We at Development Dialogues are constantly trying to expose what lies beneath the glitzy exterior of 'development' the world over. The blog was started as an archive for the articles and reports pertaining to the land acquisitions in West Bengal and India. The scope of the blog has since been expanded to include resistance movements against state and corporate repressions from around the world.
Showing posts with label Land Acquisition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Land Acquisition. Show all posts
By paving the way for land acquisition, the Centre has made a disastrous move
Observers have noted similarities between the insatiable land appetite of some industries in early 21st century India and in 19th century Great Britain. In Britain it was called the great enclosure movement. The textile, woollen, and some other industries enclosed large chunks of land, pushed the farmers out, devastating their lives. Thousands consequently perished in hunger while many more left the land for the New World. The economic historians today, however, refuse to certify that this unbelievable acquisition of land was a pre-condition for the growth of the first industrial nation. Yet, in the wake of the NDA government’s land ordinance some intellectuals and policymakers are trying to establish the same dubious correlation for India’s economic growth.
On the other hand, it may be said that conflict over land acquisition has engulfed India, unsettled her democracy, and hampered her development. Over 250 land-acquisition-related conflicts were recorded in the country in only two years — 2013-14. Most conflicts are due to government takeover of land on behalf of private business, and at times for setting up fast corridors. Given the history of India’s complex land tenure, including forest tenure, the government is always inclined towards making non-transparent decisions that affect people’s lives. Only land acquisition prices increase to show that compensation rules are guided by social justice. The basic result is an uncontrollable financialisation of land which ruins small farmers.
The Xaxa Committee on the status of indigenous people has made observations on forced displacements triggered by large-scale land acquisitions: nearly 60 million people have been displaced and affected by projects between 1947 and 2000. During this period, people were displaced from 25 million hectares, including seven million hectares of forests and six million hectares of other common property resources. The government now proposes dilution of rights of the indigenous people. The tribal affairs ministry has drafted revised rules on tribal consent which are now being reviewed by the ministry of environment, forests, and climate change. This goal is to facilitate the process of handing over forest and semi-forest land to industry by altering existing regulations that require consent of tribal village councils before forest land is given to industries.
As far as policy goes, there is not much difference between the previous UPA government and the current NDA government. During the earlier regime, attempts to dilute the requirement had often failed, though there was persistent pressure from finance, home, industries, trade, mining, and other ministries to tamper with the norms and requirements. Today NDA makes a similar claim that the process of seeking the consent of gram sabhas delays projects, and the stipulation should be done away with. In these ministerial shenanigans the environment ministry is posited against the tribal affairs ministry. The former apparently is alert to developmental needs, the latter is conservative and resistant to changes.
But of course, the main question: why the ordinance? Commentators have already noted the undemocratic way in which the NDA government wants to move. That observation is correct. But more interesting is the fact that the President readily gave his consent, which shows the wide support among the members of the political class for neo-liberal reforms.
The land ordinance reportedly makes several changes to the law. In the original 2013 law, if compensation had not been paid for over five years to landowners or the land had not been taken over by the government in that time, the owners had the right to reclaim it. Now, if the possession of land has been taken by the government agency within five years, this retrospective clause would not apply as long as the government agency acquiring the land has deposited the compensation amount in court or any account maintained for the purpose. Likewise the ordinance has done away with the strict provisions that required action being taken against government officials for violating the law. Now, courts cannot take cognisance of any misdeed committed by officials under the Land Acquisition Act, without the prior approval of the state concerned or the central government. The government has also slackened the provision of returning unused acquired lands to the original owners.
Some states object to the ordinance. The Union government’s position is that the ordinance is not being imposed on the former. If they wish, they are free not to implement the supposedly objectionable parts. Then why make the ordinance at all? Why not leave it to the states and see in this competitive game which state yields to please the industrial barons. The central ordinance sets a protocol. Once the standards are set, the Union government knows that the recalcitrant states will have to — sooner or later — follow suit. If in the process large-scale peasant disturbances break out, the paramilitary forces will able to sort out the troubles. With so much of a risk, one may ask, why the hurry, why the necessity for a measure that brooks no delay? This is where we must see things plainly without the blinkered glasses of an economist.
The mad spree to acquire land more than what the stated purpose requires in a given case shows the return of land as the most crucial asset as capital in the beginning decades of the twenty first century. Amid inflation, land is often the most insured asset, whose value is least likely to corrode. Likewise, land control is the route to make wealth through rent, whose difference with profit is now barely recognisable. Land as capital is a special thing. Its nature as hereditary fortune ensures the longevity of wealth. Commodity trading requires land for special purpose. New towns require land. Special Economic Zones require land. Transit corridors, roads, airfields need lands. Logistics make sense only when land is available. All require extra land to be held as an asset. Asset management is essentially land management.
In this age of aggressive land acquisition, all sorts of 19th century characters are dabbling in its murky waters: land sharks, contractors, labour-recruiting agencies, estate managers and holders, and, of course, government officials to help the shady characters. Not to forget the thousands of wandering labourers in search of construction jobs. Do not ask, if through all these India will industrialise or only real estate owners and developers will boom. Do not ask, what will happen to large chunks of population deprived of land. Make your own visit to this futuristic India.
Cross countrymen A Trinamool demonstration at Sankrail
PHOTOS: PINTU PRADHAN
AS THE West Bengal Assembly election draws near, Trinamool Congress chief and Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee’s political plank — forcible land acquisition — is being thrown back at her. That too, relating to railway projects that have been in the incubator for decades.
Villagers are opposing a railway project on 630 acres of farmland in Sankrail, Howrah district, acquired from 400-odd families in the early 1980s. On the morning of 7 December, when railway contractors tried to start landfill work at Bhagabatipur between Sankrail and Abada railway stations, they were driven away by villagers cutting across party lines. This is where a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) coach factory is to be built with Rs. 263 crore sanctioned in the last rail budget.
