MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Foreigners own 6% of rural land in Argentina, equivalent to 15.8 million hectares
A total of 5.93% of rural land in Argentina is foreign-owned President Cristina Fernández announced which amounts to 15.8 million hectares. During a speech at Government House, Justice Secretary Julián Alvarez presented a survey that is a prelude to the full implementation of the Law 26,737 on Rural Lands (Ley de Tierras Rurales) passed in 2011 to place a 15% limit on foreign ownership of rural land in Argentina. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWith Argentina's debts, it's all already owned by the international community.
Jul 24th, 2013 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess this is the start of her campaign to:
a) blame the lack of food on those nasty foreigners,
b) rewrite the constitution to allow the government to steal the land from these 'foreigners' and give it over to her La Campora zombies to cultivate - in other words she's going to do a Robert Mugabe.
Expect acres of fertile land to be stood barren whilst the people of Argentina starve. But it will all be the fault of the 'foreigners'.
8% still left!
Jul 24th, 2013 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0form an orderly queue
Oh dear, look at those Union Jacks lol
Jul 24th, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK is certainly not looking for international popularity. An endorsement of the Good Times she can expect to come.
Jul 24th, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does anyone else know the percentage for their country?
Jul 24th, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting law. The difference between investing in land and many other assets is obviously that land cannot be removed from the country.
Has there been any benefit from these foreign owners?
Has there been any benefit from this law?
A typical shallow story from Mercopress.
The 6% figure would probably be lower if foreign entities were easily able to repatriate funds out of Argentina. Their inability to do this may even lead to an increase in purchases as a hedge against inflation.
i thought that pretty much all of Argentina was already in foreign hands.... apart from a few reserves left for the actual indigenous population (not those Latino-Hispanic squatters who claim it as theirs)
Jul 24th, 2013 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the first step to confiscation.
Jul 24th, 2013 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Same as what happened in Venezuela.
some folk in here reading way too much into this vague story.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0~1/20th sounds about right, given population density, investment appeal, present day utility and value. probably a few jobs come out of it too. surely a one or two other beneficial stipulations somewhere in the contracts too.
why leave such an asset idle and profitless.
yes Britworker ... look at those union jacks. cha ching.
Thanks for adding the islands to the Argentine map.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are there any english investors ?
I was expecting one giant chinese flag covering the whole area and beyond.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Plenty of time yet.
Has Chrissie been talking to Mugabe again? She has a record of expropiating businesses when she needs cash and could take a leaf out of his book
Jul 25th, 2013 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why so many flags over Mendoza province? I thought it was a hellhole where no expats would ever want to live or invest.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess I was right again, Mendoza is better place to live than anything in the north, because money ain't everything in life. Which explains why most people here are so rich compared to myself yet so miserable and unsatisfiied.
There are many wineries OWNED by foreigners in Mendoza. Most have houses elsewhere as well and do not live in Mendoza permanently.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Union Flags, not Jacks, Jacks fly on ships.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I doubt even KFC would be insane enough to go Mugabe on purpose. However I am wondering if it will be a way to pressure Argies that own property outside Argentina to fund KFC's failing state.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Will be interesting to see the full data set and whether or not they have forgotten the Falkland Islands. My guess is they have been ignored, otherwise there would be a rather large province entirely foreign owned. Also rather surprised the map has not got a union flag covering the Falklands.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0@14
Jul 25th, 2013 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0WRONG!
“The Flag Institute, the vexillological organisation for the United Kingdom, stated that the term Union Flag is a ”relatively recent idea“. Jack was a word previously used to denote any flag.[4] It also noted that ”From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. In 1908 a government minister stated, in response to a Parliamentary question, that “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag” .”
http://www.flaginstitute.org/index.php?location=7.2
Decades ago there was a farm whose owner was Argentine
Jul 25th, 2013 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was wondering how many land in FI are owned by Argentine people or Argentine companies? Does anyone know?
@17 “WRONG!” NOT.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why didn't you post the whole of the Wikipedia article? Then people could have seen “the national flag of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories is the Union Flag, which may also be called the Union Jack.” The correct interpretation being that it is properly “the Flag” but may also be called “the Jack”. Then you could have mentioned King Charles' 1634 proclamation amd that of King George III in 1801. I'd be inclined to the view that two kings have more right to state what the “flag” of our country should be called than some “Institute”.
I hear there are a lot o vinyards for sale in Mendoza but nothing actually selling of course.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The smart money got out long ago.
It would be handy to have G.I.S. MAPPING OVERLAYS showing:
Jul 25th, 2013 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i. The distribution of land of high agricultural quality
(how much of the 95.8% of rural Argentina is 'agricultural?).
ii. The distribution of land in 'foreign' ownership.
iii. The distribution of land where the registered owner is an Argentinian (politician), but the substantive ownership is foreign.
I have a suspicion of a high degree of correlation.
Many a sordid truth can be hidden by a 'map' (travesty) such as this.
