When white Zimbabwean farmer Irvin Reid arrived in Nigeria almost five years ago, he was given a set of grid references in the remote bush and told to find water and build a new farm.

His dairy farm now has 300 Jersey cows, some of among 800 imported from South Africa to start cattle farms in the region.

It’s a sharp contrast to things back in Zimbabwe, where campaigners say farmers face their worst year ever.

Reid was one of 13 white farmers invited with their families to Nigeria in 2005 after land seizures in Zimbabwe — which President Robert Mugabe says are necessary to correct the legacy of colonialism — stripped them of their livelihoods.

Farmers from South Korea, Kuwait and the United States have also arrived in Kwara state, which is keen to attract more investors and help Nigeria end its import reliance.

Hoping Zimbabwe’s loss might be its gain, Nigeria gave each farmer 1,000 hectares of land under a 25-year renewable lease in Shonga, the hub of the state’s commercial agriculture project.

Less than five years on, 80 percent of the land is under cultivation and the farmers have asked for  more.

“We arrived to virgin bush. We were basically just given GPS points, told to mark them out, clear the bush and find water, build the house, build the sheds, and import cattle,” Reid said.

“It was right from the grassroots and it was fun. We all lived in tents for a while,” he told Reuters Africa Journal.

Hundreds of tonnes of cassava, maize and soya beans are harvested for both local consumption and export markets.

Residents of Shonga were initially apprehensive when the Zimbabwe farmers first arrived. But that has changed.

Local government officials say the large-scale farming has increased local food supply, brought new skills to local farmers and triggered the emergence of new agricultural industries.

Kwara state’s commissioner of agriculture said 15 new commercial farms had been developed in addition to the 13 at Shonga and that 3,000-4,000 people had found work in the Shonga farms alone.

Nigeria’s agricultural sector has taken a back seat since the country started producing oil more than five decades ago.

The Shonga farms are jointly financed by Nigerian banks, but, with the global credit crunch forcing banks to tighten their lending criteria, access to long-term funds has been difficult.

Nigeria has set aside 200 billion naira to aid commercial farming although the funds have not been forthcoming, slowing down work and potentially affecting next year’s crop.

But the problems have not deterred other investors from streaming into Kwara. One group from Syria is clearing 600 hectares for poultry farming alone.

The announcement by a U.S. investor that he has a deal to lease a swathe of South Sudan for farmland has again focused attention on foreigners trying to snap up African agricultural land.

A few months ago, South Korea’s Daweoo Logistics said it had secured rights to plant corn and palm oil in an even bigger patch of Madagascar - although local authorities said the deal was not done yet. Investors from Asia and the Gulf are looking elsewhere in Africa too.

Investor interest in farmland – not only in Africa – grew sharply after food prices shot to record highs last year. Although commodity prices have fallen since, there is still anticipation of long term demand growth once the world emerges from its current economic troubles.

Philippe Heilberg, chairman and CEO of New York-based investment firm Jarch Capital, told Reuters he saw ripe opportunity for decades in south Sudan’s Mayom county. The deal covers land nearly twice the size of the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius.

Land is being leased from General Paulino Matip Nhial, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) - the armed wing of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in semi-autonomous South Sudan. Jarch Management is also buying an interest in a local company from Matip’s son.

But should Africa be handing out its land to foreign investors and will the local people and countries involved be the ones to benefit?

This commentary in the Financial Times made comparisons with the colonial grab for Africa’s resources and points out the damaging legacy that remains.

“There is a need for investment if the continent’s full agricultural potential is to be achieved. At a time of growing shortages, there is also an obvious need for African governments to prioritise domestic supplies. If the continent is to avoid repeating history, the big deals and speculation should come later,” it said.

Is it wise to discourage such investment, though, if investors are willing to bring big money to put the land to more efficient use than is currently the case? While some areas of Africa are densely populated and every scrap of ground is farmed, other hugely fertile areas are barely used.

Investors argue that they can bring jobs long term and will improve local infrastructure - perhaps more so than if they were taking land for less emotive mining or oil concessions - as well as increasing food supplies and foreign exchange earnings. Elsewhere in the world, mechanised agriculture and bigger farms have led to major productivity increases - although environmentalists argue they can cause damage too. Despite their best efforts, African governments have not always proven themselves the best at managing agricultural resources. Might Africa miss out on development that has helped fuel broader economic growth in countries such as Brazil?

Land ownership could also prove contentious. In the distant past, it was often held by communities as a whole or vested in traditional authorities. State officials now often have the greatest say. That opens the potential for official abuse of yet another valuable resource. Since governments can come and go unpredictably that also means an increase in risk for investors and can only be a further encouragement to cut costs for a quick return.

Heilberg said Jarch felt comfortable investing in Mayom and that the local politicians and population would be accepting of the investment.

“With risk, you have to look at risk and reward together - this is why we pick our areas very carefully,” he said.

So is major foreign investment in land a danger to Africa or is it an opportunity that the continent cannot afford to miss? Is there a way of making it work for everyone’s benefit? What do you think?

(Picture 1: A farmer cuts rice plants to sow at a paddy field in Ivory Coast, REUTERS/Luc Gnago)

(Picture 2: Boys carry sacks of weeds through fields of rice in Senegal. REUTERS/Normand Blouin)

After a decade of rampant destruction of the Mau forest water catchment in western Kenya, the country’s coalition government seems firmly united in trying to save the complex before more serious damage is inflicted on the economy.

U.N. officials say this is no longer simply an environmental issue but something that has huge importance for the whole country. Already two of the top three foreign exchange earners — tourism and tea — are feeling the impact of falling water levels which have also forced the postponement of a major hydro-electric project. 

Prime Minister Raila Odinga describes the forest’s destruction as a national emergency. Both foreign and local officials say there is no gap between Odinga and President Mwai Kibaki on the issue.

Saving the forest will involve huge costs to resettle and compensate some of the thousands of people living illegally there and restore tree cover which produces vital supplies of water. Officials say they expect international donors to provide major financial help.

Until a few months ago, the destruction of the forest was a familiar story of land grabbing, illegal logging and the allocation of government land to try to win votes. It began in 1997 when the government of Daniel arap Moi gave large plots away in exchange for electoral support.

Then, this year, the United Nations flew Odinga and other officials over the forest to show them the extent of the destruction, shocking them into urgent action.

The government is pushing ahead despite the fact that many of the area’s MPs and voters belong to Odinga’s ODM party. Unlike the past, political considerations are being pushed to one side in the national interest. U.N. officials call this process unique for a country long blighted by the depradations of powerful and greedy politicians.

This momentum is all the more striking because Odinga and Kibaki were bitter enemies before and during a bloody political crisis in the first two months of this year when around 1,500 people died in tribally-based clashes following the president’s disputed victory in an election.

Does the Mau forest issue mark a turning point in Kenyan politics or is it a one-off. What do you think?