spots of the practice.

“Most of the times we only talk about the positive sides of foreign investments, rarely do we ask ourselves pertinent questions such as at what price do we get such investments?

“But through this study, we have noted that large-scale land acquisitions is a major threat to people’s livelihoods as most of them are forced to abandon their land to pave the way for the investments.

“Large-scale land acquisitions are also a major culprit of massive environmental degradation we see in many parts of the country and food insecurity, especially at household level,” said Mmangisa when presenting the findings in Lilongwe on Friday.

The study says large-scale land acquisition is not only a problem in Malawi, but Africa as a whole.

Out of 56 million hectares put under foreign investment globally, according to the study, 70 percent are in Africa.

“But a big question we need to ask ourselves is: Can we create a win-win situation that will benefit local people as well as provide good economic returns to the investors?” reads the report in part.

The study cites world food crisis, global financial crisis and high and fluctuating fuel prices as major drivers of large-scale land deals.

The study, which is also being conducted in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Namibia, asks governments to recognise existing rights to lands and natural resources.

Looking forward, the study also asks government to ensure that land transactions are transparent, impartial, cost-effective and that good land governance is adhered to.

The study says investment in land should strengthen and ensure food security for host communities.

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. Agriculture is not a strategy for development. Fifty years of anchoring the economy on agriculture has proven that. I am a strong advocate for foreign direct investment (FDI) but in manufacturing. Manufacturing will transform this country and that will benefit agricultural output. However, I am vehemently opposed to selling land for FDI. This mistake has potential long- term consequences and potential social destabilisation. Architects of this policy must reverse it as soon as possible before the country descends into chaos. I join the plea for the parliament to outlaw selling of land and repeal this provision in whatever form it is now. Parliament must act to stop this land selling masquerading as FDI. If after 50 years of trying with agriculture, politicians do not get it that it is not agriculture per se that develops a country, what will it take to convince them?
    The only route for sustainable development known to man (and woman) is manufacturing. Manufacturing creates long- term jobs but also stimulates the service sector, stimulates agriculture and is the guaranteed strategy to develop Malawi by the shortest route! Land is a sensitive issue and selling it willy-nilly is mortgaging the future of Malawian children. Even more importantly is the fact that it creates false economics that seems like we are developing when in essence we are squandering more time on a pointless diminishing return activity that will take Malawi nowhere.
    I appreciate that the concept of manufacturing is difficult and has eluded all African leaders since independence. There is common belief that materials are required to support manufacturing and these materials do not exist in Malawi. I completely reject as false this assertion. Part of a sound manufacturing strategy is to produce materials that make engineering materials that make machines that make other machines. Malawi has all the ingredients ready to industrialise! What are you waiting for?
    I like to use Singapore in comparison with Malawi. In 1964, Malawi got independence from Britain, Singapore got theirs in 1963 with Malaysia but became a separate republic in 1965. It was as poor as Malawi with similar GDP levels of $229m for Malawi vs $974m for Singapore. Before self rule their president came to Africa, to Malawi in particular to learn from Malawi since we had achieved our independence and to make friends. The point was to determine where to start on the path to nation building and development. At the time Singapore was bush with high unemployment like Malawi. Where must a country start? Agriculture or manufacturing? Malawi chose to focus on Agriculture and Singapore chose to invest in Manufacturing. You cannot choreograph a better comparison. Those who refute this comparison are simply in denial. GDP of Malawi after 50 years is $4.2bn while that of Singapore is $275 bn with every citizen guaranteed high standard of living and plenty of jobs. What more evidence is required to convince this country to embark on the right form of development strategy and to attract technology transfer in manufacturing through FDI? Singapore is smaller than Malawi. Malawi and Singapore therefore are historically twins tied at the hip as far as I am concerned. Depending on your outlook, you can view it as a lost opportunity representing where Malawi should have been after 50 years or it can be the vision to aspire for in the next 50 years from now. For me I prefer it to be a vision as we are where we are. Kamuzu is not blame, Muluzi is not to blame, Bingu is not to blame and JB is not to blame. They all tried their best. But as the saying goes if you beat me once you are to blame, you beat me twice then I am to blame. Continuing anchoring the economy on a “do nothing” agriculture after 50 years of failure raises eyebrows.

Back to top button