Middle East Eye | 5
October 2016
by Kieran Cooke
After food costs spike,
Saudis spent billions buying up farm land around the world. Who benefits
exactly and can the spree continue?
They control rice farms in Ethiopia, Sudan and the Philippines, cattle ranches in California and Arizona, wheat fields in Ukraine and Poland, ranches in Argentina and Brazil and shrimp producers in Mauritania.
They control rice farms in Ethiopia, Sudan and the Philippines, cattle ranches in California and Arizona, wheat fields in Ukraine and Poland, ranches in Argentina and Brazil and shrimp producers in Mauritania.
In 2008, King Abdullah
launched his "Initiative for Saudi Agricultural Investment Abroad,"
urging Saudis to go overseas and buy land.
Saudi investors – both
state and private – have since gone on a global shopping spree, spending
billions of dollars buying up or leasing large tracts of land around the world.
The Saudi policy has not
gone entirely smoothly. In Ethiopia, the foreign takeover of lands has led to
riots and killings. In Indonesia, local tribes people have severely limited
Riyadh’s ambitions.
Critics accuse Saudi
Arabia – and several other countries including fellow Gulf states - of
participating in a global "land grab", using their financial clout in
a bid to impose industrial-scale farming practices on what are usually
traditional, mixed crop, smallholder plots of land.
Food crisis concerns
The Saudis say King
Abdullah’s initiative has been aimed primarily at ensuring the kingdom’s food
security: according to officials, the move also has benign international
objectives, including “enhancing international food security and encouraging
Saudi investors to utilise their resources and experiences abroad".
The main stimulus for this
Saudi rush to invest in land overseas was the massive spike in world food costs
from 2007 to 2008 when the global price of many agricultural commodities -
particularly grains such as wheat and rice - more than doubled in a few months.
Drought, growing demand
from rapidly expanding economies in Asia and the activities of market
speculators were some of the underlying causes of what was referred to as a
global food crisis.
A market in the Red Sea
city of Jeddah (AFP)
While Saudi Arabia, flush
with petrodollars, had ample funds to pay for more expensive food imports, what
really worried King Abdullah and his advisors was a ban on food exports imposed
by many of the main food-producing countries as result of concerns over
shortages and price rises in their own markets.
What would happen,
wondered Saudi officials, if there were no food imports available to feed Saudi
Arabia’s rapidly expanding population?
Domestic disaster
Saudi Arabia’s own
agricultural sector was a disaster area: water in one of the world’s biggest
aquifers had been largely exhausted as the kingdom, from the 1980s onwards,
pursued a policy of self sufficiency in many commodities, including
wheat.
By the early 2000s, the
Saudi rulers had realised their mistake and King Abdullah declared an end to
self sufficiency: lavish subsidies given to producers of wheat and other crops
would be phased out. The only solution to the kingdom’s food security problems,
said the Saudi planners, was to go in search of land abroad.
At first, the policy
seemed successful. In January 2009, there were reports of a glittering ceremony
in Riyadh where King Abdullah was presented with Ethiopia-sourced rice. The
king pronounced the rice of good quality and urged his ministers to redouble
their efforts abroad.
While many parts of the
Middle East were rocked by price rises and rioting in late 2010 and 2011 –
protests which led in part to the events of the Arab Spring – Saudi Arabia’s
population was cushioned by abundant food imports, often subsidised by the
government.
Curse of the rush
One of the earliest Saudi
investment projects abroad was in Gambella, a remote area in western Ethiopia,
where the Saudi Star company leased 10,000 hectares on a 60-year lease.
The rush for land, water
and other essential natural resources has become a curse for indigenous and
minority peoples who barely have legal protection and redress
The conglomerate – a
business empire headed by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Ali al-Amoudi, an
Ethiopian-born Saudi oil billionaire and close confidant of the Saudi monarchy
- said it eventually wanted to acquire up to 500,000 hectares in the Gambella
region and in other parts of the country, and promised to invest $3bn and
create more than 5,000 jobs.
But progress on the
project has been very slow.
Local people say they’ve
received little or no compensation for the takeover of their land and claim
fisheries and plants vital for bees and local honey production have been
destroyed.
“The rush for land, water
and other essential natural resources has become a curse for indigenous and
minority peoples who barely have legal protection and redress,” says Anywaa
Survival Organisation, a human rights group focusing on the Gambella region.
Saudi Star insists the
land it leased in Gambella was “empty” before it arrived and talks of bringing
much-needed foreign investment and agricultural expertise to Ethiopia.
Several people working on
a water canal for the project were killed in riots in 2012. There were harsh
reprisals by the military: Ethiopian soldiers and local militia guard company
buildings.
Other, smaller scale Saudi
investors in Ethiopia have criticised the kingdom’s banks for not offering
enough support.
Meanwhile, the 2013 mass
deportation of more than 120,000 Ethiopian workers in Saudi Arabia caused deep
resentment in Ethiopia.
Turbulence abounds
Other Saudi land projects
around the world have run into trouble.
Plans by the giant Bin
Laden group - reported at present to be mired in debt and forced to lay off
thousands of workers - to take over up to two million hectares of land in the
province of Papua in Indonesia for rice cultivation were stalled after local
tribes opposed the project.
Ambitious plans for rice
cultivation in Senegal and Mali in West Africa put forward by AgroGlobe, the
Saudi group headed by Sheikh Saleh Kamel, appear to be also on hold.
Purchases of land by the
Al Rajhi family – considered to be the wealthiest non-royals in Saudi Arabia –
in Mauritania and Sudan have gone ahead, though the size of these projects has
been hit by the general turbulence hitting the kingdom’s finances.
Though it's cut back on
grain production, Saudi Arabia still has giant cattle pens, with thousands of
animals cooled by sprinklers. At the end of last year, Riyadh announced that in
addition to halting subsidies on home-grown wheat, it would also be phasing out
subsidies for alfalfa – a main part of the Saudi cattle herd diet - within
three years.
The royal family owned
Almarai Company – headed by Abdul Rahman Al-Fahdi who was recently appointed
chief of the new environment, water and agriculture ministry in a government
shake-up – has been buying up land in California and Arizona.
Conservations say that
growing water-hungry crops such as alfalfa in what is a severely parched region
like the western US makes no sense. Some farm groups have raised objections to
foreign ownership of American land.
Shortfall heightens
security woes
Further Saudi agricultural
purchases overseas could be hit by a growing movement, particularly among
nations in Africa, against so called "land grabs".
There is also competition
from other fast industrialising nations for the world’s land. In recent years,
China, South Korea and India, all facing their own food security problems, have
emerged as leading global land purchasers. Other Gulf states are in the hunt,
with Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE all making substantial purchases overseas.
Major food companies such
as Bunge and Cargill are also big competitors for control of global grain
supplies.
But
perhaps the biggest impediment to Saudi land purchase ambitions is the sudden
dearth of funds in the Riyadh exchequer. The dramatic drop in oil revenues
could mean the end of lavish petrodollar-fuelled buying escapades overseas –
and more challenges for those trying to ensure the kingdom’s future food
security.
No comments:
Post a Comment