Explore the vast range of titles available.

Tropical forests are vital for global biodiversity, carbon storage and local livelihoods, yet they are increasingly under threat from human activities. Large-scale land acquisitions have emerged as an important mechanism linking global resource demands to forests in the Global South, yet their influence on tropical deforestation remains unclear. Here we perform a multicountry assessment of the links between large-scale land acquisitions and tropical forest loss by combining a new georeferenced database of 82,403 individual land deals—covering 15 countries in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia—with data on annual forest cover and loss between 2000 and 2018. We find that land acquisitions cover between 6% and 59% of study-country land area and between 2% and 79% of their forests. Compared with non-investment areas, large-scale land acquisitions were granted in areas of higher forest cover in 11 countries and had higher forest loss in 52% of cases. Oil palm, wood fibre and tree plantations were consistently linked with enhanced forest loss while logging and mining concessions showed a mix of outcomes. Our findings demonstrate that large-scale land acquisitions can lead to elevated deforestation of tropical forests, highlighting the role of local policies in the sustainable management of these ecosystems.Tropical deforestation rates are linked to large-scale land investments, according to georeferenced land deal records and remote sensing of forest loss over the past two decades.

Land acquisition in Ghana is fraught with challenges of multiple sales, numerous unofficial charges, unnecessary bureaucracies, intrusion of unqualified middlemen, and lack of transparency among others. Studies have suggested digitization as a way forward to improve Ghana’s land management system and to address these acquisition challenges. However, none of these studies have specifically provided a clear conceptual digital framework for land acquisition. Most contemporary land literature globally appraise blockchain technology as a potential solution to these challenges in Ghana’s land acquisition process. This article applies an integrative review, mixed with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis, and deductive lessons from a digital land registry concept to develop a blockchain-based smart land acquisition framework solution in view of Ghana’s land acquisition challenges. However, it is identified that threats of sabotage of this framework exist among some customary land owners, land officials, and private blockchain-based land experts for various reasons. Among others, a legal basis for a public–private partnership is recommended particularly to discourage sabotage from private blockchain-based land experts. We recommend future research works to delve into establishing a framework that can be used as a guide to assess the readiness of land management and land administration systems for blockchain consideration in sub-Sahara Africa, particularly Ghana.

The ongoing agrarian transition from smallholder farming to large-scale commercial agriculture promoted by transnational large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) often aims to increase crop yields through the expansion of irrigation. LSLAs are playing an increasingly prominent role in this transition. Yet it remains unknown whether foreign LSLAs by agribusinesses target areas based on specific hydrological conditions and whether these investments compete with the water needs of existing local users. Here we combine process-based crop and hydrological modelling, agricultural statistics, and georeferenced information on individual transnational LSLAs to evaluate emergence of water scarcity associated with LSLAs. While conditions of blue water scarcity already existed prior to land acquisitions, these deals substantially exacerbate blue water scarcity through both the adoption of water-intensive crops and the expansion of irrigated cultivation. These effects lead to new rival water uses in 105 of the 160 studied LSLAs (67% of the acquired land). Combined with our findings that investors target land with preferential access to surface and groundwater resources to support irrigation, this suggests that LSLAs often appropriate water resources to the detriment of local users. Water scarcity associated with large-scale land acquisitions is exacerbated by adoption of water-intensive crops and expansion of irrigation, which in turn increases rival water uses.

Agricultural large-scale land acquisitions have been linked with enhanced deforestation and land use change. Yet the extent to which transnational agricultural large-scale land acquisitions (TALSLAs) contribute to—or merely correlate with—deforestation, and the expected biodiversity impacts of the intended land use changes across ecosystems, remains unclear. We examine 178 georeferenced TALSLA locations in 40 countries to address this gap. While forest cover within TALSLAs decreased by 17% between 2000 and 2018 and became more fragmented, the spatio-temporal patterns of deforestation varied substantially across regions. While deforestation rates within initially forested TALSLAs were 1.5 (Asia) to 2 times (Africa) higher than immediately surrounding areas, we detected no such difference in Europe and Latin America. Our findings suggest that, whereas TALSLAs may have accelerated forest loss in Asia, a different mechanism might emerge in Africa where TALSLAs target areas already experiencing elevated deforestation. Regarding biodiversity (here focused on vertebrate species), we find that nearly all (91%) studied deals will likely experience substantial losses in relative species richness (−14.1% on average within each deal)—with mixed outcomes for relative abundance—due to the intended land use transitions. We also find that 39% of TALSLAs fall at least partially within biodiversity hotspots, placing these areas at heightened risk of biodiversity loss. Taken together, these findings suggest distinct regional differences in the nature of the association between TALSLAs and forest loss and provide new evidence of TALSLAs as an emerging threat to biodiversity in the Global South.

