Land Deals - the good, the bad and the necessary?

The variegated nature of land deals in Africa means land grabbing is too broad a term. There are considerable differences between the land, the people and the terms of the deals in question (Hall, 2011). I will thus refrain from using the phrase 'grabbing', as I believe it hinders a more thorough exploration of land acquisition deals and what they mean for water management.

Water cannot be viewed in isolation. The wider economic and societal implications of land acquisitions must be understood in order to inform a holistic (and realistic) water management scheme.

Quoting research by Rulli and D'Odorico, Pearce (2014) states that on the total global area of land acquired or in the process of being acquired, 300-550 million people could be fed through the use of modern farming techniques, compared to 190-370 million through traditional techniques. Whilst this is a crude figure - there are serious concerns about the sustainability of modern techniques in all these areas, the destination of the food grown, the use of that land for produce other than food - it is important to keep in mind throughout this post the potential of that land. There are many questions to be asked about land acquisition, and a distinct lack of answers. Studies in hindsight will undoubtedly establish "frameworks" and "best practise" guidelines, but for the decisions being made now, the issues of practicalities and principles are legion.

Even the phrase "land acquisition" implies purchasing of land, when in fact the trend is for land to be leased (Cotula et al., 2009 - see Figure 1). Furthermore, these land deals introduce expertise and technology alongside capital. This naturally carries the risk of local knowledge being lost, however, ignoring proven advances in agriculture equally carries risk. Encouraging/enforcing sharing of local knowledge could help ensure investor practises on the land have a lower risk of compromising water availability. There is considerable opportunity for technologies and expertise to develop within individual nations as a result of this investment, contributing to the development of water use infrastructure elsewhere in the country. Land and labour would therefore be traded for capital, technology and expertise.

Fig 1 Type of land rights transferred - "Other" in Mali and Madagascar refers to projects involving contract farming or land distribution arrangements.

Land deals also carry with them opportunity costs (Schutter, 2011), as land is not developed with the aim of poverty-reduction or responsible consumption. Further, the reduction of land to commodity-status could also negatively affect the culture of those that use it. Land can and does hold intrinsic value. Indeed, buildings and areas of land are protected in the UK under all manner of listings. It is not an overly romanticised view of the land, but a recognition of the importance of culture, and a people's relationship to their surroundings. Large-scale land deals also massively reduce the freedom of individuals whose livelihood is linked to that land. Their choices are restricted and shaped by the opportunities investors choose to create.

In response to calls for a Code of Conduct to shape land deals, Borras and Franco argue that:

any effort to link high standards of business practice with ethical behaviour in (trans)national land deals is unlikely to produce truly pro-poor outcomes if the primary aim of the land transfer is not categorically to protect and advance the land-access and property interests of working poor people. (2010: 510)

The argument follows that the root causes of poverty issues are not linked to economic development, but a 'TNC-controlled global system' (ibid). It may be argued therefore that a departure from this system is necessary to allow responsible water management decisions to be made. So long as profit is driving decisions within a global, capitalist system, it is not possible to have inclusive decision-making that includes all stakeholders. The power relations of our current political standard do not allow for environmental and societal protections, but rather the finances of an elite. 

Transnational corporations are not natural vehicles for poverty reduction. And the wholesale leasing of land for large-scale agri-industrial projects is unlikely to be the ideal development strategy - especially for the development of water access and security. Corporations - or rather, the pursuit of profit and power - does not have a good track record with equitable development. However, some deals may indeed increase standards of living and create water management solutions that are better suited to the growing populations of many African countries.  Even in developed countries, the struggle of keeping corporations in check is ever-present. Over the 20th century, when industrial jobs were exported and the UK's economy shifted to be far more financialised, there were considerable losses. To this day we struggle to control the excesses and transgressions of the current economy. I argue however that few, if any, would wish education standards, health services and infrastructure to revert to that of the 20th century. Is there an example of such development, water security and food security without the move from traditional, low-output agriculture? 

Africa's a vastly varied continent, and there may be instances within it where the pro-poor development opportunities that Borras and Franco call for may be possible, isolated from the wider capitalist hegemony. But it is not plausible for the African continent to insulate itself from international influence or reliance. If the inequalities and inequities of the world are accepted, and water management strategies are drawn up within this reality, then land deals are likely to be necessary and inevitable. The water and food security that we enjoy in the UK and in other developed countries has required compromise. Surely then it is not right to deny or discourage similar development in other countries because of our uncompromising stance.

The issue of land deals is not therefore just one of transnational corporations vs the people. I contend that it is far more difficult and nuanced. It requires choosing between different visions of development - each with the aim of serving the people.