Proposition 53K0110

Proposition de résolution relative à l'accaparement des terres agricoles et à la gouvernance foncière dans les pays en développement.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Philippe Blanchart, Guy Coëme, André Flahaut, Patrick Moriau

Submission date

Sept. 9, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

allocation of land land and buildings land use land policies agricultural land agricultural real estate resolution of parliament deforestation development aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

The purpose of this resolution proposal is to focus the attention of the Belgian and international authorities on the problem of acquiring arable land. My group was truly pleased to work fully with the colleagues to get to amend our text in a balanced way, without making it lose its essential scope at all. The indispensable European dimension, in particular the Lisbon Treaty, is now fully taken into account in this amended text as well as the role of women.

I would like to apologize to our colleague, Patrick Moriau, who worked on this reflection with strength and vigor.

These accaparations are a source of political and socio-economic destabilization of these regions, increasing inequalities and endangering food security and the environment. This phenomenon of globalization, ⁇ affecting the agricultural sector, takes several forms, including the seizure of land by large international groups, which obviously does not benefit the local populations.

These deregulations in the area of agricultural land have caused a rise in prices of many basic products that is not alien to the revolutions that cross different countries around the Mediterranean in particular. In many ways, large-scale land acquisitions in Africa, Latin America and Asia and the accompanying speculation correspond to the characteristics of land appropriation and concentration in the colonial era.

The different aspects of the process of agricultural land acquisition are not new, but they are accelerating, through different phenomena such as climate change, population growth, the synergy of global crises and others. This process has negative consequences for rural development and food security. In fact, new agricultural models imposed by states and private investors seizing arable land often do not meet the pressing needs of local populations, with new agriculture mainly export-oriented and paradoxically pushing for mass imports of basic necessities.

Our Belgian development cooperation tools, which my group has always supported and encouraged, such as the FBSA, will not be able to bear full fruit as long as these speculative steps continue to play with hunger, the lives of these fragile populations.

In the face of such findings, the food crisis that crosses the poorest continents appears as a fatality. However, it is not entirely one. This is our political responsibility.

Recently, Olivier De Schutter revealed to the United Nations his report insisting on the fact that the time was for a change of production model at different levels and this, in order to preserve the land and increase yields but for the benefit of the local population, advancing its concept of agroecology. This proactive will is part of our group’s resolution, as it calls for strengthening the agricultural component of our development cooperation policy by incorporating it in a perspective of diversifying agricultural resources and rural income in the partner countries.

Government work in this area is on the right track but needs to be further reoriented towards local populations and towards good governance of local authorities’ management of their land so that they benefit their local populations, in particular by increasing the transparency of the negotiations on land seizure. Because behind these lands are often hidden human lives to protect.

Finally, this approach must be part of an international framework by supporting FAO in its initiative to establish guidelines of good practice involving a parliamentary decision for any massive land concession operation and the consultation of local populations. More broadly, this debate will need to be followed seriously at the level of the UN Treaty by supporting a specific agenda in the field, but also with our European partners. It is the entire land management system of developing countries that needs to be rethinked if we want to stop these food crises that are likely to multiply in the future.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will conclude by saying that it is obviously not from here in Belgium, with a resolution even voted unanimously, that we will solve the problem of land management and global malnutrition. However, this structural and deep crisis drives us to act. With this resolution, our institution gives a clear message to our government and to the various European and international bodies on the basis of a principle that, I am sure, holds us all at heart. An unfair globalization that crushes the weakest and threatens their food integrity must be eliminated while empowering the countries concerned.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, for your attention, but also and above all for the attention you have paid and will pay to this matter as crucial as dramatic.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, our group will also support this proposal. After all, we believe that the problem of land grabbing, the sale and lease of agricultural land in the South to foreign companies and investors, constitutes a real threat to food security, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.

In addition, the present text is well understood and elaborated.

I would like to thank the colleagues for their constructive attitude and in particular colleague de Donnea, specifically in connection with two amendments that we have submitted. In fact, we felt that, in one aspect, the resolution was still flawed. We correctly map the problem, but we do too little to test our own development policy and we do too little to examine the extent to which partner countries themselves play a role in the story of rights and duties. Are they dealing with that matter? To what extent are they correct? With our amendments, we ask the government to first look at our partner countries as well as the Parliament statistics and provide a report on the extent to which those countries invest in the use of agricultural land and, among other things, taxation plays a role in their policies. We also want to see what instruments we will use in our own development policy.

Our amendments have been adopted, for which I would like to thank my colleagues. I am therefore favorable to this proposal for a resolution.

