1
The Tragedy of the Grabbed Commons
Analysing the Global Land Grab through the Theoretical Lens
of Accumulation by Dispossession
Master Thesis Political Science
Figure 1: Retrieved from: https://www.grain.org/article/entries/93-seized-the-2008-landgrab-for-food-and-financial-security
Author: Quico Schmitz
Student number: 10805532
Institution: University of Amsterdam Master’s program: Political Science
Specialisation: International Relations
Research Project: Global environmental politics and governance in theory and practice Supervisor: Dr. R.J. Pistorius
Second reader: Dr. M.P. Amineh Date of Completion: 25 – 06 – 2020
2
Abstract
This thesis has analysed what is driving the global land grab and how and to what extent it can be understood in terms of David Harvey’s theory of accumulation by dispossession (ABD). Land grabbing is a controversial new global phenomenon that involves (foreign) national governments and (multinational) private economic actors acquiring vast areas of land by making large-scale land acquisitions deals with ‘host’ governments. It is a process that has profound negative social and environmental impacts on millions of individuals, fragile local ecosystems and the global climate. By conducting a qualitative literature review, this thesis identified and analysed several historical processes, changing biophysical conditions and political-economic developments as key drivers of the global land grab. It also provided empirical evidence by conducting two qualitative case studies on land grabbing by the palm oil industry in Indonesia and the soybean industry in South America (particularly in Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay). By applying David Harvey’s theory of ABD to these key drivers and land grabbing cases, it was concluded that at the macro-level of analysis, the global land grab can to some extent be understood in terms of Harvey’s theory of ABD as a spatio-temporal fix of the global capitalist economic system to its crisis-causing internal contradiction of
overaccumulation. At the micro-level, it was concluded that ABD can to a large extent be understood as the mechanism through which land grabbing is carried out.
List of Abbreviations
ABD Accumulation by dispossession EU European Union
FAO Food and agriculture organization FDI Foreign direct investment
GHG Greenhouse gas
IFI International financial institution IMF International Monetary Fund LSLA Large-scale land acquisitions
SAP Structural adjustment program TNC Transnational corporation
USA United States of America WTO World Trade Organization
3
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
4
1.1 Introduction and Research Questions
4
1.2 Research Design
7
1.3 Personal Motivation
9
1.4 Social & Scientific Relevance
9
1.5 General Background Information
10
Chapter 2. Literature Review – Drivers of Land Grabbing
20
2.1 Historical Processes
20
2.2 Biophysical Conditions
24
2.3 Political-Economic Developments
33
Chapter 3. Theoretical Framework – Examining the Theory of ABD
42
3.1 Accumulation by Dispossession – Origins of the Theory
42
3.2 Accumulation by Dispossession – Details of the Theory
44
3.3 Accumulation by Dispossession – Application by Previous Studies
46
3.4 Accumulation by Dispossession – Application by this Thesis
48
Chapter 4. Case Study Analysis
51
4.1 Case Study Analysis – Oil Palm in Indonesia
52
4.2 Case Study Analysis – Soybean in South America
59
Chapter 5. Analysis
68
5.1 Analysis – Literature Review: Historical Drivers
68
5.2 Analysis – Literature Review: Biophysical Drivers
71
5.3 Analysis – Literature Review: Political-Economic Drivers
72
5.4 Analysis – Case Study Analysis: Oil Palm in Indonesia
74
5.5 Analysis – Case Study Analysis: Soybean in South America
75
Chapter 6. Conclusion
77
4
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction and Research Questions
Since 2008, a new controversial global phenomenon called ‘land grabbing’ has added a new chapter to the long and rich history of the relationship between humanity and land. It was a 2008 report published by Spanish NGO GRAIN called ‘Seized! The 2008 land grab for food and financial security’ that marked the first time that the contemporary wave of large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) was conceptualised as ‘land grabbing’ (GRAIN, 2008; Borras & Franco, 2012). Subsequently, the issue has increasingly received attention from the scientific community, NGOs and journalists. The concept of land grabbing describes the process of (foreign) national governments and private (multinational) economic actors acquiring (either by purchasing or leasing) vast areas of land in countries all over the world by making LSLA deals with ‘host’ governments (GRAIN, 2008; Borras et al., 2012; De Schutter, 2011; Cotula, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Özsu, 2019)
The main goal of the majority of land grabbers is to make a profit through land value speculation or by producing, exporting and selling agricultural products such as food, feed, biofuel and flex crops, which are crops that that combine multiple of these uses such as soybean, oil palm, jatropha, sugarcane and corn (GRAIN, 2008; Borras et al., 2012; De Schutter, 2011; Li, 2011; Cotula, 2012; Franco et al., 2013). Land grabbing can also be considered as a form control grabbing, which refers to the grabbing of “the power to control land and other associated resources such as water in order
to derive benefit from such control of resources” (Borras et al., 2012: 850). The grabbing of this
power makes the issue of land grabbing inherently political by nature (Borras et al., 2012; Franco et al., 2013).
National governments involved in land grabbing mainly originate from relatively wealthy but natural resource-insecure countries such as South Korea, Japan, China, India, Egypt, Israel, South Africa and all the Gulf States (Grain, 2008; Borras et al., 2012; De Schutter, 2011; Borras & Franco, 2012; Cotula, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Özsu, 2019). Examples of involved private economic actors include
transnational corporations (TNCs), especially those active in the agribusiness and finance industries, domestic elites, banks, investment groups, international development agencies, sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), wealthy philanthropists, private equity funds, hedge funds and pension funds, mainly originating from the United States of America (USA) and the European Union (EU) (GRAIN, 2008; De Schutter, 2011; Cotula, 2012; McMichael, 2012; Holden & Pagel, 2013).
Even though the word ‘grab’ has a negative connotation to it, which may suggest that land grabs are inherently illegal, previous academic studies and media reports have revealed that they are often
5 carried out through officially legal but illegitimate practices and mechanisms. In order to facilitate them, “pre-existing formal-legal frameworks are being bent, altered, or redefined and reinterpreted
to accommodate land grabbing in a way that gives the appearance of legality” (Franco et al., 2013:
8).Previous academic research has also shown that land grabbing truly is a global trend and that it has the potential to usher in the next great land use transition, which would in turn have profound social, economic and environmental impacts on millions of local people, fragile local ecosystems and the global climate in the process (Grain, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; Borras et al., 2012; Borras & Franco, 2012; McMichael, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Margulis et al., 2013).
