Large-Scale Land Acquisition as Commons Grabbing: A Comparative Analysis of Six African Case Studies

Haller, Tobias; Adams, Timothy; Gmür, Désirée; Käser, Fabian; Lanz, Kristina; Marfurt, Franziska; Ryser, Sarah; Schubiger, Elisabeth; Sury, Anna von; Gerber, Jean-David

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15800-2_7

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper follows a similar theoretical logic to other papers I have published (see [15]) and is based on a research project on LSLA and gender in Africa [16]. Thus, a new institutionalism perspective in social anthropology [17,18] is the basis of the background of this paper.…”

Section: Theoretical and Methodological Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The institutions employ ideologies through discourses and narratives that seek to legitimise land acquisitions in specific contexts. A new institutionalism perspective, combined with theoretical insights on the governance of common-pool resources (CPRs) (see also [18]), also looks at the impacts that the institution shopping process [4,7,16] has on people with less power in negotiation, who are often women. Additionally, it shows how new norms and institutions emerge and are selected by powerful actors.…”

Section: Theoretical and Methodological Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Not Affected the Same Way: Gendered Outcomes for Commons and Resilience Grabbing by Large-Scale Forest Investors in Tanzania

Gmür

2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of large-scale land acquisition (LSLA) has attracted wide interest in the literature and the media. However, there is little work on the gendered institutional changes and gendered impacts on common pool resources (CPR) due to LSLA. The aim of this paper is to address these impacts. This is done by discussing data from participatory research (using the methods of participatory observation, semi-structured and narrative interviews, biographies, focus group discussions, value chain analysis, and household questionnaires) on a forestry plantation operated by the British investor, the New Forests Company (NFC) in the Kilolo district, in the Iringa region. The institutional arrangements regarding different land-related common pool resources from pre-colonial times until the arrival of this investment will be shown. Furthermore, how these arrangements have changed over time and since the LSLA is presented. Then, the effects on men’s and women’s access to CPR and, thus, the impacts on their capacities to perform their reproductive work and resilience will be addressed. Furthermore, the paper focuses on how different stakeholders in the land deal (the investor, the government, different local people) make use of these different institutions to push through their own interests regarding the land. Finally, the paper looks at collective compensation payments (such as monetary compensation and jobs) and forms of corporate social responsibility (CSR) schemes, and how they are perceived emically. It is argued that the LSLA in this case clearly grabs land and land-related common pool resources that were previously held in common. Women, such as daughters, sisters, and wives, had specific access and property rights to these. Thus, the paper concludes that this grabbing lowers women’s resilience and deprives them of important resources for their livelihoods, and for food and cash production at critical times. CSR programmes and compensation rarely reach women and are, for them, an anti-politics machine, hiding the grabbing processes, and impacting the poorest of the poor, while the company uses a development discourse to legitimise its activities. In fact, the people perceive the investment as trapping them in underdevelopment.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical and Methodological Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Theoretical and Methodological Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not Affected the Same Way: Gendered Outcomes for Commons and Resilience Grabbing by Large-Scale Forest Investors in Tanzania

Gmür

2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Newer publications based on social anthropological research covering cases of impacts of European investments on land and related commons also show differentiated reactions to commons and resilience grabbing, reaching from small scale reactions ("weapons of the weak") to open resistance and bottom-up institution building (Haller, Breu, de Moor, Rohr and Znoj (eds.) 2019 [92], Haller et al 2019 [93].…”

Section: Where To Take It From Herementioning

confidence: 99%

The Different Meanings of Land in the Age of Neoliberalism: Theoretical Reflections on Commons and Resilience Grabbing from a Social Anthropological Perspective

Haller

2019

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent debates in social anthropology on land acquisitions highlight the need to go further back in history in order to analyse their impacts on local livelihoods. The debate over the commons in economic and ecological anthropology helps us understand some of today’s dynamics by looking at precolonial common property institutions and the way they were transformed by Western colonization to state property and then, later in the age of neoliberalism, to privatization and open access. This paper focuses on Africa and refers to the work of critical scholars who show that traditional land tenure was misinterpreted as customary tenure without full property rights, while a broader literature on the commons shows that common-pool resources (pasture, fisheries, wildlife, forestry etc.) have been effectively managed by locally-developed common property institutions. This misinterpretation continues to function as a legacy in both juridical and popular senses. Moreover, the transformation of political systems and the notion of customary land tenure produced effects of central importance for today’s investment context. During colonial times a policy of indirect rule based on new elites was created to manage customary lands of so-called native groups who could use the land as long as it was of no value to the state. However, this land formally remained in the hands of the state, which also claimed to manage common-pool resources through state institutions. The neoliberal policies that are now demanded by donor agencies have had two consequences for land and land-related common-pool resources. On the one hand, states often lack the financial means to enforce their own natural resource legislation and this has led to de facto open access. On the other hand, land legally fragmented from its common-pool resources has been transformed from state to private property. This has enabled new elites and foreign investors to claim private property on formerly commonly-held land, which also leads to the loss of access to land related common-pool resources for more marginal local actors. Thus, the paper argues that this process does not just lead to land grabbing but to commons grabbing as well. This has furthermore undermined the resilience and adaptive capacity of local populations because access to common-pool resources is vital for the livelihoods of more marginal groups, especially in times of crisis. Comparative studies undertaken on floodplains in Botswana, Cameroon, Mali, Tanzania and Zambia based on a New Institutional Political Ecology (NIPE) approach illustrate this process and its impacts and show how institutional transformations are key to understanding the impacts of large-scale land acquisitions (LSLA) and investments in Africa.

show abstract

“…Therefore, state actors still profit from these policies, often without involving local actors and groups apart from local elites. State actors and investors also promote ideologies of modernity based on discourses of market-oriented economic development including green development based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (see Haller et al 2018 [7], Haller et al 2019 [8]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a general conclusion-and in answering the question posed by the title of the Special Issue-the research presented here suggests that investments using institutional pluralism related to development, not only lead to commons grabbing, but also to "resilience grabbing": CSR programs and compensations in the form of financial payments or employment do not cover local people's loss of common-pool resources for subsistence and cash. In particular, women and minorities are often not able to get access to the few jobs available and to compensations, which are often low and unequally distributed (Marfurt et al 2016 [16], Haller et al 2019 [8]). In the cases where women do get access to jobs, these are badly paid, of short duration and compete with other duties of reproductive work (see Ngutu et al, this volume).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Commons Grabbing Lead to Resilience Grabbing? The Anti-Politics Machine of Neo-Liberal Agrarian Development and Local Responses

Haller

Käser

Ngutu

2020

Land

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Large-Scale Land Acquisition as Commons Grabbing: A Comparative Analysis of Six African Case Studies

Cited by 4 publications

References 42 publications

Not Affected the Same Way: Gendered Outcomes for Commons and Resilience Grabbing by Large-Scale Forest Investors in Tanzania

Not Affected the Same Way: Gendered Outcomes for Commons and Resilience Grabbing by Large-Scale Forest Investors in Tanzania

The Different Meanings of Land in the Age of Neoliberalism: Theoretical Reflections on Commons and Resilience Grabbing from a Social Anthropological Perspective

Does Commons Grabbing Lead to Resilience Grabbing? The Anti-Politics Machine of Neo-Liberal Agrarian Development and Local Responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About