Connect with us

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

Understanding China’s foreign agriculture investments in the developing world

Published

on

Canberra — China’s investment in foreign agriculture totaled $26 billion in 2016, with investments in 100 countries. But this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

A new report released by the United States Department of Agriculture on April 24 draws from Chinese language speeches, reports, and other secondary sources to understand both the scale and purpose of foreign investment in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.

Developing countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America were among China’s investment regions, with the investment types and goals differing for each.

“In our review of Chinese investments in agriculture in developing countries, we found that some are commercial ventures, while others are foreign aid projects,” Elizabeth Gooch, an economist for the Economic Research Service of the USDA, explained to Devex. “We also found that some ventures seem inclined to pursue both commercial gain and philanthropic motivations.”

A timeline of foreign agricultural investment

According to the report, both agricultural imports and exports began to rise dramatically from 2001, after China joined the World Trade Organization. Political support for a global agriculture policy in 2007 increased foreign agricultural investments further, as did a food security measure linked to the Belt and Road initiative in 2012.

“China’s general ‘going out’ or ‘go global’ strategy began in the 1990s, as an initiative to strengthen Chinese companies by encouraging them to move out from their home base and into global markets,” the report explained.

But for agriculture, the going global strategy was more than just cementing business opportunities for Chinese companies: Foreign investment in agriculture was strongly linked to food security concerns.

A national food security strategy was outlined for China in a five-year plan from 2006 to 2010. The plan advocated for the country to “go global” using China’s large labor resources to develop foreign land, water, and energy resources.

“The plan encouraged large-scale, competitive food conglomerates to produce grains, oilseeds, and sugar crops on rented land in South and North America and Africa and then to transport these crops back to China to balance supply and demand,” the report said.

The five-year plan helped boost foreign investment in farming, forestry, and fishing, which increased five times between 2010 and 2016, reaching almost $3.3 billion, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics.

The report suggests acquisition of foreign technology to improve agricultural productivity has become another important objective in China’s outward agricultural investment linked to food security in recent years — and is particularly evident in investments related to pork, agricultural trading, and farm input companies.

Investing in developing countries

In 2017, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce estimated agriculture, forestry, and fishing investment in Southeast Asia to be valued at $3.1 billion.

“Southeast Asia has a tropical climate suited to rubber, oil palm, and cassava,” the USDA report said. “It also has a large ethnic Chinese population — an attribute that facilitates business ties.”

Malaysia and Indonesia are key investment regions for palm oil. Cambodia has also been an important location since the 1990s, when the government began leasing out large tracts of land — or economic land concessions — to foreign investors for agricultural operations. The amount of farmland available for economic land concessions now nears 1 million hectares in total, and Chinese businesses are leasing 24 percent of this total. Key investments are rubber and lumber.

Yet foreign aid has also been important to investment across Southeast Asia. In Cambodia, research into the mechanization of cassava cultivation has been a part of China’s foreign aid spending, while in Laos, aid was used to support investment in rice, corn, sugarcane, rubber, tobacco, and tropical fruit.

Investment in Latin America, meanwhile, is more closely linked with food security according to USDA, as it is a “land-abundant region that supplies more than half of China’s soybean imports.” Sugar, grains, oilseeds, and livestock products are among China’s other imports from the region.

But despite it being an important region for imports, it has been a difficult region for Chinese companies to do business in, with the USDA saying only “10 of 17 major Chinese land acquisitions in Latin America were confirmed and under cultivation.”

In Africa, foreign aid and goodwill appear to be an important factor in agricultural investment. According to the USDA, Africa has been a focus for the receipt of technical assistance related to agriculture — as well as the construction of roads, ocean ports, airports, rail, and schools which aim to foster agricultural trade in the long term.

Currently, Africa represents 12 percent of China’s foreign agricultural investment, but the country receives 2 percent of food imports from the continent. Gooch could not comment, however, on whether Chinese investment was expected to lead to greater imports from the region.