Even though a tremendous amount of academic research has been conducted on the issue in recent years, one crucial question regarding land grabbing still remains largely unresolved: what is
ultimately driving the global land grab? This important question has sparked a lively debate amongst the scientific community in recent years, resulting in the ‘land grab literature rush’ (Oya, 2013), i.e. the development of a rich and extensive body of literature in an attempt to identify and analyse what factors, processes and underlying causal mechanisms are possibly driving the global land grab (Grain, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; Li, 2011; Alden Wily, 2011; Borras et al., 2012; De Schutter, 2011, Borras & Franco, 2012; McMichael, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Hall, 2013; Margulis et al., 2013; Rulli & D’Odorico, 2013, 2014; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017). The majority of this research has been of an historical or empirical nature, with field research providing a considerable amount of valuable empirical evidence, data and information on the possible drivers of land grabbing. In order to gain a better understanding of which processes are driving the global land grab, the first objective of this thesis is to examine which of these drivers of land grabbing have been identified and analysed by previous academic studies.
Although empirical research has provided many viable suggestions for possible drivers of land grabbing, many theoretical scholars have demonstrated that empirical research is not the only viable research method to analyse this issue. By developing and applying a multitude of theories and concepts to the land grabbing phenomenon and a variety of land grabbing cases, they have
attempted to identify and analyse the underlying causal mechanisms that are driving the global land grab from a different, more theoretical perspective. This has allowed them to develop alternative and more overarching explanations and conclusions than would have been possible with solely empirical research (Robertson & Pinstrup-Andersen, 2010; Bush et al., 2011; Levien, 2011;
Benjaminsen & Bryceson, 2012; Fairhead et al., 2012; Jou et al., 2012; Mehta et al., 2012; Hall, 2013; Gellert, 2015; Birkenholtz, 2016; Okolo & Akwu, 2016; Özsu, 2019
)
.6 The second objective of this thesis is to contribute to this academic endeavour by analysing and applying the theory of ‘accumulation by dispossession’ (ABD) to the land grabbing literature and to two well-documented land grabbing cases. This intriguing theory was first introduced by Marxist geographer David Harvey (2003, 2004). Based on Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation, it represents an attempt to describe, analyse and theorise the latest phase of global capitalist expansion and capital accumulation. Harvey argues that this phase is characterised by a process which he conceptualised as ‘accumulation by dispossession’ (ABD), a predatory form of capital accumulation that dispossesses public or private actors of their wealth, property, natural resources or land, with the goal of privatising and concentrating them into the hands of a few powerful actors. This process is considered as a spatio-temporal fix of the capitalist economic system in an attempt to overcome its chronic internal contradiction of overaccumulation (Harvey, 2003, 2004; Corson & MacDonald, 2012). This theory will be explained in more detail in the theoretical framework.
Several scholars have argued that land grabbing can ultimately also be considered as a phenomenon that is driven by processes ABD. This is because as a result of the most recent wave of economic globalisation, the capitalist economic system is increasingly expanding into the agrarian frontier all over the world, accumulating and concentrating land, associated natural resources and profits in the hands of a few powerful economic actors by dispossessing local populations of their lands in the process. This causal relationship between land grabbing and ABD is the central overarching hypothesis that will be tested in this thesis.
Now that the main objectives of this thesis have been formulated, they can be combined to form the following research question:
What is driving the global land grab and how and to what extent can it be understood in terms of Harvey’s theory of accumulation by dispossession?
In order to answer this research question effectively, it will be divided into three sub questions: - 1. Which drivers of the global land grab have been identified and analysed by previous
academic studies?
- 2. Where does Harvey’s theory of accumulation by dispossession originate from, what does it entail and how has it been used by previous academic studies to analyse land grabbing?
- 3. How and to what extent can land grabbing be understood in terms of Harvey’s theory of accumulation by dispossession?
The first paragraph of this introductory chapter has briefly introduced the issue of land grabbing, including what the concept entails, through which mechanisms it takes place, which actors are involved, what their goals are and how it has sparked a lively debate amongst the scientific
7 community. Subsequently, this has led to the formulation of the main research question and three corresponding sub questions. The next paragraph will provide the research design, which will describe the general structure of this thesis.
1.2 Research Design
The main objective of this thesis is to answer the following research question:
What is driving the global land grab and how and to what extent can it be understood in terms of Harvey’s theory of accumulation by dispossession?
In order to answer this research question efficiently, this thesis will adopt a deductive research approach. The approach is deductive because a hypothesis for a possible causal mechanism was developed based on an existing theory (the theory of ABD), which will then be tested through a qualitative literature review and empirical observations with use of case studies. It should also be mentioned that this thesis will adopt a somewhat unorthodox structure. Usually the introductory chapter of a thesis would be followed by the theoretical framework, which introduces, defines and evaluates theories that are relevant to the main research question. However, as was explained in paragraph 1.1, the first objective of this thesis is to examine which drivers of land grabbing have been identified and analysed by previous academic studies. Therefore, chapter 2 of this thesis will first provide a qualitative literature review of the tremendous amount of scientific literature that has been written on the possible drivers of land grabbing before further analysing and applying the theory of ABD to this literature and two land grabbing cases. This qualitative literature review will thus effectively answer the first part of the main research question and corresponding first sub question of this thesis.
After this literature review has been completed, chapter 3 will provide the theoretical framework. This chapter will examine where Harvey’s theory of ABD (2003, 2004) originated from, what the theory entails and how it will be used to analyse land grabbing in this thesis. It will also provide an overview of how other scholars have previously used similar theoretical frameworks to analyse land grabbing and other associated forms of common resource grabbing (Bush et al., 2011; Levien, 2011; Alden Wily, 2012; Benjaminsen & Bryceson, 2012; Fairhead et al., 2012; Jou et al., 2012; McMichael, 2012; Mehta et al., 2012; Hall, 2013; Gellert, 2015; Birkenholtz, 2016; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017). This will help my own research immensely as they provide examples for how this kind of theoretical analysis of land grabbing can be done efficiently. This theoretical framework will effectively answer the second sub question of this thesis.
8 Next, chapter 4 of this thesis will provide a qualitative case study analysis. The two cases that will be included in this analysis are:
- 1. Oil Palm in Indonesia - 2. Soybean in South America
These two particular cases of land grabbing have been chosen for two reasons. First, because they are both well-documented in the academic literature, which is necessary in order to be able to effectively carry out a qualitative analysis of them. This became even more important when it became clear that the corona-crisis would prevent me from doing field research myself. The second reason is that they include different agricultural sectors in different countries and continents all over the world. This way, a wide variety of different production chains, property rights regimes and environmental, cultural and legal-political conditions will be included in the analysis. This is necessary because it ensures that the conclusions reached in this thesis are not only applicable to certain agricultural sectors or specific countries or regions, which will greatly improve the general quality and validity of this thesis. By examining the empirical evidence that has been obtained by years of field research on these two land grabbing cases, it will enable me to identify and analyse the drivers and mechanisms of the land grabbing processes for these specific cases.
