Email this page to a friend!

Notice (8): Undefined index:  url [APP/views/blogs/index.ctp, line 43]

Land Grab - Problem Or Chance At Development?
 

‘Land Grab: the purchase or lease of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors in order to produce crops for export.' – The Oakland Institute

The acquisition of lands in developing countries particularly in Africa but also in South America, Central and Southeast Asia has in recent times become worrisome.

The 2008 surge in oil prices which led to food shortages and consequently volatile prices in food forced vulnerable developing countries to seek foreign investments. This resulted in renewed interests in the agriculture sector by western investors and eventually to intense land acquisitions or land grab depending on who you speak to.

Thus, what started as a measure to control food prices and produce more food has turned into something of a nightmare for rural farmers and residents. They have not only lost their means of food security and livelihoods but in many instances have been forced from their ancestral homes – land is big deal in Africa as it gets passed on from one generation to the next.

We should of course not ignore the role foreign investment can play in reforming agricultural practices, stimulating economic growth and increasing global food availability. However, often it’s at the detriment of those whose voices cannot be heard because they are poor, particularly when their government or local private investors are unconscientiously handing their birth right – their culture- to foreign investors who may or may not value the role land plays in their culture. Something’s not right and measures must be put in place to ensure peoples’ rights are not being trampled upon.

A 2010 report by the observer revealed that in Ethiopia, for instance, hectares of land are being leased to rich businessmen whose sole aim is to cultivate these lands and export the produce to their countries. The report went on to question the Ethiopian governments’ sensibility – in a country with over 2 million hungry people, how can its government justify giving choice lands to rich foreign investors and countries who grow foods to feed their own populations?

According to Oxfam, large parcels of land the size of West Europe – about 227 million hectares in total – have been leased, sold or licensed in Africa to foreign investors since 2001. Although these lands are claimed by governments and others to be for growing more food for the poor and for biofuel production, Oxfam obviously isn’t fooled as the organisation found that several of the land transactions are actually land grabs. This is primarily because the rights and needs of the ‘little people’, if you will, are not being protected. In many instances these people don’t have a clue what is happening till they’re driven off their lands.

The Oakland Institute revealed in 2011 that the involvement of countries such as China and others in the Middle East in land grabs is being facilitated, knowingly or not, by two international institutions – the International Financial Corporation (IFC) and the Foreign Investment Advisory Service; both sectors of the World Bank Group. The former finances private investment in developing countries and promotes policy reforms to reduce bureaucracies that inhibit foreign investments while the latter improves investment conditions in developing countries so as to enable private investment.

‘The role of these institutions in promoting and facilitating land grabs has received little attention. However, the response of these organisations to the global food crisis is directly related to rapidly growing demand in land markets.’ – Oakland Institute

The report also went further to dismiss the idea being propagated by major players including research institutions, donor governments and international governance agencies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO ) and other UN agencies that land deals are ‘win-win’ for those involved. Essentially because, excessive focus of potential benefits could mask risks and consequences that may arise, further ensuring that opposing voices are unheard.
The report finally concludes that food security is a very real problem for millions of people in the world – the 1.02 billion people who are chronically hungry.

‘These people are the rural poor, the subsistence farmers—the 1.5 billion small producers who each farm less than 2 hectares of land. These people, who are suffering most, are not the ones benefiting from land market investment.’- Oakland Institute

I think policies and regulations should be put in place and upheld without bias by institutions and other intergovernmental agencies to ensure land acquisition favours all parties involved - the investors, and the developing countries with particular attention paid to rural residents.

Water usage, climate change, environment pollution, land stress, civil unrest and increasing hunger in developing countries are all factors to consider and plan for as donor governments unwittingly lease and/ or sell out lands to foreign investors.