Although the Trinamool chief blamed the stir on ‘outsiders’, clearly hinting at the CPM, the 300-odd men who stalled the landfill were brought together by the Sankrail Block Krishijomi Rokkha Committee led by local TMC leaders Ashis Malik, Pradip Bhuniya and Bonhisikha Das.
But local MLA Sheetal Sardar, also of the TMC, disagrees: “The CPM has conspired to stall the work for the factory. We are in close touch with the authorities regarding the demands of the local people and hope to restore construction work in a couple of days.”
Asked for her reaction, Mamata waxed philosophical: “It is for the locals to decide whether they want the factory. I meant well and got sanction for the project as the land was unutilised for 25 years.”
When the land was acquired by the state government in 1981-84 at the behest of the then Union minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, the going rate for compensation was Rs. 3,200 a bigha.
The then Railway Minister Madhavrao Scindia offered a job to one member of every family that parted with its land. However, after a couple of years, the railways discontinued the project of shifting the Shalimar yard to Sankrail, thereby jeopardising the livelihood of a couple of thousand people.
Ironically, the TMC-led Singur land agitation raised farmers’ expectations and they are now demanding a ‘fresh and just’ compensation for their land, which at present market rates is a whopping Rs. 60 lakh per bigha.
The CPM is clearly using the land card just as the TMC did in the past. Debu Malik, member of the Sankrail-1 local committee of the CPM, who lost his land to the project, said, “We have four demands. We need to know exactly what is going to come up here. The railways must stick to its promise of one job for every family. The farmers must be paid compensation at the going market rates and locals must be engaged in any construction work that happens here.”
Red signals Villagers protest against the rail coach factory
The TMC chief, referring to the case filed for higher compensation, retorted, “We are not Tata or Birla. It is going to be a railway project. I am sympathetic to the cause of the locals and will go by the verdict of the court.”
But it’s not just Sankrail. There are local protests also in the north Bengal commercial town of Siliguri, a left bastion ruled by Municipal Affairs and Urban Development and Town Planning Minister and CPM strongman Ashok Bhattacharya. The construction of the northeastern head office of the Railway Recruitment Board on a popular tennis ground has run into rough weather following protests by the SFI, the students wing of the CPM. Bhattacharya wrote to Mamata on 15 December urging her to halt work.
THE LETTER says this ground has ‘transcended’ beyond a mere playground to a ‘heritage’ ground hosting big cultural meets, and is the ‘green heart’ of the town. It also expresses concern about the possible eviction of the slum dwellers on its periphery, referring to a representation from the Siliguri Safaai Mazdoor (Scavengers) Welfare Association.
Ironically, it is the TMC-led Singur agitation that raised farmers’ expectations
Bhattacharya, the selfstyled ‘chief minister of north Bengal’ has urged the railway minister to “refrain” from constructing the building on humanitarian grounds.
However, the biggest land tussle is at Dankuni, 15 km west of Kolkata, where the department of fisheries filed an FIR against the railways on 16 December for allegedly filling up three fishing ponds measuring 75 acres to build its dedicated freight corridor (DFC). The corridor runs through 39,000 acres.
Now, Fisheries Minister Kiranmoy Nanda of the Socialist Party is in Mamata’s line of fire. She has accused him of pleading with her for an election ticket. “It is all a part of a bigger conspiracy being hatched by the CPM to scuttle development projects for the state,” she said.
It will be interesting to see how Mamata handles the boomeranging of her strongest political weapon — forcible land acquisition — in the run-up to the polls.
It's the deal of the century: £150 a week to lease more than 2,500 sq km (1,000 sq miles) of virgin, fertile land – an area the size of Dorset – for 50 years. Bangalore-based food company Karuturi Global says it had not even seen the land when it was offered by the Ethiopian government with tax breaks thrown in.
Karuturi snapped it up, and next year the company, one of the world's top 25 agri-businesses, will export palm oil, sugar, rice and other foods from Gambella province – a remote region near the Sudan border – to world markets.
Ethiopia is one of the world's largest recipients of humanitarian food and development assistance, last year receiving more than 700,000 tonnes of food and £1.8bn in aid, but it has offered three million hectares (7.4 million acres) of virgin land to foreign corporations such as Karuturi.
"It's very good land. It's quite cheap. In fact it is very cheap. We have no land like this in India," says Karmjeet Sekhon, project manager for what is expected to be one of Africa's largest farms. "There you are lucky to get 1% of organic matter in the soil. Here it is more than 5%. We don't need fertiliser or herbicides. There is absolutely nothing that will not grow on it.
"To start with there will be 20,000 hectares of oil palm, 15,000 hectares of sugar cane and 40,000 hectares of rice, edible oils and maize and cotton. We are building reservoirs, dykes, roads, towns of 15,000 people. "This is phase one. In three years time we will have 300,000 hectares cultivated and maybe 60,000 workers. We could feed a nation here."
Sparsely-populated Gambella is at the centre of the global rush for cheap land, precipitated by the oil price rise in 2007/2008, when many countries racked by food riots encouraged their farmers to invest abroad to grow food.
The lowest prices are in Africa, where, says the World Bank, at least 35 million hectares of land has been bought or leased. Other groups, including Friends of the Earth International, say the figure is higher. The Ethiopian government says 36 countries including India, China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have leased farm land there.
Gambella has offered investors 1.1 million hectares, nearly a quarter of its best farmland, and 896 companies have come to the region in the last three years. They range from Saudi billionaire Al Amoudi, who is constructing a 20-mile canal to irrigate 10,000 hectares to grow rice, to Ethiopian businessmen who have plots of less than 200 hectares.
This month the concessions are being worked at a breakneck pace, with giant tractors and heavy machinery clearing trees, draining swamps and ploughing the land in time to catch the next growing season.
Forests across hundreds of square km are being clear-felled and burned to the dismay of locals and environmentalists concerned about the fate of the region's rich wildlife.
Local government officers have denied claims that people are being forcibly moved to make way for foreign companies.
