Logs are strewn across a barren field like bones in an elephant graveyard. These trees, recently part of a virgin rainforest, were cut down by a logging company under a dubious contract. In the past months further details have arisen of fraudulent deeds (Private Use Permits – PUPS) used across Liberia to grant logging contracts to foreign companies. The PUP scandal has only fueled the discussion over how the country’s resources are being tapped.
Today, Liberia has one of the highest rates of land concession in Africa. Various reports estimate that anywhere between 45 and 65 % of the country’s total land area has already been granted or promised to foreign investors. This reality stems, in part, from the ideological orientation of the State, which sees land and natural resources as a commodity to be leveraged in order to fuel the country’s growth. The belief is that not only will capital be generated through such projects, but jobs will also be created in the process.
Following this ideology, Liberia’s immense natural wealth – including her land – is steadily being granted to foreign companies through logging, mining, and agricultural plantation contracts. In recent years around 661,000 hectares were given to two foreign corporations for oil palm production. The same language of foreign investment and economic prosperity that was used in the 1920's to bring Firestone to Liberia (which has faced decades of accusations of violating workers' rights) is being repeated today to justify large-scale agricultural plantation.
In agrarian societies land is the most important facet of daily life for most people. Threats to rural people’s land tenure bring along the dangers of displacement, dispossession and division. While many across the world struggle for basic social services awaiting the trickle-down, perhaps it is time to re-examine the prescribed path towards progress.
As vast tracts of land are allocated for concessions, serious questions are being raised about this strategy towards development. What say do local communities have in the allocation of their customary land? How are benefits from these projects being distributed amongst affected communities? And, what will the long-term impacts be of increased competition for land between communities, companies, and government? The deeper you go in the forest, the more blurry the view becomes.
As vast tracts of land are allocated for concessions, serious questions are being raised about this strategy towards development. What say do local communities have in the allocation of their customary land? How are benefits from these projects being distributed amongst affected communities? And, what will the long-term impacts be of increased competition for land between communities, companies, and government? The deeper you go in the forest, the more blurry the view becomes.
There are those who insist that selling off the country’s resources won’t be an effective way to achieve inclusive development. They claim that no country has successfully risen out of poverty by simply allowing multinational corporations to take over the land. There are also concerns about the impact of large-scale monoculture plantation when it comes to food security and local agricultural improvement.
Instead of ceding large land areas for decades at a time, the goal should be to empower communities to reimagine themselves as the owners of the development process instead of simply the eventual beneficiaries. Just as Gandhi imagined self-sufficient village republics, the modern manifestation of such an idea may be worth exploring. By building the capacity of grassroots governance structures and protecting customary land rights, over time a more equitable and sustainable path forward may be found.
Even the World Bank, historically a driver of policies that prioritize the market, recently released a report which states that when communities manage their lands, resources are protected and a higher rate of economic growth exists.
With the reigns in their hands, local communities can directly manage some of the most important aspects of their lives, from water conservation to irrigation to the shared use of forests. Additionally, they could have more say about which benefits of modernity they adapt, while protecting the important parts of their culture, practices, and tradition. The assistance of the State, and other institutions, in establishing a collective vision would be useful in places where capacities are low. However, the ability of localized decision-making to achieve success and prosperity is already being found in villages and towns, globally.
Such a vision may be worth considering alongside the current state of concessions. After all, these decisions are not unique to Liberia. They remain relevant for developing societies across the world. Which path countries take will have profound reverberations on the lives of millions for generations to come.
