Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now
Showing posts with label farming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label farming. Show all posts

Cliven Bundy—Father of the Armed Men Who Led the Takeover of the Oregon Wildlife Refuge—Charged With Assault, Conspracy and Extortion

Cliven Bundy was completely discredited (among non-racist people) when he suggested African Americans were "better off as slaves."
Cliven Bundy was completely discredited (among non-racist people) when he suggested African Americans were "better off as slaves."


By Mark Katkov and Christopher Dean Hopkins
The father of two men who were among the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and are now in jail, was himself arrested in Portland, Ore., Wednesday night.

Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher prominent in protests to end federal control of western lands, is being held in the Multnomah County Detention Center. His sons Ammon and Ryan were arrested Jan. 27 and are there as well.

According to the charging document against Bundy, the rancher is charged with conspiracy, assault on a federal law enforcement officer, "the use and carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence," obstruction or justice, extortion, and aiding and abetting.

The charges date back to the 2014 standoff near Bundy's Nevada ranch; the timeframe listed in the federal complaint continues until today. He is due to appear in federal court in Portland at 1:30 p.m. (local time).

Shortly after the charges against Bundy were announced, David Fry, the last of the four holdouts occupying the refuge, reportedly surrendered.

Read More




The Gates Foundation: Spearheading The Neo-Liberal Plunder of African Agriculture

Bill Gates.
Bill Gates.

By Colin Todhunter
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is dangerously and unaccountably distorting the direction of international development, according to a new report by the campaign group Global Justice Now. With assets of $43.5 billion, the BMGF is the largest charitable foundation in the world. It actually distributes more aid for global health than any government. As a result, it has a major influence on issues of global health and agriculture.

Gated Development - Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?’ argues that what BMGF is doing could end up exacerbating global inequality and entrenching corporate power globally. Global Justice Now’s analysis of the BMGF’s programmes shows that the foundation’s senior staff are overwhelmingly drawn from corporate America. As a result, the question is: whose interests are being promoted – those of corporate America or those of ordinary people who seek social and economic justice rather than charity?

According to the report, the foundation’s strategy is intended to deepen the role of multinational companies in global health and agriculture especially, even though these corporations are responsible for much of the poverty and injustice that already plagues the global south. The report concludes that the foundation’s programmes have a specific ideological strategy that promotes neo-liberal economic policies, corporate globalisation, the technology this brings (such as GMOs) and an outdated view of the centrality of aid in ‘helping’ the poor.

The report raises a series criticisms including:

1) The relationship between the foundation and Microsoft’s tax practices. A 2012 report from the US Senate found that Microsoft’s use of offshore subsidiaries enabled it to avoid taxes of $4.5 billion, a sum greater than the BMGF’s annual grant making ($3.6 billion in 2014).

2) The close relationship that BMGF has with many corporations whose role and policies contribute to ongoing poverty. Not only is BMGF profiting from numerous investments in a series of controversial companies which contribute to economic and social injustice, it is also actively supporting a series of those companies, including Monsanto, Dupont and Bayer through a variety of pro-corporate initiatives around the world.

3) The foundation’s promotion of industrial agriculture across Africa, pushing for the adoption of GM, patented seed systems and chemical fertilisers, all of which undermine existing sustainable, small-scale farming that is providing the vast majority of food security across the continent.

4) The foundation’s promotion of projects around the world pushing private healthcare and education. Numerous agencies have raised concerns that such projects exacerbate inequality and undermine the universal provision of such basic human necessities.

5) BMGF’s funding of a series of vaccine programmes that have reportedly lead to illnesses or even deaths with little official or media scrutiny.

Polly Jones the head of campaigns and policy at Global Justice Now says:

“The Gates Foundation has rapidly become the most influential actor in the world of global health and agricultural policies, but there’s no oversight or accountability in how that influence is managed. This concentration of power and influence is even more problematic when you consider that the philanthropic vision of the Gates Foundation seems to be largely based on the values of corporate America. The foundation is relentlessly promoting big business-based initiatives such as industrial agriculture, private health care and education. But these are all potentially exacerbating the problems of poverty and lack of access to basic resources that the foundation is supposed to be alleviating.”

The report states that that Bill Gates has regular access to world leaders and is in effect personally bankrolling hundreds of universities, international organisations, NGOs and media outlets. As the single most influential voice in international development, the foundation’s strategy is a major challenge to progressive development actors and activists around the world who want to see the influence of multinational corporations in global markets reduced or eliminated.

The foundation not only funds projects in which agricultural and pharmaceutical corporations are among the leading beneficiaries, but it often invests in the same companies as it is funding, meaning the foundation has an interest in the ongoing profitability of these corporations. According to the report, this is “a corporate merry-go-round where the BMGF consistently acts in the interests of corporations.”

Uprooting indigenous agriculture for the benefit of global agribusiness


The report notes that the BMGF’s close relationship with seed and chemical giant Monsanto is well known. It previously owned shares in the company and continues to promote several projects in which Monsanto is a beneficiary, not least the wholly inappropriate and fraudulent GMO project which promotes a technical quick-fix ahead of tackling the structural issues that create hunger, poverty and food insecurity But, as the report notes, the BMGF partners with many other multinational agribusiness corporations.

Many examples where this is the case are highlighted by the report. For instance, the foundation is working with US trader Cargill in an $8 million project to “develop the soya value chain” in southern Africa. Cargill is the biggest global player in the production of and trade in soya with heavy investments in South America where GM soya mono-crops have displaced rural populations and caused great environmental damage. According to Global Justice Now, the BMGF-funded project will likely enable Cargill to capture a hitherto untapped African soya market and eventually introduce GM soya onto the continent. The end markets for this soya are companies with relationships with the fast food outlet, KFC, whose expansion in Africa is being aided by the project.

Specific examples are given which highlight how BMGF is also supporting projects involving other chemicals and seed corporations, including DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta and Bayer.

According to the report, the BMGF is promoting a model of industrial agriculture, the increasing use of chemical fertilisers and expensive, patented seeds, the privatisation of extension services and a very large focus on genetically modified seeds. The foundation bankrolls the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in pushing industrial agriculture.

A key area for AGRA is seed policy. The report notes that currently over 80 per cent of Africa’s seed supply comes from millions of small-scale farmers recycling and exchanging seed from year to year. But AGRA is promoting the commercial production of seed and is thus supporting the introduction of commercial seed systems, which risk enabling a few large companies to control seed research and development, production and distribution.

In order for commercial seed companies to invest in research and development, they first want to protect their ‘intellectual property’. According to the report, this requires a fundamental restructuring of seed laws to allow for certification systems that not only protect certified varieties and royalties derived from them, but which actually criminalise all non-certified seed.

The report notes that over the past two decades a long and slow process of national seed law reviews, sponsored by USAID and the G8 along with the BMGF and others, has opened the door to multinational corporations’ involvement in seed production, including the acquisition of every sizeable seed enterprise on the African continent.

At the same time, AGRA is working to promote costly inputs, notably fertiliser, despite evidence to suggest chemical fertilisers have significant health risks for farm workers, increase soil erosion and can trap small-scale farmers in unsustainable debt. The BMGF, through AGRA, is one of the world’s largest promoters of chemical fertiliser.

Some grants given by the BMGF to AGRA have been specifically intended to “help AGRA build the fertiliser supply chain” in Africa. The report describes how one of the largest of AGRA’s grants, worth $25 million, was used to help establish the African Fertiliser Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) in 2012, whose very goal is to “at least double total fertiliser use” in Africa. The AFAP project is being pursued in partnership with the International Fertiliser Development Centre, a body which represents the fertiliser industry.

Another of AGRA’s key programmes since its inception has been support to agro-dealer networks – small, private stockists of transnational companies' chemicals and seeds who sell these to farmers in several African countries. This is increasing the reliance of farmers on chemical inputs and marginalising sustainable agriculture alternatives, thereby undermining any notion that farmers are exercising their 'free choice' (as the neo-liberal evangelists are keen to tell everyone) when it comes to adopting certain agricultural practices.

The report concludes that AGRA’s agenda is the biggest direct threat to the growing movement in support of food sovereignty and agroecological farming methods in Africa. This movement opposes reliance on chemicals, expensive seeds and GM and instead promotes an approach which allows communities control over the way food is produced, traded and consumed. It is seeking to create a food system that is designed to help people and the environment rather than make profits for multinational corporations. Priority is given to promoting healthy farming and healthy food by protecting soil, water and climate, and promoting biodiversity.

Recent evidence from Greenpeace and the Oakland Institute shows that in Africa agroecological farming can increase yields significantly (often greater than industrial agriculture), and that it is more profitable for small farmers. In 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (Olivier de Schutter) called on countries to reorient their agriculture policies to promote sustainable systems - not least agroecology - that realise the right to food. Moreover, the International Assessmentof Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was the work of over 400 scientists and took four years to complete. It was twice peer reviewed and states we must look to smallholder, traditional farming to deliver food security in third world countries through agri-ecological systems which are sustainable.

In a January 2015 piece in The Guardian, the director of Global Justice Now said that ‘development’ was once regarded as a process of breaking with colonial exploitation and transferring power over resources from the ‘first’ to the ‘third world’, involving a revolutionary struggle over the world’s resources. However, the current paradigm is based on the assumption that developing countries need to adopt neo-liberal policies and that public money in the guise of aid should facilitate this.

If this new report shows anything, it is that the notion of ‘development’ has become hijacked by rich corporations and a super-rich ‘philanthrocapitalist’ (whose own corporate practices have been questionable to say the least, as highlighted by the report). In effect, the model of 'development' being facilitated is married to the ideology and structurally embedded power relations of an exploitative global capitalism.

The BMGF is spearheading the ambitions of corporate America and the scramble for Africa by global agribusiness.

Reprinted with the permission of Colin Todhunter

Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Government Responds to Land Rights Activists With Kidnapping and Torture

Oromo Woman, Ethiopia. (Photo by Rod Waddington)
Oromo Woman, Ethiopia. (Photo by Rod Waddington)
By Felix Horne
“Badessa” was a third-year engineering student in western Ethiopia in April 2014 when he and most of his classmates joined a protest over the potential displacement of ethnic Oromo farmers like his family because of the government’s plan to expand the capital, Addis Ababa, into the farmland.

The night of the first protests he was arrested and taken to an unmarked detention center. Each night he heard his fellow students screaming in agony as one by one they were tortured by interrogators. “I still hear the screams,” he told me later. Eventually his turn came to be interrogated. “What kind of country is it when I voice concern that my family could lose their farm for a government project and I am arrested, tortured, and now living as a refugee?”

Since mid-November, large-scale protests have again swept through Oromia, Ethiopia’s largest region, and the response from security forces has again been brutal. They have killed countless students and farmers, and arrested opposition politicians and countless others. On January 12, the government announced it was cancelling the master plan, but that hasn’t stopped the protests and the resultant crackdown.

Although the protest was initially about the potential for displacement, it has become about so much more. Despite being the biggest ethnic group in Ethiopia, Oromos have often felt marginalized by successive governments and feel unable to voice concerns over government policy. Oromos who express dissent are often arrested and tortured or otherwise mistreated in detention, accused of belonging to the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), a group that has long been mostly inactive and that the government designated a terrorist organization.

The government is doing all it can to make sure that the news of these protests doesn’t circulate within the country or reach the rest of the world. Ethiopia’s allies, including governments in the region and the African Union, have largely stood by as Ethiopia has steadily strangled the ability of ordinary Ethiopians to access information and peacefully express their views, whether in print or in public demonstrations. But they should be worried about what is happening in Oromia right now, as Ethiopia — Africa’s second most-populous country and a key security ally of the US — grapples with this escalating crisis.

This may prove to be the biggest political event to hit Ethiopia since the controversial 2005 elections resulted in a crackdown on protesters in which security forces killed almost 200 people and arrested tens of thousands .

Although the government focuses its efforts on economic development and on promoting a narrative of economic success, for many farmers in Oromia and elsewhere economic development comes at a devastating cost. As one Oromo student told me “All we hear about is development. The new foreign-owned farms and roads is what the world knows, but that just benefits the government. For us [Oromos] it means we lose our land and then we can’t sustain ourselves anymore.”

It has become almost impossible for journalists and human rights monitors to get information about what is happening, especially in smaller towns and rural areas outside Addis Ababa.

Ethiopia is one of the most restrictive environments for independent investigation, reporting, and access to information, earning the country a top-10 spot in the global ranking of jailers of journalists. For the past decade, the government has limited access to information by regularly threatening, imprisoning, and prosecuting individual activists, bloggers, and journalists and sending a clear public message that the media must self-censor and that dissent or criticism of government policy will not be tolerated.

Independent media have dwindled—more than 70 journalists have fled the country since 2010 and five of the last independent publications closed down before the May elections. Meanwhile the state-run media parrot the government line, in this case claiming that the Oromo protesters are linked to “terrorist groups” and “anti-peace elements” who are “aiming to create havoc and chaos.”

Very few international journalists are based in Ethiopia. Those who have attempted to cover events on the ground since the protests began have braved threats and arrest, but these are a few lone voices.

Given restrictions on local and international media, you might think that ordinary citizens, local activists, and nongovernmental organizations would fill the gaps and document the events in Oromia. But Ethiopia’s human rights activists and independent groups have been crushed by draconian legislation and threats, and even ordinary people are often terrified to speak out. People who dare to speak to international media outlets or independent groups have been arrested. The government taps phone lines and uses European-made spyware to target journalists and opposition members outside the country.

