In reading the literature I have discovered far greater confusion and disagreement than I had anticipated. The link between land and water is obvious, indeed, literature refers specifically to the practise of "water grabbing" - with land deals used as a means of gaining access to freshwater resources (Rulli et al., 2012). I therefore would like to keep this post as short as possible, so that I can continue to explore land grabbing/acquisition throughout the blog. It would not be appropriate to force this complex topic into a single entry.
Land grabbing has been widely defined by researchers and NGOs. EJOLT (Environmental Justice Organisations, Liabilities and Trade) characterises land grabbing as including 'large scale displacement of the rural poor without proper compensation and the destruction of the local ecology to make space for industrial agriculture and biofuels' (EJOLT, 2014: 3). They, and others, stress that there is often private and foreign involvement, typically in the form of investment, with most of the profits flowing to other parts of the world. Where there is consensus across sources is that the land grabbing/acquisition process has been concentrated in Africa (see World Bank, 2010; EJOLT, 2014; Hall, 2011)
Land grabbing is fundamentally a pejorative term. It strongly implies exploitation and abuse of both systems and people. It is used most often by NGOs, who have their own interests and objectives; it is refuted and/or avoided by corporations, and institutions that back market-led solutions. The apparently widespread phenomenon of land grabbing has, however, been extensively challenged.
The European Union (EU) has been seen as a major source of demand for biofuels. ePURE (a European renewable ethanol lobby - based in Brussels) commissioned a consultancy, Ecofys, to look into the issue. Ecofys looked at Land Matrix's data - Land Matrix being an organisation set up to monitor global land acquisitions. Their data is often cited and relied upon, especially by organisations such as Oxfam (which is a financial supporter of the Land Matrix initiative), who have campaigned against what they perceive to be land grabbing. Ecofys (2013) could only confirm 35% of the deals in the sample, with only 1.4-7.6 Mha of the total 38.3 Mha of deals in the Land Matrix data being potentially related to biofuels (the lower end of that range is likely to be closer to the true value).
Cotula et al. state that 'data on land acquisitions in Africa is scarce and often of limited reliability' (2009: 3). The above example of biofuels shows the difficulty in assessing these deals. Both Land Matrix and Ecofys are working with incomplete data, looking at a topic scattered with secret deals. Some deals have failed - Madagascar's botched 1.3 Mha lease deal for example - some have fallen through after approval, and others have only been partially implemented (ibid), which only adds to the complexity of the issue.
This post has hopefully shed some light on just how murky the world of land grabbing is. The agricultural focus of land grabbing means it has significant implications for water management, especially in the context of IRBM. Hesitation as a result of this uncertainty may be exploited by corporations for maximum gain; but overzealous action may detract legitimate, necessary and beneficial investment. In posts to come, I will explore this issue further, hopefully uncovering positive goals with realistic chances of success.
Land grabbing has been widely defined by researchers and NGOs. EJOLT (Environmental Justice Organisations, Liabilities and Trade) characterises land grabbing as including 'large scale displacement of the rural poor without proper compensation and the destruction of the local ecology to make space for industrial agriculture and biofuels' (EJOLT, 2014: 3). They, and others, stress that there is often private and foreign involvement, typically in the form of investment, with most of the profits flowing to other parts of the world. Where there is consensus across sources is that the land grabbing/acquisition process has been concentrated in Africa (see World Bank, 2010; EJOLT, 2014; Hall, 2011)
Land grabbing is fundamentally a pejorative term. It strongly implies exploitation and abuse of both systems and people. It is used most often by NGOs, who have their own interests and objectives; it is refuted and/or avoided by corporations, and institutions that back market-led solutions. The apparently widespread phenomenon of land grabbing has, however, been extensively challenged.
The European Union (EU) has been seen as a major source of demand for biofuels. ePURE (a European renewable ethanol lobby - based in Brussels) commissioned a consultancy, Ecofys, to look into the issue. Ecofys looked at Land Matrix's data - Land Matrix being an organisation set up to monitor global land acquisitions. Their data is often cited and relied upon, especially by organisations such as Oxfam (which is a financial supporter of the Land Matrix initiative), who have campaigned against what they perceive to be land grabbing. Ecofys (2013) could only confirm 35% of the deals in the sample, with only 1.4-7.6 Mha of the total 38.3 Mha of deals in the Land Matrix data being potentially related to biofuels (the lower end of that range is likely to be closer to the true value).
Cotula et al. state that 'data on land acquisitions in Africa is scarce and often of limited reliability' (2009: 3). The above example of biofuels shows the difficulty in assessing these deals. Both Land Matrix and Ecofys are working with incomplete data, looking at a topic scattered with secret deals. Some deals have failed - Madagascar's botched 1.3 Mha lease deal for example - some have fallen through after approval, and others have only been partially implemented (ibid), which only adds to the complexity of the issue.
This post has hopefully shed some light on just how murky the world of land grabbing is. The agricultural focus of land grabbing means it has significant implications for water management, especially in the context of IRBM. Hesitation as a result of this uncertainty may be exploited by corporations for maximum gain; but overzealous action may detract legitimate, necessary and beneficial investment. In posts to come, I will explore this issue further, hopefully uncovering positive goals with realistic chances of success.
Baljeet, I agree with your post and encourage you to consult a book edited by Tony Allan and others here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Land-and-Water-Grabs-in-Africa-Foreign-direct-investment-and/Allan-Keulertz-Sojamo-Warner/p/book/9781857436693