I am having a hard time understanding why there are so many posters making such a big deal about this. All countries define their strategic priorities in both domestic and foreign relations. A few years back the US Congress blocked a Dubai based company from operating US ports. Although there was no evidence of terrorism or any sign of negligence on the part of the operator, and with the UAE an active ally in the war on terror, ports were identified as a strategic asset by the US government.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some provinces in Canada limit foreign land ownership, with Alberta and Manitoba apparently limiting foreign owners to up to 20 acres. In the US dairy state of Wisconsin foreign individuals or corporations are limited to 640 acres (contrast with Argentina’s 2500 acre limit in the new law) in the state. Talk earlier this very year of lifting this prohibition was vocally contested by Wisconsin legislators. Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri prohibit foreign ownership of agricultural land (although they do not restrict ownership of non-agricultural land). Additional US states have different requirements that govern the sale of productive land to foreigners.
Productive agricultural land is a strategic asset, more so in a world with ever more mouths to feed. A number of countries outside South America from South Africa, Turkey, even New Zealand have been talking about limiting foreign ownership. Aside from the constant and continual animus towards Argentina, I have not seen a single post explaining why this is either bad, or why it is ok for Wisconsin to do this, but apparently bad when Argentina chooses to do something similar.
@22 You're quite right! You do have a hard time understanding. The problem is not with argieland “planting” the goalposts. The problem is that it keeps moving them. The “law” on this was only passed, in argieland, in 2011. In a proper, honest country it would be accepted that laws cannot have retrospective effect. Therefore, any land already owned by foreigners would continue under that ownership. There might also be specific provisions stating that the authorities could not increase such things as tax rates. That, in the event that the government wanted to “recover” the land, it would have to compensate the owner PRIOR TO TAKING THE LAND with a sum equivalent to not less than the owner's total investment. And the amount of compensation to be solely for the owner's determination. But then CFK can't even comply with the relevant provision of the argie constitution. Take a look at Section 17. .......Expropriation for reasons of public interest must be authorized by law and previously compensated.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK's expropriation of YPF was and is unconstitutional. Or did she hand over the compensation without telling anyone? Including Repsol.
Now, where are you from?
Argentina must play outside the rules because the rules have been designed to destroy Argentina.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@24...What are you talking about? The rules that you mentioned are same ones that are quite useful to make most of the developed countries reached that condition and to make developing ones grow. Why are these rules useless to Argentina.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0YPF was nationalised under the acusation that Repsol was not doing its job and people was informed that Argentina (the country) would sue them in the international courts to get the corresponding compensation..now it seems that it's the other way round....that Argentina will have to pay money..and even the CFK Government recognised a 5 billion dollar compensation in assets.
By the way I know that some decades ago there was a farm whose owner was Argentine
I was wondering how many land in FI are owned by Argentine people or Argentine companies? Does anyone know?
@25
Jul 25th, 2013 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you stupid? Do you know how Europe and the USA “developed”?
They hewed all their forests. ALL of them. They polluted their skies, so much people of asphyxia in London and the USA. Their rivers like the Rhine, Thames, Seine, and Po were so polluted they actually had less water content in the 30s-50s than other molecules. One 'river' in the USA caught fire. They had no worker's protections, thousands upon thousands died due to overwork, filth, and poor health. They exterminated thousands of native animal species through overhunting and depredation.
THEN THEY CHANGE THE RULES. So now they “demand” China, Brazil, and India to help their poor (what righteous indignation), and then they want to prohibit them from doing the same things THEY did to develop.
Please.
@25. I might be stupid but at leat I don't use drugs as you.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you saying that the Thames river is so polluted that there is not life there? I saw people fishing in the Thames River..the londoners can assist you to be informed about this. Please, help this fellow countrymen under the efects of drugs to be informed .
I saw people fishing in the Chicago River...I haven't seen any life in the Riachuelo. No matter that a peronist candidate told the press that he can see fishes in the Riachuelo...this must be the “rules” you are mentioning !!!...the peronists rules...
For God's sake another peronist to bother all of us....
You are stupid. 50 years ago, not now.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 050 years ago.......not now......It is just the other way round...some serious countries took responsibility of their actions and stopped polluting the enviroment and cleaning the rivers long time ago.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stop using paco, please, it damage your brain. Get a job, save some money and travel..visit the developed World.... it will open your mind a little bit and you will stop writing nonsenses.
I don't think it is paco, my guess is the incoherent ramblings today are too much Carbon Monoxide from the heaters.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is really nutty today.
Really nutty.
Open a window Tobi
If only that map was true to life, and colonised by those countries,
Jul 25th, 2013 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and argentina cut spliced and diced..lol.
The day argentina breaks like a kit kat,
Jul 25th, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0peace will we once again enjoy..
unless ??
The last time Argentina went to war was during 1982. From that year to behind Argentina did not participate in any war throughout the 20th century. Roughly one hundred years without taking part in any war.
