Research proposal
Large-scale land transactions in developing countries;
different discourses on the same reality
source: https://www.eco-business.com/news/do-smallholders-hold-the-key-to-sustainable-palm-oil/
Written by:
Dexter Frederik Mordechai Bazelet 12088706
15 – 04 – 2021
Supervisor: Querine Kommandeur
Abstract
In a post-colonial globalized world relationships between countries are still in the midst of their development. While developed countries have capital and high consumption levels, most natural
resources are possessed by developing countries. This results in a flow of resources going mainly from developing countries to developed countries, which on its turn contributes to the building of
capital in developing countries.
However, the forms in which these transactions occur are crucial for both the development of developing countries as well as for the management of the global natural resources. Currently, a
dominant form is the transaction of land itself to companies with large capital.
Those who possess capital state to be contributing to development of developing countries, a view that is supported by many governments. Meanwhile, millions of indigenous people are said to be
dispossessed of their land in the process. Both sides have many arguments and thus completely different discourses evolve on the same matter.
This paper will list all arguments on both sides and analyse them to create an understanding of both perspectives. It does this by drawing on an excessive literature review, analysis of policy documents and interviews with stakeholders. It is expected that this will clarify the gaps between the discourses
and even may show some similarities in assumptions between them. A transition towards a more widely accepted form of transactions is required to account for all stakeholders. Therefore, finally, this paper will look for which obstacles are present in the realisation of this transition and will select
Introduction
Our human world today is stronger than it has ever been; in 2021 we are inhabiting the globe with 8 billion people. Until the Corona crisis poverty levels were decreasing; more people than ever before have access to food and water; and technology is constantly advancing (Liu, 2017). Still, in spite of this, the currently dominant human systems receive a lot of critique; capitalism is said to destroy our planet (Monbiot, 2019); neo-liberalism is termed as neo-colonialism (Menon, 2019) and the 1 percent of people who succeed best in this system are pointed out as the most selfish people on the planet. In numbers we are functioning extremely well but in words we are doing bad.
This contradiction raises questions. As different discourses are present and all try to impose their truth on the others while using legitimate arguments, it is hard to know who to listen to. One environment where contradiction is prevalent is where wealthy companies are present in poor regions in the world. Companies worth billions such as Unilever and Coca Cola have plantations in some of the poorest regions in the world. Many activist organizations are against these practices and call it land grabbing (e.g. farmlandgrab; GRAIN; see links under references). Land grabbing refers to the act of one actor getting possession of a land area, thereby depriving the former users of the land area (Dell’Angelo, Rulli, D’odorico & Marchand, 2017). However, the companies themselves state that they are contributing to the economies of the regions, creating jobs, improving agricultural techniques and technologies and thereby are contributing to development of the regions (e.g. NABC, Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland, Rabobank; see links under references). Not only they state this but the companies even receive subsidies from wealthy countries because it is said to contribute to development of developing countries.
Both discourses have arguments and facts to prove their right, but which one the world should listen to remains unresolved. Meanwhile, this subject, of land transactions between rich companies and poor countries, is significant. From 2000 to 2016, 42.4 million hectares of land have come under contract; this is equivalent to more than the total area of Germany (35.7 million hectares) and excludes still intended land acquisitions (Nolte, Chamerlain & Giger, 2016). The UN states that collaboration with the private sector is vital for developing countries in order to exploit their
potential. Meanwhile “in Eastern and Southern Africa, which are among the regions most affected by land-grabbing, cultivated land per capita has halved over the last generation and, in a number of countries, the average cultivated area now amounts to less than 0.3 hectares per capita” (De Schutter, 2011). There is a gap present between these two discourses. What discourse is prevalent here and what are the consequences of this discourse? This is what this paper will investigate and build upon to eventually answer the research questions:
“How does the prevailing discourse on land transactions between poor regions and wealthy
companies influence policy that concerns land management? And what change in policy can be made to incorporate the requirements of the other discourse?”
I use the term land transactions in my paper as I think this is an objective term that does not indicate an initial subjectivity like the term land grabbing.
Much has been written on the concept but mostly with negative connotations. The term land grabbing already indicates an initial protest against the concept. However, it still occurs and it is not explained why. Does this mean that the people involved are inherently bad? Or does it actually also contribute to the people as the companies state? Or is there some kind of bureaucratic gap which is the reason for this persisting differences in perspectives on the matter?
Expectations
The latter of these three possible explanations to me personally seems most probable. However, this is still vague and needs investigation. Being able to explain this seems to be the way to bring the two discourses closer together.
In transition theory Donella Meadows has stated that a paradigm shift can realise the greatest change (Meadows, 2008). Nevertheless, discourses do not receive much attention. Take for instance the terms ‘developing countries’ and ‘developed countries’; they imply that all developing countries are developing towards the standards of the developed countries. It is hard to measure the extent to which this influences practice, but it will influence it certainly. That is why the focus of this paper lays on understanding the different discourses that are present. By analysing the relationship between discourses and existing policy it is expected that the extent to which discourse can influence reality will become clearer.