This draft resolution comes on time. As recently mentioned, Mr. Blanchart, there is a lot of talk today about this phenomenon of land acquisition, that is, the purchase by foreign investors of vast lands sometimes covering 100,000 hectares, or even more, in developing countries. This question concerns essentially Africa, but not only because there are land seizures in Latin America or in Asian countries.

The purchase of land by foreign investors is not necessarily bad in itself. It is a bit like the language of Esope. This can be the best of things if it is done in compliance with a series of principles that I will return to. But it can also be the worst of things if the acquisition is done at the expense of food security, living standards or working conditions of the local population.

The phenomenon is important as the purchase of land would concern – the statistics are not very precise – 45 million hectares acquired in recent years, 70% of which in sub-Saharan Africa.

At present, for example, in West Africa, up to 20% of the land used by surface irrigation or groundwater is exploited. The margin in terms of land use remains therefore significant in allegedly semi-desert countries such as the Sahel.

As I said, buying and valuing land by foreigners can be a good thing. The influx of new agricultural production projects, in addition to creating new wealth, can help increase GDP, boost exports from host countries and generate currency inputs. All this can help create new jobs and can enable engaging in a virtuous circle of economic development through wise investments.

Unfortunately, as stated in the resolution, many lands are acquired by countries generally in the North. I’m not talking here only about European countries; China, Libya, Korea, some Arab states have bought huge amounts of land, ⁇ in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is not just a problem between Europeans and developing countries, it is a more general phenomenon. Unfortunately, things are often done opacely and without the guarantee that the local population will actually benefit from this investment and that food security will not be deteriorated.

I will not paraphrase the resolution but it is clear that we must ask ourselves questions about how certain land acquisitions are practiced by foreign interests.

I also draw your attention to the fact that the seizure of agricultural land in some African countries is not only done by foreigners. Two years ago, the Sahel and West Africa Club of the OECD, which I have the privilege to preside over, organized a forum in Bamako on land acquisition and many representatives of peasant associations came to denounce the purchase of land by citizens natives of their own countries, by the ruling oligarchy. These lands often remain sterile in favor of private permission areas.

It is therefore extremely important, especially in the context of our development cooperation, and it is included in the strategic note Agriculture and Food Safety presented by Mr. Chastel, let us be careful to help countries where we have a policy of cooperation in agricultural matters to properly manage their land heritage and to ensure, when there is land purchase, that this is done in respect of the interests of local producers.

In the coming months, two important initiatives will be taken at the international level. I believe that we must follow this work, at least those who have been interested in this directive. First is the upcoming publication of the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Land and Other Natural Resources. These guidelines, which are being drafted on the basis of a broad consultative process, should provide a framework for securing the rights of local populations. Then there is another set of standards that is being drafted. These are the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment, developed by the World Bank, FAO, FIDA and UNCED.

This initiative highlights a set of principles, seven in this case, which should ensure that agricultural investments made by international investors will benefit local populations.

Both initiatives will be reviewed for approval in the World Food Safety Committee, which is based in Rome. Belgium is currently Vice-President of its Bureau and plays a leading role in this area through our Permanent Representation at FAO in Rome.

We are therefore well placed to follow the steps taken internationally to better frame international agricultural investments through stricter codes of ethics. This is all the more true because it is a priority of our Minister of Cooperation’s Agricultural Cooperation strategic note and that this concern is at the heart of important work, not only of the FAO, but also of the World Bank and the CNUCED.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will tell you that the MR supports, of course, this proposal for a resolution which, in addition, reflects another proposal submitted by Mr. Speaker. by Denis Ducarme. Indeed, the text that is proposed to us is a synthesis of the content of three resolutions, among them that of Mr. I would also like to greet you here. The MR will therefore support this proposal, because it is not only part of the work of parliamentarians of our party, but also because it is consistent with the action of the Belgian cooperation conducted by our Minister Olivier Chastel.

I thank you for your attention.

The right to land is fundamental and, yet for a large part of humanity, connected with the right to food. Indeed, access to land is a condition of survival for many people, in societies where the majority of the population depends on agricultural production. We may tend to forget it, but it is a matter of survival for billions of individuals.

It is a source of security and income, but also of responsibility for a legacy to be transmitted.

Finally, the right to land is a source of social bond. How many people are not integrated into a village, in a region, by the possession of a piece of land that they can cultivate individually or collectively? Sometimes these are forests or agricultural land.

It is therefore a source of identity and integration in a community and culture.

Access to land is also a source of spirituality, as the earth is sacred in indigenous civilizations. For these peoples, the land cannot be a merchandise sold, broadened, let alone a financial investment.