"This year we will relocate 15,000 people to give them better access to water, schools and transport. [But] it is a coincidence that the investors are coming at the same time as the villages are being relocated," said Kassahun Zerrfu from Gambella's department for investment.
"We are not relocating people to give land to the investors. The problem is there is no infrastructure where they have lived. It's all voluntary."
Under the government's "villagisation" programme, three or four villages at a time are being moved closer to roads and services, but many people say they are not being compensated and are having to wait. "We were promised a school, a health clinic and fresh water eight months ago. We only have one water pump so far," said Udul Ujulu, chief of Karmi village, a new village of 250 people nine miles outside Gambella town.
Others displaced by new farms said they were scared for their lives if they complained. "What power do we have to stop them? We just stay silent," said one farmer told to move off his land.
"There is no movement of population. It's their choice to have these basic services. But they have to abandon their previous way of life," said farm minister Wondirad Mandefro.
BHUBANESWAR: Enthused over the Centre's nod to Posco's mega steel plant, the Orissa government on Monday said it would soon resume land acquisition work at the project site, but preferred a wait-and-watch approach on issues like mining and MoU renewal delaying fruition of India s biggest foreign direct investment.
"We welcome the decision and thank Union environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh for granting approval, although the process got delayed," steel and mines minister Raghunath Mohanty said. "Posco project is important not only for Orissa but for the country as it will provide employment and spur economic activities. We will begin the land acquisition process as soon as possible," he added.
The state government was forced to halt land acquisition for the 12 billion USD project in August following a central government s stop-work order on grounds of violation of Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
Ramesh announced environment clearance for the South Korean company's proposed steel and captive port projects near Paradeep in Jagatsinghpur district, but sought Orissa government's assurance that those claiming dependence on or cultivating land in the project area cannot be categorized as "other traditional forest dwellers" under FRA before it can give final nod for diversion of 1253 hectares of forest land for Posco project.
Posco's bid to access the Khandadhar iron ore reserves in Sunergarh district, around 600 km from the proposed 12 million tonne per annum-capacity steel facility site, is also pending before the Supreme Court.
Possibly keeping these in mind, CM Naveen Patnaik reacted to the development with caution. "It is good news," said Naveen, hours after Ramesh declared his decision in Delhi. "We will take appropriate action," Naveen replied to queries from journalists on when the state government would renew its memorandum of understanding with the company. The state government on June 22, 2005, signed with Posco a MoU valid for five years.
Senior government officers said Ramesh gave the green signal as he did not have "much option", but sounded caution about the Posco project becoming a reality. "A positive step has been taken. But there are a few other issues, most importantly mining, which need to resolved before the project can materialize," a senior government officer said.
Paradeep MLA and minister Damodar Rout attributed the controversy over forest law violations to "wrongful recording of forest land" and said people who cultivated betel vines on government land will be adequately compensated. The administration has identified 1877 people growing betel vines for their livelihood on 304 acres of government land. It had paid compensation to 96 of the farmers and retrieved around 11 acres of land.
Posco welcomed Ramesh's decision and said it appreciated the concerns of stakeholders on sustainability of environment and livelihood of affected people. "We are committed to take sustainable green initiatives and effective measures for conserving the land and marine environment of the area. We are also committed to create sustainable livelihood opportunities for the project affected people by implementing the R&R (rehabilitation and resettlement) package sincerely," it said, adding, "We will continue to work for welfare of the local community and plough back part of our earnings for CSR (corporate social responsibility) after operations commence."
AMIDST WIDESPREAD DISBELIEF, HARIPUR, THE SITE FOR THE INDO-RUSSIAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, IS RIPE FOR ANOTHER CIVIL WAR, SAYS PARTHA DASGUPTA
RAMPRASAD BAR, a bespectacled man in his mid-50s, was stitching a blue fishnet under a palm-tree when he saw this correspondent and his camera-wielding colleague. One could immediately see a frown and a stiffening of his jaw. “Are you from the Press? Please go away. Else, we will be forced to drive you away.” Amit Manna, the local convenor of the ‘Committee of the People Against Nuclear Power Plant and Forced Eviction in Haripur’, intervened: “They are with me, uncle.” The fisherman, who had his elder son Shambhu for company, softened a little.
Bar is one of the 60-odd thousand fishermen of Haripur, a tiny fishing hamlet, 150 km from Kolkata on the road to the popular sea-front tourist destination of Mandarmoni — who will face eviction should the plant come up. He is landless like everyone else in his community, and lives in a ghetto in the forest along the coastline. This 10th generation fisherman is employed for 7 to 8 months in a year and takes home less than Rs 5,000 a month. During March to June, the time for high winds and when he cannot go out to the sea in the enginepropelled- dinghy of his employer, he collects tiger prawn roe to sell to the agents of fisheries. A painstaking and meticulous job done with the help of small shells, this fetches him half of what he earns during ‘normal’ fishing seasons.
CAN INDIA AFFORD TO TURN AWAY FROM NUCLEAR POWER
Conundrum Subrata Jana, the quack, and 80-year-old Suvankari Giri, with her relatives (above); Dibyendu Adhikari, local MLA, whose bluster is belied by his party’s strange silence on the issue (below) PHOTOS: TUMPA MANDAL
And what is wrong with the Press? “They are bad people,” Bar says, with venom. “They are hand-in-glove with the state. They come here as amateur photographers and picnickers. Next day, the media say that Haripur is uninhabited and barren. Then come the babus with measuring tapes and soiltesting equipment. So [local Trinamool MP] Subhendu Adhikari has asked us to throw you guys out, by force if needed.”
This rings a strange note, as the Trinamool Congress (TMC), whose spectacular show in last year’s general elections was a result of the ‘eviction-phobia’ of rural Bengal, is conspicuously silent on the Haripur Nuclear Power Plant, which promises to evict lakhs of people from the radioactive zone. Nineteen villages within 1.5 km of the plant which fall in the core area, are to be emptied. The proposed buffer zone lies 4.8 km beyond, encompassing 125 villages. And an area comprising 542 villages, including the Contai municipality, falls within the 16-km radioactive zone.
