Resource information
Due to current crises, large-scale land acquisition is becoming a topic of growing concern. Public data from the ‘Land Matrix Global Observatory’ project demonstrates that since 2000, 1,622 large-scale land transactions in low- and middle-income countries were reported, covering an area of nearly 69 million hectares. The majority of these land deals, also referred to as ‘land grabs’, took place between 2008 and 2010, peaking in 2009. It is widely assumed that emerging economies, in search for alternative ways to secure future food and fuel supply are the major drivers behind the global land rush. New evidence however reveals that local and national governments and elites are largely initiating and facilitating these land deals, mainly driven by Western investors in order to meet (renewable) energy and commodity demands in the nearby future. Large-scale land acquisition often goes hand in hand with issues of displacement, weak governance structures, corruption, conflicts, and environmental damages. Several international organizations have taken the initiative in developing global land policies on large-scale land acquisition in an attempt to govern the global land grab. The effectiveness of these so-called ‘soft law' instruments is however increasingly being questioned. This paper therefore offers a comparative analysis on the effectiveness of global land policies on large-scale land acquisition, as developed by the European Union, the World Bank Group and consortium, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the African Union, embedded in a theoretical framework of effectiveness, soft law, and interrelations with transparency, accountability and legitimacy. Currently the FAO-CFS Voluntary Guidelines and the AU Framework & Guidelines are being implemented. The research is therefore focusing on the effectiveness of these two land policy frameworks. Evidence so far reveals that in practice global land policies on large-scale land acquisition can be problematic due to: 1) their ‘voluntary character’, 2) land deals are often initiated and facilitated by nationals (elites) and/or national governments, 3) (increasing) vulnerability of ‘customary land rights’, mainly due weak governance structures and shortcomings in the implementation of land reform policies, and 4) ‘emptiness of consultations’, hereby referring to the ineffectiveness of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent principles.