An additional sub-question that could contribute to understanding the current situation is: “What would be the theoretical situation of the poor regions if wealthy countries would not be present in these regions?”
Stakeholders
Many stakeholders are involved in the two discourses. On one side there are the companies who realise the land transactions, supported by governments, investment banks, pension funds and more political organisations such as the EU and the UN (Borras et al., 2016). On the other side there is a variety of NGO’s that are concerned about human rights, nature conservation and sustainable agriculture. Unfortunately the group with the largest stake in the whole process, those living from the land, have the smallest voice. They are in some cases represented by NGO’s but to hear from them directly would contribute more to this research. Perhaps it will be possible to find someone who I can speak with.
Theoretical framework and methodology
1. Land transactions
The overarching theoretical framework wherein the research takes place is the concept of land transactions from poor regions to capital intensive companies through contracts or leases. Motives for such acquisitions vary from generating money and power to providing foreign aid. In the case of aid, there still will be deprivation, however not of recourses but of control. Nowadays, resulting from a transition from government to governance, often foreign private or state owned companies are those acquiring land. This is since privatisation has been put forward as a solution to the “tragedy of the commons” due to effective regulation of property rights (Barbesgaard 2017; Franco, Mehta & Veldwish 2013). Private land ownership resulting in land pricing theoretically leads to more efficient land management (Gupta 2013). However, in some cases it puts land out of reach for the poor and not all people depending on a resource are taken into account. Land transactions thus do not necessarily originate from bad intentions. Still, their consequences are not positive for everyone.
This is partly due to the existing legal pluralism. Historically laws of all kinds have been opposing one another as well as merging depending on the relations between cultures. The spread of religion and colonization among other processes have converged laws of different cultures resulting in complex historical systems that exist today (Gupta & Dellapenna 2009). These systems are subject to the concept of legal pluralism. Legal pluralism refers to the fact that different legal systems apply to the same situation. Legal pluralism can be viewed vertically as well as horizontally (Benda-Beckmann 2002). Horizontally it refers to the fact that different legal systems exist next to each other in one context. These differences can result from historical trends, different culture and science. For instance on the usage of one certain water volume an indigenous legal system can still exist while at the same time rules remaining from colonialism are present and in addition the neo-liberal rules are being applied, all not in line with one another. Vertical legal pluralism refers to the fact that even within one legal system rules may contradict each other at different levels. For example, taking into account only the legal system that is formally written and applied by nationalities, rules at different scales can contradict each other. The EU might state a law that is not in line with a Dutch law and meanwhile Amsterdam is applying a completely different jurisdiction. This creates holes in the system which companies can make use of to take hold of a resource.
Legal pluralism is a complex problem and not easy to solve. Proposals have been made to include all systems in formal law, which would lead to transparency and accountability. However, not all systems have a loud enough voice to represent themselves and be included in the law. Those with more power can influence the ones deciding on the law more strongly (Franco, Mehta & Veldwish 2013). Moreover, different legal systems can also contradict each other in execution rather than only in content. To evaluate the relationship between legal pluralism and the consequences of land transactions I will make use of the Integrated Landscape Initiative.
1.1 Integrated landscape initiative
“Integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs) are approaches to landscape management that aim to
reconcile the multiple objectives of agricultural productivity, conservation of ecosystems and wildlife, and improved livelihoods31 by confronting sectoral thinking, managing trade-offs, and seeking
synergies through selected investments, dialog, and negotiation across previously disparate sectors, stakeholders, and knowledge systems” (Carmenta et al., 2020).
As land transactions involve sustainability, social and productivity issues the ILI should fit perfectly in order to get a holistic view on the matter.
1.2 SWOT analysis
Furthermore, as indicated before, all arguments of two discourses will be analysed. This will be done with the help of a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis (i.e. SWOT analysis). It should be noted that there are not solely two discourses present. Not all scholars criticizing land transactions agree on all arguments that are against land transactions and vice versa with those who support land transactions. However, in general terms there are two sides to the debate which steer the development of land transactions towards one or another direction. The SWOT analysis is actually where the two discourses are both put in a box. The arguments of those criticizing land transactions belong to the weaknesses of land transactions and those supporting land transactions belong to the strengths of land transactions.
Finally, opportunities and threats of the concept will be listed. With a complete SWOT analysis recommendations can be given on how to change policy towards a more inclusive system. This policy change will hopefully contribute to the creation of a system where all stakeholders are satisfied.
Layout
In my paper I will use the following build-up. First I will discuss the concept of rich companies settling in poor regions in practice. Which companies go where, why there, and how.