I am referring to the analysis carried out by a large group of NGOs who were concerned about the problem and organized a seminar on access to land in the House. According to their analysis, several threats weigh on agricultural land.

First, agricultural land is losing due to global warming and increasing and rapid urbanization. The world’s urban population today amounts to 3.5 billion people versus 3.2 billion in rural areas, while in 1970 these proportions were completely different.

At the global level, since the food and financial crisis, the earth has also been a strategic issue in the eyes of the economic and financial world. Large agri-food companies and financial companies view investment in agricultural land as a cover against recession for the coming years. Per ⁇ this is indeed a less likely placement to be a bubble, but this placement is increasingly coveted.

Then, the governments of some countries seek to produce their food and energy outside their borders. Transfers are negotiated from state to state, although, most of the time, it is private companies that are entitled to operate and collect profits.

Agrarian reforms are also responsible for the observed phenomena, when they are conceived in a market logic, as well as the anarchic superpositions of land laws to customary rights. This is one of the recommendations on which our resolution reads: the strengthening of land rights, their clarification that balance the trade laws applied by our developed countries, but also the respect of customary rights.

Currently, these anarchic superpositions do not promote the equitable distribution of the land, nor a holistic approach to development. Small producers and producers are forced to leave their land, sell it or cultivate it for purposes other than their own food security.

Finally, conceived in a market logic, both large-scale land appropriations and some agrarian reforms rely on a particular concept of property: that of individual, private, exclusive property.

However, it is not necessarily the most suitable way to ensure the sustainable use of resources. Therefore, beyond the phenomenon of massive land acquisition, this conflict of developmental logic must be discerned. I think it is important to address all the issues.

Our resolution is inspired by the recommendations of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Mr. by Olivier de Schutter. I quote them very briefly. It calls for the implementation of the principles of transparency and participation, for the prior consent of the people concerned to be requested, for the avoidance of deportation, for the strengthening of land legislation, for any investment in land to give rise to the sharing of profits for the benefit of the local population, for the creation of jobs, for access to a decent income and for the protection of workers in the event that new workers are employed on the land purchased. It also calls for a minimum percentage of agricultural production to be reserved for local markets and for environmental impact studies of these agricultural investments to be conducted.

These recommendations, if they remain at their stage, are likely to never be implemented. This is why the Special Rapporteur’s last recommendation is to call for a sanction mechanism for investors who would not comply with these recommendations.

by Mr. Donnea cited the FAO’s voluntary guidelines under discussion that aim to improve land, fisheries and forest governance for the benefit of all, with particular attention to vulnerable and marginalized populations. The problem is that these directives are voluntary, as their name suggests. The question is how far they will be implemented. What about sanctioning countries or investors who would not implement them?

“These directives are still imperfect,” according to some observers. “Forgetting to explicitly refer to human rights, which would make them stronger, they lack binding character. They do not take into account another essential access, which is access to water.”

We must therefore contribute to their strengthening in international diplomacy. Similarly, the seven principles of the World Bank’s Responsible Agricultural Investment, if they are praiseworthy in themselves, also present the same defect of remaining non-binding and relatively vague.

There is ⁇ an international consideration of the phenomenon but the reality of the ground is still too often dictated by the attraction of large short-term profits or by speculation on expanding markets. For example – and we haven’t talked about it – the market for agrofuels and the dependence of industrialized countries and in particular of Europe on livestock feed. The problem is that we cannot be content with beautiful words and resolutions while our own consumption plunders the resources of other countries.

My group wanted to bring this in this resolution: Beyond what we ask international bodies and our government to defend in these bodies, we also want to apply principles ourselves in our consumption and in the possible overseas investments of our economic operators. We have set fire on our own practices, in Europe and Belgium. Beyond the question of excessive consumption, by being responsible for the demand for energy and feed for livestock, we also want Belgian and European investments to be consistent with all these recommendations, that the obligations of investors are defined at European level, that they are enforceable and that there are sanctions in case of non-compliance.

To do so, it is also necessary to incorporate this type of clauses in bilateral investment agreements, agreements still under negotiation, which will soon be concluded at European level but which are subject to a latitude that allows Member States to rewrite them, to redefine them. So we must look in our own investment and consumption practices, in the Belgian cooperation and also its private part, entrusted to private investors; the support for investments operated by the company Bio or... the exact name escapes me... can not be complicit of land investments that are not respecting the rights.

The resolution ends with a special attention to the rights of women, who are most often affected by these changes in land status and in their food farming activities.

I would like to thank all my colleagues for the excellent cooperation that was ours around this text. I am pleased to say that our group will pass this text with enthusiasm.