HOW DO WE MEET THE PROMISE OF POWER FOR ALL
As in most of Bengal, the land is fertile, churning out 2-3 rice crops a year. Betel leaves and coconuts also form a substantial part of the local economy. And people are contented. From retired school headmaster, septuagenarian Sachindranath Giri, to Subrata Jana, the local quack, to Subhadra Giri, the quintessential housewife, no one warms to the idea of a hefty compensation in lieu of the land they own, till and live in. Even the 21-year-old Biswajit Bhuniya, a Class 9 dropout, who runs the local grocery, is happy in his village. He knows that any compensation dwindles exponentially, but the skills required to survive and sustain a home away from home are not easily acquired. Certainly not as easily as he harvests his paddy, sell his coconuts and trades his tiger prawn roe.
The local MLA, Dibyendu Adhikari, younger brother of Subhendu, speaks with a studied political correctness. He is emphatic that TMC stands by its policy of opposition to nuclear plants and that “I will resign if the plant comes into being”. He is aware that the land mafia is at work in Haripur and claims to be vigilant. He is ‘overconfident’ that the locals trust the TMC, and that ‘most development stories will be rewritten’ once they come to power in West Bengal in 2011. “2017 is a far cry. Don’t worry too much. We will not let it happen,” Dibyendu assures.
ARE ‘DEVELOPMENT REFUGEES’ INEVITABLE IN THIS CENTURY
But why is there such an uproar over a nuclear power plant, when even Shamraibar, the village adjoining Haripur, is without electricity, 63 years after Independence? The strongest advocates of nuclear power, like Bikash Sinha (Padma Bhushan and ex-director, BARC), have cried hoarse the obvious: that the yawning gap between demand and supply of electricity in the country, limited availability of coal and natural gas as a fuel and the collective pledge of the powers that be for the electrification of every Indian village, will necessitate nuclear power. It seems all too natural a corollary to even question its premises.
Not all agree, though. Abhee Dutt-Mazumder, a professor at Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, says, “We do not mind nuclear research reactors per se. But our track record of nuclear power is too dismal to count on. In 1954, we were promised 8,000 MW of nuclear power by 1980, subsequently revised to 43,500 MW in 1969. Ask how much we have been able to produce? Just 4,120 MW in 2009 from 17 operating reactors — 52 percent of the original promise made 55 years ago.” He continues, “Secondly, we have never talked of light water reactors (the most widely used technology in the US) in the last 60 years of nuclear research in India. But now we are. Will all the investment over the last 60 years go to waste? Even MIT, one of the most vocal proponents of nuclear power, does not claim it to be ‘cost effective’, and lays a huge stress on ‘best practices’ as a determinant of its efficacy in it’s report. Needless to say, we cannot guarantee that in India.”
The polemics will continue. So will the problems. The need for entire country’s electrification is a fundamental necessity. Equally fundamental is the right of the poor villager to live a life of dignity, dented already by poverty and injustice. A nuclear power plant in Haripur promises a captive generating capacity of 1,000 MW with 60 percent efficiency, an industry in the anaemic map of West Bengal and cash compensation to evicted locals that will not last them long. It also promises to create lakhs of ‘development refugees’ and a potential civil war, akin to Nandigram. The peoples’ movement is peaceful and unarmed. As of now. But so it was in Nandigram initially. As 80 year old hunchback Suvankari Giri pledged, “I can take a bullet and bleed to death, but won’t part with my land.”
In 2009, Prakash Karat, the doctrinaire General Secretary of the CPMwithdrew support from the first UPA government over the nuclear deal with the US. In less than a year, India has signed the Haripur deal with Russia. The local mandarins of Karat’s party are more than happy. The deal with their political alma mater — and not with the US — means that their ideological chastity belt remains intact. More importantly, the land mafia, lying low after the Singur-Nandigram imbroglio, now has something to cheer about. It is again baying for blood. West Bengal has bled enough in the last three decades. It can ill afford another civil war. •
Kolkata: The West Bengal government has decided to distribute land, free of cost, to poor farmers and landless agricultural labourers by buying land from willing landowners, offering them a price which may be higher than the market value. More than two lakh families are likely to be benefited by this step, which is expected to add an important dimension to the sphere of land reforms.
Finance Minister Asim Kumar Dasgupta told The Hinduthat the Land and Land Reforms Department will initiate necessary legal and administrative steps and the matter is likely to be placed before the Legislative Assembly when it commences its session in the third week of June.
Land acquisition
He said the acquisition of homestead land (up to a stipulated limit) for distribution among the rural poor who may be occupying that land as homestead, but without any ownership rights, has been a significant component of land reforms.
In order to distribute more land to landless poor farmers, the existing scheme of purchase of land from willing farmers at 10 per cent higher price than the market price, it is proposed to make the scheme more attractive by offering a price which may be up to 25 per cent higher.
In 1980, the State government had covered landless agricultural labourers, rural artisans and fishermen, implementing relevant sections of the Acquisition of Homestead Land Act, 1975.
According to the extant provisions of the Act, those who were in possession of homestead land as on June 26, 1975, were covered. The State government has now decided to implement this Act again for the same category of rural population with reference to December 31, 2009, as the date of possession of homestead land and ownership rights on such homestead land up to five cottas (about 3,500 sq.ft.) would be vested on them. This has already been announced by Mr. Dasgupta in his 2010-11 budget statement.
He said the total agricultural land distributed in the State up to February 28, 2010, is 11.3 lakh acres. Over 30 lakh farmers, of which 55 per cent belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, have benefited from this measure.
“In the alternative policy, redistributive land reform remains the fundamental basis of increasing employment oriented production.”
Berlin - Sub-Saharan African countries have of late become the target of a new form of investment that is strongly reminiscent of colonialism: investors from both industrialised and emerging economies buy or lease large tracts of farm land across the continent, either to guarantee their own food provisions or simply as yet another business.