In the analysis in chapter 5, both the drivers identified in chapter 2 and the case studies analysed in chapter 4 will subsequently be analysed through the theoretical lens of ABD. This will be done by examining how and to what extent these drivers and cases can be understood in terms of Harvey’s theory of ABD at both the macro- and micro levels of analysis. This will effectively provide answers to the second part of the main research question and corresponding third sub question of this thesis. Finally, chapter 6 will provide the conclusion, which will review the key points of this thesis by providing a concise summary of the results of the research, followed by a theoretical interpretation of these results. This summary will compile the different sub conclusions which are obtained by answering the main research question and sub questions to form coherent story that finalises this thesis.
The remainder of this introductory chapter will provide the personal motivation, the social and scientific relevance of this thesis and a paragraph that will provide additional background information on the global land grab. This paragraph is needed because before being able to
effectively analyse the drivers and cases of land grabbing, first it is necessary and appropriate to gain a better understanding of what the land grabbing phenomenon itself entails. This paragraph will thus provide background information on the land grabbing phenomenon by examining the
9 spread, estimated scale and its impacts on local populations, local ecosystems and the global
climate.
1.3 Personal Motivation
During my academic career in Future Planet Studies and International Relations, I have developed a personal and academic interest in the relationships between the capitalist economic system, global climate change and social injustice/inequality, which I think are some of the defining academic and societal challenges of our time. The more I learned about these topics, the more I became convinced that the two are deeply interconnected. In my opinion, the global spread of neoliberal ideology, neoliberal policies and the capitalist economic system in recent decades is at the root of many of the social and environmental problems of today. This is because capitalism is an economic system that is built on concepts such as the commodification of nature, the concentration of wealth and eternal economic growth. However, as we do not live on a planet with infinite environmental sinks and natural resources, this is a system that is not sustainable in the long term and the first cracks are starting to show in the form of climate change, environmental degradation, social injustice and global economic inequality.
This is why I think that it is very important to research and analyse these relationships in order to understand its underlying causal mechanisms and to be able to contribute to solving this challenge by thinking of possible solutions. Therefore, I decided that I want to write my master’s thesis about an issue area where these relationships between capitalism, the global climate and social
injustice/inequality could be observed and analysed. For land grabbing this is clearly the case, as capitalist logic and economic globalisation drive land grabbing processes which possibly deprive millions of local rural people of their land and the associated natural resources on which they have often relied for many generations. Land grabbing also drives the global expansion of an industrial model of agriculture that is potentially harmful for local communities, fragile ecosystems and the global climate, which make it an issue that needs to be subjected to critical scientific examination continuously. However, I realise that I should not make any conclusions about land grabbing before conducting my own research and that I have to do this this with an open and unbiased mind, so that my personal beliefs and convictions will not affect the scientific quality of this thesis.
1.4 Social and Scientific Relevance
Both the social and scientific relevance of this thesis were already implicitly mentioned in the personal motivation. The social relevance of researching the global land grab stems from the fact
10 that it is that it is a global trend which potentially has profound negative impacts on millions of individuals, local ecosystems and the global climate, which will be explained in more detail in the next paragraph. As land grabbing rapidly spreads an industrial model of agriculture around the world, it has the potential to permanently restructure the lives of the rural poor around the world, endangering their livelihoods and food security in the process. In turn, this could trigger increases in mass migrations, conflicts, social unrest and acts of resistance. Therefore, this thesis is of social relevance, as it will contribute to gaining a better understanding of the global land grab by
attempting to unravel which underlying causal mechanisms are driving it. This might contribute to creating and finding possible solutions for these detrimental social and environmental effects. As for the scientific relevance, by analysing scientific literature and two empirical cases of land grabbing through the theoretical lens of ABD, new scientific insights might be obtained about the underlying causal mechanisms driving the contemporary global land grab. In turn, this might encourage further scientific inquiry into this topic by scholars in the future and from other disciplines.
1.5 General Background Information
1.5.1 History of Land Use Transitions
Paragraph 1.1 already mentioned that land grabbing has the potential to trigger the next great land use transition. This indicated that such a transition would not be the first of its kind. This
subparagraph will examine what previous land use transitions have occurred throughout human history and how this has frequently impacted the size and development of human societies in revolutionary ways.
Ever since the first anatomically modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago, land has always been an essential means of existence for human populations. Whether it was used for hunting, gathering, agriculture or industry, the availability of land has always been a crucial factor in providing human populations with sufficient natural resources to survive, grow and develop to where we are today as a society (Lee et al., 1999; Vasey, 2002; Barker, 2007, 2009; Bocquet-Appel, 2011; Callaway, 2019). Much of human history can essentially be explained by looking at major transitions in land use, thus making land use change and the development of human societies inextricably linked from a historical perspective (Vasey, 2002; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015). Prime examples of such land use transitions that had major impacts on the size and organisation of human societies include the Neolithic Revolution (which describes the transition from a lifestyle of nomadic foraging to a lifestyle of settled agriculture around 12,00 years ago), the British Agricultural
mid-11 17th and late 19th centuries) and the Green Revolution (which describes the global spread of this industrial model of agriculture between 1950 and the late 1960s) (Lee et al., 1999; Vasey, 2002; Barker, 2007, 2009; Bocquet-Appel & Bar-Yosef, 2008; Hazell, 2009; Bocquet-Appel, 2011).
Each of these land use transitions affected the size and organisation of human societies in their own revolutionary ways. As they all led to relatively large and rapid boosts in global agricultural
production, food supplies increased dramatically and became more secure throughout the year (Vasey, 2002). Combined with medical advances, this increased food supply supported increasingly larger and more concentrated populations (Vasey, 2002; Bocquet-Appel, 2011). Especially the creation and global expansion of industrial agriculture, with 37% of Earth’s land surface being used for agricultural purposes in 2018 (FAO, 2018), enabled the global human population to grow at an unprecedented rate from the beginning of the 20th century, from 1.6 billion people in 1900 to 7.7
billion in 2019 (Goldewijk 2005; Pison, 2019). In turn, larger, fixed and more concentrated populations facilitated and stimulated the development of more complex social, political, legal, cultural and economic structures, frameworks and institutions, such as ideologies, religions, trade, art, writing and several technological advances, all of which obviously had profound impacts on how human societies were organised (Vasey, 2002; Barker, 2009; Bocquet-Appel, 2011; Lewin, 2009). Some have called the effects of the global expansion of the capitalist economic system,
industrialisation, industrial agriculture and associated processes such as the mechanisation of agriculture and rising urbanisation rates, ‘the death of peasantry’ (Hobsbawn & Cumming, 1995; Stone, 2001; Daniel & Mittal, 2009). However, it should be mentioned that approximately two billion people all over the world are still very much dependent on access to fertile land to provide
themselves with their livelihoods and daily nourishment needs. This number is expected to keep growing in the coming decades, especially in the Global South (Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Barker, 2007; De Schutter, 2011; Borras & Franco, 2012; FAO, 2018). Two billion people amounts to approximately 26% of the world’s population still deriving their livelihoods directly from agriculture, making it the biggest source of livelihoods and income in the world by far (FAO, 2018). The vast majority of these people live and work on small farms, with 72% of the world’s 570 million farms being less than 1 hectare in size. Also, 90% of the world’s farms are managed by an individual or a family and together they produce approximately 80% of the world’s food supply (FAO, 2018).
