India's investments in African land and water: genuine South-South cooperation, or neocolonialism?

When I was a kid, my dad always told me that politics is everywhere, and that everything is political. This is something I will remember all my life, I think, because every single day makes me realize how true it is. This is why for this blog, I find it very difficult to select relevant topics - I feel like I could write on so many things! But today, I will write about something that isn't as obviously political as other topics, because it is (presented as) a primarily economic issue: land and water grabbing by foreign powers in Africa.

What do we mean by 'land grab'?

This concept is widely used by NGOs to describe foreign investment in land, be it for agricultural or industrial or building purposes, that actually dispossesses the former legal or de facto owners of that land, i.e. mainly local small-scale farmers. When a foreign investor decides to buy a piece of land, generally in a country that is poorer than his or her own, where land is cheap, he or she actually prevents entire families from producing their food and deprives them of their cultures and communities. Local small farmers cannot afford to compete against those foreign investors on the market. This is why this practice is called "grabbing" by defenders of those communities. By taking over the control of the land, investors seize control of the water resources previously used by the local farmers to grow their crops. As noted by Magdoff (2013), land grabs are an important feature of the development of capitalism, and in particular, of the commodification of nature, which was accelerated by the neoliberal wave in the 1980s. Land grabbing in Africa started with colonialism, when European settlers in the 19th century took possession of African resources - and in South Africa in 1990, 90% of the land was still owned by white people.

Credits: Anna Rossi (http://www.slowfood.it/tag/land-grabbing/)

What causes India to invest in African land?

Because Asia is experiencing continuous population growth, it lacks resources at home to feed its population and provide it with basic needs. Hence the new trend of investment in Africa, especially on the part of China and India, the two "Asian giants". I will focus on India in this post, because the literature has covered it less than China, and also because of personal interest.
India possesses approximately 1.3 million ha of foreign land. Its trade with Africa increased by 400% between 2007 and 2012, involving companies like Tata Motors, Vedanta Resources, and Karuturi. With climate change, agricultural production in India is projected to decrease drastically; simultaneously, the cost of agricultural production in Africa is almost half that in India, not to mention the availability of large, contiguous land holdings in Africa. With its more than 1 billion population, India has to meet new, steadily rising energy and food requirements. Hence, it is very likely that Indian "land grabs" will continue to increase in the next decades.
Besides, it was pointed out that Indian companies take advantage of various failures in African political systems:

‘‘Many of these Indian companies operating in Africa are engaging in activities that involve huge displacement of farmers and changing patterns of production and consumption that would either be difficult or impossible for them to do in India. They would either be illegal or get embroiled in very significant political controversies because of the negative impact on local people" (Ghosh, 2011)

An Indian businessman supervising agricultural work in Ethiopia. https://www.farmlandgrab.org/post/view/21619-indian-companies-investments-in-ethiopia-displace-people-activists 

In order to make African elites buy into their investment projects, Indian companies present them as partnerships with local governments, and apply the principle of non-interference in politics (contrary to former European colonialists). Insofar, they want to assure political elites they will stay in power, and that India's presence is "only" economic. Yet, is that assertion true?

Immediate and long-term consequences

In fact, these investments have many political consequences. In the short-term, they marginalize the most vulnerable populations and make them food and water insecure. In some cases, human rights abuses and violence were reported as well. In the longer term, these projects damage the environment. Land grabbing releases carbon through forest clearance, reduces wildlife migration and favors monocultures to maintain productivity. They contribute to the depletion of aquifers and the pollution of rivers, and their economic activities demand high inputs of water, which makes activists fear that these agribusinesses may induce a "hydrological suicide" for Africa. In order to enable a better understanding of the issue, I will now look at two concrete examples of Indian land grabbing.

Credits: Piero Lusso, http://politheor.net/eus-role-in-land-grabbing-in-southeast-asia/

Case Study 1: Ethiopia

70% of foreign investment in Ethiopia is Indian, predominantly Karuturi who possesses 800 000 acres of land in the country. For a decade now, the Ethiopian government has used various means such as tax and import duties exemptions to incentivize foreign investment, and wants to attract it on what it calls its "unutilized land". For instance, 42% of the land in the Gambella region was thus sold, and the government has argued that this project will “contribute to long-term food security through technology transfer to small farmers”. The privatization of land in Ethiopia was encouraged by international institutions such as the World Bank and the FAO. But, as underlined by The Oakland Institute, the crops grown in Ethiopia are then exported, so they don't really enhance domestic food security.

Moreover, the Gambella investment was presented as a "win-win" project, while it actually forced the displacement of 1.5 million indigenous farmers who are now dependent on aid to survive. Critics have said that what the government labels as "unutilized land" was actually owned and cultivated by indigenous farmers, and that this labels represents a failure to recognize indigenous agricultural practices. Other critics point out various international human rights agreements to which Ethiopia has bound herself, and which forbid the forced displacement of people, such as the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. 

Refugee Camp in Gambella. Credits: The Guardian, found on
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/id252-eed/2015/11/18/displaced-people-of-ethiopia/ 

This forced displacement goes along with violent and cruel practices, such as beatings, unjust arrests, suppressed dissent, rape and sexual violence. Displaced children have not been able to go to school anymore, and women have to walk farther than before to fetch water, because food, water and educational assistance is not provided. Hence the most vulnerable, those who do not have a voice in politics, were the first hit by a so-called "economic partnership" that should more accurately be called a "human catastrophe".

Case Study 2: Zambia

India's investments in Zambia are mainly carried out by Vedanta Resources, Kagem Mining, and Tata Motors. Zambia was a strategic choice for these companies, since there is less competition than in other African countries. Through Chinese and Indian investment in Zambia, many jobs have been created. The problem, however, is that employees aren't treated decently. What is more, this investment has induced the displacement of local companies who are not able to compete with richer foreign capital. Here again, the Zambian government provided multiple incentives to Indian companies, such as tax cuts. In some ways, this partnership has been beneficial to the local population, with India aiming to work in tandem with local communities. The Indian government also offered financial aid to Zambia and provided scholarships to young Zambians to study at Indian universities.

On the other hand, Indian economic activities are responsible for environmental damage in Zambia. Vedanta Resources heavily polluted the River Kafue. The Tata Group over-extracted natural (especially water) resources for its hydropower and agricultural investments, causing the depletion of those resources.

Pollution by Vedanta Resources in River Kafue. Credits: FoilVedanta, 2015

Coupled with the above-mentioned displacement of local companies, this clearly questions the soundness of this "South-South cooperation"...

***

Though foreign investments in natural resources are mostly presented as economically, socially and environmentally sustainable, it is actually not that simple. Most of the time, they are not. Therefore, NGOs counter-label them as "land grabs" and view this practice as a form of neocolonialism. Clearly, this is not only an economic issue. Control over water and food is fundamentally biopolitical, it is the most decisive form of political power: the ones who control water and food on a defined territory, can decide on the political status of the other inhabitants of this territory.

Sarah Champagne