In doing so, investors even deal with warlords who claim property rights, as in Sudan.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and activists in Europe are denouncing this land grab in Egypt, Sudan, Cameroon, Senegal, Mozambique and elsewhere in Africa as a new form of colonialism.
Uwe Hoering, a German researcher on development policy for several European NGOs, including the news letter Weltwirtschaft und Entwicklung (World Economy and Development), called these investments "a new form of agrarian colonialism".
In an interview with IPS, Hoering said that the land grab in Africa became evident in 2008 as a consequence of the recent run to so-called bio fuels and the price inflation and scarcity of food.
Although the investments are also targeting fertile land in other areas of the world, sub-Saharan Africa appears to be these investors' main destination. The reasons are multiple.
On the one hand, "Africa possesses enormous land reserves,"
Hoering stated. "According to the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organisation, only about 14 percent of the suited land in the continent is presently cultivated."
In addition, he said, many African governments are willing to allow this land grab to happen in their territories.
A list of the land grab investments of 2008 have been put together by the Barcelona-based NGO GRAIN, based on corporate reports.
It confirms that several industrialised countries, like Japan and Sweden, rapidly growing developing nations, like China and India, and oil-rich countries, especially from the Arab Gulf, and even Libya, are buying large estates in Africa.
GRAIN is an international NGO committed to promoting sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge.
GRAIN also lists multinational private investors, like the Blackstone Group, Deutsche Bank, Goldman & Sachs and Dexion Capital, as participating in the creation of these new agrarian enclaves in the heartlands of Africa.
Even private industrial conglomerates, such as the South Korean Daewoo, are also investing in land in Africa.
"In July 2008, Daewoo leased 1.3 million hectare in Madagascar, about the half of the island's territory, to cultivate maize and palm oil," Hoering said. "Daewoo paid a symbolic price for the land. Allegedly, as compensation for the land lease, it is going to invest in public infrastructure."
Unsurprisingly, the investors include the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the commercial investment arm of the World Bank.
In Sept 2008, the IFC announced that it would greatly increase investments in "agribusiness development" in Africa, and South American states and in Russia because of new private sector interest in generating profits from the food crisis.
Part of its spending will be to bring "under-utilised" lands into production. In 2008, the IFC spent 1.4 billion dollars in the agribusiness supply chain, of which 900 million dollars went directly to agribusiness firms.
GRAIN also reports that the Blackstone Group, one of the world's largest private equity firms in which China has recently bought a stake, "has already invested several hundred million dollars in the agricultural sector, mainly in buying farmland in areas like south of the Sahara".
For Hoering, the land grab in Africa by countries such as Japan, South Korea, China, and Libya serve to guarantee their own national food security. "After the recent speculation on the cereal and other food markets and the spectacular price hikes, these countries have lost confidence in the world market," Hoering explained.
"They now want to be independent from speculators and be able tot control production and secure food imports."
The recent spike in global commodity food prices has also encouraged foreign investors to scramble for control of arable land in Africa.
Obviously, private investors see in the land grab a business with likely high returns. For instance, the Cru Investment Management, a British, Cardiff-based private investor, forecasts earnings of 30 percent for its agricultural fund investing in Malawi.
Duncan Parker, a Cru spokesperson, has said that Africa offers many incentives to investments, such as a strong workforce and the potential to be a top world food producer thanks to its fertile soil and abundant water and sunshine.
However, whether Africans will profit from these investments is another matter altogether. The wave of investments in foreign agricultural enclaves has led to new abuses.
"The most scandalous case yet is that of the U.S. investment banker Philippe Heilberg, who closed a deal with Paulino Matip, a warlord in South Sudan, to lease 4,000 square kilometres," Hoering argued.
Matip is a notorious warlord who fought on both sides in Sudan's lengthy civil war. He is one of the profiteers of a dubious 2005 peace agreement, after which he became deputy commander of the army in the autonomous southern region.
Heilberg, now CEO of the New York-based investment fund Jarch Capital, previously worked for the now battered insurance company American International Group (AIG).
Heilberg has been quoted as saying that, in his view, several African states are likely to break apart in the coming years, and that the political and legal risks he is taking will be amply rewarded.
"If you bet right on the shifting of sovereignty then you are on the ground floor. I am constantly looking at the map and looking if there is any value," he told U.S. media.
While denouncing the scramble for land, human rights groups have called attention to the vagueness and imprecision of laws on land ownership in south Sudan. They cast doubt on foreign investors such as Heilberg being able to claim legal rights over such estates.
The deal, which became public last January but was closed last July, has prompted human rights groups to denounce Heilberg's venture in South Sudan as a cynical, neocolonial enterprise.
"This is a case that recalls the worse colonial land grabs in Africa," Hoering added.
The opportunistic and partisan stalling of the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bills in the Cabinet recently by Mamata Banerjee has provided an opportunity to rethink some of the important provisions of the Bills (which she is not concerned about, but should have been).
Under the prospective legislation, a company must first buy directly from landowners 70 per cent of the land required. The state steps in to buy the rest in case some recalcitrant landowners are holding out; even here, the sellers are guaranteed a 60 per cent premium on the average land price over the previous three years. While this is an improvement on the existing colonial land acquisition law, this is quite unsatisfactory, particularly from the point of view of stake-holders in agricultural land. Let us spell out the reasons:
First, while leaving the major part of the transaction to the market may stop the matter from becoming a political game of football in populist competitive politics (as has happened in West Bengal), it is an inadequate solution to a complicated problem. Even assuming that the purpose for which the land is to be transferred is a legitimate one from an economic and environmental point of view, Indian history is replete with instances of uninformed, cash-strapped peasants being induced to sell their land at nominal prices by the lure of ready cash from developers, speculators, and touts of large corporate interests. This is how many Adivasis have lost their land even in recent years. Even in the case of informed, market-savvy sellers, thousands of small, uncoordinated farmers are no match for a large corporate buyer in the bargaining process.
