jmaine:

Moving in circles is not my thing, am not configured to endure endless and futile arguments . . . follow up my flow line and you will appreciate the fact that in weighing a problem you not only look at the pros and cons but you also look at where can be improved . .But people over played the negative aspects and all i did was bring appreciate all side of the divide and possibly give a reason as to why they seemed so  . . And please in my posts watch out for the answers you require, cos they are always embedded in my replies .   . .You need to be open minded to see them clearly . . .

I asked a question below and you dodged it , why?

GLO is a solely Nigerian owned company doing well in one of the most competitive industry in Nigeria. . IBB or no IBB, GLO is doing well, and i believe  Mike Adenuga is the owner unless you substantially convince us that IBB owns Glo . .  which i doubt . .  Abacha, highly favoured Dangote, does that make Dangote a front for Abacha holdings ?

GLO signifies the Nigerian content absolutely in a field that was dominated by foreign companies and am content with the emboldened part since they contribute a lot to the GDP of my dear country Nigeria . . What more should i ask . .

2muchlogic:

Well I think you are contradicting yourself, on the one hand you accuse people of being pessimistic then you claim:

When will that moment be? There has never been good over-sight due to the absence of strong institutions therefore the skepticism is justified. GLO Babangidas stolen loot invested is a good NIGERIAN company, a good example of buying and implementing technology rather than inventing it.  [size=17pt]However, contrary to its name it has NOT gone global I wonder why? maybe its due to the presence of stringent telecommunication regulations[/size].  

2muchlogic:

You have not answered any of my questions constructively, now you attempt to bore the living daylights out of everyone by defending GLO and asking if I believe there are any good people left in government - what a joke!  

Guess i was mistaken i could answer you and engage you in a tangible debate (not futile argument) . .you pass for a fellow who doesn't know how to read replies for his questions . . Did you see this  below . . am convinced you just graze through posts without seeking for your answers and when you see one you force yourself to deny it . . I did post a lot of things, why pick out a few which obviously you have no strong footing to stand and dwell on, even retorting am defending GLO when it's operations and contributions are glaring, what a joke  . .could it be the nairaland penchant to always win at all cost 

jmaine:



Glo plans to go global but that wont happen at an instant, it takes time gradually and  they are already operating in the Republic of Benin, Ghana and Ivory Coast . .  . .So is that not regional expansion before they go continental .  . . Remove that pessimism of yours bruv and be objective please

The Korean business executive disclosed that SYNCTOP would buy all agricultural produce generated from the project.

aribisala0:

ungrateful lot we are korean business men go to bed at nite and wake up every day thinking how to feed us and what do they get in return? abuse.
africans!!!

aribisala0:

they love us more than themselves.that is koreans for you

jmaine:

Guess i was mistaken i could answer you and engage you in a tangible debate (not argument) .  

jmaine:

you pass for a fellow who doesn't know how to read replies for his questions . . Did you see this  below . . am convinced you just graze through posts without seeking for your answers and when you see one you force yourself to deny it . . I did post a lot of things, why pick out a few which obviously you have no strong footing to stand and dwell on, even retorting am defending GLO when it's operations and contributions are glaring, what a joke   . .could it be the nairaland penchant to always win at all cost 

nakedwire:

Why don't they build processing facilities to process the agricultural produce in Nigeria.
Instead, they want to export to factories in their country and our people will import the finished product back to nigeria at 10 times the original price.

nakedwire:

Why don't they build processing facilities to process the agricultural produce in Nigeria.
Instead, they want to export to factories in their country and our people will import the finished product back to nigeria at 10 times the original price.

aribisala0:

they love us more than themselves.that is koreans for you

nakedwire:

Why don't they build processing facilities to process the agricultural produce in Nigeria.
Instead, they want to export to factories in their country and our people will import the finished product back to nigeria at 10 times the original price.

fyneguy:

He added that the investors would hand over the project to the Ekiti State Government after three years of managing it, explaining further that the scheme is also expected to provide free construction materials as well as tools for rural farmers.

Is it me or some people did not read this in the article?

For your information, not all agri-biz investors are interested in land ownership. From what I could infer from the article, the investor is more interested in the farm produce. They have offered the government what we call guaranteed purchase- I buy anything you produce- this may be 100% or less over a definite period of time, which may be extended with right of first refusal.

The company is bringing money, managerial and technical expertise which will be transferred to the employees within 3 years of operation.

I don't see anything sinister in this offer. If anything, the company could have cleverly structured their offer to Ekiti government, with little or nothing
going to Ekiti.

