Blog

On September 12th 2013 Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor presented to the Liberian House of Representatives on the ‘National Oil Company (NOCAL) Act, 2013’ and the ‘Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act, 2013’ two crucial pieces of legislation which could be passed without any public consultation.

Introduction

Liberia has a history of poorly managing its natural resource wealth. The current government, civil society and the population acknowledge this and agree that weak governance especially corruption remains a major challenge. Reforms of the natural resource sector have aimed to institutionalize transparency, accountability, and public participation in governance, but in spite of changes in laws and policies, the old practices of exclusion and marginalization persist.

The submission of the proposed ‘National Oil Company (NOCAL) Act, 2013’ and the ‘Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act, 2013’ to the Legislature without any public consultation is another example.

On August 29, Israel Akinsanya, the NOCAL’s Director of Public Affairs said in a public forum: “there will be a nationwide consultation on the law. I promise you that. It will be taken to the people with their reps [sic] as part of the process before it is passed.” Honourable members of the House, this is the best way forward.

Why Public Consultation
 
Oil has a poor track record in Africa. Conflict and corruption linked to oil in Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Nigeria have been well documented. Nigeria is particularly notorious for the poor management of its oil wealth. Let’s not follow their examples.

“One of the problems we’ve had in our part of the world is oil discoveries and large deposits of natural resources have been more of a curse than a blessing” [1]
-    Chris Neyor, former head of NOCAL

Liberia’s history and present realities bear testimony to Neyor’s assertion. The roots of the conflict can be traced back to decades of exclusion and marginalization of the majority of the population from mainstream political and economic activities in the country. Institutions of political governance were heavily centralized and concentrated in the hands of the elites and many people had limited access to economic assets. [2]  Governance in Liberia has improved somewhat, but significant problems still remain. To exclude the public from the debate about a critical national asset such as oil is to ignore the hard lessons of our civil war; let’s not make the same mistakes as those before us.  
 
Conclusion

The House of Representatives should not concur with the Liberian Senate on these proposed legislations until nationwide consultation has been conducted, and public concerns addressed in the final versions.

Commercial exploitation of oil will not automatically translate into prosperity for Liberia and its people. Weak governance and corruption could undermine the potential for wealth creation and the equitable distribution of the benefits of oil. Without good governance in the sector, the expected economic benefits are unlikely to be realized. To avoid this, let’s start with these laws. A robust legal framework that is formulated through an informed and inclusive public debate will ensure that the public understands and participates in the decision regarding the direction the country takes. 

Under Article 7 of the Liberian constitution, the government has the responsibility to “manage the natural resources of Liberia in such manner as shall ensure the maximum feasible participation of Liberian citizens under conditions of equality so as to advance the general welfare of the Liberian people and economic development of Liberia.” [3]

Providing space and conditions for an informed public debate on these proposed legislations is in line with this obligation. This is your opportunity to leave a legacy; take advantage of it.

Notes

1. Valdmanis, Richard, Oil Hopes Run Deep in Troubled Liberia, Reuters, October 10, 2011 [Online at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-liberia-oil-idUSTRE7994YO2…].

2. Poverty Reduction Strategy, Government of Liberia, 2008.

3. Government of Liberia, 1986 Constitution of Liberia, Article 7.

Liberia’s government has opened vast forest areas up to corporate interests. Poor people are bearing the brunt. Weak governance is part of the problem – and so is rich nations’ huge demand for forest resources.

Liberia is a small country, but it hosts more than half of the remaining forest in West Africa. More than 2 million hectares of forest land is now under concession for logging and plantation development. The government signed contracts with logging companies, granting them access to more than 1 million hectares. Other deals allow oil-palm plantations to use a further 1 million hectares. The two main contracts last up to 63 and 65 years.

The government prioritises foreign-direct investment in cash-crop production for export purposes, even though there are concerns about food security. Senior officials insist that the land and forest areas concerned are not being utilised. This attitude reveals their limited appreciation for what forests and biodiversity means to the local people.

Forests are disappearing fast from West Africa. The reasons are legal as well as illegal logging, large-scale land clearances and forest conversion for monoculture plantation, mainly for oil palm and rubber. The trend hurts poor people who depend on forest resources including firewood, building materials, food and traditional medicines. Researchers from Columbia University (Balachandran et al 2012) found that communities affected by oil-palm plantations in Liberia experience worse food insecurity than communities in areas where this industry has not expanded. They reported that 63 % of the households near plantations were in debt, and the need to buy food is an important reason for taking loans. In non-affected areas, the share of indebted households is only 37 %, and people are much more likely to use the money for their children’s higher education.