Since the protests began, the restrictions have become even harsher. Authorities have arrested people, including health workers, for posting photos and videos or messages of support on social media. The state-run telecom network has also been cut in some areas, making it much more difficult to get information out from hotspots.

Radio and satellite television outlets based outside Ethiopia, including some diaspora stations, play a key role disseminating information about the protests within Oromia, as they also did in 2014 during the last round of protests. Last year numerous people were arrested in Oromia during the protests merely for watching the diaspora-run Oromia Media Network (OMN).

The government has frequently jammed foreign stations in the past, violating international regulations in the process. When the government is unable to jam it puts pressure on the satellite companies themselves. Throughout the protests government agents have reportedly been destroying satellite dishes.

Yet despite the clear efforts to muzzle voices, information is coming out. Some protesters are losing their fear of expressing dissent and are speaking openly about the challenges they are facing. Social media plays a key role in disseminating information as people share photos and videos of rallies, of bloodied protesters, and of expressions of peaceful resistance in the face of security forces using excessive force.

In the coming days and weeks Ethiopia’s friends and partners should condemn the use of excessive force by security forces that is causing tragic and unnecessary deaths. But they should also be clear that Ethiopia needs to ensure access to information and stop disrupting telecommunications and targeting social media users. The world needs to know what is happening in Oromia—and Ethiopians have a right to know what is happening in their country.





Reprinted with permission from Human Rights Watch.

SEED 'LAW'S: Primer On How Companies Intend to Control and Monopolize Seeds

Roasted Pumpkin Seeds. (Photo by Brian Jackson)
Roasted Pumpkin Seeds. (Photo by Brian Jackson)

By GRAIN
All over the world, farmer’s seeds and seed systems are under attack. Corporations are pushing for ever more aggressive new laws and regulations that criminalize farmers for sowing, keeping, exchanging, and taking care of their seeds. If companies get their way, farmers around the world will face the possibility of being jailed or harshly fined for doing what they have been doing over centuries.

Alarmingly, the governments of non-industrialized countries are showing little or no will to resist, and in more than just a few cases, they are happily cooperating with these attacks. The recent approval of a new protocol on intellectual property over plant varieties by member states of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) is just the latest example.

Farmer seed systems stand at the very origin of agriculture, as we now know it. They are a fundamental prerequisite if farming families and communities across the world are to remain free, as well as to achieve food security and food sovereignty. The rights of farmers over seeds have been recognized by governments in several international treaties, but the same governments are signing new laws and regulations that trample on those very same rights to allow multinational corporations to further dominate the world’s seed supply. The changes we are witnessing are major.

Via Campesina and GRAIN have recently published a booklet des­cribing how farming communities are being affected by these new legislations and how they are struggling against them1. GRAIN also published a database and a map documenting what farmers across the world are or are not allowed to do with their seeds.2

This primer is meant to further explain how farmers are affected by seed laws, illustrated with extracts from legislation from a variety of countries.

International Pressure to Privatize Seeds

Corporations are using multiple strategies to control and monopolize seeds. A fundamental one is putting pressure on countries to privatize seeds through legislation that provides what is called plant breeders’ rights or plant variety protection.

But there are other regulations with similar aims: patent laws for plants are becoming increasingly common, and then there are seed certification laws, seed marketing regulations and food safety rules. Many social movements have dubbed them “Monsanto Laws” to highlight the transnational seed corporation that has been active in their drafting – and who will benefit most from their adoption.

The new rules may be imposed as laws, decrees, executive orders, administrative orders, ministerial regulations, etc., but their purpose is the same across the board: handing over exclusive rights to corporations to control the seed supply. In some cases, this is made very explicit. For example, a model seed law for Southern African countries promoted by USAID stipulates that the national seed agency “shall take the necessary measures to promote the seed industry enhancement and development”.3

___________________________________________

UPOV

UPOV is the French acronym for the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Officially an intergovernmental body since 1961, it as worked exclusively and explicitly for the privatization of seeds around the world by imposing intellectual property rights on plant varieties. Member states must join the UPOV Convention, and write it into national law.

The Convention was first drafted in 1961 and has been revised three times (in 1972, 1978 and 1991), each time to strengthen the rights of corporate breeders and re­strict what others can do with the seeds. The 1991 revision was particularly controversial because it eliminated the right of farmers to save privatised seeds and also limited what other plant breeders can do with that seed.

For most of its history UPOV has been a small and rather obscure club of mostly rich countries that wanted to advance the interests of their seed companies.

At the time of the last revision, 1991, only 20 countries were members. But after the World Trade Organization agreed in 1994 that all WTO member countries should have intellectual property rights for plant varieties, UPOV membership quickly increased and over 70 countries are members today. Much of this was due to arm twisting by rich countries to get non-industrialised countries to sign on, like through the trade agreements.

___________________________________________


Although it can be argued that small local seed producers could also be part of the seed industry, the fact is that governments are responding to pressure from big companies, and the rules are clearly biased in favor of big companies, not local seed producers – through requirements on the facilities and staff needed to market seeds, for example. Governments are also being forced to keep the public sector out of any seed breeding or distribution activities. For example, the government put in place after the US invasion of Afghanistan duly returned the favour by including the following requirement in its new seed law: “the Ministry shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the production and trade in all kinds of seeds are undertaken by the private sector and that the Ministry shall divest itself of all seed production and trading enterprises and activities”.4

An important strong arm tactic used by industrialized countries to push for seed privatization across the world is including it in bilateral or regional trade agreements. One could wonder what the right of small farmers to save seeds has to do with free trade, but for the trade negotiators that link is very clear: peasants saving and exchanging seed are competing with the global seed trade. The goal is to ensure that companies like Monsanto or Syngenta can control seed trade in general and maximise profits from their seeds business by preventing farmers from multiplying and saving seeds – a bit like the way Hollywood or Microsoft try to stop people from copying and sharing films or software. So, in all the trade agreements the USA has signed, it has included a paragraph that obliges the other country to join – as a minimum – the 1991 version of the UPOV Convention, which gives corporate plant breeders intellectual property rights over plant varieties.

The European Union is applying exactly the same policy, and Japan is moving in the same direction. If the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) is signed, matters will probably get worse, as leaked documents show that the US is pushing not only for UPOV 91 type of legislation, but also for the patenting of plants and animals.5

Article 15.2. Each Party shall ratify or accede to the following agreements:

e) the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1991) (UPOV Convention); US-Morocco Free Trade Agreement6

By the end of the fourth year after the entry into force of the Agreement, Egypt shall accede the following multilateral conventions on intellectual property rights:... the International Convention for Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) (Geneva Act 1991); European Union – Egypt Association Agreement7

Assessing future scenarios

Although all laws and regulations are officially drafted at the national level, the ones that affect seeds are all in fact very similar to each other – in some cases carbon copies of texts drafted by UPOV bureaucrats or by industry representatives themselves. Therefore, the contents of these laws and the way they are being implemented in countries that have already passed them is a good indication of what will happen in countries that may adopt them in the future.

When trying to understand what the new legislations might mean, it is important to keep in mind that they will be interpreted and enforced with a certain ideology and within a certain political context. In most cases, the authorities implementing seed legislation know little or nothing about seeds, know little or nothing about small farmers and are strongly and undeniably biased in favor of the interests of companies. Experience shows that the effect of these laws gets worse with time, because they are enforced increasingly more strictly or because they are repeatedly revised to become more strict and encompassing. The newer laws show a clear tendency to grant wider privileges to companies and simultaneously apply harsher sanctions and forms of punishment to farmers and consumers. One example of this is the extension of privatization beyond plants, to animals and animal breeds.

a patent shall give the exclusive right to use a selection achievement and this right shall be protected by the State...“Protected selection achievements” means patented plant material and pedigree animal registered in the State register; Law on Selection Achievements, Azerbaijan8

In sum, this means that, when trying to assess what a new draft law or new regulation might mean, the worst-case scenarios are often the most realistic indication of what may happen if the new laws and rules are imposed.

Below we list a series of implications that these combined laws have for farmers and farming, and selected examples of the legal texts from countries that enforce them at the national level.

1. Bans or Restrictions on Using and Exchanging Privatized Seeds.

The 1991 version of the UPOV Convention and the laws drafted in line with it grant companies or institutions property rights over new plant varieties of any plant species (wild, cultivated, medicinal, etc.), and increasingly over fungi, bacteria and algae as well. This means that only the company or institute that is granted property over a variety can produce, reproduce, sell, export or import that variety. If anyone else wants to do that, it requires a permit from the company and to fulfill the conditions that the company determines, such as paying a fee and/or royalty for keeping seeds for continued use in later seasons.

Article 15.- Any production or reproduction, conditioning for the purpose of propagation, offering for sale, selling or marketing, importing and exporting, stocking of a variety or protected material shall require the right owner’s authorization. (...) The right owner may authorize the use of his variety subject to certain conditions or limitations. Law on Seed Management and Plant Breeder’s Rights, Cambodia9

The owner of the plant patent may, at his discretion, make any such authorization subject to conditions and limitations.Law on Patents for Plant Varieties of April 13, 1995 . (Latest Edition [Ammendment] from June 14, 2004), Belorus10

“Plant” includes all fungi and algae. Plant Varieties Protection Act 2004, Singapore11

For farmers, it means that

a) They can legally get that seed only if they buy it from a store that has permission to sell it from the company or institute that claims it as property

b) Privatized seeds cannot be exchanged in any manner among peasants, not even as a gift

c) Their right to keep seed for the next season is restricted or banned

In some countries, farmers can reproduce and keep a privatized seed variety for the next season, but only for use on their own farms. This is often restricted to certain crops and farmers are often restricted to saving only the same amount as they originally bought.

Article 12 : The protection conferred by the plant breeder’s right places no limitation on the right of farmers to use the variety freely for the purposes of planting their own field, …Law no. 010-2006/An Regulating Plant Seeds in Burkina Faso.12

Anyone who saves and plants, on his own property, within reasonable limits and subject to the safeguarding of the breeders’ legitimate interests, the product of the harvest that he has obtained from the growing, on his own property, of a protected variety or a variety covered by section 18(c) of this Act does not thereby infringe the breeder’s right. This provision does not apply to fruit, ornamental, and forest species exploited for commercial purposes. Plant Breeders’ Rights Act no. 8631, Costa Rica13

In other countries, farmers can reproduce and keep a privatized seed for the next season if they use it in their own farm, and only if they pay a royalty to the company that claims property

(2) A farmer who [reproduces privatized seed in his/her own farm] ...shall pay an equitable remuneration to the holder of plant breeder’s right, Act on Amendments to the Plant Variety Protection Act of October 21, 2012, Croatia14
In a growing number of countries, no exceptions are granted to farmers, and hence reproducing a privatised seed and keeping it for the next season is banned outright.

The breeder’s rights shall not extend to: acts performed in a particular context for experimental purposes which are not commercial in nature; (...) operations performed in connection with education or scientific research which relate to the creation of new varieties. Law No. 99-42 of May 10, 1999, on Seeds, Seedlings and New Plant Varieties, Tunisia15
[The rights of the breeder] apply also to the production of seeds or propagating material of specific species of a protected variety for the purpose of repeated reproduction (multiplication) for [the farmer’s] own use. Plant Variety Rights Act, Estonia16

Even when farmers and peasants are allowed to reproduce and keep privatised seeds for the next season (with or without a royalty payment), they face an additional burden: they must tell government authorities and sometimes seed companies where they will sow the seed they kept and how much seed they will use, and they must accept inspections by public or private agents.

A farmer is in obligation to give, upon request, the authority and the plant breeder’s right holder the necessary information for establishing the payment obligation. Plant Breeder’s Right Act (1279/2009), Finland17

(13) Growers and seed processors are obliged, upon request, to provide to the holder, information in writing about their name, surname, permanent residence address and identification number (…) (15) Growers are obliged, upon request, to provide to the holder, information in writing about the scope of use of farm saved seed. ACT of 25 October 2000 on the protection of plant variety rights and the amendment to Act No. 92/1996 Coll., on plant varieties, seed and planting material of cultivated plants, as last amended, Czech Republic18

2. Privatizing Farmers Seeds

It could be argued that as long as farmers keep their own seeds and avoid using privatised seeds, they don’t need to worry. But things do not work that way.

UPOV 91 and patent laws allow the privatization of farmers’ and peasants’ seeds through two mechanisms:

a) Companies and breeding institutes can take seeds from farmers’ fields, reproduce them, do some selection to homogenize them, and then privatise them as a variety they have “discovered”.

“Breeder” means a physical or legal person, or any employee who has bred, discovered and developed a new plant variety. The Law No. 8880 Dated April 15, 2002, of The Republic of Albania on Plant Breeder’s Right, Albania19

b) To make matters worse, a second provision of UPOV 91 allows breeders to extend rights over a specific variety to any other varieties that are similar to the one they have privatised.

Art. 37. — The rights granted ...cover: a) the protected plant variety (...) b) all varieties that cannot be clearly differentiated from the protected variety... Law of Algeria n° 05-03 of 27 Dhou El Hidja 1425 or 6 February 2005 relative to seeds, plants and the protection of plant varieties, Algeria20

Using these two provisions, a seed company can take farmers’ seeds from the field, privatise them, and then claim property over all similar varieties. Farmers will then find out that they cannot use their own seed, unless they buy them or pay a royalty to the company that claims the variety as its property.

