disenchanting voices from within: interrogating women’s resistance to large-scale agro-investments...

Disenchanting Voices from Within: Interrogating Women’s Resistance to Large-Scale Agro-Investments in

CameroonLotsmart Fonjong (University of Buea, Cameroon)

The Paper is sponsored by IDRC project No. 107590 on Implications of LSLAs on

Women's land rights in SSA

The Paper is sponsored by IDRC project No. 107590 on Implications of LSLAs on Women's land rights in SSA

INTRODUCTION


1990 2000 2010

Agric Land 91700 91600% of Agric land 9.4 9.4

% of arable land 12.6 12.6

% of forest area 51.9 46.8 42.1

Area surface 472, 710 km2

• Two types of land ownership system:

• Statutory and Customary • 1976 Land Acts recognize:1. State Land 2. Private Land 3. National Land

Ecological zones of Cameroon • Land is the sole source of

survival for a typical agrarian economy like Cameroon

• Today, there are new and competing interests for land from : population, urbanization, individualization,land grab, etc

• Activities of LSLAs are currently concentrated around the forest and savanah ecological zones and on national land

• Major activities on the land include: agriculture, Mining, etc


Our main Research Question 1. Who are the main actors of LSLAs in Cameroon?2. How is the process of LSLAs carried out and to

what extent are local communities involved? 3. How have affected communities, particularly

women so far responded to LSLAs with what results and why?

4. What are some of the outcomes and implications of these community responses, if any, investments, and the process of LSLAs, and What is the possible way forward


CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK


Accountability

Legitimacy

Power

Land Deals

State /Traditional(LCB)

Promises

Formal/informal

Rights

Consultation

Practices

Participation Representation

Rules(Land Act)

State Affected

Communities

Legality/ stability

Citizen support

Investors

Local interestsinformed Consent

- Meetings - Dialogues

ESEIA -Education

RightsObligations

- New/Existing Institutions

Enabling Evt Biz Stability

WIN-WIN S. DEV’T



Research sites


Methodology

• Study is part of an ongoing IDRC sponsored project being carried out in 3 countries: Cameroon, Ghana and Uganda by 3 teams

• It is based on more primary data supported by secondary data on LSLAs. For the primary data, we used five different sets of interview guides addressed to;

1) community members- especially the women who work on the land,

2) investors who have or are in the process of acquiring land, 3) administrative authorities directly involved in land management, 4) traditional authorities who are the custodians of the land5) local NGOs natural resources related objectives,

Methodology cont’While paying attention to specificities of each group, the guides generally contained questions on: 1)how the land was acquired, 2)who was consulted, 3)the compensation plan put in place by the companies, 4)reasons for community/women resistance, 5)economic costs of the resistance, and 6)efforts made by all stakeholders to establish confidence between investors and local communitiesAll interviews were conducted in the localities of respondents by a research team of 14(consisting of 4 researchers and ten trained research assistants) over a period of 10 months (March to December 2014).



Methodology cont’

• During field interview, we also try to get written documents (application, petitions, administrative letters) for content analysis

• Primary data was complemented with publications for scholars and reports from organizations like the World Bank, GRAINS, OXFAM, etc

• Analysis using simple spreadsheets.• Focus on two companies PHP and SG-SOG with

two different crops


Focusing on SG-SOG AND PHP

- US-based Herakles Farms- Locally known as SG-SOG- Project under study established 2009- Major crops: Palms

-PHP is French based-Locally established 1986-Major crops: banana

Findings

1. HOW IS THE PROCESS OF LSLAS CARRIED OUT AND TO WHAT

EXTENT ARE LOCAL COMMUNITIES INVOLVED?