There is evidence of similar trends in neighbouring countries. According to a study that was recently published by Christian Aid (Baxter 2013), people affected by plantation expansion in Sierra Leone are “now struggling to purchase food or even going without the food they once produced for themselves”. Reports of this kind prove that the destruction of forests disrupts peoples’ lives. It is an urgent social and human rights issue and not just an environmental one.

Illegal logging is still a huge problem in Liberia, though it should not be anymore. In 2006, the government cancelled all existing logging contracts. It enacted a new forestry law, adopted a new policy and put in place new regulations. The legal framework looked promising. But it soon became evident that reform implementation and rule enforcement would be hampered by a lack of political will. The sad truth is that forest officials and private-sector companies tend to ignore the law.

For instance, in 2008 and 2009 government officers insisted on allowing companies to bid for contracts even though these companies did not meet the legal requirements for doing so. Even companies that had been barred from tenders by presidential order were allowed to take part. Logging contracts, moreover, were allocated in violation of the procurement law, which requires cabinet oversight.

In December 2008, a UN Panel of Experts warned in a report to the UN Security Council that “concerted efforts will be required to ensure that the forestry reform process continues so that the sector can contribute on a long-term basis to the development of Liberia”. The report pointed out breaches of the law, but the government ignored such information.

Concerns about failing reforms intensified in 2010 when the government allocated additional logging contracts. As I argued in detail at the time (Siakor 2010), these deals violated various laws. An audit that was commissioned by the government confirmed this fact in 2013. Nonetheless, not one of the government officials or logging companies involved has been held accountable in any way.

In 2011, several companies began to abuse private-use permits (PUPs) systematically. This is a special permit category which is supposed to allow small-scale land holders to sell timber on their land to logging countries. By 2012, however, PUPs covered more than 2 million hectares of forest.

President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf ordered an independent investigation and instructed the Ministry of Justice to prosecute those involved in the abuse of PUPs. However, no one was arraigned before a court by the time this essay was written in early September 2013. Instead, the legislature was considering amendments to the forestry law which would reward the same companies with more than $ 35 million in waived taxes and arrears.

The global dimension

The Liberian scenario is typical of Africa. Consumerism in Europe, the United States and emerging markets is driving the unsustainable exploitation of renewable and non-renewable resources. Corporate greed results in resource pillage while tax evasion and avoidance further exacerbate under-development in Liberia.

Governance tends to be weak in Africa. But that is only part of the problem. Political systems and structures in Europe, the United States and Asia facilitate the pillage of Liberian forests. The irony is that, while international companies exploit the country’s resources, western governments announce millions in aid to Liberia. They are feeding a vicious cycle of exploitation and hand outs.

“Africa’s resource wealth has been plundered and squandered. It has served the interests of the few, not the many”, is the recent assessment of the Africa Progress Panel (2013). The Panel, which is chaired by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary-general, goes on to argue that “revenues that could have been used to improve lives have instead been used to build personal fortunes, finance civil wars, and support corrupt and unaccountable political elites”. According to the Panel, Africa loses “twice as much in illicit financial outflows as it receives in international aid”.

According to the UNDP, 84 % of Liberian people live in multidimensional poverty. They face deprivations in health, education and their overall standard of living. Liberia ranked 174th out of a total of186 countries listed on the Human Development Index in 2012. In this context, it provides very little comfort that the government felt compelled to state in 2011: “Liberians are healthier, better fed, have more income, consume more, are more literate and enjoy the greatest amount of freedom ever.”

By Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor

This article first appeared in D+C Development and Cooperation magazine

References

1. Africa Progress Panel: Africa Progress Report 2013. http://africaprogresspanel.org/en/publications/africa-progress-report-2…
2. Balachandran, L., Herb, E., Timirzi, S., and O’Reilly, E., 2012: Everyone must eat? Liberia, food security and palm oil. Columbia University. http://www.cornell-landproject.org/download/landgrab2012papers/balachan….
3. Baxter, J., 2013: Who is benefitting? Chistian aid. http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/who-is-benefitting-Sierra-Leone-r…
4. Siakor, S. K.A, 2010: The promise betrayed. Sustainable Development Institute. http://www.sdiliberia.org/sites/default/files/publications/2010_Liberia…
5. UN Panel of Experts, 2008: Report to Security Council. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2008/785

In recent weeks Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) has been the subject of a campaign of misinformation in the press and through public statements made by Mr. Walter Wisner, Vice Chairman of the Land Commission of Liberia. On August 5, SDI issued a statement directly responding to this campaign of misinformation and to clarify some key points related to its advocacy and purpose as an organisation.

