Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World Wide Land Grab

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • World Wide Land Grab

    The New Land Rush

    http://www.utne.com/print-article.aspx?id=2147492306

    Saudi Arabia had a ringside seat as the Arab Spring spread across the region. The House of Saud understood that its security rests on its ability to buy the quiescence, if not the loyalty, of its citizens with affordable food and social welfare programs…

    The sheiks had been watching the writing in the sand since the 1970s, when, after the Arab oil-export embargo, they realized their vulnerability: Just as the West was dependent on them for oil, they were dependent on others for food. The prospect of being forced to bend the stiff royal knee to Western-imposed economic pressures inspired the Saudis to apply their oil technology to drilling deep for water. Using heavy irrigation, the country soon became self-sufficient in wheat. But unlike underground water supplies that are replenished by precipitation, fossil aquifers can rapidly be drained dry—and that is what is happening under the Arabian Peninsula.

    Within a few decades, the prehistoric aquifer was almost exhausted, and by 2007, when food riots were roiling the region, the Saudi wheat harvest had dropped precipitously. The Saudi Ministry of Agriculture predicts that by 2016 the country will have to import 100 percent of the wheat it needs to feed its nearly 26 million people.

    Snip…

    Despite water woes, Sudan welcomes investors. “It’s the first country that gives us land without complicated procedures,” Mohammed Rasheed al-Balawi, a former manager of the Saudi firm Hadco, told the Financial Times. “The area is big, the people are friendly, [and] they gave us the land almost free.”

    That characterization of terms is hotly disputed. Although both investors and host countries often refer to acquired land as underdeveloped or empty, the deals typically displace herders and small farmers, who are not consulted and, in any case, lack legal deeds. The World Bank estimates that between 2 and 10 percent of Africa’s land is held under formal land tenure, and most of that is in urban areas.

    Snip

    That may be difficult to achieve. While the United States has almost 3 acres of farmland per person, China has only .23. And 5,000 years of intensive farming has depleted China’s soil, industrialization has poisoned much of its water, and development and urbanization have depleted rivers and land so that even as population and per capita consumption increase, the country has lost more than 20 million acres of arable land—just since the mid-1990s.

    In addition to its interest in Africa, China is investing in diverse cropland in Australia and New Zealand and looking to Indonesia for biofuels and to South America for soy for livestock production to feed its increasingly affluent population’s taste for meat and dairy. China’s South American interests are so extensive that some Brazilians, while crediting Chinese investment for their booming economy, fear for their autonomy.

    “They are moving in,” Carlo Lovatelli, president of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries, told the New York Times, “looking for land and reliable partners. But what they would like to do is run the show alone.”

    “Some experts,” the Times noted, “say the partnership has devolved into a classic neocolonial relationship in which China has the upper hand.”

  • #2
    Re: World Wide Land Grab

    Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
    The New Land Rush


    In addition to its interest in Africa, China is investing in diverse cropland in Australia and New Zealand and looking to Indonesia for biofuels and to South America for soy for livestock production to feed its increasingly affluent population’s taste for meat and dairy. China’s South American interests are so extensive that some Brazilians, while crediting Chinese investment for their booming economy, fear for their autonomy.

    “They are moving in,” Carlo Lovatelli, president of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries, told the New York Times, “looking for land and reliable partners. But what they would like to do is run the show alone.”

    “Some experts,” the Times noted, “say the partnership has devolved into a classic neocolonial relationship in which China has the upper hand.”
    Ah, to be a farmer in todays day and age... oh, wait, I AM a farmer!


    The soy crop is looking pretty good at this time down uruguay way...


    interestingly, Jim Puplava on FSN was posed a question about investing in real estate on a recent show. His response was to buy good quality farmland.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: World Wide Land Grab

      I'd be curious to know if you've given much thought to whether or not nations should allow foreigners to buy land and to what degree. I haven't thought about it, except for with respect to Thailand where during the currency crisis, had laws not been strict, foreign bargain hunters would have had an orgy, changing the nature of Thailand's economy and politics.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: World Wide Land Grab

        Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
        I'd be curious to know if you've given much thought to whether or not nations should allow foreigners to buy land and to what degree. I haven't thought about it, except for with respect to Thailand where during the currency crisis, had laws not been strict, foreign bargain hunters would have had an orgy, changing the nature of Thailand's economy and politics.
        Well, I have to say I am not a disinterested party in this, so my comments may be a bit one sided. With that out of the way, I would say that countries should not fear foreigners buying land so long as the majority of land stays within the hands of the locals of the country, and taxes from the production on the land are appropriately paid. You really do not want "serfs" working the land for foreigners on a majority basis or you will see political unrest and a nation suffering overall. Yet oftentimes it is the much needed foreign capital that comes with land sales that help propel an honestly managed economy forward and upward.