Large-scale land acquisitions (LaSLAs) have been a common feature of neoliberal transformation in which state entities facilitate foreign investments; yet the related governance dynamics remain poorly understood. This paper combines policy analysis and interview data to investigate governance dynamics of LaSLAs and analyses competing authority and power relations among national actors mediating land access for the case of Zambia. Our findings show that corporate interests, donor and regional support drive LaSLAs, but national factors predominate. While possibilities for LaSLAs are created by state institutions, the state agencies seeking to administer land-based resources also limit their potential through competing authority and agendas. The demand for land and water, accompanied by government and donor resources, heightens tensions among state entities over decisionmaking and creation of new frontiers of resource control. By focusing on state and non-state actors and their articulation in LaSLAs, our study shows that the top-down nature of governance of land, labour and water resources is problematic for long-term sustainable agriculture and rural development. The paper highlights the importance of state entities and their control, legal extensions and governance practices in relation to local subjects in delivering LaSLAs and facilitating the emergence of a more locally rooted agro-vision for agriculture for sustainable and socially just rural development.

The ongoing agrarian transition from small-holder farming to large-scale commercial agriculture is reshaping systems of production and human well-being in many regions. A fundamental part of this global transition is manifested in large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) by agribusinesses. Its energy implications, however, remain poorly understood. Here, we assess the multi-dimensional changes in fossil-fuel-based energy demand resulting from this agrarian transition. We focus on LSLAs by comparing two scenarios of low-input and high-input agricultural practices, exemplifying systems of production in place before and after the agrarian transition. A shift to high-input crop production requires industrial fertilizer application, mechanization of farming practices and irrigation, which increases by ~5 times fossil-fuel-based energy consumption compared to low-input agriculture. Given the high energy and carbon footprints of LSLAs and concerns over local energy access, our analysis highlights the need for an approach that prioritizes local resource access and incorporates energy-intensity analyses in land use governance. The global agrarian transition is characterized by a rise in large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs), whose energy impacts are unknown. Here, the authors assess how LSLAs change land use, finding that they necessitate greater investment in energy to meet demands, and greater greenhouse gas emissions.

Improving agricultural productivity is a foundational sustainability challenge in the 21st century. Large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) have important effects on both well-being and the environment in the Global South. Their impacts on agricultural productivity and subsequent effects on farm incomes, food-security and the distribution of these outcomes across households remain under-investigated. In particular, prior studies do not sufficiently attend to the mechanistic nature of changes in household agricultural practices that affect LSLA outcomes. To address these challenges, we use a novel household dataset and a quasi-experimental design to estimate household-level changes in agricultural productivity and other LSLA outcomes in Tanzania. We use causal mediation analysis to assess how four common mechanisms—contract farming, land loss, market access and technology adoption around LSLAs—influence agricultural productivity. We find that households near LSLAs exhibit 20.2% (95% CI: 3.1%–37.3%) higher agricultural productivity, primarily due to increased crop prices and farmer selection of high-value crops. Importantly, the direction and magnitude of effect sizes associated with the different mechanisms vary. The presence of contract farming explains 18.1% (95% CI: 0.56%, 47%) of the effect size in agricultural productivity, whereas land loss reduces agricultural productivity by 26.8% (95% CI: −71.3%, −4.0%). Market access and technology adoption explain little to no portion of the effect size on agricultural productivity. Despite higher agricultural productivity mediated by contract farming, we do not find increased household incomes or food security. Plausible explanations include limited market access, higher crop prices restricting food access and elite capture of contract farming concentrating income effects to a few households. Our results stand in contrast to assumptions that technological spillovers occur through LSLAs and are the principal drivers of LSLA-induced agricultural transformation. We find instead that access to contract farming and high-value crops lead to greater agricultural productivity, but also that benefits related to these mechanisms are unequally distributed.

