How not to think of land-grabbing: three critiques of large-scale investments in farmland

Schutter, Olivier De

doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.559008

Cited by 559 publications

(332 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

293

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Saturnino Borras Jr. and Jennifer Franco (2010) argue that the 'codes of conduct' position does not question the root causes of land grabbing, accepts that land grabbing is inevitable, assumes that large-scale investments benefit the poor and that large farms benefit small farms, that corporations will voluntarily self-regulate to advance social and environmental justice, and that transparent and participatory land grabs are better than nontransparent and non-participatory ones. Most fundamentally, as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has argued, to see the solution in terms of guidelines for the 'responsible' expansion of large-scale, capital-intensive farming is to narrow the terms of the debate and close the door to other alternatives (De Schutter 2011).…”

Section: Regulation and Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A rights-based framework, it is argued, must pay attention to rights of land holders subject to forced evictions, the foreclosure of land, the denial of information about deals, compensation arrangements and the prevention of local participation in political decisions all violate land users' human rights (De Schutter 2011, HLPE 2011. One strategy is to reorient agricultural investment away from land deals for large plantations or estates and towards small-scale family agriculture and markets, supported by stronger farmer voices (De Schutter 2011).…”

Section: Regulation and Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals

White

Borras²,

Hall³

et al. 2012

The Journal of Peasant Studies

707

326

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contributions to this collection use the tools of agrarian political economy to explore the rapid growth and complex dynamics of large-scale land deals in recent years, with a special focus on the implications of big land deals for property and labour regimes, labour processes and structures of accumulation. The first part of this introductory essay examines the implications of this agrarian political economy perspective. First we explore the continuities and contrasts between historical and contemporary land grabs, before examining the core underlying debate around large-versus small-scale farming futures. Next, we unpack the diverse contexts and causes of land grabbing today, highlighting six overlapping mechanisms. The following section turns to assessing the crisis narratives that frame the justifications for land deals, and the flaws in the argument around there being excess, empty or idle land available. Next the paper turns to an examination of the impacts of land deals, and the processes of inclusion and exclusion at play, before looking at patterns of resistance and constructions of alternatives. The final section introduces the papers in the collection.

show abstract

Section: Regulation and Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Regulation and Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals

White

Borras²,

Hall³

et al. 2012

The Journal of Peasant Studies

707

326

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Más aún, para comprender el alcance de las repercusiones del accionar de Wanbao sobre la subsistencia de las comunidades locales se debe tener presente que cerca de la mitad del billón de personas que a nivel mundial sufre inseguridad alimentaria vive de la agricultura de subsistencia. Esto se debe a que la porción de tierra que cultivan es muy pequeña, o bien son relegados a suelos áridos, montañosos y sin irrigación, mientras que compiten por el acceso a la tierra contra grandes unidades de producción (De Schutter, 2011).…”

Section: Las Resistencias Sociales Al Proyecto Xai-xaiunclassified

China: Cooperación Sur-Sur y land grabbing. Un análisis desde las resistencias sociales al proyecto Xai-Xai en Mozambique

