Deal #3107 Version #58747

Cargill had stated that it had interest in acquiring 90000 hectares in Vichada, Colombia. The report and work by Oxfam around these land acquisitions allowed the identification of more than 50000 hectares that belong to the subsidiaries created by the american company to surround Colombian legislation. In spite of this fact, by considering the area included in those plots that present monoculture close to Cargill holdings, the total area would account for almost one hundred thousand hectares.

Due to the controversy linked to this case, the managers of Cargill and its subsidiares argued that the intention of the investment is to produce the cereals that Colombia has to import to satisfy its domestic demand. The goal of this produce is to satisfy demand for human consumption and animal feeds.

There is a huge controversy regarding this deal, or those deals, in fact. According to Colombian legislation valid by the time of the land acquisition (Ley 160 de 1994), it is not allowed to accumulate land that was allocated by the State which exceeds the limit of an Unidad Agrícola Familiar (UAF - Familiar Agricultural Unit). The size of this unit might vary depending on soil quality, infrastructure, access to markets, etc. The idea is that one UAF should be enough for a landless or poor rural family to acquire a minimal social welfare with the context inherent to the place where they obtain the land. To overcome this "limitation", Cargill, by means of its subsidiaries Black River Asses Management, Cargill Trading Colombia, Cargill de Colombia and Colombia Agro, created a private company for any holding to be acquired a few months previous to the land transaction and these will make a long-term rent agreement with Cargill subsidiaries. After this all happened, the private companies created by Cargill were liquidated. These proceeding was advised by the law firm Brigard & Urrutia, which had already done the same with other cases. Since law 160 of 1994 specifies that no person or company can own more than an UAF that was previously allocated intentionally to poor peasants, it is up to anybody to define whether this procedure was legal or not to acquire the land. For some this move was unethical, but not illegal. Up until now, the judiciary system has done nothing regarding this case. Source 10 Source 12 Source 14 Source 7

There might be some inconsistencies with the prices of these holdings. According to the Oxfam report, the first owners of the land sold their plots to intermediaries for a low price, some by the end of the 90s and others at the beginning of the 2000s. Those intermediaries then sold the plots to the private companies created by Cargill for 30 times the initial price, in some cases. According to an article by the investigative group "Rutas del Conflicto", some of these peasants decided to sell their land at any price due to the constant conflict around these areas. Oxfam states that it could not find any violence related to the land transactions. Source 12 Source 14