Where
First a general overview will be given of what kind of companies (i.e. what sector they belong to, what they produce, their scale) mostly are involved in land transactions and where they go (i.e. which countries and also where in these countries). This is followed by an introduction to a chosen case study that specifies a company and a region.
Why
Second an elaboration is given on why companies chose those specific regions. This is expected to be mostly geographically related but factors such as economic profitability and present policies that make it easier to settle somewhere may way in the companies’ decisions too. Again the case study is included to give a comprehensive example.
How
Third, much related to the why part is how these companies realise their settlement in a country. Especially this part will be clarified with the help of the case study in order to understand the process. This settling can be supported by policies present in the host country or even by policies providing subsidies present in the country where the company has its main office. Furthermore consultancies and arrangements with people dependent on the land belong to the process. Finally contracts or leases represent the finalisation of the project. Leases can be valid for up until 99 years. Together these three parts constitute the framework wherein land transactions take place. When this is clear two discourses on the subject will be researched. One discourse supports these land transactions from the perspective that they contribute to development of the countries while the other perspective argues that a large amount of people is robbed of their land which makes their lives more difficult. This, then, is more about the consequences of land transactions.
Arguments of both discourses will be listed and tried to be refuted. Hopefully this will result in an understanding of both ways of thinking and otherwise it may show that one discourse is actually more right than the other when put up against each other. This is what is new about this paper; effort is made to understand both sides and compare them to each other instead of elaborating on one discourse.
I expect that by listing and comparing all arguments new insights will appear, perhaps even showing some similarities between the two discourses or some arguments missing at one or the other discourse. For instance, I notice that at the criticizing discourse on land transactions arguments are given on the unethical side of dispossessing people of their land and arguments on the fact that planting monocultures is less sustainable than maintaining forests; However at the supporting discourse on land transactions focus mainly lays on the development of agricultural techniques and technologies in developing countries. These arguments thus does not discuss the same environment. Perhaps there will be room for an argument that the ‘more primitive’ agriculture that is mostly practiced in these countries might be better or just as good as the ‘advanced’ agriculture of the western world. This might sound irrational but often traditional forms of agriculture are very sustainable and for instance a new rising form of agriculture called “permaculture” gets much
directly refutes the main argument of the supporting side; an argument that I believe is momentarily missing.
The paper will thus consist of an excessive literature review that additionally tries to come up with new arguments by listing all the arguments of both sides. This is done with the help of a SWOT analysis, with a focus on strengths and weaknesses.
This is followed by a thorough policy documents analysis for the chosen case study in order to notice correlations with the existing discourse. This will show what discourse is prevailing and how it can influence the situation.
The outcome will be translated to an Integrated landscape Initiative that weighs the different aspects that result from land transactions.
Finally the SWOT analysis will be completed by investigating the opportunities and threats that are present in trying to change land transactions to a more inclusive process. This will result in possible recommendations to change the current process.
References
Borras, S. M., Seufert, P., Backes, S., Fyfe, D., Herre, R., Michele, L., & Mills, E. N. (2016). Land grabbing and human rights: The involvement of European corporate and financial entities in land grabbing outside the European Union.
De Schutter, O. (2011). How not to think of land-grabbing: three critiques of large-scale investments in farmland. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), 249-279.
Dell’Angelo, J., D’odorico, P., Rulli, M. C., & Marchand, P. (2017). The tragedy of the grabbed commons: coercion and dispossession in the global land rush. World Development, 92, 1-12. Liu, M. (2017) The role of the private sector in generating new investments, employment and financing for development. World Investment Report, June 2017 UNCTAD
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/04/The-role-of-the-private-sector-in-generating-new-investments-employment-and-financing-for-development.pdf
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. chelsea green publishing.
Menon, R. (2019) Neoliberalism or Neocolonialism? Evaluating Neoliberalism as a Policy Prescription for Convergence. Developing Economies
https://developingeconomics.org/2019/01/11/neoliberalism-or-neocolonialism-evaluating-neoliberalism-as-a-policy-prescription-for-convergence/
Monbiot, G. (2019) Capitalism is destroying the Earth. We need a new human right for future generations. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/15/capitalism-destroying-earth-human-right-climate-strike-children
Nolte, K., Chamberlain, W., & Giger, M. (2016). International Land Deals for Agriculture: Fresh insights from the Land Matrix, Analytical Report II. Bern. Montpellier/Hamburg/Pretoria: Centre for
Development and Environment, University of Bern.
Links to activist organization’s and private sector’s pages NABC: https://nabc.nl/
Rabobank: https://rabobank.jobs/nl/vacature/intern-smallholder-agroforestry-proposition-rabobank/JR_00042694/
Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland: https://www.rvo.nl/subsidie-en-financieringswijzer/dutch-trade-and-investment-fund-dtif
GRAIN: https://grain.org/en/category/537-land
