Tuji Jidda*

Though I haven’t seen it, I assume that the newly implemented “land to the grabbers” policy is an extension of a combined investment policy, agriculture-led industrial development policy, and export-oriented trade and industrial policy of the country. Therefore, there is no problem with providing arable lands to foreign investors as such. Concern comes when the policy is seen from the perspective that “countries have been on a quest for the ultimate ‘breadbasket’ of grains to feed their growing population and to combat worldwide rising food prices.”

It has been a long time phenomenon for the uninformed farmers of Ethiopia to be snatched of their produces either directly or indirectly using force, different policies and tactics that favor the protected ruling classes and well-connected people. This and other factors have left the primitive Ethiopian economy as “backward demonetized subsistent economy.”

On top of that, unfortunate Ethiopia has been suffering from chronic food insecurity and subsequent famine for centuries. Under such circumstances, insuring food security is definitely the number one priority. To do so, the government is obviously expected to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) by providing attractive incentives as long as the foreign land grabs lead to development. How the policy is implemented, the quality, quantity and price of land allotted for this purpose, and other related pertinent questions put the TPLF/EPRDF policy under a big question mark.

It is also remembered that recently unidentified TPLF official passed simple, but crucial out of mandate directive on the most critical Ethio-Eritrea issue that says “the then deported Eritreans can reclaim their properties and other rights.” This highly sensitive issue actually deserves, at least, the hottest discussion and debate by major law-making bodies. This implies that the fundamental ‘land for grab’ policy deserves the attention of the country’s or regional’s law-makers from the very beginning.

In this regard, six important points that should be given due consideration include:

1. The ‘Land for Grab’ policy should be enacted as a law.
2. Agricultural Ethiopia is following export promotion without achieving food security. This has already exposed the country for high level of inflation and famine. Basically, export promotion strategy fundamentally contradicts with the policy of food self-sufficiency. If the ‘Land to the Grabbers’ policy is intended for export purpose, it would further exacerbate the country’s food insecurity rather than solving the problem.
3. Providing virgin land at cheapest prices for long lease term definitely have an opportunity cost to the country as same land can be utilized effectively at a latter time. Most of all priority should be given to local investors or joint venture.
4. Indigenous people’s right should be respected due to environmental concerns emanating out of deforestation, effects of chemicals used to develop the land, dislocation, and the ‘land for grab’ policy’s future impact on grazing lands. Otherwise, the risky investment would end up in an unexpected catastrophe.
5. When formulating this kind of major policy, it should be free from any form of corruption. If the deals made by TPLF have bribes of officials or made in exchange of diplomatic support or to garner domestic political support or to get technology to suppress dissent, it definitely would have bad consequences. And,
6. From media reports, it seems that the allotted at Bako area is on irrigable virgin land on Nile basin alongside Rivers Anger and Mugher. So, it is imperative to take a long-run strategy and implication of Nile politics in advance.

The bottom line is that the ‘Land to the Grabbers’ policy should be handled cautiously and seriously. Better land should first be given to local investors as it would have long term consequences. When giving such fertile land to foreigners, the country has the obligation to make sure that local people are the beneficiaries of the produces so that it would help in addressing the country’s food insecurity. If the main produces are going to be only for exporting based on export promotion strategy with the aim of tackling grabber-countries’ rising food prices, the policy would definitely have huge opportunity cost for the country as a whole and the local people, in particular. The policy, as it is, amounts to indirect confiscation that would affect the country for generations to come.

* Tuji Jidda writes from Washington, DC and can be reached at oceonia@yahoo.com.