        Realistically, what does it matter if a domestic person or a foreigner owns the land? Jobs are still created one way or another, crops are produced, and eventually sold into the international market. In todays world with mechanized production, you can bring in 50ha (approx 123ac) of wheat crop in about a day with two combines, one tractor, one transport bin for loading trucks, and four workers. The idea of the "family farm" has been replaced everywhere mechanization and capital have entered the markets. A small operator of say 20ac can maybe grow enough food to feed their family, but they sure are not gonna do much else on it. So oftentimes he will sell out, get a "city job" or work for someone else, and take the cash and buy a nice house instead in what is invariably a cash economy. Is the local guy really "behind" in this situation? Either way he has an income, and one way he has a 8-10 hour day plus a nice house, the other he has uncertainty of crop production, and no extra money with a bad place to live.

        OTOH, I DO have a problem when a government "takes" land that has not been "titled" from tribes that have been on that land probably prior to even the formation of that government. It is usually a money grab by TPTB in that country, and nothing filters back to the tribal people. I see that as outright criminal.

        You have foreign investment all over the world. Countries buy up and run everything from ports to stadiums to mines to oil fields to toll-roads, etc. I am not sure I see cropland as being any different.

        We ARE starting to see a response by countries around the world to this uptake by (primarily) China. They are just passing laws to limit the size of land holdings by foreigners. Brasil did this is the cerrado area and limited land size so hedge funds would stop speculating in it, and no foreign government would be able to buy enough to make a meaningful difference, but a guy can still buy like 10-15k hectares. Thats a lot of land.

        I believe you will eventually see much less foreign land purchases when (not if) the dollar takes a major tumble. Like I always marvel to others, I can trade scaps of paper with pictures of dead US presidents on them for real productive assets. It always amazes me. I don;t expect that game to play out for too many more years before the world gets wiser.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: World Wide Land Grab

          Originally posted by doom&gloom View Post
          Well, I have to say I am not a disinterested party in this, so my comments may be a bit one sided. With that out of the way, I would say that countries should not fear foreigners buying land so long as the majority of land stays within the hands of the locals of the country, and taxes from the production on the land are appropriately paid. You really do not want "serfs" working the land for foreigners on a majority basis or you will see political unrest and a nation suffering overall. Yet oftentimes it is the much needed foreign capital that comes with land sales that help propel an honestly managed economy forward and upward.

          Realistically, what does it matter if a domestic person or a foreigner owns the land? Jobs are still created one way or another, crops are produced, and eventually sold into the international market. In todays world with mechanized production, you can bring in 50ha (approx 123ac) of wheat crop in about a day with two combines, one tractor, one transport bin for loading trucks, and four workers. The idea of the "family farm" has been replaced everywhere mechanization and capital have entered the markets. A small operator of say 20ac can maybe grow enough food to feed their family, but they sure are not gonna do much else on it. So oftentimes he will sell out, get a "city job" or work for someone else, and take the cash and buy a nice house instead in what is invariably a cash economy. Is the local guy really "behind" in this situation? Either way he has an income, and one way he has a 8-10 hour day plus a nice house, the other he has uncertainty of crop production, and no extra money with a bad place to live.
          What does it matter? I sort of think land and real estate speculation is behind industrial depressions. The more is not merrier, putting a capitalist facade on what is basically a function of landed gentry. Even if they are not "foreign", absentee ownership is basically dead weight.

          OTOH, I DO have a problem when a government "takes" land that has not been "titled" from tribes that have been on that land probably prior to even the formation of that government. It is usually a money grab by TPTB in that country, and nothing filters back to the tribal people. I see that as outright criminal.
          What is the difference when land is appropriated by easy credit within the tribe? Not much.




          You have foreign investment all over the world. Countries buy up and run everything from ports to stadiums to mines to oil fields to toll-roads, etc. I am not sure I see cropland as being any different.

          We ARE starting to see a response by countries around the world to this uptake by (primarily) China. They are just passing laws to limit the size of land holdings by foreigners. Brasil did this is the cerrado area and limited land size so hedge funds would stop speculating in it, and no foreign government would be able to buy enough to make a meaningful difference, but a guy can still buy like 10-15k hectares. Thats a lot of land.
          Again notice the contradiction that they limit speculation.

          I believe you will eventually see much less foreign land purchases when (not if) the dollar takes a major tumble. Like I always marvel to others, I can trade scaps of paper with pictures of dead US presidents on them for real productive assets. It always amazes me. I don;t expect that game to play out for too many more years before the world gets wiser.
          The reason is that you can take dead US presidents and buy other real goods with it, especially in the US. Its also weird that we like a shinny mostly useless metal.

          Comment

          Working...
          X