Mora

2016

Conjuntura Austral/UFRGS-Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroducciónEl presente artículo se focaliza en la vinculación entre la cooperación Sur-Sur de China y el acaparamiento de tierras (land grabbing) a partir de un análisis de las resistencias sociales al proyecto de China en el Regadío de Bajo Limpopo en el distrito de Xai-Xai, Mozambique.El ascenso y consolidación de China como poder emergente fue acompañado por un énfasis en las relaciones entre los países del Sur. En estas, la cooperación Sur-Sur (CSS), modalidad que se diferencia del tradicional esquema vertical y unidireccional de cooperación Norte-Sur por apoyarse en los principios de horizontalidad, consenso y equidad, se presenta como un mecanismo fundamental (Ayllón Pino, 2009).Si bien desde la década de 1990 los lazos entre China y África registraron un nuevo impulso, no fue hasta el año 2000 que adquirieron un dinamismo sin precedentes. En esa aproximación fue central la creación del Foro para la Cooperación entre China y África (FOCAC por sus siglas en inglés), espacio diseñado para organizar y reforzar las actividades de cooperación sino-africanas y conducir al establecimiento de una asociación estratégica (Konings, 2007;Shelton, 2006). Por otra parte, como prueba de su renovado interés en África, China se convirtió en el mayor socio comercial del continente. A su vez, este se tornó el principal destino de las importaciones del gigante asiático, el segundo mercado de proyectos de infraestructura en el extranjero y el cuarto mayor destino de las inversiones (State Council of People's Republic of China, 2013).La concentración de los flujos comerciales e inversiones en sectores ligados a la extracción de materias primas modificó la posición marginal de China en el sector de recursos naturales africanos, convirtiéndolo en un jugador clave. Esto se debe a que, para sostener su crecimiento económico, China depende del abastecimiento de recursos minerales, energéticos y alimenticios del exterior. Por consiguiente, 1 Licenciada en Relaciones Internacionales (UAI). Magíster en Integración y Cooperación Internacional (CERIR-UNR). Doctoranda en Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO-Argentina). Becaria interna doctoral del CONICET (solmora@live.com.ar)

show abstract

“…This study demonstrated how the medium-scale forestland appropriations have created in situ displacement and become detrimental to local livelihoods and forest conservation in a way that recalls criticisms of the large-and mega-scale international land grabs in the peripheral lowlands of Ethiopia and elsewhere in the global south over the past ten years (e.g., [3,5,7,10,12,19]). Local farmers' low interest in taking up the alternative livelihood option (i.e., low-paying temporary jobs), the absence of technology transfers from the companies to the farmers and the inability of earlier established companies to contribute to Ethiopia's foreign currency earnings through coffee exports coupled with the aggravated deforestation from the local farmers' efforts to secure access through more intensive use following the forestland transfers to private companies highlight the overall failure to achieve the objectives of transferring forestland to private companies.…”

Section: Conclusion and Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Medium-Scale” Forestland Grabbing in the Southwestern Highlands of Ethiopia: Impacts on Local Livelihoods and Forest Conservation

Ango

2018

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Tropical forest provides a crucial portion of sustenance in many rural communities, although it is increasingly under pressure from appropriations of various scales. This study investigated the impacts of medium-scale forestland grabbing on local livelihoods and forest conservation in the southwestern highlands of Ethiopia. Data were generated through interviews, discussions and document review. The results indicate that state transfer of part of the forestland since the late 1990s to investors for coffee production created in situ displacement-a situation where farmers remained in place but had fully or partially lost access to forest-that disrupted farmers' livelihoods and caused conflicts between them and the investors. Court cases about the appropriated land and related imprisonment, inflicted financial and opportunity costs on farmers. Farmers considered the livelihood opportunities created by the companies insufficient to compensate for loss of forest access. Companies' technology transfers to farmers and contributions to foreign currency earnings from coffee exports have not yet materialized. Forest conservation efforts have been negatively affected by deforestation caused by conversion to coffee plantations and by farmers' efforts to secure rights to forestland by more intensive use. The medium-scale forestland grabbing has been detrimental to farmers' livelihoods and forest conservation in a way that recalls criticism of large-and mega-scale land grabbing since [2007][2008]. The overall failure to achieve the objectives of transferring forestland to investors highlights a critical need to shift institutional supports to smallholders' informal forest access and management practices for better development and conservation outcomes.

show abstract

How not to think of land-grabbing: three critiques of large-scale investments in farmland

Cited by 559 publications

References 26 publications

The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals

The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals

China: Cooperación Sur-Sur y land grabbing. Un análisis desde las resistencias sociales al proyecto Xai-Xai en Mozambique

“Medium-Scale” Forestland Grabbing in the Southwestern Highlands of Ethiopia: Impacts on Local Livelihoods and Forest Conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About