understanding land investment deals in africa - Oakland Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the Ministry of Wildlife does allude to the company’ssocial obligations to affected communities, but theyare drafted in vague, nonspecific terms. Section 6(12)of the investment agreement states:“The Company undertakes, as far as is practicallypossible and financially feasible, to ensure thatlocal community interests are considered in full.A Joint Liaison Committee will be established withthe local communities and existing communitybased organizations (CBOs) which will meeton a quarterly basis. Local communities willbe the primary beneficiaries of employmentopportunities and they will receive othereconomic benefits. The Company intends toestablish a structure and/or support the existingnot-for-profit organizations together with thirdparties which will focus on the establishment ofsmall businesses and the creation of wealth in thesurrounding communities…”At this writing, more than three years after enteringinto the agreement with the government, the companyhas not yet provided any of the agreed upon benefits tothe communities. The company’s failure to deliver onits promises prompted several political leaders fromthe Murle community—the community that stands tobe most directly affected by the investment in Boma—to issue a letter to the Ministry of Wildlife and theoffice of the president. The August 2009 letter statesthat community participation in decision-making withregard to the project “was completely excluded andignored.” According to the letter:“Al Ain National Wildlife Company has violatedarticle 6(12) which stipulates clearly that localcommunity is the primary beneficiaries ofemployment opportunities. The company hasappointed [a] manager who is not son of the Murlecommunity based in Juba. This appointment iscompletely rejected and the Murle community willnot tolerate it. The community has capable andqualified people who can fill this post. The AinCompany must take it seriously, putting this intoeffect; removing the so called manager that hasbeen imposed on us through political motives,and should appoint the Murle community’s sonfill this post so as to create a healthy workingatmosphere with the local community.”The letter proposes a number of changes to theinvestment agreement to align it with communityinterests. For example, the terms of the investmentagreement provide for an income sharing arrangementof 70 percent for Al Ain and 30 percent for thegovernment. The letter proposes that this provisionbe adjusted to include a 10 percent share for the localcommunity. The letter also asks for the project periodto be reduced from 30 to 20 years, and for morespecific details concerning the company’s obligationsto provide health, education, and water services to thelocal community.The government did not respond to the community’sletter. According to the director of a local communitybasedorganization, the government’s silence hascaused the community to become rigid in theiropposition to the investment. 135 Even governmentofficials have begun to express concern over Al Ain’sactivities in recent years. Though Al Ain had reportedlypromised to build its airstrip at the population centerin Pibor, the company instead constructed a largeairstrip adjacent to its project facilities in Maruwa. Ininterviews with OI researchers, several governmentofficials also expressed concern that the company hasbeen flying aircraft in and out of South Sudan with verylittle government oversight.investment-related DisplacementAccording to local officials, Al Ain, together with someofficials in the Ministry of Wildlife, have requested thatthe local community residing in the area around itsproject facilities relocate to another part of the park,about four hours distance by car. The company wouldlike for the community to relocate by December 2011,when the company plans to begin receiving guests atits compound. The local officials estimate that 10,000to 15,000 people reside in the area.The community has reportedly expressed securityconcerns about the proposed move. The residents ofMaruwa are mostly pastoralists from the Murle ethnicgroup. The mountainous terrain in Maruwa and the factthat the neighboring groups are mostly agriculturalistsThe Oakland Institute understanding land investment deals in africa: south sudan | 35
provide the local community with some protection.The proposed location, however, is adjacent to Murleand Jie pastoralist communities and would make theMaruwa community more susceptible to cattle rustlingand intertribal conflict. Furthermore, the company hasnot yet delivered on its promise of infrastructure andservices in the new location, and the community isreluctant to move until the company performs on itsobligations.The community also has cultural and spiritual reasonsfor opposing the move. Maruwa is the ancestralhome of the Murle “Red Chiefs.” 136 Murle society istraditionally divided into “Red Chiefs” and “BlackCommoners.” The Red Chiefs are considered to beleaders of the community who are given a privilegedposition for their ability to reconcile grievances amongcommunity members. For instance, if a Murle commitsmurder, the first thing he will do is run to the home ofone of the Red Chiefs. If he reaches the Red Chief’shome, he is considered to be under the protection ofthe Red Chief until the case has been resolved.Complicated displacement patterns in the area haveobscured the community’s historical claim to the landin Maruwa. In an interview with OI researchers, aninternational organization operating in Boma claimedthat the communities living in the vicinity of Al Ain’sproject facilities only moved to the area in recent years,after the signing of the CPA. 137 Local residents, on theother hand, report that they were actually displacedfrom the area during the war and were only recentlyreturning after having lived as IDPs elsewhere in SouthSudan. 138 Upon their return, they found that the areahad already been given to Al Ain for their ecotourismventure.Rising TensionsAt this writing, the events surrounding the relocationof the community in Maruwa are coming to a head.In July 2011, according to a local resident, the Ministryof Wildlife repeated its request for the community torelocate from Maruwa. When the local chief refused,he was reportedly told that if the community does notmove voluntarily, then they will be forcibly evicted by thegovernment. Negotiations are still ongoing betweenthe Murle leaders and the government. However,according to a local resident, the Murle leaders havesided with the government and it is highly likely thatthe community will be forced to move from the area.The implications of such a massive relocation of peoplewould be far-reaching; not only are the chances ofconflict greatly increased due to competition over landand resources between the relocated community andthe communities already residing in the area, but thechances of conflict between the Murle community, AlAin Wildlife, and the South Sudanese government arealso increased. The Al Ain project vividly illustrates howlarge-scale land investments in a volatile post-conflictcontext such as that of South Sudan can drive conflictwhile at the same time benefiting from conflict. If thecommunity in Maruwa had not been displaced fromits ancestral homeland during the civil war, it wouldhave been far more difficult for the company and thegovernment to lay claim to the land in the area. Now,as a consequence of the social and administrativechaos in a post-conflict state, communities who havestruggled with high levels of poverty, food insecurity,and conflict, are being forced once again to uproottheir lives in the name of investment and its elusivepromise of development.Citadel Capital and Concord AgricultureThis case study examines investments in South Sudanby an Egyptian equity firm called Citadel Capital. In2009, Citadel Capital, through a portfolio companyConcord Agriculture (previously known as the SudanEgyptian Agricultural Company (SEAC)), obtained a 25-year lease to 105,000 ha of land in Gwit and Pariangcounties of Unity State. According to the managersat Concord, the purpose of the investment is to growmaize and sorghum for sale primarily on local markets.The company has not yet produced its first harvest,but it has developed 830 ha (3,500 feddans) of itslandholding and, at this writing, was preparing the fieldfor the summer crop. 139Despite the clear recognition of community landownership in the 2009 Land Act, many governmentThe Oakland Institute understanding land investment deals in africa: south sudan | 36
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 and 30: when Kinyeti representatives travel
Page 31 and 32: South Sudan. There is a tendency fo
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?