After examining the history of land use transitions, the next subparagraph will examine the history of LSLAs, another recurrent historical phenomenon involving land which has often altered the course of human history.
12
1.5.2 History of Large-Scale Land Acquisitions
Besides providing humanity with the essential means to survive and develop, over the ages land also became an asset that holds significant economic, political, social, cultural and spiritual value (Alden Wily, 2012; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015). It should therefore come as no surprise that power struggles over the control and ownership of land and associated natural resources such as water, minerals, oil and gas have been abundant throughout human history. Eventually these power struggles often resulted in LSLAs of some form. These have been occurring since the beginning of recorded human history, making them “a recurrent historical phenomenon since ancient times” (Roudart & Mayozer, 2015: 3). Similar to the land use transitions mentioned in the previous subparagraph, LSLAs
constitute another historical process regarding land that has frequently altered the course of human history, which is why they can even be considered as a defining feature of world politics (Alden Wily, 2012; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015).
These LSLAs were occasionally be conducted through mere peaceful means or financial transactions, but it has often been proven difficult to agree on the value of land in pure monetary terms, as different political and societal actors can attribute different values to the same piece of land (De Maria, 2019). That is why power struggles over land have frequently been the cause of disputes, conflicts and even wars between tribes, kingdoms, empires, states, private economic actors and individuals. Historical examples of these violent confrontations include prehistoric tribes waging chronic wars over territory, the rise and fall of ancient empires, medieval kings battling to expand their kingdoms and European colonial governments dispossessing the Indigenous peoples of the Global South of their lands (GRAIN, 2008; Alden Wily, 2012; Borras & Franco, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Roudart & Mazoyer, 2015).
It is also worth mentioning that even though the historical and geographical contexts in which these LSLAs have taken place have varied significantly throughout history, their social and economic impacts and the legal mechanisms through which they were conducted have been remarkably similar (Roudart & Mayozer, 2015). Historical analyses have revealed that different periods of LSLAs “share a set of economic and social characteristics: a small number of beneficiaries and a large
number of dispossessed, exploitation of all or part of the land and the labour of those dispossessed of their land, resistance, armed violence, laws favouring acquisitions, the decisive role of governments, and legitimising discourse” (Roudart & Mazoyer, 2015: 3). This indicates that despite occurring under
a wide variety of cultural, political, legal and economic conditions and circumstances, the drivers, mechanisms and impacts of LSLAs have generally been vary constant throughout history. These unique characteristics have made LSLAs a topic of high academic interest to historians and political
13 scientists for ages, especially in the fields of International Relations and Political Economy (Roudart & Mazoyer, 2015; De Maria, 2019). The significance, continuity and rigidity of LSLAs as a recurring historical phenomenon raise the question of whether it is a process that is still having an impact on the world of today.
One could easily assume that power struggles over LSLAs are a thing of the past in our contemporary world with modern states and fixed borders. Nevertheless, by producing a large and growing body of research and literature on a new wave of LSLAs (land grabs) in recent years, several agrarian political economy scholars, journalists, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), peasant associations, civil society groups and human rights organisations have demonstrated that it is a process that is still very much alive today (Grain, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; Borras et al., 2012; Borras & Franco, 2012; Cotula, 2012; McMichael, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Margulis et al., 2013; Rulli & D’Odorico, 2013, 2014; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017).
Riding on the newest wave of globalisation, this contemporary wave of LSLAs shares a lot of the aforementioned general characteristics with previous periods of LSLAs (Alden Wily, 2012; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015). Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that it also displays some unique features. Examples of these distinctions include its increasingly global and international character in defiance of national borders, the major roles played by international development agencies,
international financial institutions (IFIs) and transnational corporations (TNCS), the intermediary role played by national governments, the relatively fast and accelerating pace at which the process is occurring, the scale of the acquisitions involved and the increasing length of the economic arrangements that facilitate, legitimise and legalise these acquisitions (Borras & Franco, 2012; Cotula, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015). Since these many differences were identified, it became increasingly appropriate and necessary to create a new concept in order to indicate and distinguish this new wave of LSLAs from its predecessors, which ultimately led to the development and adoption of the concept of land grabbing as was described in subparagraph 1.1. After describing the history of LSLAs and how this eventually led to the development and adoption of the concept of land grabbing, the next subparagraph will examine which countries are main targets for land grabbing and at what estimated scale it occurs.
1.5.3 Target Countries and Scale of Land Grabbing
Since the land grabbing trend has spread across the world in recent years “throughout South and
Central America, throughout South and Southeast Asia, and in many parts of the global North, particularly the former Soviet Eurasia” (Franco et al., 2013: 11), it is currently also being called ‘the
14 global land grab’ or ‘the global land rush’ (Zoomers, 2010; Cotula, 2012, 2013; Oliveira, 2013; Hall, 2013; Arezki et al., 2015; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017). As the three concepts refer to the same
phenomenon, this thesis also uses them interchangeably. Land grabbing often takes place by making LSLA deals directly with the national governments of target countries. These are usually countries with abundant natural resources, favourable climates, high levels of corruption, poverty and food insecurity, underdeveloped institutions and relatively weak social and environmental regulations (GRAIN, 2008; Cotula, 2012; Anseeuw et al., 2013; Franco et al., 2013; Holden & Pagel, 2013; De Schutter & ICAR, 2016). The main target countries for land grabbing can be observed in figures 2 and 3, which show the geographical spread and the top 15 target countries by the size of the involved LSLA deals.
