Since international awareness of a global rush for land has grown from 2008 onward, various databases and reports have attempted to provide an overview of the situation by compiling information on individual land deals. While providing such an overview is challenging owing to the dynamic and untransparent nature of the investments, flawed methods of using and citing data are aggravating that challenge and allowing dissemination of inaccurate information. The consequences are an unnecessarily blurred picture of the land deal situation and thus an inadequate basis for related political decisions or social actions and a misleading starting point for new research projects. In this article we demonstrate some of the flaws in the use of data and their consequences, with examples from fieldwork and literature on Tanzania. The paper illustrates and contributes to the evolving debate on appropriate research methodologies for studying the global land rush. Since international awareness of a global rush for land has grown from 2008 onward, various databases and reports have attempted to provide an overview of the situation by compiling information on individual land deals. While providing such an overview is challenging owing to the dynamic and untransparent nature of the investments, flawed methods of using and citing data are aggravating that challenge and allowing dissemination of inaccurate information. The consequences are an unnecessarily blurred picture of the land deal situation and thus an inadequate basis for related political decisions or social actions and a misleading starting point for new research projects. In this article we demonstrate some of the flaws in the use of data and their consequences with examples from fieldwork and literature on Tanzania. The paper illustrates and contributes to the evolving debate on appropriate research methodologies for studying the global land rush.
Abstract. The rapidly increasing interest of foreign investors in land in the global South, also termed land grabbing, has been widely discussed as potentially supportive, but often rather harmful for local populations. Combining a critical livelihoods perspective with access theory and a bargaining model, this study scrutinizes local people's perceptions of the land investments, power relations during land negotiations and intra-community differences. By analysing two European forestry companies in Tanzania, we have chosen a sector and a country with presumably more positive outcomes for local populations. The deals resulted in not only labour opportunities and infrastructural improvements, which are mainly perceived as positive, but also cases of violated land rights, inadequate compensation and decreased food security. Hence, even under favourable preconditions, the consequences for local people are ambivalent. With this study, we contribute to a differentiated analysis of the contested role of large-scale land deals in contemporary rural development.
The recent increase in transnational acquisitions of agrarian land raises concerns about rural people's inadequate involvement in the decision-making process, and violations of their land rights. Tanzania's statutory land laws are comparatively progressive in terms of recognising customary land rights. According to legislation, transferring 'Village Land' to an investor requires villagers' approval. It is therefore revealing to focus on the acknowledgement of customary rights in land deals in Tanzania. This study analyses the land transfer process of a UK-based forestry company that has acquired land in seven villages in Kilolo District. In the case of the village presented here, the investor seems to have followed legal procedure regarding decision-making for the land deal in a formally correct way. Yet, interviews with various stakeholders revealed flaws at village and district government level that have led to a conflict-ridden situation, with numerous affected villagers having lost their land rights-and thus the basis for their livelihoods-against their will. Among those affected are several households from a neighbouring village, whose customary rights date back to the period before the resettlements of the 1970s ('villagisation'). Employing the concepts of property rights and legal pluralism and unbundling the role of different actors in the host country government, this article analyses the decision-making process that preceded this land transfer. It illustrates how unequal power relations lead to unequal recognition of customary and statutory law. The study concludes that even under comparatively favourable legal conditions, there is no guarantee that local land rights are fully protected in the global land rush.
Recently, foreign direct investment in land, also termed 'land grabbing', has increased significantly in developing countries. In response to growing concerns about its detrimental impacts, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Bank and other multilateral organizations have come forward with two proposals, namely the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (FAO 2012, FAO guidelines), to protect people's rights, and the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and Resources (FAO et al. 2010, RAI principles), to make such investments more responsible. One of their central tenets is that investors and host governments respect local people's existing property rights over land by formalising them in a transparent and participatory manner. The article challenges the two proposals -and thus much of the recent land grab debate -from a legal pluralism perspective, by showing that they do not adequately consider the existence of plural legal orders over land and the dynamics of power and everyday practices inherent in property relations. Referring to empirical evidence from Tanzania, Nepal, and Kyrgyzstan, we raise three fundamental concerns about the formalization of property rights. First, we demonstrate that the recognition of customary rights is a very complex and delicate endeavour, which risks neglecting existing property claims and rights. Neither of the proposals addresses this in a satisfactory way. Second, we understand that formalization by state intervention is sometimes necessary, but in those circumstances we cannot recommend the centralist approach of formalizing property rights, as proposed in the RAI principles. In many contexts, this approach has resulted in adverse effects for local communities rather than strengthening their rights. Third, a more rights-based vision as brought forward by the FAO guidelines still bears the risk of reinforcing unequal local power structures. Yet, this vision leaves it to local communities to decide whether their land should become a marketable good to outsiders or not. However, the introduction of such a property regime requires fundamental changes in governance. This cannot be addressed adequately within the framework of guidelines alone. Instead, more long-term strategies for the protection of customary rights are required. Thus, from an analytical perspective, a moratorium on 'land grabs' would be most appropriate. From a more pragmatic perspective though, we acknowledge the FAO guidelines and -to a much lesser extent -the RAI principles as more immediate efforts to reduce negative effects of 'land grabs'. However, investors and host governments should not mistake these guidelines as guarantors of ostensibly harmless land acquisitions. Finally, this article concludes that employing a legal pluralism perspective is very helpful in gaining a more holistic understanding of potential effects and proposed me...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.