There are 4 major Actors involved:

1. Foreign companies 2. The state 3. Elites 4. Chiefs


The process is controversial, non transparent and exclude affected communities

1. The controversies emanate from confusion over land ownership. Who own the land?

2. The 1976 Land statutes is not expressly clear as to whether customary communities or the state are owners of national land where LSLAs takes place in Cameroon. for example:

3. “…the state shall be the guardian of all lands...”4. “ traditional rulers are custodians of the land…”5. The state believes by virtue of being the state, she own the

land and can therefore go ahead and give it to investors, with or without consultation with the affected communities


Examples

• Most of the processes involve just the states and investors and affected communities are simply informed and sensitized rather than consulted or participate in the negotiations

1. The case of the privatization of the state Organisation Cameroonaise Banane (OCB) to French based investors Société des Plantations du Haut Penja (PHP), without due consultations

2. The Convention between the Ministry of Economy, Planning and Regional Development, allocating 0ver 73,000H of land to US-Herakles Farms (SG-SOC) in Ndian and Kupe Manenguba without due consultations

3. Communities may come in only during the implementation of the project: compensations, meetings


2. Findings

How have affected communities, particularly women so far responded to LSLAs, with what results and why?


Community respond to the process has been generally negative: Why?

:

• Because:1. They are left out of the process (Interests)2. The excessive quantity of land demanded from

the communities by investors3. The destruction of community livelihood base4. The level of corruption involved in the deals5. The stake of LSLAs on the environment.


Affected Communities left out of the process

• “…the process to acquire the land by SG-SOC was poor because they started from above rather than from the people before informing hierarchy…

• “…. Our land was seized, they never passed through the Chief, and we only saw that SG-SOC had encroached into our land…”


Destruction of local livelihood base

• LSLAs took over land hitherto reserved for farming, hunting, fishing, NTFPs, Cocoa

• “... most of those who were compensated for land have exhausted the money and now they are left with nothing- no land, no money...” (Deputy Mayor, Nguti)

The Level of Bribery and Corruption Involved1. Some of the conventions sign against the law2. Local technical ministries and institutions not directly involved

contrary to law (the LCB)3. Most meetings with the selected chiefs held out of the

affected communities 4. Providing Food and drinks to buy communities "…How long will the tens of thousands of people displaced, dehumanized and enslaved by your so-called sustainable development project live off your 11 tons of rice and 10 tons of fish? Are they going to be eating the rice and fish for 99 years as they will have no land to farm after you have seized and destroyed their only treasure and hope for a livelihood?... Mr. Edimo, Environmentalist/Human Right Activist


Quantity of Land requested


Rumpi Forest Reserve 45,675 hKorup Park 126,000 h

PAMOL Plantation Ltd 11,000 h

Mundemba Council Forest 11,210 h


False Promises and Destruction of the Envt

False Promises1. Used of attendance lists of

meetings for other purposes

2. Plans to dis-enclaved non-enclaved areas in Nguti

3. .Took >20years to get water and power in Njombe

4. 4. Time table for consultation not respected by SG-SOG

Water situation of Fabe


False Promises and Destruction of the EnvtHow many farmers can read such notices?

Destruction of the Environment

1. Helicopters spraying bananas pollute natural springs and rivers2. Use of abandoned pesticide containers and waste plastic bags by population for water and others

3. Monoculture

Destruction of water catchments


3. Finding

WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESPONSES FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES,

PARTICULARLY WOMEN AND WITH WHAT OUT COMES?


Types of Resistances

Actors Outcomes

1. 1Meetings Chiefs, Youths -Withdrawal of local support to the company

1. 2Protest letters & Memos to, SDOs, Minsters, PM, presidency, HR Org

Chiefs, MPs, Youths, NGOsElites, Local CBA

-Temporal suspension of activities-(Ministry of Environment,- New EIA requested - Reduction of the quantity of land - New negotiations with communities

3 Demonstration “No plantations on our land”.

Population, youths, NGOs

- Blockages, tension, insecurity - The T-shirt movements- Destruction of nurseries

4 Legal battles NGOs - Suspension of activitiesCR No. 90202969 of 01/09/2011).- Many appeals cases


Methods of Resistance

Actors Outcomes

Meetings Chiefs of Ndian and Nguti Sub Division

Joint Declaration denouncing earlier agreement with SG-SOC of June 25th 2010

-withdrew their support to the company since they were neglected

Ngolo Chiefs A motion against SG-SOC of December 15th 2010

-condemn the illegal mapping and planting of pillars in Mundemba and Toko sub division by SG-SOC without the prior consent and approval of most chiefs

