Debunking the Myths of China-in-African land

The socio-economic effects of emerging trends in foreign direct investment (especially in resources) have received much attention in media reports, academic literature and policy briefs in recent times. 

To cite an instance, the 2014 Africa Progress Panel report highlights the current and potential roles of land and water resources in the structural transformation of African economies. 

Following the 2007/08 food security crisis and increased drive towards alternative energy sources, several countries (including China, the world’s most populous country) have purportedly sought investment in land resource abundant countries (mostly Africa) for agricultural use amongst other things. 

Besides, the writing of experts on the study of Sino-African relations, notably Deborah Brautigam, is due to be acknowledged.

In a recent discourse paper I contributed to debunking some myths surrounding Chinese land grab in Africa. As against pessimistic perspectives that focus on the potential imperialist character of China in African development. 

I take on an optimistic stance by recognizing that African States have a crucial role to play in being architects of their own development - by setting institutional requirements for maximizing gains from Chinese development cooperation. 

One of the myths debunked in the paper is that China, contrary to what most media reports tell us, is not the largest ‘grabber’ of African land. On the other hand, I highlight the silent reality that some other emerging economies such as India and Brazil, via their increasing investments, can impact on agrarian transformation of Africa.

In any case, if there are rising insecurities of investments in Africa as a result of large-scale foreign land acquisitions, governments are to be held accountable, not the investors. For instance, the creation of special economic zones has displacement implications for adjoining farm-dependent communities. 

Responsible governments will pay a close attention to the provision of social protection and safety nets for families displaced as a result of large-scale land transfers. An impracticable option may be to avoid land grabs in order that agricultural policy may be inclusive and successful in Africa. 

However, in the face of growing interests for foreign investments, realistic policy mechanisms would be such that focuses on protecting local rights, interests, livelihoods and welfare.

China currently wields some leverage in its African relations, based on the varying quality of institutions in countries where it holds vested interests. The African Union (AU) can boost Africa’s advantage, by implementing benchmark frameworks for engagement in China-Africa trade negotiations and investment criteria. 

With such a focus on regionalization of interaction with China, Africa can have a better deal with respect to development outcomes and the strengthening of institutions.

In order to get rid of its negative publicity on land grabs and towards establishing a commitment to best practices, Chinese government and investors (as individuals and groups) can take a cue from the practice of the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC); 

For instance by having a deliberate stance on non-involvement with controversial large-scale land acquisitions which have resettlement imperatives;  and choosing to only procure the use of existing moribund estates, privately-owned underutilized land or land that are largely unsettled.

On the whole, the paper proposes the adoption of business models that can create a win-win scenario for all stakeholders involved in and affected by land acquisitions. 

In addition to encouraging the proliferation of business models that involve foreign-local partnerships, it advocates an emphasis on technical assistance and technology transfer in country investment criteria, for example the creation of demonstration centres.

The discussion continues...