Advocates of the privatization of seeds have argued that a scenario where farmers find their own seeds have been privatized cannot happen, because no property rights can be granted over anything which is not “new” and “distinct”, that is, over anything that existed before a property right was claimed. What these laws actually say is that a seed cannot be privatized if it is “previously known”, a “matter of common knowledge” or has not been “sold by or with the consent of the breeder”. So if the company claiming rights over a seed variety has not previously sold this seed – even if the variety has been circulating in farmers’ markets for years – it is still considered “new” and can be privatized. Also “previously known” and “common knowledge” refer not to what common people or peasants know, but to what is known to the seed industry, seed institutes and intellectual property officers. Therefore, something that is well known by farmers or peasants but not acknowledged as existing by industry or the authorities can be privatised too.

A variety shall be deemed to be new if... it has not been sold or otherwise marketed, by or with the consent of the breeder... Law on seed management and plant breeder’s rights, Cambodia21

A plant variety or animal breed shall be deemed to be new if, ..the seeds or breeding material of the given selection achievement has not been sold or otherwise disposed of to others, by or with the consent of the breeder or his successor in title, for purposes of exploitation of the selection achievement Law on the Protection of Selection Achievements, Russian Federation22

A variety shall be considered to be distinct if it is clearly distinguishable from any other variety whose existence is a matter of common knowledge at the time of filing of the application. Law on Patents for Plant Varieties of April 13, 1995 . (Latest Edition [Ammendment] from June 14, 2004), Belorus23

The following varieties shall be deemed to be of matter of common knowledge: a) protected in the Czech Republic or abroad, b) entered in the official plant variety register in the Czech Republic or a similar register abroad, c) in respect of which an application for grant of plant variety rights or for entry in the plant variety register has been filed in the Czech Republic provided the application will led to the granting or entering, d) in respect of which an application for grant of plant variety rights or for entry in the plant variety register has been filed abroad, provided the application will led to the grant or entry, or e) offered for sale or sold in the Czech Republic or abroad ACT of 25 October 2000 on the protection of plant variety rights and the amendment to Act No. 92/1996 Coll., on plant varieties, seed and planting material of cultivated plants, as last amended, Czech Republic24


3. Limits or Bans on Keeping, Exchanging and Selling Seeds

UPOV-style legislation to privatize seeds is often complemented by other rules and laws, such as marketing and certification laws. Taken together, they can

a) Force peasants and farmers to keep seeds packaged and labelled, even their own seeds, and ban the marketing, exchange and transportation of unpackaged seeds. If the new regulations were strictly applied, walking around with a handful of seeds in your pocket would become a legally punishable offense in some countries.

Obligations: Natural or legal persons [who produce seeds] shall: (…) Market and/or transfer free of charge [only] seeds meeting the established requirements concerning signage, tagging, and labelling; (...) Market or transfer free of charge seeds with authorized labeling, tagging, packaging, repackaging, and/or containers (...) In those cases where it is found that any act of production, … storage, marketing, transfer without charge, and/or use is being performed with seeds, whether identified or not, … for the purposes of their disposal in any manner or form, in warehouses or storehouses, on lots or premises, in barns, fields, or mills, or at other sites where there are seeds and/or other plant materials that do not meet the provisions of this Decision, … the applicable control measures and sanctions may be imposed without entitlement to any compensation. Decision 970 of the Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA), Colombia25

b) ban the marketing of seeds that are not certified or deemed homogeneous enough, which is in fact a way of banning farmers’ or peasants’ seeds, as they often do not meet such requirements.

Article 7. The following cases will be considered as violations and infringements of the Act and the violators will be treated in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations (...) v) Production and propagation of seeds and seedlings to be supplied to the market without obtaining of the certificate from the Institute Act of Plant Varieties Registration, Control and Certification of Seeds and Seedlings, Islamic Republic of Iran26

Only varieties that have been approved for release and notified and included in the variety list may be sold.... A variety may be recognized [and included in the variety list] if (...) (b) it is sufficiently homogeneous having regard to the particular features of the reproduction or vegetative propagation thereof; Seed Act (Act No.9 of 1996), Malawi27

c) ban the marketing, gift or exchange of varieties that are not registered. A variety can be registered only after fulfilling a set of requirements, such as having a detailed and cumbersome but useless description.

An official list of varieties shall be established to register varieties that can be marketed in the country and in the region following the regional variety release system. The landraces and local varieties will also be registered with special provisions. Model Seed Act For Southern Africa Countries. Southern African Seed Systems Development Initiative. USAID/RCSA28

Art. 17. — …. only those varieties registered and listed as such in the official catalogue of varieties, subject to the modalities and conditions prescribed by this act, are authorized to be produced, multiplied, imported, exported, distributed, or marketed. Law no. 05-03 of 27 Dhu al-Hijjah 1425 corresponding to 6 February 2005 in respect of seeds, plants, and plant breeders’ rights, Algeria29

9. Only seeds and seedlings of the plant varieties entered in the official register in one of the categories referred to in Article 3 of this Law may be marketed. Law No. 99-42 of May 10, 1999, on Seeds, Seedlings and New Plant Varieties, Tunisia30

Only varieties that have been approved and notified and included in the variety list may be sold.(...) “sell” includes to exchange or barter Seed Act (Act N°9 of 1996), Malawi31

In the case of agricultural species, only propagating material of registered varieties shall be put on the market, further commercialized and exported. Seeds and Planting Material Act. Consolidated Text of the Act of October 6, 1966, as Last Amended by the Act of January 28, 1999, The Netherlands32

d) ban farmers and peasants from producing or exchanging seeds unless they are registered seed producers. To become a registered seed producer, a farmer must get permission from the government to produce seeds, after informing the authorities exactly where he/she will produce seeds and fulfilling a set of requirements including having costly infrastructure and hired technical staff. A monthly or annual allowance to stay registered is often required as well,

Article 7: Any physical or legal person who engages in an activity with seeds shall keep a record of transactions by species, variety, and category under the conditions defined by regulation. Law no. 2001/014 of 23 July 2001 in respect of seed-related activities, Cameroon.33

Article 16 : Any physical or legal person may freely produce or multiply seeds if he is registered with the competent bodies (...) The conditions of registration shall be determined by a decision of the ministers responsible for agriculture and forests. Law no. 010-2006/An Regulating Plant Seeds in Burkina Faso.34

(1) A person desiring to practice seed business shall be equipped with facilities prescribed by a Presidential Decree and register his business with the Mayor or Provincial Governor. (2) Any person desiring to practice seed business in accordance with Paragraph (1) shall have one (1) or more seed managers; Seed Industry Law, Korea35

SEED PRODUCER: The natural or legal person duly registered to engage directly or indirectly in, or to take responsibility for someone else’s involvement in, the multiplication, drying and packing, storage, distribution, and marketing of seeds and nursery plants for planting. (...) Section 28.- The requirements for becoming a seed and nursery plant producer are as follows: 1) Possess the basic knowledge of the practices essential to the process of seed and nursery plant production or have technical personnel with knowledge of the activity to be carried out. 2) Possess the agricultural machinery or implements necessary for the activity involving the production of seeds and nursery plants. 3) Possess the financial resources necessary for the performance of the various field and post-harvest management activities Seed Production and Trade Act and Regulation, Nicaragua36

The transfer of seeds in any manner [e.g., exchange], for the purposes of trade, planting, or propagation by third parties thereof, may only be carried out by a person listed in the National Seed Trade and Supervision Registry. Draft Seed and Plant Variety Act (presented by the govern­ment of Argentina in 2012 and later withdrawn due to widespread resistance)37
e) ban the production of seeds outside registered fields. Those that produce seeds have to tell government authorities exactly where they will produce them,
[Farmers must] register their fields....indicating the plant material to be sown, number of hectares to be sown, placement and area of the farm, sowing date, seed category....Resolution 970, Colombia38
f) ban the exchange of seeds between farmers and/or peasants, even if they exchange their own seeds. This is done with the excuse that exchanging seed is a way of selling, and therefore falls within the scope of marketing and seed privatization laws

sell includes letting on hire and exchanging by way of barter. Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994, Australia39

The word “sale” includes “gift” Seed Act (Act N°9 of 1996), Malawi40

“sell” means to offer, advertise, keep, expose, transmit, convey, deliver or prepare for sale or exchange or dispose of for any consideration or transmit. Convey or deliver in pursuance of the sale, exchange or barter... Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (Plant Breeders’ Rights) in the Southern African Development Community Region (draft)41

Together, these regulations can make it increasingly difficult or outright illegal for farmers and peasants to use their own seeds. They may find themselves forced to use privatized commercial seeds.


4. Fines and Jail Terms Over Seed Saving and Exchange

Along with mandating the privatization of seeds, UPOV 91 and trade agreements require that countries “provide for appropriate legal remedies for the effective enforcement of breeders’ rights”; in other words, countries must put in place a set of sanctions for any possible infringement. Where UPOV 91 laws and the like are already in place, if farmers infringe these new regulations, even by keeping on doing what they and their communities have been doing for generations, the sanctions are harsh and getting harsher.

a) fines can be imposed for a long list of actions that will be treated as offenses, from reproducing a privatized seed and keeping it for the next season, to keeping your own seed unlabelled or unpackaged. The severity of the fines changes from country to country, but in general terms they are significant, they double in case of a second offense, and the person fined can go to jail if the fine is not paid. In a growing number of countries, the punishment includes jail and / or a fine. Jail terms can range from months to ten years,

Anyone who produces, multiplies, imports, fraudulently exports, distributes, or markets seeds or plants not registered or listed in the official catalogue is punishable by a prison term of two (2) months to six (6) months and to a fine of one million (1 000 000) to one million five hundred thousand (1 500 000) dinars [USD $10000–15000]. The seeds and/or plants concerned by the offense shall be destroyed. The penalty is doubled in the case of a repeat offense. Law no. 05-03 of 27 Dhu al-Hijjah 1425 corresponding to 6 February 2005 in respect of seeds, plants, and plant breeders’ rights, Algeria42

48.—(1) Any person who willfully offers for sale or markets propagating material of a variety protected in Barbados in contravention of this Act, is guilty of an offense, and liable on summary conviction to a fine of $20 000 [10000 USD], or imprisonment for 3 years, or to both. Protection of New Plant Varieties Act, 2001—17, Barbados.43

Any individual who knowingly commits an act which constitutes an infringement of plant breeder’s right, ... shall be guilty of an offense punishable by a fine of between 5 million Riels and 20 million Riels [1250 – 5000 USD], or by a period of imprisonment of one to five years, or by both a fine and a period of imprisonment. Re-offenders shall have their previous sentences doubled. Law on Seed Management and Plant Breeder’s Right, Cambodia44

Any person who has infringed a breeder’s right or an exclusive exploitation right shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than 10,000,000 yen, or combination thereof. The Plant Variety Protection and Seed Act (Act No. 83 of May 29, 1998) as amended by Act No. 49/2007, Japan45

b) If a farmer uses privatised seeds without the permission of the owner of that variety (for example, if he or she got the seed from a neighbor, or bought seed one year and then kept part of the harvest to use the next season), their crop can be seized and destroyed, as well as their harvest and the products obtained from their harvest. This kind of sanction can be imposed even before the farmer accused is actually declared guilty, as was the case in Colombia, where tons of farmers’ seeds have been confiscated and destroyed based on suspicion of infringement.46

2) The holder of a breeder’s right or the holder of an exclusive exploitation right, ...may demand the destruction of the propagating material, the harvested material or the processed products which is a component of the act of infringe­ment, or the objects used in the commission of the act of infringement, or other measures necessary for the prevention of such infringement. The Plant Variety Protection And Seed Act (Act No. 83 of May 29, 1998) as amended by Act No. 49/2007, Japan47

c) Tools and machinery used to manage the crops or the seeds can be seized as well.

In the case of illegal reproduction of the variety, in addition to the fine and prison sentence, the propagating materials obtained, and the materials and equipment used in the process of propagating the variety illegally, shall be confiscated. Law on Protection of Breeder’s Rights for Varieties of Plants, Dominican Republic48

d) Some of the latest draft laws – clearly under the pressure of industry – have included provisions that would allow someone to be banned from farming if these laws are infringed.

There shall be created, under the jurisdiction of the National Institute of Seeds: (…) b) The “National Registry of Seed Users,” in which any physical or legal person who uses seeds shall be registered (...) Section 44. — Where the offences defined in section 45 are committed, the National Institute of Seeds shall sanction the perpetrators with (...) e) temporary or permanent suspension from the relevant registry; f) temporary or permanent disqualification. (...) Section 45. — The National Institute of Seeds shall, as prescribed in section 44, sanction anyone who: a) infringes the provisions of sections 9 [inadequate signage associated with seeds exhibited, sold, or exchanged],18 last paragraph [distributing an unregistered variety] or 29 [giving privatized seed in any manner]; (...) i) fails to register in the National Registry of Seed Users as prescribed by regulation. Draft Seed and Plant Variety Act (presented by the government of Argentina in 2012 and later withdrawn due to widespread resistance)49

5. Guilty by Suspicion

If sanctions are harsh, the legal procedures imposed by the new regulations are a giant step backwards in the evolution of human and social rights. The UPOV 91 laws, as well as other laws related to seeds or granting property rights over plants, have increasingly imposed what is called a “reversal of the burden of proof”. This means that those who accuse farmers of infringement do not need to present strong proof of such infringement, while farmers must bear an increasing part of the burden of showing that they have not infringed the law. In order to do so, they must keep records of the seeds they use, buy and sell, and must accept inspections of their premises, fields and books when they keep them. This is in direct conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states that everyone must be considered innocent until proven guilty.