15
Figure 3: Top 15 target countries of land grabbing by size of involved LSLA deals. Retrieved from:
https://www.farmlandgrab.org/uploads/attachment/20130304-Transnational-land-acquisitions-10.pdf on 15-05-2020
Estimates about how much land has been grabbed in total vary considerably, from 20 million hectares between 2005 and 2009 (Borras et al., 2012; Gellert, 2015), to 45 million hectares from 2007 to 2010 (World bank, 2010; Borras & Franco, 2012; Gellert, 2015), to 227 million hectares from 2000 to 2011, of which 70 per cent occurred in Africa (Oxfam, 2011; Borras et al., 2012; Cotula, 2012; Margulis et al., 2013). The variations between these estimates are so great because it is not always straightforward for researchers to decide which LSLA deals do or do not constitute a land grab, as they use different sources, methodologies and standards to determine this (Cotula, 2012; Holden & Pagel, 2013). Another difficulty for researchers to determine how much land is being grabbed is that most of these LSLA deals take place in secret and even if the data is available, it is often inaccurate or unreliable for a variety of technical and political reasons (GRAIN, 2008; Borras & Franco, 2012; Cotula, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Holden & Pagel, 2013). Besides, these estimations have also been criticised for being too ‘hectare-centred’ and that the amount of the capital involved in the LSLA deals should also be taken into account (Borras et al., 2013; Edelman, 2013). Therefore, despite these and other efforts at quantifying the total amount of grabbed land, continued research in the field is required to be able to accurately assess the full scale of the phenomenon.
After discussing the geographical spread and the estimated scale of the land grabbing phenomenon, the next subparagraph will describe its actual political-economic relevance by examining what impacts it has on local populations, local ecosystems and the global climate.
16
1.5.4 Actual Political-Economic Relevance of Land Grabbing
The previous subparagraph demonstrated that land grabbing truly is a global trend. Therefore, it is a phenomenon that can potentially have profound social, economic and environmental impacts on millions of individuals, local ecosystems and the global climate, making it an issue of great political-economic relevance. While analysing the literature on land grabbing, it became clear that two general groups of societal actors can be identified, which have adopted very different positions on whether these impacts are mostly positive or negative for local populations, local ecosystems and the global climate.
Pro-LSLA Actors:
The first group of actors argues that grabbing ‘empty’, ‘marginal’ or ‘unproductive’ lands, a process which they preferably refer to as LSLAs, can provide win-win outcomes for both investors and the local populations and national governments of target countries. This group of actors, which exercises a significant amount of power in the food, agribusiness and finance industries, consists of several economists, some of the aforementioned private economic actors (especially TNCs active in the food and agribusiness industries), several IFIs such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
especially the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and finally, the departments, ministers and politicians from certain national governments, both from the Global North and Global South (GRAIN, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009; World Bank, 2010; Deininger & Byerlee, 2011; De Schutter, 2011; Li, 2011; Cotula, 2012; McMichael, 2012; Franco et al., 2013). They claim that some of the potential benefits for the local populations and national governments of target countries include rural poverty reduction, employment opportunities, increased food security, boosting the national economies of target countries through increased foreign direct investment (FDI) in agriculture and infrastructure, transfers of technology, knowledge and expertise, climate change mitigation and environmental conservation (GRAIN, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; Deininger & Byerlee, 2011; Borras & Franco, 2012; Cotula, 2012; Fairhead et al., 2012; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015). However, to ensure the realisation of these potential benefits, LSLA deals would have to be properly controlled, governed and regulated “through strengthened property rights,
environmental and labour standards, greater community consultation, and the use of some international governance instruments such as transparency mechanisms in land deals in order to facilitate capital accumulation within an efficient institutional context” (Franco et al., 2013: 22).
Even though these aims seem commendable, in many cases of land grabbing it seems that the realisation of these benefits is easier said than done. This is because land grabbing often takes place in countries with high levels of corruption and relatively weak and underdeveloped institutions,
17 regulations and legal frameworks, as was already mentioned in the previous subparagraph. It should therefore come as no surprise that a different group of societal actors, consisting of many critical scholars, NGOs, human rights organisations and peasant farmer associations, has heavily criticised the global land grab and the impacts negative impacts it potentially has.
Anti-LSLA Actors:
This second group of actors argues that the potential benefits of land grabbing are myths, fabricated by actors who have an economic or ideological interest in the continuation of the global land grab: “so far there is precious little concrete evidence to back up such claims, and instead history is littered
with bad examples” (Franco et al., 2013: 15). By conducting field research they have produced a
growing amount of evidence that suggests that land grabbing has a variety of profound negative social, economic and environmental impacts on local populations (especially the rural poor), local ecosystems and the global climate (GRAIN, 2008; De Schutter, 2011; Li, 2011; Cotula, 2012; Seo & Rodriguez, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2014; Rulli & D’Odorico, 2013, 2014; Dell’Angelo, 2017).
This group of actors has provided several reasons for why land grabs are rarely beneficial for local populations. Their first point of critique is that land grabbers are not looking to grab ‘empty’ or ‘unproductive’ lands as they often claim, but instead target the most productive lands of a certain area to grow crops at the highest yields possible. This usually happens without the official consent of the local populations who have sometimes been living or working on these lands for generations (De Schutter, 2011; Li,2011). Besides, the LSLA deals made with national governments are often lacking in transparency, consultation and adequate compensation mechanisms.
Moreover, when local populations do not give up or leave their lands willingly, land grabs are often enforced through processes of dispossession, eviction and displacement. Sometimes this is done through legal manipulations or market mechanisms, but there have also been several cases where it involved processes of deceit and violent appropriation, such as the deliberate withholding of
information, threats, intimidation, physical harassment, coercion and violence. These processes put millions of small-scale farmers, artisanal fishers, pastoralists and forest dwelling indigenous people around the world at risk of loss of livelihoods, unemployment and impoverishment as their labour mostly becomes obsolete in the highly mechanised agricultural model that is introduced to their lands (GRAIN, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009; De Schutter, 2011; Li, 2011; Borras & Franco, 2012; McMichael, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Holden & Pagel, 2013; Rulli & D’Odorico, 2013, 2014; Davis et al., 2014; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015).
18 To make matters even worse, the rural poor often become the victims of power discrepancies between them and the powerful political and economic actors that are grabbing their lands. Besides the obvious differences in financial resources between small-scale farmers and multibillion dollar corporations, this power imbalance is often exacerbated even further by the legal frameworks that are adopted by national governments of target countries. Therefore, the rural poor often enjoy little protection from the law as their customary rights are undermined, amended or not recognised and they often do not possess the capital, know-how or access to judicial assistance, making them generally powerless and incapable of fighting back against the unjust appropriation of their lands and associated natural resources (Zoomers, 2010; Franco et al., 2013; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017). In many cases this has led to social unrest, socioeconomic inequalities, conflicts and open acts of mobilisation and resistance by local populations (Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Franco, et al., 2013; Rulli & D’Odorico, 2013; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015; Hall et al., 2015).
The global land grab has also been frequently criticised for creating or increasing food and water insecurity instead of providing solutions to this major global issue, as is often claimed by its proponents. This is because land that was previously used to grow food crops for domestic consumption are now increasingly being transformed to grow food, feed and biofuel crops to be exported to the highest bidder on the international market (Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Davis et al., 2014; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017). In 2014 it was estimated that around 300-550 million people could
hypothetically be fed by food crops grown these grabbed lands (Rulli & D’Odorico, 2014).