“We cannot speculate about the future impacts of Chinese investments in Africa on African exports to China, but we can reiterate the main reason for the growth in overseas investment by China in agriculture is related to China’s growing dependence on food imports,” she said.

Yet the report also suggests that this investment “may be designed to build goodwill in African countries to create business opportunities for Chinese importers and contractors.”

Technical ability is an important asset element in the foreign agricultural investment made by China in the developing world to build goodwill. It began with the 1996 establishment of a rice farm in Cuba by the Xintian Group — a 5,000 hectare rice farm that produced food for local markets. It was followed by similar investments in Mexico.

China does not import rice from either country.

Hubei Provincial Seed Group and Yuan Long Ping High-Tech Agriculture Company are among other Chinese companies that have played an important role in exporting rice seeds to support China’s foreign aid projects in Southeast Asia and Africa.

And USDA believes that rice will also play an important role in the delivery of technical services through the Belt and Road initiative.

While there is large investment from China across the globe, USDA reports that the majority has been concentrated in neighboring areas of Southeast Asia and the Russian Far East — areas both accessible and with an abundance of land for Chinese businesses. It is expected this will grow with the Belt and Road initiative.

Shifting to mergers and acquisitions

The USDA report identified a new trend in China’s foreign agricultural investments — a shifting away from land purchases toward mergers and acquisitions.

For example, the state owned China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Corporation is gaining more control over commodity trading, processing, and logistics. Another state-owned entity, Bright Foods, is working to assemble a variety of companies and brands under its roof, while the privately owned New Hope Group, an animal feed company, has established joint ventures with Australian and New Zealand to meet the demand for animal protein in China.

But despite this push, they are facing a number of barriers in this space because of differences in legal systems and governance, cultures and values — as well as negative perceptions of Chinese companies internationally.

The report states that the scale of China’s outbound agricultural investments “appears to be less than is often portrayed in global news media.” Still, it is growing rapidly.

“Chinese officials have ambitious strategic plans for agricultural investments to help reshape patterns of agricultural trade and increase China’s influence in global markets,” the report says.

Limitations to the study

The USDA report highlights the barriers that exist in understanding China’s focus role in developing countries and what their aid program achieves. It draws its information from secondary sources within China, including speeches, reports, and news media — a methodology that clearly has limitations.

“There are differences between reported figures and reality,” Gooch said. “We specify in our report that we include Chinese acquisitions of agribusinesses that work in the processing and distribution of agricultural commodities as part of ‘going global’ in agriculture, and these ventures are not defined as agricultural overseas investments according to the Chinese government.”

“We are uncertain about the percentage we missed but are certain that the investments we present in the paper are not all the investments that China has made.”

For many researchers, the hope is that the newly established State International Development Cooperation Agency will provide greater transparency on China’s investments internationally, including agricultural investments in the developing world.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

MPs recover hundreds of land files hidden near Mukono land office

Published

on

Parliament’s Lands Committee has ordered a police investigation after recovering hundreds of land files allegedly hidden in shops and vehicle boots near the Mukono Zonal Land Office.

Parliament’s Committee on Lands, Housing and Urban Development has ordered a police investigation after recovering hundreds of land files allegedly hidden in shops and vehicle boots near the Mukono Zonal Land Office (MZO).

The committee, led by chairperson Edison Rugumayo, was inspecting the office as part of an inquiry into allegations of land fraud, delays in processing titles and other irregularities affecting land transactions in Mukono District.

During the inspection, legislators toured various departments and questioned staff about their work, including the handling and storage of land records.

At the office of Senior Staff Surveyor Steven Ndegeya, the committee raised concerns over alleged irregularities involving land titles reportedly created in wetlands and central forest reserves.

The legislators also questioned officials about more than 200 titles reportedly issued in Mabira Forest and demanded a list of people associated with the titles.

The committee was further alarmed after being told that more than 50 land titles had allegedly been created on the government-owned Njeru Stock Farm.

Rugumayo asked Ndegeya to provide the transaction trail, original title documents, geographical maps and details of all individuals holding titles on the land.

Ndegeya asked for more time, saying he needed to consult registrars before preparing an organised report.

