Population growth, the increasing consumption of a global elite and an international legal system skewed in favor of large-scale investors are fueling a worldwide rush for land that is unfolding faster than previously thought and is likely to continue, according to the largest study of international land deals to date.
Researchers estimate that more than 200 million hectares of land have been sold or leased between 2000 and last year. However, although the food price crisis of 2007-2008 may have triggered a boom in international land deals, the study says that a much broader set of factors — linked to population growth and the rise of emerging economies — is raising the prospect of “a new era in the struggle for, and control over, land in many areas of the global south.”
Forty civil society and research groups fed into the global commercial pressures on land research project, coordinated by the International Land Coalition (ILC), which draws on a decade of data to identify and analyze trends in large land acquisitions and highlights the role of governments in brokering deals that may marginalize rural communities and jeopardize the future of family farming in favor of big industrial projects. This is the most comprehensive study to date of international land deals, pulling together findings from investigations around the world.
Over the last year a number of reports have focused on cases of foreign investors “grabbing” large tracts of land in poor African countries to grow cheap food for their own populations. However, according to a study published by the ILC on Wednesday, rich national investors play a much larger role than previously thought, food is not the main focus of these deals and African governments are not the only ones signing away large tracts of land.
Data collected by researchers show that about 40 percent of land acquired over the last decade is intended for biofuel production. In comparison, 25 percent is for food crops and another 27 percent for mining, tourism, industry and forestry. However, the focus of land deals also varies by region: In Africa, 66 percent of land deals cross-referenced by researchers are intended for biofuel production, compared with 15 percent for food crops. Meanwhile, food production seems more significant in Latin America (27 percent), along with mineral extraction (23 percent).
The report also notes that regional dealings may be on the rise: In Southeast Asia, for example, 75 percent of reported land deals have been struck by regional players and South African investors have acquired an estimated 40.7 million hectares of African land since 2009. The full data from the Land Matrix research project will be published next year.
Though policymakers seem to have recently warmed to the potential role of family farms, the report says enthusiasm for industrial-scale agriculture continues to sideline small farmers.
Many developing countries, under pressure from the IMF, the World Bank and a number of government aid agencies, are going to great lengths to attract and legally protect foreign investment in agriculture and extractive industries, setting up sophisticated specialized agencies to promote investment opportunities and offering benefits such as tax breaks and low prices, the ILC said.
Last week, the US aid agency USAid hosted an international conference to promote foreign investment in South Sudan. Research by the US-based Oakland Institute suggests that almost 9 percent of South Sudan’s land had already been leased or bought by investors prior to the country’s independence in July.
Wednesday’s study says that international trade regimes are overwhelmingly skewed in favor of international investors, while fewer and less effective international mechanisms exist to safeguard the rights of the rural poor. Meanwhile, the common lack of formal, legal titles to land is heightening the vulnerability of rural communities.
“As governments own the land, it is easy for them to lease large areas to investors, but the benefits for local communities or national treasuries are often minimal,” said Lorenzo Cotula, of the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development. “This highlights the need for poor communities to have stronger rights over the land they have lived on for generations.”
Last year, the G20 summit in Seoul encouraged all countries and companies to uphold a set of principles for responsible agricultural investment, developed by the UN and the World Bank. However, critics say that voluntary international agreements can amount to little more than window-dressing. Earlier this year, African leaders gathered in Lusaka, Zambia, to discuss ways to regulate land-based foreign direct investment.
Resistance to large land deals is growing. In August, residents of Mukaya Payam, in South Sudan’s Central Equatoria state, launched a campaign against what would have been the country’s largest land deal — a 49-year lease of 600,000 hectares by a US company. Last month, hundreds of smallholder farmers and civil society activists converged on Selingue, in southern Mali, for the first international farmers’ conference to tackle the global rush for land.
“Optimistically, it may even be hoped that rural communities in many parts of the world are able to finally achieve secure access to and control over their land through struggles catalysed by the increasing demand for it. It is to be hoped that the rush for land will act as a wake-up call, provoking a reconsideration of the path we are on,” the ILC says.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US