Of course, in many cases the State government did very little to get the landowners a good price; but there is potential here for community organisers (and panchayats) to get involved in ensuring a fair price. In particular, the provision of a 60 per cent premium on the past average price is not good enough. The average past price is for the land as agricultural land, whereas use for industrial or infrastructure purpose will probably multiply the value many times, the gain from which the farmer is deprived. So, over and above the value of the agricultural land being considered as a minimum floor of basic compensation, the farmers should be compensated with a share in the enterprise or company, so that they can benefit from future profits.
Of course, the poor farmer may not have the capacity to bear the risks of fluctuating share prices. Here the role of the state is to put the farmers’ shares of the new company in an independently managed trust fund which will bear the risks at the cost of some management fees. Out of this trust fund, the farmer should be paid a steady “pension” (or annuity) every six months or so. Given the large gap between productivity in agriculture and the new activity for which the land is acquired, the farmer can be assured of a reasonable stream of pension. This will go a long way in assuaging the anxieties of an uncertain future that the farmer may contemplate in selling the land.
Also, a regular pension may be more advisable than a one-off cash payment, which often tends to get frittered away. In case the land is acquired for public infrastructure building (where there may not be any direct company profits to be shared), the land should be given out by the farmer on long-term lease with the rent periodically readjusted in accordance with the current value of surrounding pieces of land and the rental increases deposited in a trust fund.
Secondly, a land sale displaces not just landowners, but other stakeholders as well (sharecroppers and agricultural labourers working on the land, for example). In West Bengal, the government had announced compensation to be paid to registered sharecroppers (which Ms Banerjee never paid much attention to). But the state also needs to be involved in some form of welfare payments (and job training and so on) to unregistered sharecroppers and landless workers.
Thirdly, the state often needs to get involved in building roads, providing electricity, water supply and so on for the new company, and this may require coordination in the land transaction itself between the transactors and the state right from the beginning.
Of course, politicians often lack credibility in any process of obtaining fair compensation to land sellers. Cases of politicians, middlemen, and contractors defrauding poor sellers of their compensation and resettlement rights are far too many. So it may be desirable in some cases to hand over the responsibility of determining fair prices and managing the process of transfer and resettlement to an independent commission, provided political interference with the working of such a commission can be minimised and enough opportunity is given to community leaders and organisations to serve in such commissions or present their cases at hearings before the commission, and to generally act as watchdogs in the whole process.
Thus, what is at stake with the new Bills is much larger and deeper than Ms Banerjee’s political gripe.
The author is a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley.
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill: A slow but sure step forward
By Ramaswamy R. Iyer. The Hindu. August 7 2009
The debate about the displacement of people caused by various developmental projects has been going on for over two decades. Without going into that history in detail, we may note that the Government of India finally notified the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2007 in October 2007, and followed that up with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2007 and the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2007. Those Bills have lapsed and have now to be introduced afresh in the new Lok Sabha. There have been reports that Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee is unhappy with the Bills. There have also been protests against the Bills by many NGOs.
Superficially, the Bills seem to include a number of good elements. There was a demand for a Rehabilitation Act and here is a Bill; the much-criticised Land Acquisition Act is being amended; ‘public purpose’ is being re-defined; governmental acquisition of land for private parties is being reduced; ‘minimum displacement,’ ‘non-displacing alternatives,’ consultations with the people likely to be affected, and so on, find a place in the Rehabilitation Bill; a Social Impact Assessment is provided for; an Ombudsman is being provided for the redress of grievances; and a National Rehabilitation Commission is envisaged. Why then are the Bills not being welcomed?
Let us consider the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill first. At first sight, the deletion of all references to companies gives us the impression that acquisition by the state for private parties is being eliminated, but that is not the case. The original Act had the wording “for a public purpose or for a company”; the words “or for a company” are now being omitted; but the definition of “public purpose” itself is being changed to include a (supplementary) acquisition for “a person” (including a company). If the private party purchases 70 per cent of the required land through negotiation, the balance 30 per cent can still be acquired by the government for that party. This means that sovereign compulsion will be brought to bear on those who are not inclined to sell their land, and also that state patronage for industrial houses can continue. Incidentally, it will be seen that the definition of ‘public purpose,’ instead of being made stringent and narrow as many had recommended, is being widened.
Moreover, it was necessary not merely to rule out (or limit) the acquisition of land for private parties under the Land Acquisition Act, but also to ensure that rural communities are not taken advantage of by corporate bodies in unequal negotiations. There is no such provision in the Bill.
Judging by its name, The Land Acquisition Compensation Disputes Settlement Authority will apparently deal only with compensation issues. A longstanding criticism of the Land Acquisition Act has been that the ‘public purpose’ for which land is being acquired is not open to contestation. There seems to be no change in that position.
One wonders whether the bar on the jurisdiction of the civil courts and the establishment of a Dispute Settlement Authority instead is in fact a good thing to do. There is room for misgivings here.
Turning now to the Rehabilitation Bill, the provision for a Social Impact Assessment seems very good, but the impacts are rather narrowly confined to physical assets (buildings, temples), institutions, facilities, etc. Social impacts must be more broadly understood to include the loss of identity; the disappearance of a whole way of life; the dispersal of close-knit communities; the loss of a centuries-old relationship with nature; the loss of roots; and so on. It is good that the SIA will be reviewed by an independent multi-disciplinary expert body, but it should first be prepared by a similar body. The provision for a Social Impact Assessment clearance is good, but not enough: it should be part of an overall clearance for displacement. If the felling of trees and interference with wildlife and nature in general require statutory clearances, should not the displacement of people be subject to a similar requirement? Such a clearance must come from an independent statutory authority and not from the bureaucracy. The clearance must of course be subject to certain conditions and must be revocable in the event of non-compliance or lapses; and the revocation clause should be actually used.