He told the committee that there was no certificate of title for Njeru Stock Farm belonging to the Uganda Land Commission in the system.

However, he said the system contained records of individual Mailo landowners whose interests dated back many years, arguing that some people who obtained titles on the land had acquired them legally.

The committee later met MZO officials to establish the causes of the complaints and alleged irregularities.

Three staff members, Dan Kyalo, Hannifah Nantongo and Susan Aceru, were tasked with producing files that were allegedly being taken out of the MZO.

The three denied having moved the files.

However, accompanied by police officers, the committee recovered hundreds of titles allegedly stored in shops across the road from the land office. Other files were reportedly found in vehicle boots.

When questioned about who had instructed them to keep the files outside the office, the officials reportedly told the committee they had been directed by their supervisor, Ndegeya.

The committee also questioned the security team deployed by the Ministry of Lands in Kampala about how the files and titles had been removed from the office.

It emerged that Emma Otim, the security head, had left responsibility for keeping the office keys with a private security guard who routinely opens and closes the office.

The committee questioned why a guard whose primary responsibility was reportedly to man the gate had been entrusted with the office keys.

Principal Assistant Secretary at the MZO, Doreen Tumushabe, said she could not be held responsible for the alleged conduct of individual employees but promised to strengthen supervision.

Tumushabe also cited staff shortages, lack of vehicles and the large number of complaints involving allegedly forged land titles among the challenges affecting the office.

During the oversight visit, the committee also discovered hundreds of allegedly forged land titles at the MZO.

Officials told the committee that no related case had been opened at Mukono Police Station despite the alleged discovery of the forged titles.

The committee also heard complaints from members of the public who said they had waited for years to obtain land titles or have land disputes resolved.

A 75-year-old woman, Maria Nakitende, told the committee that she had waited for decades for authorities to resolve her title-related matter.

Hajji Musa Muliika of Katosi alleged that he was asked to pay Shs14 million after the title he had submitted was reportedly lost while in the hands of MZO officials.

Rugumayo directed police to conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the removal and concealment of the files and establish why they were taken outside the office, particularly ahead of the committee’s visit.

He also ordered the head of the Mukono land office to submit, within one week, a report on land titles in Mabira Forest and wetlands, as well as complaints against staff members.

Masaka legislator Joan Namutaawe criticised the quality of services at the land office and questioned whether Tumushabe was fully in control of operations at the MZO.

Namutaawe warned that the committee would pursue cases involving alleged illegal occupation and development in wetlands.

Source: nilepost.co.ug

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Uganda moves toward a Bamboo Policy to boost environmental conservation and green growth.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

 

Uganda’s move to develop a national bamboo policy aims to boost environmental conservation and create green jobs, addressing the country’s urgent unemployment issues among the working class.

 

Bamboo is a critical tool in fighting climate change due to its rapid growth, high carbon sequestration capacity, and ability to produce 35% more oxygen than equivalent trees. As a fast-growing, renewable resource, it restores degraded land, provides sustainable materials that replace emission-intensive products like concrete, and offers a resilient, low-carbon bioenergy source. 

 

Bamboo’s potential is outlined in the existing National Bamboo Strategy. Still, stakeholders stress that a formal policy involving entrepreneurs, farmers, and processors is essential to remove regulatory uncertainty and foster sector growth.

 

“The strategy is a good document, but it was developed largely through desk research. It did not fully involve entrepreneurs, farmers, and processors who are already working in the bamboo industry,” said Sjaak de Blois, chairman of Bamboo Uganda, encouraging stakeholders to see their role as vital.

 

The bamboo policy is currently at an early consultative stage, with no draft yet submitted to the cabinet or parliament. Recent consultations brought together representatives from eight government ministries, private-sector bamboo actors, and development partners to begin aligning the strategy with practical regulatory needs.

 

“What we have now is the starting point,” De Blois mentioned. “The next step is to take the strategy and make it more practical, more market-driven, and more Ugandan. The next step is to move from having a plan to adopting a policy.

