Some Effects of the Land Rush

One of the consequences of the commodities boom is the renewed interest in intensifying farming activity throughout the world. This means that the value of agricultural land has gone up considerably with Africa and other developing countries seeing a rush in investment from large agricultural businesses. On the whole, renewed investment in Africa is not only an urgent need but also one of the main ways for fighting the poverty for the people. While written with some bias, this article in the Business week captures some of the difficulties that emerge from the investments related to the purchase or lease of land in parts of Africa. In spite of that, the piece reveals that there are a valid reasons why these investments need to be carefully calibrated due to underlying political and economic issues.

The merits and demerits aside of such deals aside, many people in Kenya and other parts of Africa are very uncomfortable with them since these investment deals are often negotiated between governments on the one side and investment firms that are taking possession of land on the other. So Dominion Farm's investments are definitely required but its managers are wrong to think that having a lease approved by government is sufficient because they find out that they are viewed with suspicion and even resentment. That is not good for investor relations and it shows very poor analysis on political risks and how it affects the longer-term viability of their investments.

I also think that to ensure success, these agreements ought to be as transparent as possible because land is still a political issue in most of Africa. There is still the tension between private ownership and communal ownership but on the whole, the western Kenya belt where Dominion Farms is based is completely adjudicated and therefore its people are largely comfortable with private ownership. This means that Dominion ought to have sought to negotiate directly with individual farms owners and should publish whatever the undertakings from either side are. I find it suspicious that Mr. Burgess claims to have negotiated with tribal chiefs when nobody bears such powers to negotiate over another’s land. So the piece is either incorrect on this or someone has made this up.

As stated in the piece and reiterated by the its response here, some of the targets that were established for Dominion Farms are altogether unrealistic. My thinking is that transition from homestead agriculture is necessary for significant welfare enhancement because there are too many people farming non-viable pieces of land in Africa. So it must be expected that enhanced farming techniques would lead to fewer farmers producing more to enable productivity gains to occur. So the leases should not come with promises for a target number of jobs and so Dominion Farms was at fault for accepting such a compromise. It should insist that it is purely an investment and not a welfare scheme and that's the reason I am unimpressed with claims that it intends to build hospitals and all that.

My assessment of the land lease phenomenon is that many investors in Africa and developing countries have failed to realize that the ability of governments to coerce citizens is surely fading. This means that investment deals cannot be based on the 1960s templates involving sweeteners to local officials, undertakings to establish infrastructure and then all would be fine. While I agree that land is an economic good too, these investors ought to be clear that their missionary zeal and sermons alone will neither ensure that they are admired nor that they get good returns. Contest for land ownership in Kenya, as in most of Africa, is particularly intense and any foreigner who enters that contest banking on government support alone is unlikely to be successful. Proper political risk analysis and how it affects investment viability is required for most of the land rushing corporations. I see that many of these projects will be difficult and possibly end in grief for investors.