Developing nations particularly those in Africa should realise the potential detrimental effect indiscriminate selling off of land can have in the long term. History should not be allowed to repeat itself; diamond, gold, coal, oil, now land – we cannot allow the trend that has been seen in history to happen again. This is the very reason initiatives such as Fairtrade should be supported and endorsed. 
Posted by Yvonne Ekpe in Poverty for column Issue Analysis on Nov 21st 2011, 14:10
Comments: 5 | Post a Comment

Thugs and Farming: How one man challenged Mugabe..
 

Mugabe and the White African is a story of courage in the face of a seemingly insurmountable adversary – President Mugabe, faith and belief. It is the story of an African whose skin colour just happened to be ‘white’; it is the story of Mike Campbell, his wife, daughter and son-in-law... and their fight against the worst kind of racism, dictatorship, injustice and human rights violation.

The documentary begins with Mike preparing to go to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal, a human rights court, to challenge President Mugabe’s decision to forcefully take his farmland from him. He appears composed in spite of the knowledge that the Tribunal’s decision will either mean losing everything he and his family have worked hard for or success against a dictator – the latter being the unlikely outcome.


Mike Campbell and his family moved to Zimbabwe in the 70s where he purchased a parcel of land with a bank loan; a loan that took twenty odd years to pay back. And for over 3 decades Mike and his family with the help of his son-in-law Ben Freeth turned this parcel of land into a flourishing farm and games reserve, Mount Carmel.

The farm employed over 500 local people who lived and worked on the farm. Ben’s wife, Mike’s daughter, ran a linen business on the farm where the women and girls worked; each woman having between 4 to 5 children. Life was good until things took a turn for the worse when Robert Mugabe became President and began his Land Reform policy - forcing white farmers off their farmlands.

Prior to this Land Reform, the majority of the choice agricultural lands were owned by white commercial farmers leaving the drought-prone regions for black farmers. This situation resulted during the colonial times when black farmers were forced off the lands in favour of colonists. According to the 2002 BBC report, about 4400 white farmers owned 32% of farmlands in Zimbabwe while about 1 million poor black farmers cultivated 38%. This disparity and apparent injustice left bad blood between the white farmers and the black peasant farmers -  exploited by Mugabe to sustain his political aspirations.

In a bid to gain popularity and sustain his presidency President Mugabe fast tracked the Land Reform policy In 2000, promising to take back farmlands from white farmers and redistribute to their rightful owners; black farmers – any wonder why many Zimbabweans voted for him?


Although it’s been reported that land was redistributed to the farmers,  the majority was given to top government officials, Mugabe’s relatives and judges - who were clueless about farming or managing farmlands.

Farmlands that were once flourishing have been left fallow producing little or nothing for export crippling Zimbabwe’s agricultural economy.  Aside from a downturn in agricultural economy, the black farmers and their families who worked on these farmlands, including Mike’s farmland, have been left without jobs and housing as many of them were beaten and driven off the land like their employers.


It’s documentaries such as ‘Mugabe and the White African’ that give people a visual insight into the real issues in Zimbabwe. I was appalled not only by the abject disregard for the law displayed by Mugabe and his thugs (the war veterans and lawyers) but also by the extent at which rights were violated. Mike, his wife and Ben Freeth were forced out of their home, threatened and beaten – what sort of monster beats up elderly people? – And had their basic right to life and security, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment and ownership of property violated.

The court hearing was deliberately postponed many times by Mugabe’s lawyers for unreasonable reasons, showing how little regard they had for the proceedings and their confidence that they can get away with anything. However, by some divine intervention Mike and his family finally got the justice they deserved:


“The tribunal condemned the seizures as “racist” and theft on a grand scale. The farmers could keep their land, it ruled, because the redistribution programme was discriminatory and was not being implemented according to the rule of law.”- The Guardian, 2011


As a Nigerian I know how difficult it can be to win against governments in Africa, particularly one which is authoritarian and corrupt..