Jul 25th, 2013 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who would call Argentina a country that is a problem for peace?
For clarification:
Jul 25th, 2013 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The issues I posed in #21 were designed to highlight that a much greater proportion of Argentina's *productive* land might be being disposed of than even the government know!
This is like selling your seed-corn.
Selling Argentina's prime agricultural lands to foreign agro-industrial corporations may produce efficiently, but its ag. products may be progressively insufficient for the hungry of Argentina.
@19
Jul 26th, 2013 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I posted where the information came from, right underneath what I wrote, not sure where wikipedia comes into it. ? The term Flag or Jack is interchangeable, either is correct in ANY situation.
Maybe you should write to the flag institute if you are that incensed with the idea. I would suggest they have more right to say what the flag of our country should be called over and above you.
Does anybody have access to the Survey itself - perhaps a web-link?
Jul 26th, 2013 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I am poor with Spanish language, is there a version in English?
I am really interested in this topic but I can't find a way in.
Think; can you help?
(36) GeoffWard2
Jul 26th, 2013 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here you are (in foreign language)…..
1) The complete normative……:
http://www.jus.gob.ar/tierras-rurales/normativa.aspx
2) The report mentioned in this article….:
http://www.jus.gob.ar/tierras-rurales/normativa.aspx
Thanks, Think.
Jul 27th, 2013 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have viewed CFK's Facebook postings on the Report (2.).
There is much sychophantic comment - as expected, but I only found one request of CFK that she must restrict further foreign ownership.
I see no CFK comment on what land is in foreign ownership; on the types of ownerships or on the types of lands sold into foreign ownership. This must be known.
It seems to me that Entre Rios & Corrientes foreign ownerships are different in type from the foothill of the Andes ownerships and in Santa Cruz.
My understanding is that most foreign ownerships are corporate - and the big corporations at that.
If my reading is right, there is little foreign ownership of the coarse grazing pampas; I guess any (beef?) products are simply bought as export. Is any of the soy land in foreign ownership?
So, Think, what are all these foreign corporations buying into in the higher lands bordering the Andes and in the Andes themselves? It must be more than just mineral rights.
(38) GeoffWard2
Jul 27th, 2013 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Too many questions.........
Let’s just say that the Chinks do not own Argentina and that this new legislation has effectively closed any loopholes for them or others to do so it in the future.......
Answering your last question about all these foreign corporations buying into in the lands bordering the Andes........, I Think that the Benetton's (United Colors of B.) Turner's (CNN) Tomkins's (Esprit/NorthFace/Patagonia) etc, etc, etc, are simply buying a piece of paradise for their, more or less egotistical, personal enjoyment.....
Having said that, I particularly like “el gringo Tompkins” way of enjoying himself……
http://www.tompkinsconservation.org/
Think me mucker. I have no objections to any land registry and I think it is essential for any nation to know who owns what.William the Conqueror did it way back in I think in 1070 (more or less) with the Domsday Book,all lands belong to the State in the ultimate instance, whether it be in fee simple in UK or to your own laws in Argentina. Fair enough but in the case of the big companies and thier straw men who owns the land?
Jul 27th, 2013 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was in favour of the law here forbidding the transfer of bearer shares in Sociedades Anonimos
However I was recently in Africa, Zimbabwe to be precise
Ther people who have good title to thier homes and land for more than a century suddenly fi
Thanks, Think.
Jul 28th, 2013 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0But I don't think the big foreign/multinational corporations that are buying up blocks of the low Andes are doing it for 'paradise and personal enjoyment'. Shareholders tend to a bit more hard-headed than that!
Perhaps best not to ask the 'difficult' questions and expect an Argentinian living in Argentina to give inconvenient answers to CFK's Facebook and it's glaring omissions.
Thanks for the Tomkins link. Good.
Jupppppp......
Jul 28th, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Tomkins ain't no Turnip.......
In spite of the fact that he is not vegetatively-challenged, Mr Tomkins seems quite bright.
Jul 28th, 2013 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I feel that any Argentinian that side-steps a set of questions that, merely by answering them would disatisfy his President, must be himself 'quite bright' ;-)
43 GeoffWard2
Jul 29th, 2013 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be under the false inpression that freedom of speech is somehow limited in Argentina and we don't dare to critizice the current president, Mrs. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.....
If you had been paying attention to my posts, you would surely remember that I have critiziced quite a few aspects of her administration....
Anyhow....... Just to prove my point that there is absolute freedom of speech in Argentina I will be totally bold and say that Mrs. Fernandez de Kirchner derriere has sligtly increased in size during the past couple of years...........
See...???
I'm still here.........
Absolute freedom of speech...!!!
Try to tell your Brazilian wife the same thing... ;-)
:-)
Jul 29th, 2013 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 044. Although we would all like if you were disappeared, living in EU and criticizing a lithium addicted tin-pot dictator is perfectly acceptable and won't get you into trouble.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!