OAM4J:


Gbam! +1

aribisala0:

shonga break even?for where?
i heard they defaulted on the loan guaranteed by kwara state who are now paying

J12:

Reeks of scam.

Aigbofa:

They will sink $400 M into a project and hand it over to the state government in three years? We all know this will not happen unless the company is engaged in charity.

Some of the farmers at shonga are just starting to break even after all these years and our Korean friends will be off in three years!

fyneguy:

What makes you think they will not break even? Do you know their business model? Do you have the details of the kind of potfolio they intend to adopt to
yield huge profit for them?

All Business models are not as simple as taking corns to the market to sell, my brother.

Aigbofa:

They will sink $400 M into a project and hand it over to the state government in three years? We all know this will not happen unless the company is engaged in charity.

Some of the farmers at shonga are just starting to break even after all these years and our Korean friends will be off in three years!

OAM4J:

I think you have a valid serious point. But I still hope this can be managed if the Govt study the proposal very well and ensures it guarantees the ownership of the land remains with the people of Ekiti.

Except you think that is impossible.

Katsumoto:

This is a land grab and this is the way it works

The foreign companies seek to get many deals knowing fully well that some deals may fall through due to local opposition. They pay pennies for arable and fertile land and profit so much that they are able to throw in a few benefits. It may be true that the Ekiti people may be able to get their land back if there are no visible benefits but what must be highlighted here is the fact that these Chinese and South Korean companies are paying pennies for land, promising to spend on technology, jobs, etc but not delivering. If Europeans are able to identify that these are land grabs, why are Africans so gullible to believe otherwise?

They spend a little, grab what they can until they are kicked out and then look for the next deal.


See article below from the economist
Some projects’ operators have done better in building new schools, clinics and other “social infrastructure”. Madagascar may be a surprising example as it witnessed what is perhaps the most notorious land grab of all: a South Korean company was offered half the country’s arable land—a proposal that fuelled protests which eventually toppled the government who approved the deal. Two years later Perrine Burnod of CIRAD, a French research organisation, found that the number of land deals on the island had fallen by two-thirds. And those that remained had begun to look more like aid projects, with investors committing themselves to building schools and clinics. Local mayors were welcoming them in to help finance projects no longer supported by the cash-strapped central government.

Yet this is atypical. Most land deals contribute little or nothing to the public purse. Because markets for land are so ill-developed in Africa and governments so weak, rents are piffling: $2 per hectare per year in Ethiopia; $5 in Liberia. Tax and rent holidays are common. Indeed, it is not unusual for foreign investors to pay less tax than local smallholders. And upfront compensation to local farmers for use of their land is derisory: often just a few months of income for agreeing to a 100-year lease.

“The risks associated with such investments are immense,” concludes the World Bank. “In many cases public institutions were unable to cope with the surge in demand…Land acquisitions often deprived local people, in particular the vulnerable, of their rights…Consultations, if conducted at all, were superficial…and environmental and social safeguards were widely neglected.”

So why are land deals popular? That is surprisingly easy to answer: strong demand and willing suppliers. The big investors tend to be capital-exporting countries with large worries about feeding their own people. Their confidence in world markets has been shaken by two food-price spikes in four years. So they have sought to guarantee food supplies by buying farmland abroad. China is by far the largest investor, buying or leasing twice as much as anyone else.

Local elites have also played a vital role in spreading land deals. In a Tanzanian project described by Martina Locher of the University of Zurich, “local people who refer to customary law have a very low level of knowledge [and cannot] defend their land rights.” [/b]In contrast, she writes, “state law is mainly represented by district officials, who…enjoy a high level of respect by local people.”

[b]Then there is corruption. Many of the west African “land grabbers” described by Ms Hilhorst are local politicians, civil servants and other urban elites who bribe local chiefs with gifts of motorbikes. Madeleine Fairbairn of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, argues that in Mozambique, an informal division of the spoils has emerged. Local bigwigs use their influence to get “facilitation fees”, while national leaders manipulate the law and promote (or obstruct) projects to their own and their supporters’ advantage.

Many development projects work this way. What makes land grabs unusual is their combination of high levels of corruption with low levels of benefit. Ruth Meinzen-manliness, one of the authors of the IFPRI study, says that in 2009 the balance of costs and benefits was genuinely unclear. Now, she argues, the burden of evidence has shifted and it is up to the proponents of land deals to show that they work. At the moment, they have precious few examples to point to.

http://www.economist.com/node/18648855