Despite the tribunal’s ruling the farm, including the homes of their workers, was burnt to the ground. In spite of this Mike before his death earlier this year put in an application with SADC along with Luke Tembani, a black farmer who was also driven off his farmland, to ensure it continued its function after the member Heads of State requested the Tribunal be suspended.

I salute Mike Campbell and stand firmly behind Ben Freeth and other African Activists as should Africans of all race, colour and creed as they continually risk their lives to expose Human rights violations in Africa and challenge corrupt and authoritarian African leaders such as Mugabe. 

Posted by Yvonne Ekpe in Poverty for column Film Reviews on Oct 10th 2011, 10:19
Comments: 2 | Post a Comment

1% Polio Eradication - Nigeria's role

 

Poliomyelitis, also polio or infantile paralysis, is an acute infectious disease caused by the poliovirus. It invades the nervous system and can lead to permanent paralysis, and in some cases death, in a matter of hours. Although it chiefly affects children under age 5, it can strike at any age, and since it has no cure, the only way to deal with it is through immunization.

Over the years great progress has been made to eradicate polio, however, there are still countries where transmission has never been blocked, these are the polio-endemic countries and include Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Pakistan.  

In recent times African countries such as Angola, Chad and Sudan have seen the disease re-established; and Congo, Kazakhstan, Mali and Nepal  have experienced outbreaks due to importation.



 
            Source 1:  www.polioeradication.org.
 

In the fight against polio,  Nigeria is a crucial player because:

  • It’s the only country where all three serotypes of polio: wild poliovirus type 1, wild poliovirus type 3 and the circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) type 2 are being transmitted.
  • Northern Nigeria is the source of infection to other parts of the country as well as neighbouring African countries.

In Nigeria those living in poverty are most affected by polio and suffer most from the paralysis that results from the disease, because there’s very little or no provision for those with physical disabilities.

Imagine how difficult it must be for a person with post-polio paralysis or any physical disability to survive in such a system. There is no disabled access in Nigeria!

Successes

Over the years Nigeria has achieved remarkable strides in its fight against polio due primarily to the government’s commitment and cooperation with international organisations.

In 2010, only 21 cases of Wild Polio Virus (WPV)  were reported in 8 states, compared with 388 cases in 27 states in 2009.

Nigeria has seen a 95% reduction in the number of children paralysed by polio. However, the reported total number of polio cases in Nigeria for 2011 is now four times the number reported last year.

Challenges

There are several challenges facing eradication efforts in Nigeria. There are constraints in gaining political commitments and maintaining engagement with leaders’ at all necessary levels, and in dealing with the operational realities of trying to reach every child in some of the toughest places in the world. Almost by definition, these areas have weak infrastructure, weak governance, high rates of poverty and illiteracy, and sometimes armed conflict or social unrest.

Conflict can prevent vaccination teams from reaching every child and lead to a decrease in immunisation, providing the opportunity for polio to spread. Health workers may flee or shut down their practices, or funding and resources can be shifted elsewhere. In some cases, there was never much in the way of health infrastructure in the first place. Such areas are much more difficult to operate in and can really compromise access to children. Consequently, health workers need to be very flexible with programs in conflict areas and be able to capitalise on whatever opportunities can be found for access.

Why Should You care?

  • Polio eradication and the elimination of other preventable diseases are crucial to  ending extreme poverty.
  • The re-introduction of polio into non-endemic countries is a very real threat and is already happening. The fight is thus not just that of the endemic countries but that of the entire world.
  • Eradicating polio is cheaper than containing it.  The incremental net economic benefits of eradication are estimated to be between $40- $50 billion compared to routine immunisation.

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) launched in 1988 has made immense progress in achieving its goal to eradicate polio. Since its launch, the number of polio cases has fallen by 99% and about 2.5 billion children have received polio immunisation to date:


Source 4: GPEI ANNUAL REPORT 2010

Often seen as the key to wiping out polio in Africa, Nigeria remains one of the last outposts of polio in the world and is responsible for a majority of outbreaks in other African countries. According to our partners at the WHO, if we can eradicate polio in Africa's most populous state then we stand in good stead to be able to root out the disease in other parts of the continent.

