The Great Land Rush: Large-scale Land Acquisitions Threaten Poor Farmers

"We do not have the tools and instruments to stop big companies buying land. Land acquisitions are a reality. We can't wish them away, but we have to find a proper way of limiting them. It appears to be like the wild west and we need a sheriff and law in place." - Food and Agriculture Organization Director General José Graziano da Silva, The Guardian , October 29, 2012.

Spurred by the lure of profits and abetted by inadequate governance, the modern day land rush does have a feeling of wild west-like lawlessness, albeit with more money and higher stakes across a global stage. The resulting hunger, regional instability, and shattered lives make land grabs a grave injustice. Graziano da Silva’s call for a sheriff is, of course, figurative. No single player is positioned to end the injustice, but only strong international leadership can set into motion the required systemic reform. As detailed in a recent report, Oxfam believes the World Bank Group is uniquely positioned to begin taming this ‘wild west.’

The scope of the land rush is immense. Foreign corporations and governments are acquiring huge swaths of arable land. 203 million hectares, a space equivalent to over five Californias, were considered or negotiated between 2001 – 2010. Most of these acquisitions happen in developing countries where land is cheap and laws are weak. Families who have lived on this land for generations but without formal title are forced off with depraved indifference, sometimes violently, and with little or no compensation. Their land supported entire communities and could collectively be feeding one billion people. Now, it is usually used for agricultural export or simply idled as speculators wait to collect a profit.

When a process of open consultation leads to fairly shared benefits, outside land investment can contribute to sustainable development. Oxfam’s study, Private Investment in Agriculture: Why it’s Essential and What’s Needed , cites some compelling examples. Sadly, these cases are rare.

It’s not a sheriff, but the World Bank has a host of “tools and instruments” to help protect those at risk and to push other actors towards more responsible behavior. Oxfam’s Our Land, Our Lives report lays out how the Bank can best leverage its position. To summarize, Oxfam recommends the Word Bank:

1. Temporarily halt its investments that fund large –scale land acquisitions. The Bank plays a direct role in land acquisitions by lending to the agricultural sector ($6-8 billion in 2012). Several Bank reports rightly highlight inadequacies in land governance that make communities vulnerable. But the Bank must take the next step and get its house in order and ensure its own investments are not funding bad deals. Since 2008, twenty-one communities have made formal complaints about land deals financed by the Bank. The Bank should publically review existing investments and create better safeguards to ensure future lending is done responsibly.
2. Give good advice. The World Bank is an incredibly influential advisor to governments and private investors. Its advice shapes broad policies as well as individual land deals. This advice can deliver some good results, like securing land titles for poor communities, and bad, like the wrongful expulsion of hundreds of Cambodian families to prepare their land for sale. Bank advice should always advance a rule of law centered in pro-poor growth and respect for communities’ rights.
3. Lead by example. Bank practices become international standards though precedent setting and direct correlation. For instance, the 76 member-lenders of the Equator Principles tie certain practices to the International Finance Corporation’s (the private investment wing of the Bank) Performance Standards. If the Bank begins mandating greater transparency and actively fostering better land tenure protections, others will follow.

Exchanges between Oxfam and the Bank since these recommendations were published have, among other points, reinforced the need for greater transparency so that all concerned parties can better understand the Bank’s role.

We hope the World Bank will assume a leadership role on land rights globally. The ultimate solutions will likely come from the ground up. For instance, the Tanzania Land Alliance’s courageous work has prompted a parliamentary consideration to suspend land deals. Last month’s historic land march in India concluded with the government signing a 10-point agreement with citizen’s movement Ekta Parishad on a roadmap toward achieving major land reform policy.

Bank leadership would catalyze all of these efforts and more by setting high standards that create the political space for reform in all countries. With time, a prevailing rule of law will hopefully emerge that protects land rights. There may never be a new ‘sheriff’ in town, but for now the World Bank Group could be the world’s best hope.