For the purposes of claiming the remuneration [for the use of privatized seed] ... any farmer who... may be deemed to have performed an exploitation [of that seed] ... is obliged to deliver ... data to the holder – upon his request...... If the authenticity of the data provided is disputed, the burden of proof shall be on the farmer. Act XXXIII of 1995 on the Protection of Inventions by Patents, as last amended by Act XXVII of 2009. Part V. Protection of Plant Varieties, Hungary50

Using this logic, the new legislations sanction or punish farmers and peasants before they are proven guilty or before they are even informed they have been accused. For example:

a) Peasants’ houses and other buildings and vehicles in a farm can be searched without a court order, based on suspicion

An Inspector may, a) At any reasonable time, enter any place, premises or vehicles or receptacle where he/she believes there is any seed to which this Act applies, packaged or not, take samples for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions and regulations of this Act, are being complied with.(...) g) enter any public or private premises during or after regular business hours without notice of inspection when a suspected violation of this Seed Act and regulations. Model Seed Act For Southern Africa Countries. Southern African Seed Systems Development Initiative. USAID/RCSA51

A seed inspector may, for any of the purposes of this Act and at all reasonable times a) enter upon any land, building, premises or vehicle at or in which there is reasonable cause to believe that any prescribed seed or restricted seed is being stored, sold or transported for sale in contravention of this Act, or is being packaged in packages or other containers which are marked or labeled.... in contravention of this Act.... (...) d) further, may seize and remove therefrom any prescribed seed or restricted seed (...) The word “sale” includes “gift” Seed Act (Act N°9 of 1996), Malawi52

Any authorized officer or police officer not below the rank of Inspector may, for the purpose of enforcing this Act, do all or any of the following: (a) enter, inspect and examine with or without notice any premises or farm at any reasonable hour in relation to any offense reasonably suspected to have been committed under this Act; Protection of New Plant Varieties Act 2004 . Act 634, Malaysia53

b) Searches can be carried out based on accusations that the accused may not have been informed of...

Where a precautionary measure is applied [including confiscation of crops, seeds, and harvest products] without the other party having been given a prior hearing, OFINASE [the National Seeds Office] or the competent judicial authority shall notify the affected party within the three working days following the application of the measure. Plant Breeders’ Rights Act no. 8631, Costa Rica54

B. 1. The breeder of the protected variety, before bringing a claim of infringement, may, with by a bond, request the court to order any of the procedures provided in paragraph (A) of this Article, without notifying the defendant. Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 81. Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law, Iraq55

c) Crops, harvests and products made from the harvested material can be seized or destroyed before a farmer is proven guilty, once again, based on suspicion...

The court may order the confiscation of the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools substantially used in the infringement of the protected variety. (...) The court may also decide to destroy the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools or to dispose of them in any noncommercial purpose.” Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 81. Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law, Iraq56

d) Accused farmers often have a very short time to gather proof of their innocence

Art. 24.- The testing period will be of eight working days. Decree Num. 530, El Salvador57

e) Accused farmers may have the obligation to denounce others that have infringed the law,

The following non exhaustive list of enforcement measures might be considered (...) vi) measures to require an infringer to provide information to the holder of the breeder’s right on third persons involved in the production and distribution of infringing material Explanatory Notes on The Enforcement of Breeders’ Rights Under The UPOV Convention. Adopted by the Council at its forty-third ordinary session on October 22, 2009 58

f) Searches and seizures can be carried out with the support of military force.

Article 67.- The local authorities at all levels, armed forces, customs and excise, airport and port offices, and other relevant authorities shall co-operate in the uncovering, prevention and suppression of seed offenses and in the temporary storage of evidence relating to seed offenses upon request by the Seed Inspector. Law on Seed Management and Plant Breeder’s Right, Cambodia59

g) Private entities or individuals may be granted the power to act as inspectors or certifying authorities, creating de facto private police entities. Seed companies can set up such entities and become inspectors of small seed producers or other competing companies.

The accredited certification system shall allow individuals, third parties, seed laboratories, and/or seed entities to inspect fields, sampling and test seeds, and /or issuance of labels subject to the regulation of this Seed Act. Model Seed Act For Southern Africa Countries. Southern African Seed Systems Development Initiative. USAID/RCSA60

Good for Farmers, Good for Breeders?

UPOV-based legislation and other seed laws are often justified with the argument that they are good for farmers and for plant breeders, as well as for society as a whole. Farmers benefit, the argument goes, because these laws help to create a vibrant and competitive plant-breeding sector that produces high quality seeds that farmers can use. They also benefit because counterfeiting practices are eliminated and the available seeds are free of pests and diseases. Plant breeders benefit because, through clear intellectual property and other rules, they can make a return on their investment. And society as a whole gets new solutions to old problems, accessing new technologies and permitting progress.

None of these arguments hold true. If anything, the global race towards the privatisation of seeds has led to the creation of a monopolistic global seeds industry that increasingly dominates the world seed supply while threatening age-old local farmer seed practices that form the cornerstone for sustainable food production. It is criminalizing farmers in the process.

The good news is that the world is starting to realize what’s happening and what’s at stake. Despite all their power, big companies and powerful governments pushing seed laws are not having an easy time. Popular opposition and resistance has surged around the world, and in many places popular movements have managed to stall and even repeal the new regulations. These struggles now need support and strengthening.




Notes
1 https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5142-seed-laws-that-criminalise-farmers-resistance-and-fightback
2 https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5153-infographic-seed-laws-around-the-world
3 Model Seed Act for Southern Africa Countries. Southern African Seed Systems Development Initiative. USAID/RCSA. http://www.seeds.iastate.edu/images/modelseedact.pdf
4 Seed Law. Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. (Final Draft). http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/af/af006en.pdf
5 For an updated overview, see: “Trade deals criminalise farmers’ seeds”, GRAIN, November 2014, http://www.grain.org/e/5070
6 https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/morocco-fta/final-text
7 http://eeas.europa.eu/egypt/eu-egypt_agreement/index_en.htm
8 http://www.upov.int/export/sites/upov/members/en/npvlaws/azerbaijan/Azerbaijan_Law.pdf
9 http://eapvp.org/library/member/pdf/Khmer_UPOV_Act-Eng-Final.pdf
10 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/by/by008en.pdf
11 http://www.upov.org/upovlex/en/details.jsp?id=5303
12 http://www.farmersrights.org/pdf/Africa/Burkina%20Faso/Burkina%20Faso-seedpvp06.pdf
13 http://www.fao.org/pgrfa-gpa-archive/cri/docs/Ley-8631.pdf
14 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/hr/hr068en.pdf
15 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129811
16 http://www.upov.org/export/sites/upov/en/publications/npvlaws/estonia/Law1998.pdf
17 http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2009/en20091279.pdf
18 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/cz/cz031en.pdf
19 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=209068
20 http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/alg51862.pdf
21 http://eapvp.org/library/member/pdf/Khmer_UPOV_Act-Eng-Final.pdf
22 http://www.upov.org/upovlex/en/profile.jsp?code=RU
23 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/by/by008en.pdf
24 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/cz/cz031en.pdf
25 http://www.ica.gov.co/getattachment/03750a73-db84-4f33-9568-6e0bad0a507d/200R970.aspx
26 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=197793
27 http://www.malawilii.org/files/mw/legislation/act/1996/9/sa200550_pdf_52782.pdf
28 http://www.seeds.iastate.edu/images/modelseedact.pdf
29 http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/alg51862.pdf
30 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129811
31 http://www.malawilii.org/files/mw/legislation/act/1996/9/sa200550_pdf_52782.pdf
32 http://www.upov.org/export/sites/upov/en/publications/npvlaws/netherlands/netherlands99.pdf
33 http://www.spm.gov.cm/fr/documentation/textes-legislatifs-et-reglementaires/article/loi-n-2001014-du-23-juillet-2001-relative-a-lactivite-semenciere.html
34 http://www.farmersrights.org/pdf/Africa/Burkina%20Faso/Burkina%20Faso-seedpvp06.pdf
35 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/kr/kr068en.pdf
36 http://intapapssan.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ley280reglamento-ProduccionComercioSemilla.pdf
37 www.casem.com.ar/proyecto_ley_%20de_%20semillas.doc
38 http://www.ica.gov.co/getattachment/03750a73-db84-4f33-9568-6e0bad0a507d/200R970.aspx
39 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pbra1994222/
40 http://www.malawilii.org/files/mw/legislation/act/1996/9/sa200550_pdf_52782.pdf
41 http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SADC-Draft-PVP-Protocol-April-2013.pdf
42 http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/alg51862.pdf
43 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=325
44 http://eapvp.org/library/member/pdf/Khmer_UPOV_Act-Eng-Final.pdf
45 http://www.upov.org/export/sites/upov/en/publications/npvlaws/japan/japan_act_49_2007.pdf
46 A documentary on this case can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZWAqS-El_g
47 http://www.upov.org/export/sites/upov/en/publications/npvlaws/japan/japan_act_49_2007.pdf
48 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/do/do014en.pdf
49 www.casem.com.ar/proyecto_ley_%20de_%20semillas.doc
50 http://www.upov.org/export/sites/upov/en/publications/npvlaws/hungary/pages_from_gazette_103_hu.pdf
51 http://www.seeds.iastate.edu/images/modelseedact.pdf
52 http://www.malawilii.org/files/mw/legislation/act/1996/9/sa200550_pdf_52782.pdf
53 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=128880
54 http://www.fao.org/pgrfa-gpa-archive/cri/docs/Ley-8631.pdf
55 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=229977
56 Ibid
57 http://www.asamblea.gob.sv/eparlamento/indice-legislativo/buscador-de-documentos-legislativos/ley-de-semillas
58 http://www.upov.int/export/sites/upov/en/publications/pdf/upov_exn_enf_1.pdf
59 http://eapvp.org/library/member/pdf/Khmer__Act-Eng-Final.pdf
60 http://www.seeds.iastate.edu/images/modelseedact.pdf










Canadian Agri-Business Firm That's Financed by US Corporations Is Land Grabbing in the Republic of Congo

Children at the Lokutu landing on the Congo River. (Photo: GRAIN)
Children at the Lokutu landing on the Congo River. (Photo: GRAIN)

The young priest Robert Bolenge* could not have imagined the poverty he would find when he arrived at his new post in Yaligimba in 2002. The district lies at the heart of vast oil palm plantations belonging to Feronia Inc., in the northeast of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

_______
"I had never witnessed such suffering before," says Bolenge. "I couldn't have imagined that someone could work so hard with a basket tied to his back, cutting down palm bunches all day, and only take home about $20 a month."


By GRAIN
Under Belgian colonial occupation (1908-1960), land was stolen from communities all along the length of the Congo River to establish oil palm plantations. Now, the communities have launched a determined effort to get their land back. But the company occupying their lands today is expanding its activities with funding from the world's biggest development finance institutions and multilateral banks – despite these agencies' stated commitments to support the rights of local people.

A simmering, 100-year old land conflict in the war-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is about to boil over.

In the name of "development"

Development finance institutions (DFIs) were created by northern governments to provide financing for high risk projects in so-called developing countries. Their role is to provide public money for private ventures that would otherwise struggle to raise capital for projects where the anticipated returns in terms of poverty alleviation are high.

Today these government-controlled institutions provide upwards of $100 billion to private companies operating in developing countries, which is equivalent to almost two thirds of official development assistance.1 A growing share of these funds are targeted at companies operating in the food and agriculture sector.2

Northern governments equipped their DFIs with codes and standards to guard against corruption and human rights violations in countries where they operate. These policies are meant to prevent DFIs from investing in companies that grab land, violate labour rights or engage in corrupt practices.

So how did several of the world's most prominent DFIs come to own Feronia Inc., a Canadian agribusiness company that people in the DRC say is illegally occupying their land, subjecting them to horrific work in plantations and leaving their communities destitute? There is also evidence that Feronia has engaged in financial practices that violate the anti-corruption policies of its DFI owners.

If the DFIs have a blacklist, Feronia should be on it. Instead, multilateral banks and the development finance arms of the United States, UK, France and Spain have poured millions of dollars into Feronia since 2012. DFIs now own over 70 percent of the company.

Seed Laws Are Criminalizing Farmers for Saving and Using Their Own Seeds or Seeds They Buy

Seeds are under attack everywhere. Under corporate pressure, laws in many countries increasingly put limitations on what farmers can do with their seeds and with the seeds they buy. Seed saving, a thousand-year-old practice which forms the basis of farming, is fast becoming criminalised. What can we do about this?


See and Download Full-sized PDF Below. 
La Via Campesina
DEFEND FARMERS’ OWN SEED SYSTEMS
Farmers’ fields are the first line of defense against bad seed laws. This means organising to rescue, collect, maintain, develop, share and use local farmers seeds. It is very important that women and young people are all involved. You can start a project with neighbours or local associations, talk to market or street vendors, get schools or you work place involved, etc. Seed fairs and visits to farms and gardens are an important part of this work.