On the heels of the rural ‘land grab’ debate, the ongoing urban transition combined with large-scale urban infrastructure investments and land scarcity forces us to also pay more attention to issues of land in urban discussions. Yet how can we conceptualise land-related problems in order to connect and integrate rural and urban debates in overarching discussions of development? In this commentary, we argue for moving beyond the directly visible outcomes and presumed ‘culprits’ of land investments by critically analysing indirect and long-term effects of land acquisitions on people’s livelihoods as well as the differentiation of these effects for different actors. We propose three specific arguments to disentangle the grab–development dichotomy: 1) placing a focus on the sequential chain of effects of displacement; 2) paying more attention to the ambivalent roles and contradictory interests of different actors; and 3) taking the three-dimensional aspects of land development into account. 在农村“抢地”争论之后，正在进行的城市转型与大规模的城市基础设施投资和土地稀缺相结合，迫使我们在有关城市的讨论中更加关注土地问题。然而，我们如何将与土地有关的问题概念化，以便将农村和城市的辩论联系起来，并将两者整合到关于发展的总体讨论中呢？在这篇评论中，我们主张批判性地分析土地征用对人们生计的间接和长期影响，以及对不同参与者而言此等影响的区别，从而超越直接可见的结果以及一般人想当然地认为的土地投资的“罪恶”。我们提出了三个具体的论点，来解开“抢地-发展”的二分法迷思：1）把重点放在拆迁的连续影响链上；2）更加关注不同参与者的矛盾角色和矛盾利益；3）考虑土地开发的三个维度。

The increasing demand for agricultural products and the uncertainty of international food markets has recently drawn the attention of governments and agribusiness firms toward investments in productive agricultural land, mostly in the developing world. The targeted countries are typically located in regions that have remained only marginally utilized because of lack of modern technology. It is expected that in the long run large scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) for commercial farming will bring the technology required to close the existing crops yield gaps. While the extent of the acquired land and the associated appropriation of freshwater resources have been investigated in detail, the amount of food this land can produce and the number of people it could feed still need to be quantified. Here we use a unique dataset of land deals to provide a global quantitative assessment of the rates of crop and food appropriation potentially associated with LSLAs. We show how up to 300-550 million people could be fed by crops grown in the acquired land, should these investments in agriculture improve crop production and close the yield gap. In contrast, about 190-370 million people could be supported by this land without closing of the yield gap. These numbers raise some concern because the food produced in the acquired land is typically exported to other regions, while the target countries exhibit high levels of malnourishment. Conversely, if used for domestic consumption, the crops harvested in the acquired land could ensure food security to the local populations.

In the wake of 2007–08 food and oil price hikes, and the subsequent financial crises, Africa saw an upsurge in large-scale land acquisition (LSLA). This generated debate among development practitioners who raised mixed concerns about the implications of such acquisitions on local occupants. In response, empirical studies investigated the effects of LSLA. However, information comparing the farmland access effect of LSLA by different actors is missing in the literature even though such information could be relevant for policy. Using data from 526 households and 6 group discussions, this study examined and compared the farmland access effects of direct and indirect exposure to LSLA by domestic entities (DE) to the farmland access effects of direct and indirect exposure to LSLA by foreign entities (FE) using bar charts, crosstabulations with Chi-square and Welch’s t-test. The results revealed that households directly and indirectly exposed to LSLA by DE and FE are both less likely to access farmland for production. However, households directly and indirectly exposed to LSLA by DE are much less likely to access farmland in the area than households directly and indirectly exposed to LSLA by FE. Based on the findings, we argued that concerns about any impacts of LSLA should be directed to all actors involved.