News has broke that a large South Korean conglomerate, Daewoo, has leased about half the arable land in Madagascar for 99 years. The intent is to produce cheap produce, like corn, and plant products to convert into ethanol, at a lower cost than could be produced in the cooler climate of South Korea. The ethical questions that arise from this are numerous. The thought of going into a destitute economy and literally taking their land, the only thing of value, from a group of people that cannot afford to eat is outrageous. But at the same time this will produce a lot of jobs, building needed infrastructure for the exportation - new highways and a modern port to start; then all the jobs at the port and the newly exploited land. Add in the amount that Daewoo will pay the government and there is now a clear case on both sides.
But, this is not the only plan currently in place at a national level to find new sources of food. Saudia Arabia, as I have mentioned before, is planning to scrap its irrigated wheat fields, which is one of the most expensive wheat production areas in the world, for a cheaper alternative elsewhere. This would be done using their sovereign wealth fund as a financing vehicle to purchase or lease land in a more hospitable environment (IE: better growing location with cheaper running costs). This plan has the added benefit of being, at least in some respects, more environmentally sound. It would be trading more fuel expenditure to save on scarce water supplies. In a nation that uses large amounts of energy to desalinate the water to run the facility, perhaps even the energy requirements may prove to be neutral or better.
The Maldives have an even more grandiose plan. Since most of the nation sits very close to, or below, current sea levels, the government has realized climate change poses a very real and timely threat to its existence. As global sea levels rise it is possible the entire group of islands may be submerged. Their Head of State has declared that to keep their culture and community together it will consider saving up to buy a plot of land somewhere so, if disaster does strike, it is able to relocate its entire population.
As energy needs rise while production remains flat, capital becomes scarce, a need for food security rises and coastal land becomes more threatened, by both rising waters and increases in both frequency and strength of maritime storms, nations will find themselves considering more and more large scale plans to protect their interests cost viable. What is next I wonder?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
It seems that if it is a commodity to even one person, there is a price for it. The question then becomes who is willing to pay for it? And additionally, what price will we pay for it years from now if it damages the environment?
Our world is drastically changing. Look at how quickly the polar ice caps are melting. If things keep up most of our own eastern seaboard will eventually be under water. Then where we put the people. It is a cycle.
CLM
CLM
Hmmm...for starters, it seems more environmentally sound to grow food in the environment that it grows best. Although I wonder how much could be done by growing native crops rather than imports. Doesn't help the Saudis, though.
As far as economics, it could work either way. On one hand it could pump a lot of money into otherwise desperate societies (a point you made). On the other hand it doesn't leave people much choice. I think it depends on the labor practices of the employers - are they willing to pay a decent wage and make some of the food available to their workers as well as shipping it back home? Or are they going to pay the bare minimum to keep people going?
There's also (as you also mentioned) the issue of local culture. The attachment to land varies wildly across cultures. I'd want to make sure that the company respects local customs (e.g. historic sites, native sacred places, etc.).
madagascar is, geographically, a genius place to do any type of exporting activity. It's pretty much the most convenient place i could think of to do any type of ocean freight. a few miles (well) up and you can go through the suez to europe, you can hit australia/polynesia/india/china easily with single trips, and you can get through to SA and NA - and through the panama canal.
my opinion is this: daewoo will use only a small portion of this land for agriculture, and will use the rest as an international hub of ocean freight. and my actions is: get involved in this logistics.
as for the ethics. well, ya. we could debate the starving people vs. corporate profit. we could let our hearts bleed, or we could go and make a difference. at the end of the day... it is what it is. i know thats nihilistic, but its also pragmatic.
at least they will have a tertiary economy as opposed to a quasi-primary economy. and if they can form a solid and legitimate government, the people could benefit as a whole. i expect to see a lot of immigration, and eventually tourism go there too as a result.
given the grandness of this project and what i suspect its really about. its probably in Daewoos best interest to keep the natives well fed. oppression will lead to rebellion, and rebellion leads to revolt, revolt leads to risk, and risk leads to costs. costs lead to lost profit, and lost profit leads to seeking to alternatives. this is not like sweatshops in india - thats manufacturing. distribution and logistics is a whole other game... quality is more important than efficiency. and certainty is more important that the two!
I am not against projects like this. I disagree with Reagan's trickle down economics, though at the time I may have agreed. It has just been proven wrong since then.
When dealing with a) undeveloped countries, b) food and c) energy, certainty is extremely important. You need to be sure that everything will continue to flow properly. Since they are growing food and energy crops I think the need multiplies.
This is another reason Madagascar is perfect for Daewoo - they can avoid the Suez and all those horny pirates (and by that, I clearly mean pirates from the horn). I am not sure what state the Madagascar ports are in now but my understanding is they need to be completely overhauled. So perhaps if they are over the next 10-15 years and piracy continues to be rampant it could become a huge hub. It could also lead to enough tax revenues for the government to drastically increase the education of the work force over the next 25 years. If this happens a deal like this could make Madagascar the next big growth economy following China and India; and Korea before them.
Sure, they'll have jobs, but won't all of their food be exported. Won't this induce them to destroy more protected land?
The question is, has Daewoo taken over land that is -currently- producing food, or just has the ability to do so? If the land is going unused, then there is little dilemma here - wasted land is always less valuable than land put to use. And as you said, the creation of infrastructure and an infusion of cash has its own merits - is there any cost-benefit analysis out there? Oddly enough it may cost less for the people of Madagascar to import food instead of growing it, certainly it may come out as a wash with all the other benefits of this deal. Consider - how much food do you consume that was grown in your region vs. what was grown across the country (or in another country altogether)?
The problem as I understand it is not that the Earth can't feed itself - it's one of distribution. The planet can be sustained with a significantly larger population (I want to say I've seen estimates of 12-15 billion). The problem is that the parts of the world that need food and resources the most can't get them due to lack of modern (and cost-effective) transportation. What's needed isn't necessarily more access to the land, but access to the logistics that shuffle everything from one side of the planet to the other...
Post a Comment