What are we talking about when we talk about land grabbing?
It can be defined as the «acquisition or long-term lease of large areas of land by investors»[1] for agro-industrial purposes and, even from a quick look, this phenomenon concerns land as much as who wants to use and take advantage of it. This phenomenon mainly concerns capital flows to Africa, South America and Asia, posing threats to developing countries’ sovereignty and to local communities’ survival.
To better frame this, one has to consider the interconnection between trade and investment: what types of investments characterise this phenomenon, what is most produced and how products are made. It must be considered that the main actors involved in these investments are multinationals, States and private actors interested in intensive culture. Very often, after the imposition of an agricultural model different from the communities’ traditional one, the leasing period of the land ends (usually the leasing period covers 5 years), leaving the land and communities to whom it belongs profoundly transformed.
The phenomenon has its foundation in the convergence of interests between target and investor countries: attracting investors for target developed countries is fundamental for the increasing of revenues from exports.
The perpetration of this phenomenon has undergone a process of normalisation through the narrative of international organizations, international financial institutions, and governmental forums as the G8.[2] Different authorities have encouraged this practice and referred to it as an expression of food regime restructuring and an effective tool for development. Accordingly, and looking at those lands as “underutilised” and “vacant”, foreign investment seems the only proper way to address the issue.
That vision does not consider alternative ways to use the land respecting environmental concern and the rights of the population and, if financial institutions (which also have the power to actively finance projects) also support this narrative, the boost to put into practice alternative ways to look at the food system seems more and more feeble.
In 2008 the World Bank, the international institution that provides economic aid to needy countries, implemented agricultural policies based on free trade, eliminating all limits on the purchase of land belonging to economically less developed countries. After the 2008-2010 economic and food crisis this phenomenon increased. Many of the richest countries wanted to avoid excessive dependence on the international markets and intensified the phenomenon. The idea behind this rush to foreign land passed through the guarantee of their own food security conditions[3] but also secure biofuels supplies.[4]
What were biofuels in the 2010s and what are they now?
In most analyses conducted in the wake of the 2008 crisis and the unprecedented expansion of land grabbing, biofuels were seen as potential competitors to food in land use. Not only that, an aura of stigma shrouded these technologies and the debate was open about the energy return on investment, emissions reductions and impacts such as land clearing, displacement, class inequalities.
The vision of biofuels in the early 2010s was different or at least partial and deeply marked by the negative externalities produced by investments of that kind, including land grabbing. At that time, we were talking about the production of first-generation biofuels, i.e. produced directly from food crops grown on arable land. Of this type, apart from the conflict of land use between food and fuel, the great waste of water and land is not convincing. UN Human Rights Rapporteur Jean Ziegler 2007 charged that they are a ‘crime against humanity’.
Over time, various researches have demonstrated the feasibility of alternative models for the production of biofuels, such as biofuels derived from non-cultivated plant masses, such as agricultural and forestry wastes, up to what we now call third and fourth-generation biofuels that do not involve the use of land.
This evolution has demonstrated the possibility of decoupling biofuel production from a phenomenon of environmental, cultural and social degradation such as land grabbing and that alternative models of biofuel production are possible, without having to resort to practices now known to be unsustainable and harmful to human rights.
Why should alternative models be considered?
Conversely, according to the report presenting the Minimum Human Rights Principles the real opportunity cost in ceding land to an investor is not high and the analysis of other business models (such as contract farming) which may reach the same objective without shifting rights over land and impacting the livelihood of an entire community should be prioritised.
In general, it must be considered that investments are framed within a specific vision of the food system and reproduce that vision. As suggested by the Special Rapporteur’s open letter on the right to food to the heads of governments of African countries,
«Host States and investors should also establish and promote farming systems that are labour intensive – instead of highly-mechanised operations – in order to ensure that investment agreements contribute to reinforcing local livelihood options and provide living wages for the local population, which is a key component of the human right to food.»[5]
The letter proceeds to discuss alternative investment systems, highlighting how openness to such systems is crucial to guaranteeing people’s rights, such as the right to food. Indeed:
«Sustainable agriculture, in particular agro-ecological approaches and low-input farming practices, should also be favoured in contractual arrangements. A safe and productive environment is indeed an element in the realisation of the right to food for local communities».[6]
[1] Olivier De Schutter (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.
[2] GRAIN, The G8 and Land Grabs in Africa, 11 March 2013.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Philip McMichael (2012) The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39:3-4, p. 683.
[5] Olivier De Schutter (2009), Open Letter to African Heads of State and Governments, Reinvesting in African Agricultures: Grounding efforts in the Right to Food as a condition for sustainable results. Disponibile: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/english/issues/food/docs/Open_letter_AU_july09.pdf
[6] Ibid.