Protest/Appeal Letters

People of Nguti Sub Division to the Presidency of Cameroon

Objection by the people of Nguti Sub Division to an attempt by Sithe Global Sustainable Oils Cameroon (SG.SOC) PLC to irregularly exploit the Sub Divisional Land to the Detriment of the Population on June 29th 2010

- unanimously annulled the Memorandum of Understanding signed with SG-SOC - withdrew their consent for the project

Mungo Ndor, Ntale, Ediengoh, Ekenge, Babensi II, Babensi I in Nguti sub division

Open Letter to SG SOC/Herakles Farms company LTD by the people, 2012

Open rejection and denouncement of large scale plantation

The Mundemba Municipal Council to the Senior Divisional Officer of Ndian

An Appeal for administrative intervention, February 15th 2010

Request for the administration to protect the people against elites using community land in quest for their personal interests

Mayor of Mundemba to the Regional Governor

Comments on the letter captioned: Kuma, Mokango, Masaka Bima and Lipenja II village- Enclaves, June, 2010

-denounced the activities of elites who want to use land on the false pretense for personal aggrandizement

Youths/Notables of Fabe and Bima villages

Protest against ceding of land to SG-SOC Ltd of January 23rd 2011 and April 11th 2011

- resolved to preserve and manage the small land left after ceding land to Council forest, Ikondo Kondo Korup and Meangwe II village. - declared that the rumors that they have accepted SG-SOC are all false.

Memoranda Ngolo, Batanga and Bima communities of Toko and Mundemba sub Division

Irregular implantation of a large scale oil palm plantation of August 26th 2011

- not enough land available for the company - the company had violated the free prior and informed consent of the villagers as stated in Cmeroons’1974 land ordinance - activities of SG-SOC prohibited - chiefs are not acting on behalf of the population

Bassosi Cultural and Development Association

Land acquisition by SG-SOC in Nguti sub Division of February 2011

-the project is not sustainable and beneficial to the Bassosi man given the environmental, economic, social and future implications

Strikes, demonstrations and legal complaints

Babensi II against SGSOC, April 2014

- demanded that the company should leave because they occupied their land without their consent - demanded compensation for damages caused during their illegal occupation

Population of Fabe and Nguti villages, 2010-2013

-blocked access into the company’s oil nursery


Implication of investment and business climate

1. 6 years after signing the convention SG-SOG is unable to start operation

2. Suspension of activities by counts and administration

3. Reduction of size of land from 73000hec to 20,000

4. New costs of ongoing renegotiation with communities and legal battles

5. The palm nursery they started in Fabe is overgrown and the company is selling seedlings instead of planting

6. Lack of local cooperation through encroachment in to plantations and stealing of fruits (PHP)

Way forward

1. Strengthen the laws on land ownership to clearly define who own the land and both investors and government should follow lay down procedures.

2. Both government and investors need to respect the rights of local communities and not underestimate their resilient.

3. Investors need broad consultation with affected communities before their land is taken and their interest mainstreamed into the deals.

4. Chiefs do not own land

5. Affected communities must be psychologically prepared, especially women who will lose their primary source of livelihood

6. Financial compensation is not enough for communities where land is synonymous to life. Compensation packages should be able to have the same lifespan as that of the lease. These include creating plantations to communities where the company will serve as one of the clientele (PALMO), allowing communities to continue exploiting part of the leased land when not in use

7. Its interest of investors and their investments as well as that if the sttate to legally empower ensure effective participation of all segments of affected population , especially the youth and women for the security of their investments



Conclusion Acquisition of large scale land for agro-investment is not a bad development strategy for Cameroon. What is however bad with it is the practices and processes that are neither accountable to existing laws nor to affected customary communities. Both situations can be fixed by both government and investors to minimize unnecessary leakages, instabilities, and tensions. All which reduces the benefits of LSLAs to investors, state and even affected communities.Although women in Cameroon are negatively affected by LSLAs, they do not take the fore to demand for their land rights. Nevertheless, they constitute an important force of the resistance efforts of affected communities which need to be harnessed, reconstituted, empowered to a veritable movement of it own.


Thank [email protected]

disenchanting voices from within: interrogating women’s resistance to large-scale agro-investments...

Documents