 

Bamboo currently falls under several regulatory frameworks, with no single authority overseeing the sector. The policy push is being driven in part by Bamboo Uganda, a membership-based organization bringing together bamboo farmers and processors, among others. The organization aims to play a coordinating role similar to that historically played by the Uganda Coffee Development Authority in the coffee sector.

 

“If you want to make a sector meaningful for a country, you need coordination. Coffee became what it is because of an institution that aligned farmers, traders, exporters, and regulators. Bamboo needs the same kind of coordination.” He said.

 

The policy process is supported by the Belgian development agency, which is funding consultations and facilitating dialogue between the government and the private sector.

Industry players say the absence of clear regulations has constrained investment despite growing demand.

“At the moment, bamboo is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. As a farmer, you talk to forestry, as a charcoal producer, you talk to energy, as a builder, you talk to works. There is no single framework that enables the industry to function.” De Blois added.

 

Supporters of the policy argue that bamboo could play a significant role in environmental conservation. Bamboo grows rapidly, regenerates after harvesting, and can be harvested annually for decades, reducing pressure on natural forests.

 

According to Global Forest Watch (GFW), Uganda lost 1.2 million hectares of tree cover between 2001 and 2024, representing a 15% decline from the 2000 baseline. Bamboo has been identified as a key species for restoration.

 

“One acre of bamboo that is harvested sustainably can prevent the destruction of hundreds of acres of natural forest,” De Blois said. “If we get this right, bamboo can help reverse deforestation rather than contribute to it.”

 

Ms. Susan Kaikara, from the Ministry of Water and Environment, emphasized bamboo’s potential to drive Uganda’s green-growth agenda.

 

“Establishing a coherent national policy framework will strengthen coordination, inspire investment, and unlock bamboo’s full potential as a pillar of Uganda’s green economy,” she said.

 

Uganda’s charcoal market alone is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, much of it supplied through unsustainable wood harvesting. Industry actors say certified bamboo charcoal plantations could offer a cleaner alternative.

 

“If they allow us to certify bamboo charcoal plantations, then we can get a trade license to compete or to work together with the existing market. We will reverse deforestation. We would enter an industry of about 500,000 hectares, creating smart, green jobs. We can digitalize them to make them attractive through bamboo agroforestry. So again, those things need a policy.” He adds.

 

Bamboo is also viewed as a climate-friendly crop due to its high capacity for carbon sequestration. Its rapid growth enables it to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, while its extensive root system improves soil structure and increases long-term carbon storage.

 

“When you look at carbon sequestration, bamboo offers several advantages. Residues from harvested bamboo can be converted into biochar, locking carbon into the soil for long periods. When you also see the sequestration per acre compared to many other trees, it is five or six times higher. So, we sequester a lot,” De Blois said

 

Stakeholders say that if the policy process progresses as planned, bamboo could emerge as one of Uganda’s key green growth sectors within the next decade.

 

“Policy making takes time. But what is important is that we have started the conversation with all the right ministries in the room. From here, it is about taking steady, practical steps.” He concluded.

Continue Reading

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

A Global Report reveals that Development Banks’ Accountability Systems are failing communities.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

For decades, development projects have been funded to address some of the World’s most pressing problems, including poverty, wildlife conservation, and climate change. However, what unfolds on the ground is sometimes the opposite of development. Instead of benefits, these projects have often harmed the very people they are supposed to support.

The effort to address such harm has led to the establishment of Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) by various development banks. Yet, communities affected by these projects often face betrayal by national court systems, leaving them feeling overlooked and vulnerable, emotions that underscore the urgent need for effective justice.

According to experts in development financing, since the early 1990s, development banks have sought to address and mitigate harm through IAMs—non-judicial grievance mechanisms that provide a direct avenue for impacted communities to raise concerns, engage with project implementers, and obtain remedies for the harm they have experienced.

The study, conducted by Accountability Counsel and titled Accountability in Action or Inaction? An Empirical Study of Remedy Delivery in Independent Accountability Mechanisms shows that while IAMs exist, their relevance has fallen short, underscoring the urgent need for reform to restore community trust and hope.