Land grabbing also causes land use transitions on a global scale that are often devastating for local populations and ecosystems. Grabbed lands are often transformed into large industrial plantation-style agricultural estates where an industrial model of agriculture is often introduced in order to grow crops at the highest yields possible (Li, 2011). This model includes the use of heavy machinery, monoculture fields, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, selective breeding, genetically engineered crops and sophisticated irrigation techniques (Barker, 2007). Land grabbing can thus be considered as “the
epitome of an ongoing and accelerating change in the meaning and use of the land and its associated resources (like water) from small-scale, labour-intensive uses like peasant farming for household consumption and local markets, toward large-scale, capital-intensive, resource-depleting uses” (Franco et al,, 2013: 3). As a result, “these lands will be transformed from smallholdings or forests, whatever they may be, into large industrial estates connected to large far-off markets. Farmers will never be real farmers again, job or no job. This will probably be the biggest consequence” (GRAIN, 2008: 9).
It is also argued land grabbing is having a variety of detrimental environmental effects on local ecosystems, which obviously also has a negative impact on the living conditions of local populations
19 by damaging their direct living environment. Examples of these environmental impacts include deforestation, desertification, soil erosion and degradation, air pollution, the excessive depletion and exploitation of natural resources, the loss of biodiversity and agrochemical contamination of land and water resources through the release of chemical pollutants such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides in soils, groundwater and streams (Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Deininger & Byerlee, 2011; GRAIN, 2012; White et al., 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Rulli & D’Odorico, 2013; Davis et al., 2014; Özsu, 2019).
Finally, it is argued that land grabbing is also a significant contributor to global climate change as it increases global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in several ways. First, it facilitates and stimulates the global spread of an industrial model of agriculture that inevitably increases the use of heavy machinery which emit large amounts of GHGs. Second, it facilitates and stimulates the development of global production, transportation and distribution chains, significantly increasing GHG emissions from the transportation sector. And third, it causes deforestation on a massive scale, destroying a major carbon sink in the process, which has been proven to be one of the main contributors to increasing GHG emissions in recent decades (Deininger & Byerlee, 2011; Harvey & Pilgrim, 2011; GRAIN, 2012; McMichael, 2012; Seo & Rodriguez, 2012).
This paragraph 1.5 has provided background information which has contributed to gaining a better understanding of the global land grabbing phenomenon. First it examined the history of large-scale land use transitions to describe how these transitions have often profoundly impacted the size and development of human societies in revolutionary ways. As land grabbing is also causing land use change on a global scale, it can be argued that land grabbing has the potential to trigger the great next land use transition. It remains to be seen if the impacts this will have on human societies will be of a similar magnitude as its predecessors. Second, this paragraph examined and analysed how land grabbing was preceded by a similar recurring historical phenomenon called large-scale land
acquisitions (LSLAs), in which target countries and at what estimated scale land grabbing is taking place, through what mechanisms it occurs and what impacts it has on affected local populations, local ecosystems and the global climate.
20
Chapter 2 – Drivers of Land grabbing
The introductory paragraph of this thesis has provided a significant amount of information on the land grabbing phenomenon, describing what the concept entails, which actors are involved and through which mechanisms it occurs. Paragraph 1.5 provided additional background information about the history of land use transitions and large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs), which countries are main targets for land grabbers, at what estimated scale it occurs and what impacts it has on local populations, local ecosystems and the global climate. It also recognised that one crucial question regarding land grabbing still remains largely unresolved and has sparked a lively debate amongst the scientific community: what is ultimately driving the global land grab? Many scholars have come up with a variety of different suggestions for possible drivers, resulting in a rich body of scientific literature on the issue. This chapter will examine this body of literature by conducting a qualitative literature review, answering the first part of the main research question and the first sub question in the process:
Which drivers of the global land grab have been identified and analysed by previous academic studies?
As was already mentioned in the research design, this thesis will adopt a somewhat unorthodox structure by placing the literature review before the theoretical framework as it is necessary to examine academic studies that have previously identified and analysed drivers of land grabbing through empirical research before being able to efficiently apply the theory of ABD to this land grabbing literature and two land grabbing cases.
Based on the literature that was read while conducting this literature review, it was decided that the ‘drivers’ of land grabbing that were most encountered could be categorised most effectively by dividing them into three general subcategories: historical processes, biophysical conditions and political-economic developments. These will subsequently each be examined in their own paragraph.
2.1 Drivers of Land Grabbing – Historical Processes
As was already demonstrated in the historical overview of LSLAs in subparagraph 1.5.2, the contemporary global land grab does not constitute the first period in human history during which LSLAs have been a common occurrence. As a matter of fact, LSLAs have been a “recurrent historical
phenomenon since ancient times” (Roudart & Mayozer, 2015: 3). Historical processes are often
21 historical and geographical contexts. Some scholars have argued that this is also the case for LSLAs and land grabbing. They argue that previous periods of LSLAs have in many ways paved the way for the contemporary period of land grabbing by establishing the basis for the ideological, legal and institutional frameworks, mechanisms and manipulations that in many cases still facilitate and drive land grabbing today. Each of these subcategories will now be examined in their own subparagraph.
2.1.1 Historical Drivers – Ideological Frameworks
Ideological power and the use of certain discourse can be an efficient tool for powerful actors when attempting to legitimise a certain practice. This has also been the case for past periods of LSLAs and land grabbing. As Franco et al. (2013: 10) put it: “past land grabbing has mattered for the political
processes and precedents that were established and which are still shaping how and where land grabbing is happening today. Many of the same core ideas and mechanisms that are justifying and facilitating land grabbing today were established in past episodes of land grabbing”.
Some examples of these core ideas include: the idea that implementing and obtaining exclusive property rights are an effective means to seize and secure land, the idea that employing certain discourses, such as systematically calling an area of land ‘vacant’, ‘empty’, ‘uninhabited’ or ‘underutilised’, is a useful tool to justify a land grab and finally, the idea that one can effectively legitimise and legalise a land grab by claiming to act on behalf of the ‘public purpose’ or ‘public interest’ (Li, 2011; Borras & Franco, 2012; De Schutter, 2012; Franco et al., 2013). It is argued that these core ideas together now form the ideological framework that land grabbers often still employ today to legitimise their actions and downplay the overwhelmingly negative impacts of land
grabbing in general, of which some examples were already provided in subparagraph 1.5.4. This subparagraph has described how the core ideas, ideological frameworks and legitimising discourses that were developed during past periods of land grabbing can still be key drivers and facilitators of the contemporary global land grab as they are often still being utilised by the land grabbers of today to legitimise their practices.
2.1.2 Historical Drivers – Legal Manipulations & Mechanisms
The argument made in the previous subparagraph is wholeheartedly supported in an article by Alden Wily (2012), who also argues that we have to look at the past in order to gain a better understanding of how the establishment of these core ideas and associated legal manipulations, mechanisms and frameworks that enable and facilitate the contemporary global land grab have come into existence. Her work especially focuses on how the legal manipulations and mechanisms
22 that are used to legalise and legitimise land grabbing today have been gradually created and
developed in local settings throughout human history. The core argument is that “land rushes past
and present have relied upon legal manipulations which deny that local indigenous (‘customary’) tenures deliver property rights, thereby legalizing the theft of the lands of the poor or subject peoples” (Alden Wily, 2012: 751). This was demonstrated by providing a historical overview of past
periods of LSLAs, during which legal manipulations were frequently used by powerful political and economic actors to claim the exclusive property rights to an area of land, delegitimising customary local laws and dispossessing local populations in the process (Alden Wily, 2012).
The article analyses several historical cases of land grabbing that provide empirical evidence for how national governments have frequently used legal manipulations in the past to amend or deny pre-existing collective local customary and communal land rights and laws. This process of land ownership nationalisation, first by foreign colonial governments, then by local national governments, increasingly concentrated land rights in the hands of states and powerful land ministries (Cotula, 2012). This practice was often legitimised by claiming that these ‘vacant’ lands were rightfully property of the state and that collective forms of customary land ownership were an impediment to national economic growth and development by blocking FDI opportunities (Zoomers, 2010; Alden Wily, 2012; Cotula, 2013).
Instead, it was argued by these national governments that economic growth could only be
accomplished by creating the ideal conditions for attracting FDI through LSLA deals and legislation was thus adjusted accordingly. Examples of these ideal conditions include that the land is cheap, the premiums, rents and taxes low, the lease terms long, environmental and labour laws loose and the rights of investors to export all production while employing mainly foreign labour well established. Again the creation of these perfect investment conditions were accomplished through legal
manipulations in the form of land reforms (Cotula, 2012, 2013). Alden Wily (2012) argues that these manipulations and mechanisms which have been institutionalised all over the world throughout modern human history, are often still in place today (especially in the Global South) and that they are still facilitating, legalising and driving the contemporary global land grab. Nowadays this often happens at the expense of common-property systems, as local communities are often excluded from the negotiation process of LSLA deals because they do not possess the official property rights to the lands that they use (D’Odorico & Rulli, 2014; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017).
This subparagraph has examined how the legal manipulations and mechanisms that have developed throughout previous periods of land grabbing can still be important historical drivers for the
contemporary global land grab, as they are still often employed by the land grabbers of today to officially legalise their LSLA deals.
23
2.1.3 Historical Drivers – Institutional Processes
The strategy of national governments to nationalise, privatise and sell their ‘empty’ lands, as was explained in the previous subparagraph, could frequently count on strong support from powerful and influential IFIs, such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the IMF. These IFIs significantly gained in power and global influence after capitalism emerged as the dominant global economic system at the end of the 20th century, which ushered in a new wave of global
neoliberalism and economic globalisation (McMichael, 2012; Reed, 2019). Daniel & Mittal (2019: 6) argue that, “the role of International Financial Institutions in promoting and facilitating land grabs
has received little attention” in scientific literature. However, their role in the land grabbing
phenomenon should not be underestimated.
In recent decades IFI’s have frequently pushed for new global food policies. These policies stressed the need for vast increases in global agricultural production in order to feed a rapidly growing world population (Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Li, 2011; De Schutter, 2011). To achieve this food security, a capital-intensive, industrial model of agriculture would have to be implemented around the world, a task in which the private sector would have to play a prominent role. However, this would only be possible if the economies and land markets of the target countries would be opened up to the international market (Daniel & Mittal, 2009). This is what structural adjustment programs (SAPs) were designed for. As part of their SAP loan packages for failing economies, they required indebted governments to “work harder to free up the market in land, re-launch titling programmes, open their
doors to foreign land ownership, and remove land ceilings, development conditions and other rules which impede emergence of large commercial farms” (Alden Wiley, 2012: 766). This would increase
investment, production and trade, boosting the recipient country's economy significantly. It is thus not hard to imagine why and how these SAP loan packages and other global neoliberal policies have driven land grabbing processes in recent decades. Franco et al., (2013: 10) confirm this by arguing that “a more recent past not of land grabbing, but of Structural Adjustment Programs
(SAPs), privatisation of public services (including family farming support- services), investment de-regulation and trade liberalisation, is what underpins and has helped to make possible the cycle of land grabbing we see today”.
In their historical analysis of LSLAs, Roudart & Mayozer (2015) also provide several examples of how historical institutional processes have facilitated and stimulated the emergence of the global land grab in recent decades. They came to the conclusion that since the 1980s, LSLAs have been greatly facilitated by the liberalisation of public and agricultural policies in developing countries, which were implemented as part of stabilisation and SAPs (Roudart & Mayozer, 2015; De Schutter, 2011).
24 Besides, they also argue that during approximately the same period, financial liberalisation policies in most industrialised countries increasingly provided major investors with improved access to cheap credit on a large scale, which they would later use to acquire vast areas of land in the Global South (Roudart & Mayozer, 2015).
Finally, they and other scholars also support Alden Wily’s (2012) research by claiming that the neoliberal-inspired land reform policies implemented in many developing countries in the 1980s and 1990s have greatly facilitated LSLAs by favouring major acquirers of land rights over local
communities to this day (De Schutter, 2011). In the process, this liberalisation of land markets increasingly led to the formalisation and commodification of land rights and the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a few powerful actors instead of redistributing them fairly amongst the population (Zoomers, 2010; Borras & Franco, 2012; Roudart & Mayozer, 2015; Gironde & Senties Portilla, 2016).
This subparagraph has examined how several institutional processes that took place in the past can still be considered as important historical drivers of the contemporary global land grab. Examples of such processes are the promoting and facilitating role played by IFIs, the creation and
implementation of neoliberal policies such as SAPs, the privatisation of public services, the de-regulation of trade and investments, the liberalisation of public and agricultural policies, the liberalisation of land markets and the commodification of land rights.
After describing how ideological, legal and institutional frameworks, mechanisms and processes of the past can still be important historical drivers of the contemporary global land grab, the next paragraph will examine which (changes in) biophysical conditions can be considered as biophysical drivers of land grabbing.
2.2 Drivers of Land Grabbing – Biophysical Conditions
This paragraph will examine how (changes in) biophysical conditions and environments can drive land grabbing in a variety of different ways. Some have argued that “there is a lack of investigation
that systematically brings in a biophysical perspective on the land rush” (Scheidel & Sorman, 2012:
589). By adopting such a perspective, this paragraph will thus hopefully contribute to filling this gap in the scientific literature on land grabbing.
Especially climate change and the universal need for natural resources such as fertile soil,
freshwater, plants, minerals and fossil fuels play an important role in driving the global land grab. When a country or economic actor experiences a significant shortage of such natural resources, this
25 can drive these actors to acquire them by grabbing land in regions where they are more abundant. This is often the most important motivator for foreign national governments to participate in land grabbing for food security purposes, which is what will be examined in the first subparagraph of this paragraph on the biophysical drivers of land grabbing.
2.2.1 Biophysical Drivers – International Food (In)Security
This subparagraph will examine whether international food insecurity as a result of changing
biophysical conditions should be considered as biophysical driver of the global land grab. When land grabbing first emerged as a new concept in 2007, it initially referred to an increase in LSLAs in the Global South, mainly conducted by the national governments of countries such as the Gulf states, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, China and India. Even though these are relatively wealthy countries with fast-growing economies, many of them experience significant scarcities of natural resources within their borders, such as a lack of minerals, fertile soil or freshwater resources. As a result, they gradually became unable to grow enough food crops to properly feed their populations with merely domestic food production, increasingly putting their domestic food security at risk (GRAIN, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; De Schutter, 2011; Borras et al., 2012; Borras & Franco, 2012; Cotula, 2012 Franco et al., 2013).
The natural resource scarcities in these countries can partly be explained as a result of a
combination of different socioeconomic developments, such as rapidly growing populations, rapidly growing economies, increasing urbanisation rates, changing diets and changing consumption patterns (Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; Scheidel & Sorman, 2012; Franco et al., 2013). However, changes in their biophysical conditions as a result of the overexploitation of natural resources also plays an important role in this. Examples of such changes include deforestation, soil degradation, soil erosion, pollution and dwindling freshwater resources. For many of these
countries, these problem have been exacerbated even further by the impacts of global climate change in recent years, which can cause temperature rises, more extreme weather events and changing precipitation patterns resulting in droughts and floods. All of these examples constitute changes in biophysical conditions that are obviously detrimental to agricultural food production (Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; Scheidel & Sorman, 2012; Franco et al., 2013).
In order to avert the impending food insecurity, these countries started to rely heavily on food imports from the international food market to still be able to properly feed their growing populations, which is a crucial factor in averting domestic political instability and social unrest
26 (Daniel & Mittal, 2009; De Schutter, 2011; Cotula, 2012). As international food prices remained stable for a long time, this situation seemed quite stable for these countries during this period. However, this all changed dramatically when food prices increased dramatically as a result of the world food price crisis in 2007-2008 (GRAIN, 2008, Daniel & Mittal, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; Borras et al., 2012; De Schutter, 2011; Alden Wily 2012; Borras & Franco, 2012; McMichael, 2012; Holden & Pagel, 2013).
This sudden spike in international food prices was also partly caused by biophysical drivers, such as severe droughts in grain-producing countries and rising oil prices as a result of dwindling oil reserves (Mittal, 2009). In turn, this caused the national governments of food importing countries to become increasingly worried about their dependency on the fluctuating prices of food imports from the international market (GRAIN, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009; De Schutter, 2011; Cotula, 2012; Holden & Pagel, 2013). As they were not able to sufficiently increase their domestic food production to
provide their food security for reasons mentioned above, this group of states were forced to adopt and employ strategies to gain more direct control over their international food supply in the form of land grabbing. This was accomplished by outsourcing their domestic food production to countries where land and associated natural resources were relatively cheap and more abundant (GRAIN, 2008; li, 2011; Borras et al., 2012; McMichael, 2012; Franco et al., 2013).
This new direct strategy of land grabbing as a form of FDI by foreign national governments in food production in other countries, entails the acquisition of exclusive property rights to farms and vast areas of fertile land, mostly in the ‘target’ countries mentioned in subparagraph 1.5.3 (Zoomers, 2010). After acquiring the property rights to these lands, either by purchasing or leasing them at relatively low costs, private actors are often explicitly expected to take over the production process, introducing an industrial model of agriculture to the grabbed lands order to grow food crops at the highest yields possible (GRAIN, 2008). These food crops are then exported to the food-insecure countries in order to feed their rapidly growing populations at home. GRAIN (2013: 2) argues that the involved national governments see this as “an innovative long-term strategy to feed their people
at a good price and with far greater security than hitherto” and that this process can be considered
as “a giant board-game, as diplomats and investors hop around from country to country searching
for new farmland to call their own” (GRAIN, 2008: 6).
This more direct strategy of national governments to ensure their domestic food security (while circumventing their domestic natural resource scarcities) by grabbing vast areas of land in the Global South to grow and export food crops on a large scale is considered by many as the starting point and one of the main drivers of the contemporary global land grab (GRAIN, 2008; Daniel & Mittal, 2009).
27 Private economic actors later also adopted similar strategies of grabbing cheap land to grow, export and sell food crops to the highest bidder on the international market, albeit to a lesser extent. This subparagraph has described how international food (in)security as a result of changing biophysical conditions can be considered as an important biophysical driver of the global land grabbing phenomenon. It also already shortly explained how many of these changes in biophysical conditions are accelerated significantly by global climate change, which makes global climate change another important biophysical driver of the global land grab, which will be examined in the next subparagraph.
2.2.2 Biophysical Drivers – Global Climate change
As was already explained in subparagraph 1.1.5, land grabbing significantly contributes to global climate change in several ways. However, many scholars have argued that this also works vice versa, making land grabbing and global climate change two processes that mutually reinforce each other through a vicious cycle (Cotula, 2012; Fairhead et al, 2012; Seo & Rodriguez, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2014; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017). This subparagraph will briefly explain how global climate change drives the global land grab in a variety of different ways through unprecedented changes in biophysical conditions, making it an important biophysical driver of land grabbing. First, as was already briefly explained in the previous subparagraph, one of the most profound impacts of global climate change on Earth’s biophysical conditions is that it profoundly alters weather patterns around the world. Extreme weather events will become more common, lands will become drier and temperatures will increase. It has been projected that these developments will have severe negative impacts on the yields of the agricultural production systems of multiple countries, especially those with hot and arid climates (Deininger & Byerlee, 2011; Seo & Rodriguez, 2012). As a result, fertile land and freshwater will become even more scarce in these countries, which will in turn force their national governments to grab even more lands in an attempt to ensure food- and water security for their growing populations.
Second, for purposes of climate change mitigation, global climate change will increase the incentive for national governments to implement more carbon sequestration programs and biofuel mandates, which are both main drivers of land grabbing as will be explained in more detail in subparagraphs 2.2.4 and 2.3.5 (Borras et al., 2012; Cotula, 2012; Fairhead et al, 2012; Seo & Rodriguez, 2012; Franco et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2014; Dell’Angelo et al., 2017).