Yes, conflict and other challenges continue to hamper efforts, as tragically illustrated a few weeks ago when a suicide bomber drove his vehicle into the UN's building in Abuja. Nonetheless, the existence of conflict doesn’t mean we can’t achieve eradication – it’s an issue the WHO has been managing since the eradication program started, and we’ve succeeded in eradicating polio from Somalia, Southern Sudan and Cambodia during times of heavy conflict. By and large though the biggest challenge impeding eradication efforts is a funding gap of US$590 million that currently limits the work of the GPEI.

That's why the Global Poverty Project is working with Rotary International, the World Health Organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to build public support needed to close this funding gap, and make the end of polio a reality in both Africa and the rest of the world.

Show your support for a polio free Africa by signing our petition.
Posted by Yvonne Ekpe in Polio for column Success Stories on Sep 12th 2011, 00:51
Comments: 4 | Post a Comment

Negative Images, Better Giving - Conclusion

 

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

So far, in my last two blogs I have written about images used in charity advertising. I expressed the opinion that charities seem to use negative images as these elicit sympathy from their target audience.

In an attempt to understand the motivations behind the persistent use of these kinds of images, I contacted some charity workers to get their perspective. As was expected, not all those contacted responded. However, those who did were very sincere in their response and in admitting the challenges encountered when creating fundraising communications.

When asked if the use of negative images in communications is sustainable, the majority were of the opinion that it is not the best form of advertising because it’s exploitative. They felt that although it works in the short term it undermines people’s dignity and reinforces the notion that nothing has changed.

Some quotes from responses include;

“It’s wrong to use exploitative images.”

“Charities do it because it works as guilt can motivate people and people are strongly motivated by injustice.”

“We see ‘poverty porn’ all the time and we become immune to it, so some charities’ adverts are getting more shocking and hard-hitting in response.”

“The only reason why any charity will use ‘strong images’ is to demonstrate the very real need and because they create the genuine emotional connection needed to generate donations and support.”

  Unicef UK: Nimatu Jollah lies on a bed in the hospital in Sierra Leone where she received treatment for malnutrition last year.

 

“Once big charities go down the poverty porn/devaluing charity route, it’s hard for others not to follow."

Some were of the view that although showing ‘need’ is important, it is more important to achieve a balance, by demonstrating ‘need’ without undermining dignity and showing the positive impact charity interventions are having. By this donors and potential donors are better motivated to not just give in the short term but be part of the solution long term: 

“We work in partnership with the poor people we represent – not for them – and our communications must represent this equal power dynamic.”

“It’s important to me to show joy and suffering alongside each other- as this is what gives us hope and inspires people to give.” “If a charity cannot achieve this in its communications it makes me wonder if they are having any impact on ground.”

On whether their adverts represented a true picture of the people in them, some were quick to say yes while others admitted this is something they struggle with;

“We sometimes fall either side of overly positive and overly negative.” And “we must acknowledge the limitations of photography/filmic/textual representations in that they cannot reproduce some of the subtleties of real life.”

Following from this I asked what they and/ or their organisations are doing to minimise and/ or put a stop to this kind of advertising?

From responses received, there doesn’t seem to be a cohesive sector-wide effort to curb this kind of advertising, probably because as already mentioned it ‘works’. Some said they ensured that images used in their adverts and other communications are authentic representations of the people and communities they work with.

“We don’t hold other charities to account but, by being a responsible marketer, we hope to create an environment in which exploitation of the poor (and manipulation of people in the UK) is not accepted.”

Others said they adhered to Bond's code of conduct, while one said “I can’t really answer as I don’t really agree with the notion of ‘poverty porn’.” “I think it is a term created by people who use this as an excuse not to support an organisation.”

One cannot fail to note that images associated with extreme poverty, conflicts and diseases are not positive. However, the focus here is for charities to try and achieve a balance between demonstrating need and showing their effectiveness on ground.

In my opinion, the Concord's code of conduct on images and messages 2006 provides outstanding principles to guide charities in creating and executing their communications; and is worth having a look at.

As wrote in an earlier blog for the Global Poverty Project,

"The challenge for anti-poverty agencies is to effectively appeal to human sympathies in order to draw attention to the plight of the poor, while ensuring their subjects are conveyed as a dignified people determined to see an end to endemic poverty."

For this reason the Global Poverty project will continue to work tirelessly with the general public to educate and challenge concepts and actions that are adverse to the very inspiring and commendable efforts of charities working in development.
Posted by Yvonne Ekpe in Aid for column Perspectives on Poverty on Aug 10th 2011, 00:01
Comments: 12 | Post a Comment

Negative Images, Better Giving - Part II
 

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

In my last blog I wrote about the use of images in charity advertising and how as an African they tend to not just elicit empathy in me but also anger and disgust.


It is obvious that the use of images negative or not, by charities is not a new strategy as they’ve been used for decades to communicate various development issues and motivate donors to support their cause(s).

Their use is hardly surprising as according to research conducted by  Burt and Strongman (2004),  “images of children that evoke negative emotions appear to produce more and greater potential donations than those that evoke positive emotions” and “the stronger the negative emotion evoked by an image of a child the greater was the level of stated potential donating.”  


However, in my opinion, in aiming to achieve sponsor recruitment by evoking pity, the continued bombardment with images of hunger, poverty, destitution, disease, crime and corruption has served only to reinforce some of the wrong, stereotypical perspectives people in the Global North hold of people in the Global South. 


Furthermore, the continued use of these images over such a prolonged period has given the impression that not much has changed - resulting, in my opinion, to more and more people changing channels when these adverts come on. I therefore think that the continued use of images that are negative may end up having the reverse or counter effect on charity fundraising, that is, reduced donations and sponsorship.


Although, charities are not primarily to blame for these inaccurate perceptions, they are however in a position to show the reality of things, something that is often lost in the media.


I believe people have thoroughly become desensitized regarding these issues - with the media religiously portraying in news the grimmest sides of Africa and other developing nations forgetting and not unexpectedly the progress, albeit slow, that’s being made in these places - and as such have overcome the initial shock and pity these adverts aim to evoke.

     Source: PLAN UK

Source: SAVE THE CHILDREN

 

I wish more journalists will own up and admit the problem just as Nicolas Kristof  did when he said “The problem is that we in journalism invariably focus on Africa’s wars, poverty and humanitarian disasters, and aid agencies and academics do the same.”


From reviewing websites and adverts from a range of UK based development charities; I’m hard pressed to say negative images are not being used; because they are.
Encouragingly, there seems to be a downward trend in its use compared to say a decade or more ago.


I say this as I have come across some genuinely inspiring adverts that show the problem, charities’ interventions and the effectiveness of these interventions without making me cringe in agony. It’s also worth noting that many charities don’t consistently use negative images, however, this only begs the question why do they resort to negative images at all?


Should the end result of fundraising, that is, raising enough funds and support for development projects today (in the short term), be the primary motivation behind images used in charity advertising? Or should the motivation be how to recruit and maintain long term support for development projects?


In an attempt to understand the motivation behind the use of images in charity advertising from a charity perspective, I have contacted 20 UK charities who are members of BOND (an umbrella body for UK NGOs working in  International Development) with annual expenditure ranging from <£100,000 to >£40m.


In my next blog, I’ll share what I learn from these conversations.
Posted by Yvonne Ekpe in Poverty, Aid for column Perspectives on Poverty on Aug 4th 2011, 01:06
Comments: 8 | Post a Comment