In compiling the report, researchers reviewed 2,270 complaints across 16 IAMs and conducted 45 interviews covering 25 cases globally.

The report reveals a persistent gap between the promise of remedies and their realization, highlighting that only 15% of closed complaints led to commitments, and just 10% achieved full completion, underscoring the urgent need for effective remedies for communities.

The findings highlight ongoing challenges, including inadequate implementation, limited monitoring, and persistent power imbalances, which continue to block communities from accessing meaningful remedies and demand immediate reform.

“The consequences of these institutional gaps are severe. As these cases show, institutional silence can exacerbate risk, while meaningful intervention can help de-escalate it.” The Report adds.

Uganda is among the countries where communities have sought justice using these accountability mechanisms. Between 2006 and 2010, communities in one of the districts of Uganda were brutally evicted by the UK-based Company, which was growing trees in the area.

The company was formerly an investee of the Agri-Vie Agribusiness Fund, a private equity fund supported by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. The community filed a Complaint with the IFC’s accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO).

“We complained to this body in 2011, hoping for justice, but over 15 years later our people are still struggling, living miserably, some without homes,” a community land and environmental defender told the Witness Radio team.

According to the affected residents, the CAO process did not lead to success or meaningful compensation, as they had hoped.

Between 2013 and 2014, the communities, with support from the CAO, signed a final agreement with the Company to address the harm. Among other commitments, this included resettlement of the affected communities.

In its 28-page report published in 2015 titled: A Story of Community-Company Dispute Resolution in Uganda, the CAO wrote,” With the agreements concluded, implementation is gathering pace. As agreed, the company has begun extending development assistance to both cooperatives, and the process of restoring and enhancing livelihoods has commenced.

The first step taken by both cooperatives was to acquire land. In late 2013, the Mubende Cooperative bought 500 acres of ‘fertile agricultural land’ in the Mubende district. Their vision was to allocate a certain percentage of the land for resettlement, with the remainder utilized for farming projects.

Reports from the ground indicate that communities remain dissatisfied with the process, claiming it failed to address their concerns fully and highlighting the urgent need for more effective remedy systems.

“When you say that people are well, it is really a total lie. Many people were never compensated or resettled. Even those who got a portion of land say they have never seen a fertile land—I have never seen it, because people are living or cultivating on rocky, infertile lands,” the defender further revealed.

The struggle faced by the Ugandan community is not unique. Their experience mirrors what the Accountability Counsel report identifies worldwide. Despite registering more than 2000 complaints by communities harmed by bank-financed projects globally, there has been no comprehensive system-wide analysis of whether and how often these mechanisms deliver meaningful remedies, defined as tangible, material outcomes that repair harm and improve lives.

In addition to the slow success of such IAMs, the report notes that, across interviews covering 25 complaints, 84% referenced retaliation, violence, or threats of violence-an alarming indicator of the risks faced by communities seeking justice, demanding immediate attention and action.

“Government officials and company representatives were frequently implicated in efforts to suppress dissent. This not only reduces the likelihood of achieving a substantial remedy, but also suppresses the willingness of community members to speak honestly and openly about Complaint outcomes.” The report further adds,

Further, it reveals that communities described a range of retaliatory tactics, including physical clashes, arrests, detentions, fatalities, intimidation and harassment, death threats, and anonymous warning letters, among others.

“Remedy must be reimagined not as a peripheral concern but as a core responsibility of development institutions. It must be adequately resourced, independently monitored, and centered around the needs and voices of affected people,” the report adds.

The report recommends that development banks and IAMs establish a Remedy Framework with clear standards to ensure remedies are timely, adequate, and community-centered, and to encourage stakeholders to prioritize systemic reform for better justice outcomes.

The report also urges development banks and their accountability mechanisms to make remedies a foundational element of responsible finance. Adopting institutional frameworks that prioritize redress, empowering IAMs to oversee and enforce commitments, and incorporating the outcomes of IAM processes into project evaluations and institutional learning.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates