understanding land investment deals in africa - Oakland Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Locally made map of mechanized schemes in Habila, Nuba Mountainsinvolved in the process leading to the signing ofthese projects.” 87Though some members of Mukaya Communityresiding in Juba learned about the deal as far back asSeptember 2008, this information apparently did notreach members of the community residing in MukayaPayam. When OI researchers visited Mukaya Payam inJune 2011, none of the community leaders had evenheard of the Cooperative. The paramount chief whosigned on behalf of the Cooperative in the March 2008claims that several “intellectuals” from the communitywho reside in Juba brought him a lease agreement thathad already been signed by all the other parties to theagreement and instructed him to sign. 88 The chief, anelderly man with primary level education, says that hesigned the lease without understanding the terms ofthe agreement.During a group meeting that OI researchers had withleaders from Mukaya community, one of the sub-chiefsexpressed shock that something like this could bedone without the community’s approval. He targetedhis criticism at the “intellectuals” from the communitywho instructed the chief to sign the lease:“We have children from this community, thoseones that are learned, who are staying outside,they are the ones who bring these investors tothis community. There are certain things they doin Juba, then they bring these lies and tell thesepeople who stay here in deep village without anyaccess to any information.” 89Another sub-chief expressed a similar disappointmentwith Kinyeti’s agents from the Mukaya communityresiding in Juba:“From before our grandparents were here, thisland belonged to us. These people from thetowns, who are claiming to be sons from here,these are the people whose fathers moved to thetown a long time ago. They were born there, theygrew up there, and now they do business fromthere.” 90The local dynamics with respect to the relationshipbetween the residents of Mukaya Payam and the“intellectuals” from the community who reside inJuba illustrates some of the power imbalances andprejudices that underlie investment decision-making inThe Oakland Institute understanding land investment deals in africa: south sudan | 25
South Sudan. There is a tendency for educated peopleto look down on their rural counterparts as “backwardpeasants” who are not sophisticated enough to makedecisions about investment on community land.Even in situations where there is some agreementthat the community leaders in Juba will represent thecommunity in negotiations with foreign investors, thedelegation of power to the “intellectuals” tends to be soabsolute that it precludes any meaningful communitycontribution to the negotiations.A Transfer that Exceeds AdministrativeBoundariesThe size of the land parcel that is indicated in the leaseagreements is also puzzling. The project is meant tobe located entirely within Mukaya Payam, which is oneof the five payams in Lainya County. However, LainyaCounty itself only covers an area of 345,000 ha, farless than the 600,000 ha transferred to the company.Meanwhile, none of the other four payams in LainyaCounty or the neighboring counties of Juba and Yeiwere involved in any way with the deal. According to alocal government official:“You see this land [that Nile Trading has leased],stretches over to that side of Mundri [County]. Thisinvolves several communities, and it is only a fewpeople from one clan discussing it, determiningthe fate of almost seven or eight communities.”Lainya County has a population of 89,000 people andwas a frontline between the SPLA and the Sudan ArmedForces (SAF) during the civil war. If the governmentwere to transfer the entire county to a foreign companyit would almost certainly provoke a violent responsefrom the local population. An ongoing border disputein Wonduruba Payam, another one of the payams inLainya Country, has already claimed several lives andgiven rise to a brazen attack on a GoSS minister and hisbodyguards. 91 The community’s willingness to opposea unilaterally imposed investment was reflected in astatement by a Mukaya resident: “We who are livinghere, the poor, we cannot accept for even the presidentor a minister to do any business in this community ifthe community doesn’t know about it.” 92Legal Status of the Investment AgreementThe March 2008 lease agreement predates the 2009Land Act and therefore falls outside the scope ofmost of its provisions. As a result, several aspects ofthe investment agreement that would constitute clearviolations of the Land Act, such as the failure to consultwith the local community and the failure to conductenvironmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs)prior to making any decision about the investment,do not apply. This ambiguity presented opportunitiesfor Nile Trading, Kinyeti and the AETG to legitimizetheir activities in Mukaya. Without applicable law tothe contrary, public officials in the Central EquatoriaState government were able to use their discretionaryauthority to issue the lease to the company. In responseto a question of whether the Central Equatoria Stategovernor had approved the Nile Trading lease, HowardDouglas responded:“In 2008, the administrative procedures would nothave required ‘approval’ by the Governor in the senseof your question. As with many things in political life,the Governor had the authority and access to object tothe land lease if some aspect came to his attention andfound disfavor, for whatever reason.” 93Despite Douglas’s confidence in the legitimacy ofthe deal, the Mukaya community has had some earlysuccess in forcing the government to cancel the lease.In August 2011, a delegation from Mukaya Payam cameto Juba to meet with both Clement Wani, the governorof Central Equatoria State, and Salva Kiir, the presidentof South Sudan. The community delegation, comprisedof 12 community leaders who reside in Mukaya Payam,brought with them a letter in which they “unanimouslywith strong terms condemn disavow or deny” the NileTrading lease. 94 They claimed that “the communityof Mukaya Payam as indigenous inhabitants of theirancestral Land…weren’t consulted on the matterand therefore we are not part and parcel of thedeal negotiated by the two parties.” The letter alsocorroborates the allegations that the Cooperative doesnot represent the interests of the Mukaya Community.According to the letter:“Mukaya Payam cooperative is an individualThe Oakland Institute understanding land investment deals in africa: south sudan | 26
Page 2: Understanding Land Investment Deals
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contentslist of Acronyms..
Page 7: executive summaryOn July 9, 2011, t
Page 10 and 11: INTRODUCTIONAround the world, ferti
Page 12 and 13: 1. COUNTRY CONTEXTBox 1. South Suda
Page 14 and 15: the population—are moderately or
Page 16 and 17: Questions Surrounding the Availabil
Page 18 and 19: 2. LEGAL FRAMEWORKSouth Sudan’s l
Page 20 and 21: within the local government council
Page 22 and 23: Habila mechanized schemes, Nuba Mou
Page 24 and 25: 4. CASE STUDIESThere was a large in
Page 27 and 28: Nile Trading & Development Contract
Page 29: when Kinyeti representatives travel
Page 33 and 34: the Equatoria Teak Company and its
Page 36 and 37: of encroachment by the local commun
Page 38: which the CDC and Finnfund are will
Page 41 and 42: provide the local community with so
Page 43 and 44: officials with the state and centra
Page 45 and 46: all of the 50,000 tons of food it c
Page 47 and 48: 5. CONCLUSIONSouth Sudan experience
Page 49 and 50: ENDNOTES1 This is an updated figure
Page 51 and 52: 68 “South Sudan Launches Private
Page 53 and 54: 171 Ibid.172 Taban Deng, op. cit.17

understanding land investment deals in africa - Oakland Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?