STOP “MONSANTO LAWS”

Law proposals criminalising farmers are easier to fight against before they become written into law. If public opinion is against them, they become more costly for governments to push through. Organise street protests, make videos, talk to the media, organise direct actions...

JOIN FORCES WITH OTHER FARMERS

In many other countries, farmers are fighting very similar laws. Learning from them and their experiences, good and bad, can be very helpful. Even if we have different strategies, we can build common fronts against the seed industry and the governments acting in their interest.

BUILD ALLIANCES WITH OTHER MOVEMENTS

Broad alliances can be built when people understand that seeds affect everyone’s well-being, not only farmers. The struggle for seeds can be integrated into farmers’ wider struggles, since there is no food sovereignty without seed sovereignty. Seed struggles can also be important parts of larger fights, such as campaigns and actions against free trade agreements, austerity measures, new patent or internet regimes, climate change, land laws, etc.

UNDO THE PROPAGANDA

Seed companies and governments present seed laws as protecting consumers, ensuring quality seeds, raising yields and feeding the hungry. We need to debunk these myths and show that the agriculture they are promoting is toxic and generates hunger. These laws are only meant to extract wealth.

TRY TO GET POSITIVE LAWS

In some cases, it may be possible to obtain favorable laws, programmes or tools that protect farmers’ seed systems. Think of GM-free zones, laws rejecting patents on life or programmes that promote local varieties and farmers seeds. In other cases, such laws or legal efforts may exclude people, divide communities, entangle farmers in legal bureaucracies, create contradictions or be a waste of time.






Reprinted with permission from Grain.

Corporate Land Grabbers In Northern Mozambique Are Kicking African Farmers Off of Their Lands

A new survey by Mozambique's National Farmers' Union (UNAC) and GRAIN shows there is a colonial-style scramble for Africa's farm lands under way. Politically-connected companies based in offshore tax havens have grabbed hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland from peasants in Mozambique.
(Download an Excel spreadsheet.)

AgroMoz has evicted more than a thousand peasants at Wakhua, in Gurué district. (Photo: Erico Waga for GRAIN)
AgroMoz has evicted more than a thousand peasants at Wakhua, in Gurué district. (Photo: Erico Waga for GRAIN)

By Grain
Peasants in northern Mozambique are struggling to keep their lands, as governments and foreign companies move aggressively to set up large-scale agribusiness projects. They are being told that these projects will bring them benefits. But, so far, the country's experience with foreign investment in agriculture has been disastrous.
This report looks at the companies already setting up agribusiness operations in the Nacala Corridor, an area that the government has prioritised for agribusiness development. These companies, typically structured through offshore tax havens and often connected to Mozambican political elites, have been grabbing lands and extracting wealth in ways reminiscent of the country's colonial days.

From liberation to land grabs

Mozambique declared independence on June 25, 1975 after a decade of armed struggle. The peasants, workers, and students of Mozambique had defeated the Portuguese empire, guided by a common ideal of "freedom of man and earth".

The ideals of the national liberation struggle are enshrined in the Republic's first constitution, which recognises the right of the Mozambican people to resist all forms of oppression. These ideals also resonate in the first national anthem of the Republic of Mozambique, promising to turn the country into the grave of imperialism and exploitation.

Land was particularly important to the country's liberation struggle. Portuguese settlers had occupied vast tracts of the country's most fertile lands. When Mozambique achieved independence, these lands were immediately taken back and nationalised. Under the 1975 constitution, the state – on behalf of the Mozambican people – became the owner of all lands in the country. The constitution also recognised agriculture as the foundation of development with industry as its main engine, to be underpinned by a policy of national industrialisation led by state companies and cooperatives.

One year after independence, a brutal civil war broke out which ended only with the founding of a second republic in 1992 in the wake of the Rome General Peace Accords, signed between the government and RENAMO. Then followed two decades of structural adjustment policies imposed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Today, 40 years after independence, the revolutionary vision of the national liberation movement is in tatters and the Mozambican government is thoroughly dominated by a neoliberal ideology that relies narrowly on foreign investment for the development of all economic sectors, whether agriculture, infrastructure, fishing, tourism, resource extraction, health or education.

Foreign investment in the country has thus expanded rapidly in recent years. According to the National Bank of Mozambique, the net inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2013 amounted to $ 5.9 billion, up 15.8% from 2012, making Mozambique the third largest destination for FDI in Africa.1 Much of this capital has gone into resource extraction, such as mining and exploration of hydrocarbons. But agriculture is also emerging as an important target of foreign companies, especially in the Nacala Corridor, a vast stretch of fertile lands across northern Mozambique where millions of peasant families live and farm.

Over and above this, these investments are the result of a very strong alliance between international capital through the big multinational corporations, with the support of the governments in their home countries with the local political-economic elite with the intention of exploiting the country’s main agro-ecological regions and the potential in mining and hydrocarbons. It is within this context that this research analyses the movements of the different players in the occupation and appropriation of the Nacala Corridor, one of the country’s richest regions, which, besides being home to the country’s main ecosystems, is the repository of reserves of a number of minerals.

A new era of plantations in northern Mozambique

The rising foreign interest in farmland is not unique to Mozambique. The entire African continent has been seized by a scramble for farmland. Since 2008, foreign companies have been scouring Africa in search of fertile lands to produce agricultural commodities for export. Hundreds of deals have already been signed covering millions of hectares.

(Photo: Erico Waga for GRAIN)
(Photo: Erico Waga for GRAIN)

The rush for African farmland is partly a result of the food price crisis of 2008, which made it difficult for countries dependent on food imports to source the foods they need at affordable prices. In response, some of the richer food importing countries, like the Gulf states, China and Japan, adopted new policies to encourage their corporations to acquire large farms overseas to produce foods for export back to their home countries. Africa is seen as one of the new frontiers where agricultural commodities can be produced cheaply and exported to supply the world's growing demand.

2008 was also the year of a severe global financial crisis. As stock markets collapsed, the financial industry began to look for new, more secure and profitable assets where it could place the trillions of dollars it manages. Within a couple of years, hundreds of new financial vehicles were created to funnel money into the acquisition of farmland and agricultural operations.

On top of this, the world's dominant food and agribusiness corporations are increasingly interested in Africa. Markets in the North are saturated, and for companies such as Monsanto, Olam, Yara and Nestlé, Africa is a largely untapped source for new profit. However, Africa’s lands, seeds and food systems remain mainly in the hands of small farmers and pastoralists who feed their families and supply local markets outside of the orbit of corporate global food and agricultural chains. For these companies to grow, peasant agriculture has to be replaced with large scale industrial plantations, and local food systems have to be replaced by transnational corporate food chains, from the seeds to the supermarket shelves.

Slide from a presentation by Mozambique's Ministry of Agriculture  about the ProSavana project at the Triangular Conference of the People, showing how ProSavana seeks to emulate the rapid expansion of soybean plantations that occured in Brazil's Cerrado.
Slide from a presentation by Mozambique's Ministry of Agriculture  about the
ProSavana project at the Triangular Conference of the People, showing how
ProSavana seeks to emulate the rapid expansion of soybean plantations that
occured in Brazil's Cerrado.
The result is that small farmers and pastoralists from across Africa are under increasing pressure from governments and companies to give up their lands and water resources. According to a 2010 World Bank report, more than 70% of the large scale agricultural land acquisitions that have occurred in the world over the past decade have been in sub-Saharan Africa, especially in Ethiopia, Sudan and Mozambique.

The Government of Mozambique has unabashedly sought to attract this wave of foreign agricultural investment to its shores, and particularly to the Nacala Corridor in the north of the country. It is partnering with foreign governments and donors, most notably Japan and Brazil, on a massive programme known as ProSavana, which aims to transform 14 million hectares of lands currently cultivated by peasant farmers serving local markets in this area into massive farming operations run by foreign companies to produce cheap agricultural commodities for export.

______________

More than 60 social movements, environmental, peasant and other civil society organisations from Mozambique, Brazil and Japan took part in the First Triangular Conference of the Peoples held in Maputo, on 7 and 8 August 2013.2. The objective of the Conference was to strengthen the international articulation of strategies to resist the ProSavana programme. Read more about first Triangular Conference here (in Portuguese), and more about the second one here.
______________

Mozambique's National Peasants Union (UNAC) has been leading a campaign to raise awareness about the situation in the Nacala Corridor and to oppose ProSavana. Strong national and international opposition has helped to slow down the project and derail some of its more aggressive land grabbing components.

This does not mean that the government and foreign companies have given up on taking control of the lands and water resources of the Nacala Corridor for large scale agribusiness. In January 2014, high level government officials and businessmen gathered for the presentation of a new development project in the Lúrio River Basin. The development involves a massive farm project along the Lúrio River, at the intersection of the provinces of Niassa, Nampula and Cabo Delgado.

Slide from a presentation made by the Vale do Rio Luno company in January of 2014  that has not been made publicly available.
Slide from a presentation made by the Vale do Rio Luno company in January
of 2014  that has not been made publicly available.
The $4.2 billion project is being overseen by a company called Companhia de Desenvolvimento do Vale do Rio Lúrio which appears to be run by TurConsult Ltda. TurConsult is owned by Rui Monteiro, an influential businessman in Mozambique's hotel and tourism industry, and Agricane, a South African company that has provided consulting and management services to many large-scale agribusiness projects in Africa, especially in the sugar industry. It is not clear who is providing finance for the project.

The company's plan is to construct two hydroelectric dams of 40 MW and 15 MW on the Lúrio River and to create an irrigation scheme covering 160,000 ha, as well as the development of around another 140,000 ha for rain fed agriculture, contract farming and livestock production. The project will focus on the export production of cotton, maize, cereals, and cattle, as well as sugar cane for biofuel ethanol. Preliminary estimates are that upwards of 500,000 people living in the area will be affected by the project. As with ProSavana, the details of this project are being kept hidden from the public, with only anonymous sources citing that it has already been submitted to the Agriculture Ministry for analysis, with expectation that it will be approved at the Council of Ministers, as required by law for projects of this magnitude.

Slide adapted from a presentation made by Companhia de Desenvolvimento do Vale do Rio Luno in January 2014.
Slide adapted from a presentation made by Companhia de Desenvolvimento
do Vale do Rio Luno in January 2014.
The Lúrio River project and ProSavana should not be seen separately. They are part of a broader push, involving the World Bank and the G8's New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, to open Mozambique up to large scale agribusiness projects.

The G8's New Alliance was proposed by the US government and signed by some 40 states, international financial institutions and multilateral organisations at the 2009 G8 Summit in L'Aquila, Italy.3 Under the New Alliance, a Framework Agreement was signed with Mozambique and translated into a national public policy, the National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNISA), which has become the blueprint for agricultural development in Mozambique.

PNISA was supposed to address the priorities of Mozambicans by putting the country's recently formulated Strategy Plan for the Development of the Agricultural Sector (PEDSA) into practice. But through the New Alliance's Framework Agreement, PNISA has been shaped to mainly address the interests of the major global powers, especially the G8 countries and their respective corporations, under the guise of enhancing Mozambique's "food and nutrition security".4

As part of its Framework Agreement, the Mozambican government has already instituted significant reforms to facilitate foreign investment in agribusiness. These include changes to land laws to provide a more flexible allocation of land titles, known as a "right of use and benefit of land" (DUAT), and changes to its seed and fertiliser laws to harmonise them with the Southern African Development Community (SADC). These reforms are important in opening the door to mega agribusiness projects in the Nacala Corridor.5

Another important project encouraging the scramble for lands in the area is the Strategic Plan for the Nacala Corridor. This plan pulls together various major investments in infrastructure, resource extraction, mining and transportation. The map below illustrates the web of investments in mining, agribusiness and transportation in the Nacala Corridor and how these are being connected to other regional transportation corridors through the refurbishment of a 912 km railway line connecting the coal town of Moatiza with the Port of Nacala. The Strategic Plan is funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) – the Japanese company Mitsui is a major investor in the Moatiza coal mine, the railway and the port of Nacala, as well as being a potential investor in agricultural production in the area.6

Image from PEDEC (Project for Economic Development Strategies for the
Nacala Corridor) 2014.
The governments, companies and agencies promoting ProSavana and the other projects in the Nacala Corridor maintain that local farmers will benefit from in the new investment, infrastructure and access to markets. They also say that peasants will not be displaced from their lands to make way for corporate farms.

Yet it is apparent that these projects are already encouraging land grabs in the Nacala Corridor. A number of foreign companies, some in collaboration with local businesses linked to members of Mozambique's ruling FRELIMO party, have already acquired large areas of farmland in the area and have displaced thousands of peasant families.

The money that is now pouring into agribusiness in the Nacala Corridor is essentially recreating what the local people experienced under Portuguese colonialism. During the colonial period, the administration generously handed out the most fertile lands in the area to Portuguese investors. At times the Mozambicans farming the lands were given small amounts in compensation, but most often they were simply evicted. With independence in 1975, the Portuguese investors fled and the local people returned to their lands to resume farming. In some cases, state companies took over the colonial plantations, but few of these companies were able to maintain production, and communities later reclaimed much of this land as well.

Mozambique's land law gives communities possession over lands that they have farmed for over 10 years. So these former colonial estates should now have formally reverted to local farmers. But as the area has once again become a target for foreign investment in agriculture, the Mozambican government is colluding with foreign investors to provide them with long term leases over these same lands. The colonial echo is strengthened by the fact that some of the investors are Portuguese families that became rich during the colonial period and are now coming back to Mozambique to set up plantations on the very same lands Portuguese colonialists fled 40 years ago. Few of them have backgrounds in agriculture but many have connections with influential members of the ruling FRELIMO party who help them acquire lands and manage any opposition from local communities.

Often the communities are not even aware of who is grabbing their lands. The companies that take possession of their lands are typically registered in offshore tax havens like Mauritius where the identity of the owners of the companies and the financial records are kept secret. This leaves the Mozambican authorities and affected communities few options to hold these companies to account for their actions or ensure that a minimum amount of their profits stays within the country.

This report, based on available articles, official documents, interviews and field reports, provides detailed information about cases of land grabbing for agricultural production that are already occurring in the Nacala Corridor. It exposes some of the key players involved and shows how foreign investors and their industrial model of agribusiness are wreaking havoc on the local peasant communities and their food systems. These land grabs provide a clear picture of the kind of "investment" Mozambican peasants can expect from ProSavana, the Vale do Rio Lurio project and other initiatives to encourage foreign investment in agribusiness in the country.

Portuguese colonialism is back

Mozaco and the Grupo Espirito Santo

The Mozambique Agricultural Corporation (Mozaco) was established in Mozambique in June 2013 by Rioforte Investments and João Ferreira dos Santos (JFS Holding).

Mozaco says it acquired a DUAT for 2,389 ha near the village of Natuto in the Malema District of Nampula Province in June 2013, where it plans to cultivate soybeans and cotton. The company says its "objective is to expand it up to 20,000 hectares." It also intends to pursue contract production with 116-170 local farmers on 83 ha, building on a programme developed with the US NGO Technoserve.7

Abandoned house belonging to a family resettled by Mozaco.
(Photo: Enco Waga for GRAIN)
The area occupied by Mozaco in Natuto community, Administrative Post Canhunha, Malema District, is an area that in colonial times was occupied by a settler called Morgado, who produced tobacco and cotton on around 1,000 ha. After independence, the government nationalised the lands and installed a state company known as Unidade de Namele, which also operated farms in Ribaué and Laulaua Districts. At its height, the state farm employed 5,000 workers but, by 1989, with the civil war intensifying, it was shut down.

"When the company was closed, workers were owed several years of back wages," says a 48 year old father of seven from Natuto who worked at the Unidade de Namele farm. "But, as it was impossible to complain because of the level of government repression at the time, many of us just ended up taking small parcels of land from the state farm of between 1-5 hectares, which we cultivate to this day. The company João Fereira dos Santos cultivated a few hectares of Virginia tobacco in the early 1990s, but it abandoned these operations years ago."8

Under Mozambican land legislation, families who have occupied and farmed lands for more than a decade, such as those farming the lands of the old Unidade de Namele farm, are supposed to be granted DUATs that prohibit any company or state agency from displacing them from the lands unless it is clearly in the public interest, such as for the construction of hospitals, schools or highways.

However, local farmer leaders say that Mozaco has already evicted 1,500 farmers to make way for their operations. The organisation ADECRU calculates that several thousand more will lose their lands if the company is allowed to expand to 20,000 ha.9 And access to land is only part of what's at stake for the communities: Mozaco no doubt chose the area because it is situated between two important rivers, the Malema and the Nataleia, where 4,500 families live and farm. These families now risk losing access to their lands and the water they need to farm and survive.

During the 2012-3 season, Mozaco cultivated soybeans on around 200 ha. In its second season, the company expanded to 400 ha. Ten families lost their homes in the process, and were paid compensation ranging from 3,000 Mt ($90) to 10,000 Mt S$300). The local church of Santa Lucia was also destroyed and 1,500 farmers had their access to lands in the area taken away, without any compensation and in complete violation of the land law.10

JFS Holding is 100% owned by the Ferreira dos Santos family of Portugal. They have a long history of involvement in agriculture in Mozambique and JFS is today the largest cotton company in the country. The majority owner of Mozaco, however, is Rioforte Investments, with 60% of the company's shares.11

Rioforte is a Luxembourg-headquartered company that was set up in 2009 to hold the non-financial assets of Grupo Espirito Santo – a Portuguese financial dynasty with deep political connections that is currently embroiled in perhaps the worst economic scandal to ever hit Portugal.

In May 2014, the Banco de Portugal issued an audit questioning the financial stability and transparency of Grupo Espirito Santo's main company, the Banco Espirito Santo. This was followed in August, by a controversial €4.5 billion rescue of Banco Espirito Santo, with backing from the EU.

As part of the rescue package, Banco Espirito Santo was divided into two banks: one composed of the "good assets" and one composed of the "toxic assets". These toxic assets consisted mainly of the bank's investments in the largely unregulated and unaudited companies of the Grupo Espirito Santo.

Investigators in at least six countries – Portugal, Switzerland, Venezuela, Panama, Luxembourg and Angola – are reported to be poring over bank documents, transfers and deals, trying to determine what tricks the Grupo Espirito Santo may have used to keep itself afloat.12

It appears that Rioforte's assets, including its farms, were dumped in the "toxic" pile. Beyond its Mozaco farming operation in Mozambique, Rioforte owns three soybean and cattle farms in Paraguay covering 135,000 ha through its subsidiary Paraguay Agricultural Corporation (Payco), and three eucalyptus and food crop farms in Brazil covering 32,000 ha through two other subsidiaries.13

It is not clear what will now happen with Mozaco and Rioforte's other farms. In July 2014, Rioforte Investments, with nearly 3 billion euros in debts, requested protection from its creditors in a Luxembourg court – a request that was granted. But in October 2014, the Commercial Court of Luxembourg reversed its decision and ruled that the BES Group subsidiary was to be liquidated and the resulting funds used to pay off its creditors. Grupo Espírito Santo's efforts to appeal the decision were denied.

Banco Espirito Santo also owns 49% of Moza Banco, the fourth largest private bank in Mozambique. It is not yet clear what the collapse of the Espirito Santo empire will mean for this bank, which is 51% owned by a consortium of Mozambican investors, led by the former governor of the Bank of Mozambique Prakash Ratilal and in which former President Guebuza is said to have shares.14

Agro Alfa SARL

Carlos Simbine
Agro Alfa SARL is a Portuguese owned agricultural machinery company that was nationalised after independence in 1975. It was privatised in 1996 and, with government support, became actively involved in producing industrial components for the Mozal aluminum project, led by BHP, Mitsubishi and South Africa's IDC. As a result, the company's revenues soared by 6 times between 2000 and 2011. Mozal presently accounts for around half of all the company's sales. Another 40% of its revenue comes from contracts with the Ministry of Education.15

Through the privatisation process, Agro Alfa was taken over by the Portuguese businessman José Adelino Nogueira Aires Alves and Jacinto Sabino Mutemba of Mozambique. In 2011, a Chinese company, Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation, and a Cyprus-based company, V&M–Import and Export Agents (Pty) limited, made significant investments in the company's share capital. José Alves and Jacinto Mutemba now own 26.6% of the company each while V&M owns 26.4% and Tianjin Machinery owns 16%.

Agro Alfa has recently begun to pursue the acquisition of farmlands in the District of Monapo in Nampula province. It first set its sights on a 650 ha former colonial estate that had been occupied by farmers from the village of Nacololo after the country's independence in 1975. Under Mozambican land laws, those lands should have reverted to the communities, since they had occupied and farmed them for over 10 years, and some of the local farmers had even obtained DUATs covering part of the farm. In 2013, however, Agro Alfa moved in and evicted the farmers, built a fence around the farm, and started planting soybeans.16

Agro Alfa is also pursuing the acquisition of lands in the nearby community of Vida Nova, also in Monapo District. Here too Agro Alfa has been trying to get rights over two former colonial farms of around 2,000 ha. The local farmers had been evicted from these farms during the colonial administration to make way for concessions to Manuel Logrado and Manuel dos Santos, both of Portugal. With independence in 1975, the lands were reclaimed and farmed once again by the local people of Vida Nova and the other surrounding communities of Micolene, Numacopa, and Napepele.

The local people say that Agro Alfa's claim to the lands is based on an agreement with the chief of a neighbouring village, Merutu, that was signed after a one day meeting he had with the company. They say that this chief has no authority over their ancestral lands and they refuse to recognise the agreement.17

It is not clear if Agro Alfa is acquiring the lands for its own operations or on behalf of other investors, perhaps in partnership. The company is closely connected to at least two other active investment companies in Mozambique: Rural Consult Ltda, which is controlled by Jacinto Mutemba, and Tsemba Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Ltda, which is a partnership between Agro Alfa and influential businessman Carlos António da Conceição Simbine, an important player in the newly established Moza Banco.

Both Rural Consult and Agro Alfa are important shareholders in Banco Unico, alongside Grupo Americo Amorim of Portugal and Intelec of Mozambique (see AgroMoz). And Agro Alfa is said to have high-level connections with the Mozambican political elite, including the son of Armando Guebuza, Mussumbuluko Guebuza.18

One of Agro Alfa's owners, José Alves, recently joined a new company called the Aldira Group that seeks to develop investment partnerships between companies in Mozambique, Chile and Portugal. Tsemba is listed as one of Aldira's associated companies, as is a Portuguese company called Suaves Planos Lda.19

Little is known of Suaves Planos other than that it is managed by Carlos Jorge Martins Pereira, a member of the Portuguese national assembly for the PSD party, and Sérgio Nuno Nogueira Aires Alves, an alderman for the CDS-PP party, former president of the Vilaverdense Football Club and commercial director of Moza Banco in Mozambique.20

AgroMoz

Salmu Abdula, main business partner to former president Guebuza:
AgroMoz is reported to be a joint venture between Portugal's Grupo
Americo Amorim of Portugal and Intelec, which Abdula heads.
The profile of AgroMoz company speaks volumes about the transformation under way in the Nacala Corridor. This company, a partnership involving the richest man in Portugal, the former president of Mozambique and one of the largest land holders in Brazil, has set up operations in the heart of the area's soybean producing zone.

In 2012, AgroMoz representatives arrived at the administrative post of Lioma, hastily arranged for rights to lands with some government authorities and proceeded to evict more than a thousand peasants from Wakhua village from their lands.21

"The process started in 2012 and, at the time, we were told that the AgroMoz project was to deal with an area estimated at only around 200 hectares to begin with a plot to test the productivity of several seed varieties such as soybeans, corn and beans," says Agostinho Mocernea, Secretary of the village of Nakarari. But the company quickly expanded.22

In the 2013/2014 season, AgroMoz cultivated 2,100 ha, planting soybeans on 1,700 ha and rice on the other 400 ha. The company says its intention is to reach 12,000 ha.23

The evicted farmers received minimal compensation, ranging from 2,000 to 6,500 Mt ($65-200). One of the farmers, Fernando Quinakhala, a father of five children, says AgroMoz evicted him from a 3.5 ha plot of land that he and his ancestors farmed. The company determined that he was entitled to 6,500 Mt in compensation, but Quinakhala says the compensation was nowhere near what the land is worth to him and his family. "I didn't take the money because it was quite insignificant," he says.24

According to another farmer from Wakhua, Mariana Narocori, mother of three children, when the procedure for the granting of land began, she was summoned to participate in a meeting advertised by the local leader, where it was announced that the lands would be given to AgroMoz.25

"I was forced to sign a document whose contents I didn't have access to, and I received only 4,500 Mt ($155)," says Narocori. "A week later, a bulldozer arrived and demolished my house and destroyed the crops. I was homeless and had to move to the town of Nakarari where I was assigned a plot of land on which I built my house and farm to survive."26

Her story shows how the displacement of people from Wakhua puts pressure on lands in other areas and creates risks of more land conflicts.

AgroMoz has not fulfilled its promise to the community to construct a clinic and a school. It is, however, already badly affecting the health of the local people. Last season the company commenced aerial spraying of pesticides on its soybean crops.

"In the 2013/2014 agricultural campaign, a group of AgroMoz workers came to tell us that during the spraying, carried out by a small plane, people had to leave their homes as a way to prevent possible harm caused by the chemical," says Mocernea. After a few days, almost all the residents began to suffer from the flu and their crops died.27

Despite the opposition from local people and the destructive impacts that the company has had so far, the Mozambican government granted AgroMoz a DUAT for 9,000 hectares in Lioma. At the time, Armando Guebuza, one of the investors in AgroMoz, was still president of the country.

AgroMoz is reported to be a joint venture between the Grupo Américo Amorim of Portugal, a holding company of Portugal's richest man Américo Amorim, and Intelec, which the US embassy has described as "an investment vehicle for President Guebuza"28 The Pinesso Group of Brazil, which operates farms on over 180,000 ha in Brazil and 22,000 ha in Sudan, handles the agricultural operations, but it is not clear if they also own a share in the company.

Information from company registry documents and employee websites suggests that AgroMoz is in fact part of AGS Moçambique, SA., a Mozambican company owned by two Portuguese subsidiaries of Grupo Amorim (Solfim SGPS and Sotomar - Empreendimentos Industriais e Imobiliários, S.A.) and ESF Participaçoes, a subsidiary of ESF Investimentos, which is owned by Intelec and SF Holdings, both of them headed by Guebuza's main business partner Salimo Abdula.


In the name of God


"When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible." – Jomo Kenyatta

Not even places of worship will be spared: church in Nacarare scheduled for demolition by Agromoz.
(Photo: Erico Waga for GRAIN)

New Horizons

One of the big ideas for the Nacala Corridor is to turn it into a major production zone for poultry. Various companies and donor projects have been trying, in different ways, to stimulate US-style contract poultry farming and the cultivation of crops for feed, particularly soybeans, within the area.

One of the first such projects was led by the Zimbabwean farmer and missionary Andrew Cunningham, who established a hatchery and feed mill called New Horizons Mozambique in 2005, on 300 ha 15 km west of Nampula City, with support from the US NGO Technoserve and, later, the World Bank's IFC.29

"We are God's raving fans as we do business and farming his
way," says Andrew Cunningham (Photo: Prarie Grass Productions)
In 2007, New Horizons Mozambique was acquired by Cazz Services Ltd, which appears to be registered in the British Virgin Islands, and J.K. Trust, an unknown company.30 Then, in 2011, US-based New Horizons Africa LLC took a 33% share in the company. New Horizons Africa LLC is owned by the Ron Cameron family of Arkansas, which also owns Mountaire Corp, the sixth-largest poultry company in the US, and is a major funder of the Republican Party.31

New Horizons was not only set up to do business, but also "to see God's kingdom extend into rural Africa." The company, through close partnership with the Newfrontiers evangelical church in Zimbabwe, is constructing what it calls a "Community of Fusion" in the area, that integrates poultry operations, religious schools, and churches.

One of the companies that became part of this "community" in 2011 is the Center Fresh Group – the second largest egg producer in the US, with around 25 million hens in their farms at any given moment.32 Through a joint venture called Mozambique Fresh Eggs, with New Horizons and Eggs for Africa, another poultry company within the "community" that is run by the Newfrontiers Church, Center Fresh is building and operating large-scale egg laying operations.

“It’s very good land. But the people just don’t have the knowledge. I think the whole region is going to be the next big agriculture boom,” says Center Fresh Group partner Bruce Dooyema.

Rei do Agro

"The problem with Africa as a whole, is there is no economy,"
says Re do Agro consultant Wallie Hardie.
The backers of New Horizons and its associated companies maintain that their priority is to create opportunities for the local people. Yet, the business plan for Mozambique Fresh Eggs has involved a partnership with another American company to establish a large scale farm in the area to produce feed crops for their poultry.33

As they were considering their investment in Mozambique, the owners of the Center Fresh Group brought in Jes Tarp and Paul Larsen to Nampula to see if they could set up farming operations similar to what the two had done in Ukraine. Tarp and Larsen's company, Aslan Global Management, had already raised funds in the US to acquire and operate on 10,000 ha in the Ukraine.

Aslan, through its Mozambican subsidiary Rei Do Agro, acquired a DUAT for 2,500 ha,"with a commitment for 10,000 additional hectares", from the Mozambican government in Gurúè, Zambezia, about 130 km west of the New Horizons poultry operations, as well as a 42,000 ha cattle ranch in Morogoro, Tanzania. Both areas are epicentres of land conflicts between foreign investors and local people.

Aslan Global Management is financed by about 50 Americans who have each invested around $100,000 in the company.34 "There are farmers, there are doctors, there are insurance agents. People from all walks of life," says Tarp.35

The funds of these "ordinary" Americans are channeled into Aslan Global and Rei do Agro through a complex web of companies located in offshore and tax friendly jurisdictions, from Mauritius to the US State of Delaware.36 These companies are connected to numerous other companies managed by Tarp, Larsen and/or their business associate Quentin Silic that are registered to the same Naples, Florida address.

Tarp is a former evangelical pastor from Denmark and Larsen is a financial manager with a dubious past, who is heavily involved with new church-based financial schemes.

Larsen and Silic were permanently barred from the US securities industry by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in 2011. This was after Paul Larsen racked up 15 disclosure events in 4 years, involving millions of dollars in claimed losses from his clients.37 A disclosure event is a regulatory action, sanction, lawsuit, customer complaint, criminal conviction or termination.

Larsen is said to have preyed on retirees and exploited church connections to gain their trust. In one case, Larsen had a retired couple cash in their retirement savings and invested them in risky alternative investments in which they accumulated substantial losses. Larsen also failed to disclose his own business interest in the companies in which he was investing his clients' savings.38 One FINRA arbitration claim alleges damages in excess of $2 million relating to the sale of investments in risky funds and companies, including the UKAG Group LLC, which Tarp, Larsen and Silic used to fund their agricultural operations in the Ukraine.39

This has not prevented Rei do Agro from receiving generous funding from European development funding agencies. The company's 2013/14 farming activities were financed by AgDevCo, a UK-based company that is backed by the UK, Dutch and Norwegian governments, and it also receives support through the EU/IFAD/FAO funded ProParcerias programme.40 Mozambique Fresh Eggs and New Horizons are also funded by European development finance agencies, through the African Enterprise Challenge Fund, which is hosted by AGRA and financed by DFID, SIDA, and AusAid.41

“The problem with Africa as a whole, is there is no economy,” says Wallie Hardie, a US farmer who sits on the Aslan Group's board and consults for Rei do Agro. “The reason there’s no economy is that 20 years ago most of these countries were occupied by Communists, so they really don’t understand the profit model. They really don’t understand about capitalism.”42

Captains of industry


Construction of infrastructure to support large-scale agriculture is under way throughout the Nacala Corridor.
(Photo: Erico Waga for GRAIN)
Corredor Agro

Corredor Agro is a Mozambican company controlled by two wealthy European families: the Von Pezold family of Germany and Austria and the Hoegh shipping dynasty of Norway. The company has recently established two farms in Nampula: the 2,200 ha Meserepane Farm, where it cultivates field crops, and the 6,000 ha Metocheria Farm, where it grows bananas. It also runs contract production projects, notably for cassava in a tie-up with the beer company SABMiller.

Workers at the company's banana plantation went on strike in July 2010 demanding better wages, health care, an end to evictions without just cause, and the expulsion of some members of the board. The Mozambican government eventually fined the company $200,000 for violating Mozambique's labour laws.

Local communities are also upset about the lands that the company has acquired. The community at Metocheria says consultations over land were badly conducted, with poor information and false promises.

"Matanuska came to deceive and hurt people because it took all of our fertile land, limited access to the Monapo River and now there is much poverty and hunger is getting worse,” says one resident.

"Matanuska fooled us by saying they would raise incomes for the population and improve our living conditions. The man who came to talk with the communities and people handed out biscuits and the community accepted the project in anticipation of employment and other benefits,” says another resident.43

Hoegh Autoliners Chairman Leif O. Hoegh and Mozambique's then First
Lady, Her Excellency Maria Da Luz Dai Guebuza, October 2011.
Corredor Agro is a joint venture of Rift Valley Holdings, a Mauritius registered company owned by the Von Pezold and Hoegh families that controls 400,000 ha of farmland across Africa, and Matanuska Mauritius Limited, for which there is no public information.44

The company's Metocheria Farm banana plantation is partly owned by Norfund. Chiquita, one of the world's largest producers of bananas, was also initially involved in the plantation. A cable from the US Embassy in Mozambique published by Wikileaks reveals that Chiquita decided that it would be better for the company to pursue the expansion of banana production in Africa indirectly through tie-ups with companies rather than by establishing its own plantations.45

"Chiquita made a strategic decision to invest in Africa differently than it has invested in Latin America. The company will not invest directly in land or cultivation, but will partner with a local investor who buys/leases the land," says the US Embassy cable.

Other documents show that Chiquita oversaw and directed the selection of lands for the banana plantation. However, in 2010, Chiquita decided to pull out of Mozambique, saying that the quality of the bananas were insufficient and that piracy along the African coast made northbound shipments too risky. In January 2014, Matanuska entered into a partnership with US-based Dole Foods that makes Dole the sole distributor of Matanuska's bananas for Africa, Europe and the Middle East.46

In February 2013, Matanuska reported an outbreak of the Panama disease (Foc-TR4) at its farm, which has since destroyed much of its crop. Scientists are unsure how the banana fungus, which has wreaked havoc on banana plantations and small farms across Asia, arrived at the Matanuska operation. Some speculate that it was brought over by a staff member from the Philippines. This marks the first evidence of this lethal banana disease in Africa and there is a real danger that the disease could now spread to other parts of Mozambique and throughout Africa.47

Hoyo Hoyo

Hoyo Hoyo is a Mozambican company, established by Quifel Resources, a Portuguese conglomerate controlled by the aristocrat and racing car driver Miguel Pais do Amaral. The company has two DUATs: one in Zambezia for 20,000 ha and another in Tete for 8,000 ha.

Zdenek Bakala.
Hoyo Hoyo commenced operations on the Zambezia lands, on an old state farm in area around the village of Ruace in the district of Gurúè. These lands had been reoccupied by local people shortly after independence in 1975. A survey in 2012 found there were 836 farmers working 1,945 ha of the 3,500 ha Hoyo Hoyo intended to use. Hoyo Hoyo promised the people it would provide compensation and would prepare new lands for resettlement, but this did not materialise.

“I was expelled from my land, which I inherited from my parents, with promises of new land to work on and 680 dollars in compensation. Since I was expelled, one year ago, all I was paid is about a quarter of the amount they promised to pay, and there is no information about the new land to work on,” says Delfina Sidónio, a mother of three, who was evicted from her lands by Hoyo Hoyo.

“Our life was all in that land. That land gave us food and supplies – our life style,” says Ernesto Elias, head of the smallholders’ association forum in Ruace.

“The last harvest crops are now finishing in our storehouses and from the next two months we don’t know how we will survive,” says another smallholder farmer, Fatima José, who lost lands to the company.

The land concessions were allocated to Quifel Natural Resources Moçambique, Lda., a subsidiary of Quifel Natural Resources SA of Portugal, in December 2009.48 But just prior to the Council of Ministers approving the grant of the 10,000 ha land concession to Quifel, 20% of the company was handed over to Lioma Agricultura e Projectos de Gestao, Lda, a company controlled by two people with high level political connections, the Portuguese lawyer Francisco Xavier Vaz de Almada de Avillez and Mozambican businessman Armando Jeque.49

The company floundered for a couple of years. People were evicted from the lands, but hardly any investment was made in production. Then, in January 2012, Quifel Natural Resources SA sold its shares to a company registered in Mauritius called Hoyo One Ltd.50

Hoyo One Ltd appears to be owned by the BXR Group of the Netherlands through its Dutch subsidiary Hoyo Hoyo B.V. BXR, which is owned by the Czech billionaire Zdenek Bakala and "trusts" associated with Credit Suisse bankers, has recently begun to invest heavily in farmland, with over 60,000 ha in Argentina, 12,000 ha in Brazil and 1,000 ha in Malawi.

New farmland financiers

Regional Development Company Ltd

In 2009, the Government of Mauritius established the Regional Development Company Ltd (RDC) to carry out investments in Mozambique, particularly in food production.

The Mauritian Minister of Finance, Charles Gaetan Xavier
Luc Duval.
Under an initial agreement with the Government of Mozambique, RDC was issued a DUAT for 5,000 ha in Manica province and another DUAT for 18,500 ha in Maputo province, both for 49 years and both granted to the Regional Development Company (Moçambique) Limitada, a Mozambican company established in 2010 and 100% owned by the Mauritius Ministry of Foreign Affairs.51

RDC says it acts as an "interface" between investors and the Government of Mozambique. It identifies investors, negotiates with them and then assigns them lands within its DUAT concessions under an “Assignment of Land Development Agreement”. The investors pay the RDC an annual fee for the lands and services it provides. One of the stipulations of the agreement is that the investors offer 25% of their production on a right of first refusal basis to each of the governments of Mozambique and Mauritius.52

The investors that the RDC has so far engaged with for operations on the lands in Maputo and Manica include:

• British American Investment Co. Ltd of Mauritius, a major shareholder of Nairobi-based Equity Bank, which is pursuing a maize and soybean plantation on 6,000 ha;

• La Compagnie des Trois Amis Ltd of Mauritius, which is partnering with two Indian entities, Supreme Agro Projects Ltd and Prama Consulting Services Ltd, on a 4,000 ha rice plantation,

• Mozpeixe SA of Mozambique, which is owned by Quantum Business Development Ltd and partners from South Africa and Mauritius and is pursuing an aquaculture project;

• Nirmal Seeds Pvt Ltd of India, which is pursuing 2,000 ha for rice seed production; and,

• Sri Rajeswari Oil Traders of India, which is pursuing oilseed production on 4,000ha.

In early 2013, the RDC issued a new call for investors for a 2,456 ha DUAT that its Mozambican subsidiary was issued, this time in the administrative post of Canacué, Monapo District, Nampula Province. These lands were seized from the local people during the Portuguese colonial administration and given to José Nunes da Cruz of Portugal. After independence the lands were resettled by hundreds of local small farmers, as can be seen on the Google satellite map of the RDC's DUAT area: https://www.google.ca/maps/@-15.0330808,40.1318209,12443m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Information has not been made public as to whether an investor has been allocated the lands in Canacué. The deadline for companies to submit expressions of interest was May 27, 2013.