The terms ‘minimum displacement’ and ‘non-displacing alternative’ are music to the ears, but the application of this criterion is left to a late stage when the consideration of options may no longer be possible, and the decision is left to the Administrator for R&R. In other words, this crucial decision is entrusted to the bureaucracy.
An impressive structure of institutions has been specified, but their responsibilities and powers have not been spelt out. Administrator, Commissioner, project-level and district-level R&R Committees, Ombudsman, Monitoring and Oversight Committees, National R&R Commission: what each will do, how they will be inter-related, what decision-making powers each will have and in relation to what aspects, and so on, are far from clear. Everything is covered by the phrase “as may be prescribed.”
Words such as “wherever possible,” or other similar phrases are scattered throughout the Bill. For instance, group settlement is laid down, but qualified by the phrase “wherever possible;” training is to be provided “wherever necessary;” there are also qualifications such as “if government land is available,” “preferably,” and so on. They seem innocuous, but all of them involve decisions. Such hedged-in requirements can hardly be mandatory: they are likely to become discretionary, with the discretion vesting in the bureaucracy.
The Ombudsman provision is a good one, but ‘grievance’ has been narrowly defined to cover only the case of “not being offered the benefits admissible.” Grievances could relate to many other things: non-participatory project decision, failures of consultation, non-compliance with the minimum displacement condition, non-inclusion of a person in the ‘affected’ category, and so on. How the Ombudsman will be appointed, how the Ombudsman will function, etc., are left to be ‘prescribed.’
Taking the preceding points together, it appears that the precise manner in which this seemingly benign and enlightened legislation will actually work in practice will be entirely determined by the delegated/subordinate legislation, that is, the rules that are made under it.
The National Monitoring Committee seems totally bureaucratic, except for the non-mandatory association of some experts (the operative word is “may”). No civil society or NGO participation seems envisaged.
In the case of the Sardar Sarovar Project the basic principle in force (though it may not always be complied with) is: rehabilitation must precede submergence. The present Bill retreats from that position and requires only “adequate progress in rehabilitation” prior to displacement. This is a retrograde step. Besides, who will decide the adequacy of the progress?
The elements of the rehabilitation ‘package’ seem inferior to the policies already adopted in projects such as Sardar Sarovar and Tehri. Moreover, cash in lieu of land is envisaged in several places. This is fraught with danger. Eventually, cash may well become the main form of compensation.
In the event of deliberate or inadvertent lapses or non-compliance or deviations, what consequences will follow? The Bill is silent on this. Without such sanctions, how can the provisions be enforced? Far from sanctions for non-compliance, there is a sweeping indemnity provision!
In addition to those primary points, there are many others, some of them quite important, that need consideration. They cannot be set forth in detail here for want of space.
The conclusion that emerges from this quick examination of the two Bills is that there are many weaknesses and questionable features in these Bills which need to be rectified. Opposition to the Bills is therefore warranted. However, the very fact that the government is thinking of a rehabilitation law and of amending the Land Acquisition Act is an achievement for public opinion. It has taken more than two decades for the debate to reach this stage. Opposition to the Bills should be carefully modulated so that we can proceed further from here and not lose what has been gained.
To avoid future confrontation with farmers over land acquisition for industrial purposes, the Centre has asked state governments to work on creation of an industrial land bank of available waste and fallow lands, leaving aside productive agricultural land.
At the first conference of state industry ministers in New Delhi, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma proposed that the Centre and the state should work together on preparation of guidelines for creation of the land bank.
“Farmers should not be victims of industrialisation. They should be partners in the process,” Mr Sharma said in his address to state ministers.
Interestingly, industry ministers from Bihar, West Bengal and Orissa—the states that have witnessed a lot of local agitation over land acquisition by states for industrial purposes—were not present at the meeting, though they were represented by senior officials.
Arcelor Mittal’s proposed projects for setting up steel plants in Orissa and Jharkhand and Korean steel major Posco’s plans of entering Orissa are held up due to land acquisition problems. Tata had to shift its base for manufacture of its budget car Nano from West Bengal to Gujarat due to agitation by farmers in Singur.
Some states (like Tamil Nadu) have established good practices in respect of planned industrialisation which merit consideration by other states. The minister added that attractive relief and rehabilitation package have to given to people whole land is acquired for industrial purpose.
“Use of farm land for industrial projects should be the last resort,” he said.
Speaking to ET, minister of industry from Madhya Pradesh Kailash Vijayvargiya pointed out that creating a land bank was a good idea and his state was already working on it. “We have already created a land bank and want to work on it further,” he said.
The idea behind the state industry ministers conference, which will now be held annually, is for the Centre and states to come together and jointly sort out problems to make India an attractive destination for investors, both domestic and foreign, Mr Sharma said.
According to DIPP estimates, India would attract FDI worth $50 billion by 2012 which could go up to $100 billion by 2017. If the Centre and states can work in tandem to remove hurdles, it will not be difficult to achieve the target, Mr Sharma said.
Land impact on CM’s lips Party dissects local factors
BISWAJIT ROY
Bhattacharjee at the CPM state committee meeting on Sunday. Picture by Amit Dutta
Calcutta, May 24: Chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee today virtually admitted that discontent related to land played a crucial role in the Left parties’ poll debacle and made it clear land acquisition would be put on the backburner for the remaining two years of his term, sources said.
The chief minister’s specific observations before the CPM state committee did not find mention in the official party release which sought to strike a balance between both national and local reasons — the subject of a raging debate — behind the drubbing.
“It is true that the all-India voting trend has also influenced the outcome in Bengal. Having said that, we can’t ignore our shortcomings in the functioning of the government, the party, the Left Front, panchayats, municipalities and our mass organisation as well as in public relations. Accepting the people’s mandate, we will take corrective measures,’’ the statement said, without making a direct reference to the land controversy.
However, sources told The Telegraph that several members raised the issue at the meeting, following which the chief minister responded. The sources said Bhattacharjee did not delve into the national issues as they were highlighted in an initial note distributed by state party secretary Biman Bose.
