Cotton farming has reshaped the land, water supply, and lives of those whose property is sought by corporations that grow and supply cotton. Those whose land and waterways are stolen away from them. Individuals and corporations have increased their wealth through the acquisition of land through unjust manner, a concept known as land grabbing.
The general notion of land grabbing is when land is acquired by outside private investors, companies, or governments and, local communities lose their right to land, threatening their livelihoods. Those who had lived on the acquired land are forced to leave through intimidation, threat or, enforcement. The most vulnerable to land grabbing are the poor, pastoralists, and indigenous populations (Pimbert, 2017) who are generally ill-informed of their rights to be able stop land acquisition and are unable to successfully defend themselves. As the government, companies and, investors prosper the land and people of the area are deprived of the way of life.
In that, small-scale producers or natives of the land are increasingly harmed by the discourse, law, coercion and, violence used to deny them of their rights to the land and water. In both cases, the powerful and wealthy violate justice and infringe on a range of social factors to increase their own prosperity. Foreign investment in farmland is frequently promoted by investors and host governments, under the guise of new technologies, jobs, and capital (Gonzalez, 2015).
International investment law has also facilitated global land and water grabs by enabling foreign investors to gain more favorable treatment than domestic stakeholders. The rights foreign investors can get in their contracts to include: land and water rights, tax incentives, rights to exports and, stabilization clause (Smeiler & Mann, 2009). Despite the global South’s restriction to government assistance as stated by the World Bank’s one-size-fits-all packages, foreign investors seem to get the same advantage as Northern nations use at home.
One documented example occurred in the lower Omo Valley of Ethiopia. Here leading textile manufactures proposed organic cotton projects. The project was presented as a way to reduce heavy pesticide practices, from the Green Revolution, which has led to serious impacts on health and the environment. Overuse of pesticides had made many people in the area suffer from chronic illnesses including cancers, neurological diseases and, infertility (Keeley, 2014). This was a result of farms in developing areas that had weak regulations and less available protective equipment using chemicals.
To “correct” the harm caused to the cotton farmers, they took the misfortune of the people in the area to imposed more investment opportunities for higher value crops. The Ethiopian government promised to transfer the people affected by the land grabs to new villages which would provide resources and infrastructure. However, the program displaced hundreds of thousands of local people to villages with inadequate food, agricultural support, health or education facilities (Soderpalm & Ringstrom, 2014).
Despite the ‘good intention’, there was a lack of transparency, safeguards and, monitoring as well as promises of jobs, schools, and hospitals that never materialize (Barrie, 2014). This particularly harmed the poor farmers who had been forced off their land under the scheme without any meaningful consultation nor compensation.