African Century Agriculture (ACA)

Jonathan Chevenix-Trench.
ACA is the largest contract farming operator in Gurúè , Zambezia, with 844 soybean contract farmers on 1250 ha. These contract farming operations have been heavily backed by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, through a project called InovAgro. The project involves a 3-year contract farming arrangement with local farmer cooperatives to produce soybeans for ACA's poultry farm (known as King Frango), under which the Swiss provide microfinance and cover 50% of the costs of machinery and 70% of the operating costs (2nd year 50%, 3rd year 30%).

But ACA has its sights set on more than contract farming. In the same area oef Gurúè, it acquired a 1,000 ha DUAT and has started large-scale farming. Meanwhile, in Lichinga, it received an even bigger 3,800 ha DUAT on the lands of a former state farm.

Its Lichinga operations are handled through a joint venture company called African Century Matama Limitada (AC Matama) that is 20% owned by the Fundaçao Malonda – a foundation owned by the Government of Mozambique and the Swedish International Development Agency.53 AC Matama's support from European development agencies also comes through a $500,000 tranche of financing in 2014 from AgDevCo, a UK-based company that is supported by the UK, Dutch and Norwegian governments.

The Lichinga farm was established in the post-independence period with Chinese development assistance, but was abandoned during the civil war, and the lands were reoccupied by local farmers. Conflicts which erupted in the 1990s when the government tried unsuccessfully to move these farmers out to make way for South African investors persist today in connection with AC Matama's operations.54

Sérgio Gouveia, Director of AC Matama, admits that because of unresolved problems with DUATs the "war" with peasants over land tenure continues at the Lichinga operation.55

African Century Agriculture Ltd is registered in Mauritius and owned by African Century Group – a company registered in Mauritius and operating out of London. Its owners are not known. The African Century Group was established by Jonathan Chenevix-Trench a former chairman of Morgan Stanley, one of the world's largest financial companies. It has been investing heavily in African banks, food industries, infrastructure and real estate, with support from Norfund. Another of its subsidiaries, African Century Foods Ltd of Mauritius, owns Frango King Limitada, one of Mozambique's largest industrial poultry producers. The company intends to “develop into the leading white protein agri-business in Sub-Saharan Africa, capturing as much of the value-chain as possible from farm to fork."

Chenevix-Trench is also a member of the board of the Mozambican company Machangulo SA, which was established to construct a luxury resort on 80,000 ha of land on the Machangulo peninsula with financial backing from Prince Willem Alexandre of the Netherlands.56 The Crown Prince backed out of his investment in 2012 after media reports of corruption and the violent repression of local fisherman and villagers protesting against the project.57

"I passionately believe in the need to get red-blooded capitalism into Africa," says Chenevix-Trench.

Trigon Mozagri

Joakim Johan Helenius.
Trigon Capital is a company based in Estonia that is controlled by Finnish businessman Joakim Johan Helenius and the Finnish private equity firm Thominvest Oy.58 Its subsidiary Trigon Agri A/S, based in Denmark, was established to raise funds for the acquisition of farms in Eastern Europe. By 2014, it had amassed farmland holdings of around 170,000 ha in the Ukraine and Russia, as well as dairy farms in Estonia.

In 2013, Trigon Capital launched a new company in Estonia, Trigon Mozagri Spv to invest in farming operations in Mozambique with Helenius and Jan Peter Ingman as directors.59

"These days you are more likely to get rich quick in Africa than in Estonia," says Helenius.60

His company's first acquisition was Mocotex LLC, a cotton company with farming operations in the Mocuba District of Zambezia Province. Trigon claims that Mocotex has a 1000 ha commercial farm and overall access to 18,800 ha of "prime arable land" that is part of a former state-owned farm.

According to a Trigon brochure, Trigon and its investors acquired 51% of Mocotex, with the other 49% remaining with its South African owners.

Mocotex was established in 1997 by the South African government's Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and a mysterious company called Caravel – Development International Projects Inc (Caravel Development). In December 2009, IDC sold its 75% stake in Mocotex for $10,000, with 25% going to Caravel and 50% going to another mysterious company called Aristo Group Trading. Then, in April 2013, the Aristo Group sold 20% of its shares to the South African, Graham Hewlett, who, along with his brother John Hewlett, have a long history of involvement in corporate farming in Mozambique.61 Graham Hewlett is now managing the Mocotex operations for Trigon.

There are no records indicating who the owners of Caravel Development and Aristo Group Trading are.62

_____________________
Notes

1 Banco de Moçambique, Relatorio Anual 2013.

2 Additional details on the Triangular Conference available from UNAC here (in Portuguese): http://tinyurl.com/lgm7d8v

3 The G8 claims that this initiative will lift 50 million Africans, including 3.1 million Mozambicans, out of poverty by 2022. Ten African countries have so far signed framework agreements under the New Alliance: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia Ghana Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria Senegal, and Tanzania.

4 Vunhanhe e Adriano (2014), Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional em Moçambique: um longo caminho por trilhar, artigo ainda publicado.

5 Idem.

6 The Mitsui company website states: "Mitsui has the potential to work with Brazil-based SLC Agricola to produce in Portuguese-speaking countries like Angola and Mozambique, should Africa open up to large-scale agriculture."

7 Rioforte Annual Report 2013.

8 Interview with a community member affected by the Mozaco project (Malema, July 2014).

9 Clement Ntauz, "Peasants accuse presidential candidates of marginalising small scale agriculture", ADECRU, 6 October 2014.

10 Lei de Terra e o decreto n.º 31/2012, de 8 de Agosto, Regulamento sobre o Processo de Reassentamento Resultante de Actividades Económicas. Point 2, Article 24 of Decree No 31/2012 states that resettlement without proper authorisation of the competent authorities is subject to a fine of between 2-5 million MT to MT ($60-150 thousand) and the implementation of an unauthorised resettlement plan is subject to a fine equal to 10% of the budget of the overall project.

11 Rioforte, Consolidated Financial Statements for 2013.

12 Eric Ellis, "Downfall of a dynasty: The last days of Ricardo Salgado and Banco Espírito Santo", Euromoney, 14 October 2014.

13 Rioforte, Consolidated Financial Statements for 2013.

14 This claim is made by the US Charge d'Affaires Todd Chapman in a cable released by Wikileaks.

15 Oksana Evguenevna Colomies Mandlate, "Ligações a Montante dos Grandes Projectos de IDE e Diversifica- ção da Economia: Estudo de Caso de Quatro Empresas ligadas com a Mozal", 2013.

16 Clement Ntauz, op cit.

17 Clement Ntauz, op cit.

18 "Portuguese groups Visabeira and Amorim “import” banking experience from Angola to their partnership in Mozambique" Macauhub, 7 November 2011.

19 Website of the Aldira Group: Equipe (accessed 6 January 2015).

20 Suaves Planos Ltda was involved in one investment in Mozambique involving the creation of a company called Forma Redonda - Moçambique, Limitada in 2012. "Sérgio Alves suspende lugar na vereação", Jornal Vilaverdense, 25 January 2011. Information on Carlos Jorge Martins Pereira's links to Suaves Planos can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/onqnego.

21 Júlio Paulino, "Mozambique: More than 1,000 people displaced from their lands in Lioma", @Verdade, 24 October 2014.

22 Ibid.

23 Jorge Rungo, "Agromoz introduz arroz de sequeiro", Jornal Domingo, 6 April 2014.

24 Júlio Paulino, op cit.

25 The information on the situation in Wakhua comes from Júlio Paulino, op cit.

26 Júlio Paulino, op cit.

27 Júlio Paulino, op cit.

28 See the cable from US Charge d'Affaires Todd Chapman released by Wikileaks.

29 Penny Hayler, “New Horizons - an inclusive poultry business”, Wellspring blog, 26 October 2009; ATMS Newsletter, “Poverty alleviation in Nampula, Mozambique. Project feature – New Horizons”, 3rd quarter, 2009.

30 Boletim da Republica, 30 November 2007. CAZZ Services Limited is a company registered in BVI (1057177) and was stricken from the Register of Companies on 1 May 2013 for the non-payment of annual fees:http://tinyurl.com/n5azlzn.

31 Boletim da Republica, 30 November 2007 and 29 April 2011; Annie Linskey, "Koch-Founded Super-PAC Draws $500,000 Donor in First Days", 15 July 2014.

32 Mozambique Fresh Eggs is 50% owned by CFG, 25% by New Horizons and 25% by Eggs for Africa, another company of the Community of Fusion that handles the marketing of the eggs in Nampula.

33 Michele Linck, "Sioux Center partners aim to boost ag in Mozambique", Sioux City Journal, 26 March 2010.

34 Mikkel Pates, "Expanding in Africa", Agweek, June 2013.

35 Dan Charles, "Mozambique Farmland Is Prize In Land Grab Fever", NPR, June 2014.

36 The company's subsidiaries include: Aslan Global Management (Delaware, USA -2009), Aslan Global Management (Florida, USA -2009), AG Management-Mozambique, LLC (Delaware, USA -2009), AG Management-Mozambique, LLC (Florida, USA -2009), Rei Do Agro Limitada (Mozambique – 2009), Rei do Agro Holdings (Mauritius -2010), Tarp Holdings LLC (Florida, USA – 2010), Aslan Global Management Africa Ltd (Mauritius – 2011), Aslan Group Land Holdings LLC (Florida, USA 2012), and Aslan Group Land Holdings Africa Ltd (Mauritius – 2012).

37 FINRA BrokerCheck Report, 24 October 2014.

38 Brian Mahany, "REIT Fraud Alert – Paul Larsen".

39 Christopher J. Gray, P.C., "Unsuitable Recommendation of Non-traded REITs and Other Unsuitable Investment Products", 5 December 2013.

40 See AgDevCo page on Rei do Agro Limitada (last accessed 6 January 2015 http://tinyurl.com/lkadbml) and Direcção Nacional de Promoção do Desenvolvimento Rural, PROJECTO DE PARCERIAS ENTRE COMUNIDADES E INVESTIDORES : RELATÓRIO DE ACTIVIDADES (Janeiro à Outubro 2013).

41 DFID, Sida, “Annual review of the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF)”, 2013.

42 Carrie McDermott, “Farming in Africa”, Wahpeton Daily News, 6 September 2012.

43 Friends of the Earth Mozambique and UNAC, "Lords of the Land: Analysis of Land Grabbing in Mozambique", March 2011.

44 There are a number of development finance institutions that provide funding to Corredor Agro through the Grassroots Business Fund, including, OPIC, DEG, FMO, Norad, IFC, OeEB, Canada and Luxembourg.

45 Dan Koeppel, "Has The End Of The Banana Arrived?", Shpot 13 May 2014.

46 "Partnership with Dole Fruit to boost banana production", MNA, 31 January 2014.

47Development of a strategy to address the threat of Foc TR4 in Africa”, COMESA, IITA, FAO, et al., 23 April 2014.

48 Quifel Energy Moçambique, Lda changed its name to Quifel Natural Resources Moçambique, Lda after its parent company Quifel Energia SA changed its name to Quifel Natural Resources SA, in December 2009.

49 Avillez is a partner in the law firm MGA Advogados with Jose Oscar Monteiro, an ex-minister with Frelimo, while Jeque was made Chairman of the state owned tourism operator Mozaico do Indigo S.A.: http://tinyurl.com/mz5upuk.

50 The ownership structure was then 79.5% Hoyo One, Ltd, 20% held by Lioma – Agricultura e Projectos de Gestão, Limitada and 0,5% held by Hoyo Two, Ltd.

51 Boletim da Republica, III SÉRIE — Número 5, 2 de Fevereiro de 2011.

52 RDC Call for expressions of interest, April 2013.

53 African Century Matama, Limitada is 80% owned by African Century Agriculture, Limited and 20% by Fundaçao Malonda.

54 "Matama: o monstro está a despertar", Jornal Domingo, 24 February 2013.

55"Aqui se pode produzir mais", Jornal Domingo, 24 February 2013.

56"Dubieuze bankier in vastgoedproject prins", Ambtenaar., 14 November 2009.

57 Wikipedia, “Machangulo affair”.

58 Trigon Capital Annual Report 2012.

59 Ingman is the owner of the Ingman Group and made his fortune through the sale of Ingman Ice Cream to Unilever in 2011. According to a February 2014 company brochure, Trigon Capital proposed to raise $3 million that would be invested in a Denmark-based company called Investor SPV, which would be 20% owned by Trigon Capital AS. Investor SPV and Strategic Investors, a company managed and most likely owned by Trigon Capital, would together then acquire a 51% share of Trigon MozAgri. The other 49% would be owned by a South African family whose "track-record includes founding and developing the largest Mozambican cotton production company.": http://tinyurl.com/o68t7by.

60 "Helenius vallutab Aafrikat", Aripaev, 20 November 2014.

61 John Hewlett led Lonrho's farming investments in Northern Mozambique.

62 Caravel Development could be connected to Caravel Limitada, a shipping and logistics company in Mozambique, now named (LBH Mozambique), in which the South African Athol Murray Emerton is heavily involved. Emerton owned the company PacMoz, which specialises "in identification and assessment of resource development projects", until it was bought by Rubicon Resources. He has strong business connections with members of the family of former President Guebuza. See "Guebuza’s allies in mining," Africa Intelligence, n°1385 - 01/08/2014




Reprinted with permission from Grain.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...