Speaking before a gathering of community members in Grand Cape Mount County, Mr. Wisner had made a number of serious accusations, calling a recent fact sheet published by SDI and Friends of the Earth “lies,” and attempting to tarnish SDI's credibility and reputation. SDI strongly refuted his comments in the statement, and expressed its concern at the implications of a senior civil servant attempting to cause harm to the reputation of a Liberian civil society organization without providing any evidence of wrongdoing. SDI has since received a letter from the Land Commission expressing “regret” at Mr. Wisner’s comments and an assurance that they do not represent the position of the Commission itself.

SDI has reiterated its commitment to maintaining a good professional relationship with the Land Commission on the important work of reforming Liberia’s land law. SDI is presently engaged with the Land Commission with the intention of bringing this matter to a satisfactory close.

SDI staff appeared on Fabric Radio to discuss the statement.

Recently, the G8 convened to discuss the most pressing issues facing the global economy. On the agenda yet again was Africa’s state of underdevelopment and poverty, with a particular focus on the critical role of agriculture in feeding the continent's people and boosting economic growth. The initiative under discussion, spearheaded by President Barack Obama's administration, is called the “New Alliance,” and it threatens to accelerate the transfer of resource ownership from rural Africans to multinational corporations while failing to meaningfully improve their lives.

Far from representing a ‘new’ approach to agriculture and development, the key policy objectives of the Alliance are reminiscent of an ugly past where engagement with Africa served to enrich foreign interests and domestic elites rather than the rural and urban poor. Only this time around, a broad spectrum of African organizations are up in arms against the initiative and for good reasons.

At the heart of the New Alliance is the idea that investment in African agriculture is needed to boost yields, feed the hungry, and turn underutilized land to productive and profitable use. No observer of the continent's agricultural sector would disagree with this premise – the question is, who is doing the investing and who will be the primary beneficiaries of this new initiative? A quick glance of the Alliance's corporate supporters reveals a cadre of the world’s foremost agribusiness interests, seed producers, and food distributors whose track records in the sector leave a lot to be desired.

On the face of it, this seems reasonable enough. The international private sector has a surplus of capital, demand for agricultural commodities is on the rise, and smallholders across the continent are in desperate need of investment and market access. Yet, as is often the case with development initiatives, what sounds convincing and reasonable in an air-conditioned American or European conference hall may hide a very different state of affairs from that on the ground.

The Alliance emphasizes the need to formalize land ownership systems and offers countries millions of dollars in incentives in exchange for opening their agricultural sectors to foreign capital. Where that capital promotes the growth of local business, establishes markets and builds infrastructure that can assist African farmers in selling more food, it holds the potential to kickstart a new era of equitable economic growth. However, reading between the lines of the policies underlying the initiative reveals a contrasting story.

In the current governance climate in many of the target countries, a far likelier outcome is that countries participating in the New Alliance will see another wave of land acquisitions by foreign entities, who seek fertile African land to grow lucrative commodities that can be sold on international markets – typically not even in Africa. That this land is often used – if not outright owned – by poor rural farming communities seems not to factor into the analysis underpinning the Alliance’s plan. Numerous human-rights organizations have commented on the improper and occasionally brutal methods employed by governments seeking to accommodate foreign investors who pay large sums of money for such land leases. At stake is the development model that will dictate the trajectory of life in rural Africa in the coming decades, and whether investment will strengthen accountability in African governance or weaken it.

When foreign investment serves to stimulate smallholder participation in markets and increases the profitability of their farms, it boosts the ability of the poor to re-invest in their own communities and gives them the financial security they need to challenge bad government policies. When investment dispossess them of their only valuable asset and relegates them to a condition of wage labour, it can cause dangerous resentments and worsen living conditions for community members who lose access to land but are not hired by investors.

As most menial jobs tend to go to men in these instances, the concentration of household incomes in the hands of men can also adversely affect the situation of women. Given the lack of real evidence that these land deals reduce poverty and bring meaningful benefits to the host-country economy, the question must be asked: whose interests are being served by the New Alliance, the poor or those with an eye on their land?

As activists in Liberia, we have seen the damage that can be caused by these deals. Communities are cajoled into giving away land and then get angry when vague promises of development are not fulfilled. At a recent conference on agriculture held by organizations in Monrovia, farmers and local agribusinesses complained of disorganization in donor programming, lack of government responsiveness to their requests, and a dearth of capital investment. None expressed a desire to see foreign companies come and take de facto ownership of the land they hope will lift them out of poverty.

Why would they want this, given how little such deals stand to benefit those who are most intimately involved in farming in Africa? If the public officials and development agencies who are promoting the New Alliance are truly serious about taking the important step of investing in African agriculture, they would be wise to listen to such voices, rather than those of the powerful and wealthy interests who stand to gain so much from this ‘new’ vision for Africa's poor and malnourished.

By Silas Kpanan’Ayoung Siakor and Ashoka Mukpo

This article was published by the Toronto Globe and Mail