Bhattacharjee “accepted the criticism” against the state government and said that henceforth, he would proceed by “accepting the people’s mandate”.
“The chief minister made it clear that he would abide by the people’s verdict which had gone against us on the land issue. From now on, he will take a flexible and cautious approach in pursuing the government’s development goals, particularly those involving land acquisition. No major land acquisition will be carried out if the local people do not want it,” a committee member said.
Bhattacharjee also stressed on what some members called a “course correction”. He spoke of “time-bound implementation” of rural development projects, including job-generating schemes, rural electrification, public health and education packages to win back voters who had deserted the Left, the sources said.
Bhattacharjee admitted that the government’s style of functioning has to change to make it more accountable to “poor people”. He said the cabinet core committee would meet on May 28 to set guidelines to implement the government’s priorities.
The state committee did touch upon the issues raised by the politburo last week — such as the failure of the third front and the voters’ perception that the Congress could provide stability.
Although the pro-Prakash Karat faction in the politburo had insisted that the withdrawal of support to the UPA and the vote against its government were ratified by the politburo and central committee “unanimously”, it was clear that the Bengal leadership wanted to debate both issues.
However, in line with its composition, the state committee utilised most of the latter half of the session to discuss local factors — the first time a party forum attempted to dissect such issues after the results were announced.
The criticism against the state party and the government largely revolved around disenchantment among the rural poor, which was blamed on the land acquisition programme. A committee member said the state government’s “hasty” and “forcible” land acquisition and subsequent violence in Singur and Nandigram had alienated farmers.
Some leaders carried to the meeting the public criticism of the central leadership’s decision to withdraw support to the UPA — articulating the deep divisions within the CPM — but others did not spare the local leadership either.
“The state leadership is trying to absolve itself of responsibility. They must answer why the so-called Congress wave stopped at the border of Bihar and Orissa,” a veteran member said
This section pointed out that the urban middle class, both Bengali and non-Bengali, did not come out overwhelmingly in support of the Left Front, belying the party’s hope to cushion the loss elsewhere.
Today’s meeting did not settle the question which factor was decisive in the poll debacle. The committee will wait for feedback from booth-level campaign committees as well as district committees before meeting again on June 11 and 12 for a “full-fledged review”.
Durgapur, May 24: A poll-stung CPM has taken a leaf out of the Trinamul Congress’s book and forced work to stop at a state government coal-mining project, demanding better compensation for landlosers.
Some 1,000 villagers alle- gedly led by local CPM leaders stoned workers at the open- cast mine project in Bankura’s Borjora on Friday, demanding jobs for landloser families and cash for their farm labourers. One worker was injured.
Trinamul had earlier objected to the project with similar demands but with the CPM then in favour, 105 acres of the required 750 acres were acquired in 2007 and digging started last October.
Now CPM opposition has halted the project with 25 per cent of the work already done.
“We have stopped work since our workers are feeling insecure after the stone-throwing,” said P.P. Mishra, an official of Trans Damodar Coal Mining Project, a private firm hired by the government.
Aloke Mukherjee, Trinamul leader and Borjora gram panchayat chief, said: “The CPM is trying to hijack our agitation. We were agitating from the outset; now the CPM has placed the same demands. They are trying to copy us to improve their image.”
One perceived reason for the CPM’s poll debacle was its post-Nandigram image of land-grabber. The party is now desperate to acquire a “farmer-friendly” face.
The secretary of the CPM’s Borjora zonal committee, Tarun Raj, denied forcing the project to stop. “We submitted our charter of demands; we don’t know about Trinamul’s demands,” he said.
Bankura district magis-trate Sundar Majumder said: “The ADM will hold a meeting with the parties and project authorities in a day or two.”
The project was conceived after the state government appealed to Coal India in 2004 to mine coal in Bengal so that the steel and sponge-iron plants in Burdwan, Bankura, Purulia and West Midnapore had uninterrupted coal supply.
Most of the land in Borjora is multi-crop, and the government offered Rs 4 lakh to Rs 6.4 lakh an acre. The compensation package included jobs for those losing two acres or more, 3.5 cottahs of developed residential plot against loss of a house, and 25 per cent of the land price to the sharecroppers.
Calcutta, Jan. 11: The government has decided to purchase 50 acres in Bhangar directly from farmers to set up a state university for minorities, having learnt bitter lessons on land acquisition in Singur and Nandigram.
The government is stepping with caution on the land “purchase” also because Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamul Congress controls the zilla parishad of South 24-Parganas, were Bhangar is located.
“Our bitter experiences in Singur and Nandigram have compelled us to go for direct purchase of land from farmers for the proposed Aliah University. All of us know that circumstances have changed in the past few months,” land and land reforms minister Abdur Rezzak Mollah said today.
He said chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee had agreed it would be “unwise” to acquire the land at this juncture. With the Lok Sabha election round the bend, the government would not like to anger the strong minority presence in Bhangar, barely 5km from Calcutta.
“Resistance would have come from land losers, backed by Trinamul, if we had gone for acquisition. Keeping this in mind, we are directly talking to farmers,” Mollah said.
The plan to build the state-run university for minorities was announced by the government in 2007 but since then it has had no luck in getting the land.
An internal report by the CPM’s South 24-Parganas unit has warned the government against acquiring land there. “We are not in a comfortable position in South 24-Parganas after we lost the panchayat polls. Also, Bhangar... is represented by a Trinamul legislator. We have sent the report to the state committee,” a district committee member said.
Arabul Haque, Trinamul MLA from Bhangar, said his party would not object if the land was bought straight from the farmers. “We are opposed to forcible acquisition. The move to buy land directly from farmers is welcome,” he said.
Asked about the price, a minority affairs department official said it would be finalised after talking to the farmers. “They told us they will part with the land if it is purchased from them,” he said.
CAN INDIA AFFORD TO TURN AWAY FROM NUCLEAR POWER
