Land Investment in South Sudan: A Dangerous Game for the World’s Newest Country

In July 2011, after thirty years of civil war and the resulting damage to housing, land and the economy, South Sudan emerged a “free” and “sovereign” state, although highly fragmented and dependent on aid. This fragile nation with rampant corruption makes it a lucrative target for widespread private investment and land acquisition. The current trend of land grabbing involving African states, foreign investors and subsequent control over valuable natural resources constitutes a new form of domination that seriously threatens the foundation and reinforcement of state sovereignty and the rights of people to access and manage the resources necessary to realize their right to food.

 Post-conflict Land Acquisition

To a post-conflict country such as South Sudan, which is lacking investment and has few natural resources to offer the global market, foreign land investments are deceptively attractive.[1] Between the years 2007 and 2010, foreign companies, governments and individuals acquired at least 2.64 million hectares of land, roughly the size of Slovenia, in South Sudan.[2] This means that on 9 July 2011, the day the Comprehensive Peace Agreement[3] expired and South Sudan gained independence, approximately 9% of its territory was already under foreign control, and this proportion continues to grow.

The ability of governments to lease, or make land available in the first place rests on the lack of clarity in land tenure, specifically the lack of cohesion between customary tenure and statutory land laws. In Sub-Saharan Africa, over 90% of land is regulated under an informal system, but the government formally owns much of the land and those who use it do not have a formal title or ownership over it.[4]

The situation in South Sudan is even more difficult as many people have been displaced from their previous lands due to the conflict. Additionally, the interference of international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, and other international actors in reforming land policies has created a more-favorable climate for foreign investment.[5]Many proponents of these deals claim that agricultural investment will tackle issues of domestic food insecurity. However, most of them proceed in a very opaque manner, as information on the money exchanged, the players involved or their real motives remains elusive.

Researchers, particularly through the Oakland Institute, have thoroughly documented this phenomenon.[6]Their reports make clear that all investments taking place in South Sudan present considerable risk for both parties, but in particular for the local communities. Although the government is taking steps toward developing land policies, South Sudan still lacks a clear system of land tenure.

Without clear rules and consistency on the part of the government, many communities risk being deprived of their right to free, prior and informed consent and also being displaced. Essentially what is lost is the often claimed “community benefit” of these agricultural investments.

Access to Land

According to the World Food Program (WFP), approximately 90% of South Sudanese households depend on farming, animal husbandry, fishing or forestry to meet their needs, which implies a reliance on access to land. Most of the larger land deals that have been made involve land already used by communities, and several are located in densely populated areas, where “tens or even hundreds of thousands of people rely on land and natural resources for their daily livelihoods.” Large-scale land grabbing seriously threatens how many families meet their basic needs in South Sudan. These land deals indicate that the land can support a large amount of agriculture and produce a sizeable amount of food, yet the WFP anticipates providing food assistance in 2013 to some 2.8 million South Sudanese, or approximately 28% of the total population.[7]

Moving Forward

It is time to question the ethical and legal obligations of the government of South Sudan, as it welcomes foreign investments in agriculture mainly intended for food export, despite the fact that a significant proportion of the local population lacks access to food and, thus, cannot realize their human right to food.

Although South Sudan has become a member to the United Nations and the African Union, it has not yet entered many key international protection treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Banjul Charter). The Banjul Charter contains a progressive reading of human rights, and holds the core principle of food sovereignty, which is local control over food systems. Article 21, which explicitly provides protection from the exploitation of natural resources and a repeat of the continents colonial past, and should be read in light of the current threat of land-grabbing, states that “peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources and be provided adequate compensation and reparation for property loss,” and that states “shall undertake to eliminate all forms of foreign economic exploitation particularly that practiced by international monopolies.” Human rights instruments also can provide an important normative framework of legally binding state responsibility. It is urgent that South Sudan move forward in that direction, starting with ratifying and implementing these instruments.

Another important area to focus on during this transition is the extraterritorial obligations of states that are investing in South Sudan.[8] It is imperative that foreign investors follow strict regulations regarding the social, economic and environmental impacts on the countries they are investing in, and this has to be ensured by the states in compliance with their human rights obligations. Other international instruments that the state can use as guidance are the recently adopted FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure,[9] particularly when implementing the new land policy that South Sudan’s government has adopted.[10]

As of now, most of the population has not benefited from secession and has seen no improvement in basic services and livelihood.The new country faces a pressing need to put people before profits. Strategies that allow for local control over natural resources will not only boost the local economy in a culturally appropriate way, but have the potential to decrease aid dependency.

The current wave of land acquisition across this country has not been fully publicized, due to the unstable political situation. However, it is imperative that the government and the people of South Sudan act now to reverse the trend and to ensure that their rights are upheld and their resources preserved. This will be a primary strategy for the world’s newest country to reach true independence and freedom.

(A version of this article first appeared in the 2013 Right to Food and Nutrition Watch)

Photo: Peter Biro/IRC