understanding land investment deals in africa - Oakland Institute

5. CONCLUSIONSouth Sudan experienced a large influx of investmentafter the signing of the CPA in 2005. Companies usedthe ambiguity of the prevailing law to secure favorabledeals for themselves through agreements with localpowerbrokers. There was very little resistance tothese investments, in part due to the underdevelopedcivil society in South Sudan and the fact that manyinvestments have not yet become operational. This isstarting to change; rural communities are beginning todemand that their ownership rights be respected andthe government is beginning to take note. For the firsttime, in September 2011, the president of South Sudanresponded to the demands of affected populations,promising to conduct a review of lease agreementssigned during the interim period and to pass newprocurement legislation to regulate future land deals. 187Despite positive developments, a more fundamentalchange in the government’s development paradigmis necessary to bring it into line with its prioritiesof improving food security, reducing poverty, anddeveloping rural areas. The government’s recognitionof customary land tenure in the transitional constitutionand the Land Act is a step in the right direction, butwithout implementation the laws’ protections are notavailable to affected populations. As the nation movesinto the post-independence period and interestsbecome entrenched, it will become increasinglydifficult to enact any meaningful reform. Investors andtheir local partners often benefit from the opaque rulesand procedures, making it more difficult to put in placea framework for responsible investment.Unless the government is better able to prioritizethe development needs of local populations, landinvestments may well become a source of socialunrest and conflict. There is a long history of violenceassociated with land-based development projectsin South Sudan, and if the government continues toallocate large land areas to foreign companies in directcontravention to communities’ ownership rights, it willbegin to undermine peacebuilding efforts. In countriessuch as South Sudan, with its large populations ofpastoralists, there is an even greater risk of conflictsince communities require access to large areas of landto graze their livestock. Conflict also provides a fertileground for certain kinds of investment. Opportunisticcompanies can take advantage of weak institutions andunclear laws to secure favorable deals for themselves.Without regulatory oversight, it is very difficult for thegovernment to even monitor what is happening, muchless enforce its regulatory requirements.South Sudan desperately needs private investment.If done in a responsible manner, agriculturalinvestments can help to jumpstart the economy,provide food and services for struggling populations,and develop building and road infrastructure in ruralareas. By adopting business models that maximizeemployment opportunities, investments can createjobs for rural communities and provide young peoplewith an alternative to recruitment into armed groups.For investment to deliver on its promises, however,the government must place local developmentpriorities at the heart of all aspects of investmentnegotiation, contracting, implementation, monitoring,and enforcement. It must ensure that communitiesmeaningfully participate in all decisions that affect them,and find ways of fairly and efficiently operationalizingcommunity land ownership. Most importantly, thegovernment must concentrate its time and resourceson supporting smallholder farmers. Although theirproductive capacity has been undermined by insecurityand a lack of agricultural support services, smallholdersThe Oakland Institute understanding land investment deals in africa: south sudan | 42