The Politics of Land Deals

Transcription

1 The Politics of Land Deals A Comparative Analysis of Global Land Policies on Large-Scale Land Acquisition Suzanne Verhoog VU University Amsterdam LANDac Conference 2015 Session: Role of Principles and Guidelines in Improving Land Governance

2 Global Land Policies

3 Conceptual Framework Based on: 1. Kolk et al. (1999) model to analyze and compare codes of conduct for IOs (3 clusters; 12 variables) 2. Theories of soft law, transparency, legitimacy and accountability. 66 This indicator is closely related to the stakeholder involvement indicator. Polack et al. (2013, p. 15) identify (1) Recognition of customary rights, and (2) Consultation or FPIC legally required as a condition for land allocation, as preconditions for the legal protection of local land rights (indicator of political and legal accountability). 67 FAO et al. (2013, p. 8) identify FPIC as a key component of effective stakeholder engagement and consultation.

4 Analysis (CFS-RAI principles not yet included)

5 EU Land Policy Guidelines: Largely ignoring obligations under international human rights law Enhancing investors climate Role of smallholder farmers, food security & poverty reduction not sufficiently taken into account WBG RAI Principles: Lack of transparency, -stakeholder consultations & - clear vision Enhancing investors climate FAO Voluntary Guidelines: Mainly criticized for focusing on food security instead of food sovereignty (who produces and how) Rights of indigenous people are not sufficiently taken into account Global focus AU Framework & Guidelines: Regional focus Extensive consultation process, Clear procedural descriptions, inter linkages with other policy areas, regional focus, specifity, roadmap for implementation

6 Main Conclusions All 4 GLPs are not embedded in a legal framework Bottom-up approach necessary instead of the other way around.. FAO-CFS VG & AU F&G most likely to succeed in coherence. This is also in line with current policy trajectory. The ILC (2014) has recently developed a guideline on how to use the AU F&G alongside the VG in the Context of National Food Security as a practical guide to better land governance Combining a code of conduct for global land policies with national and international enforceable laws and regulations (human rights law), is necessary to strengthen and increase the protection of local and customary rights, since foreign investors often already benefit from legal protection under international law & national law in the form of newly installed Land Reform Policies. In-depth country analyses (ethnographic) needed to identify underlying complex processes in local land governance tenure systems.

7 Main problems in land governance discourse #1 1. Voluntary character -- Advocate for a proper legislative framework [ ] they don t override State Sovereignty and the existing policy, legal and institutional frameworks. As such, it is difficult to impose them on any country that may not be willing to implement them (Sulle 2013, p. 3). 2. There are so many soft law instruments (Table 1), the question remains how can they work well in coherence with each other on different governance levels 3. Involvement (commitment) of the private sector (investors & private developers) as a key stakeholder in the policy discourse (implementation process VG) is absent or very minimal (Sulle 2013). 4. Land ceilings/bans, as established by governments to combat foreign landgrabbing (Cotula 2013; GRAIN 2013c; Perrone 2013). These land ceilings are however no solution if government are ceding the lands themselves (to internal investors).

8 Highlights International Land Debate

9 Main problems in land governance discourse #2 5 Land deals are often initiated and facilitated by nationals (elites) and/or national governments. National governments and national actors, sometimes using government, sometimes independently, are as deeply involved in the land deals as are 'foreigners 1 6 Is the Law to Blame? - Increasing the vulnerability of customary land rights, mainly due weak governance structures and shortcomings in the implementation of land reform policies. 7 Emptiness of Consultations FPIC principles are not yet incorporated in national African policies (Vermeulen and Cotula 2010a) Acquisitions are rarely based on FPIC. (Anseeuw et al. 2012a, p. ix) [ ] when tested within real negotiations, government agencies invariably align with the investor rather than the local land users. (Vermeulen and Cotula 2010a, p. 914). 1 personal communication with Prof. Pauline E. Peters, Center for International Development, Harvard University, 12 May 2013.

10 Land Matrix 2014 versus 2015: no. of deals 2014 Total no. of land deals (Transnational + Domestic): 1,664 deals (2014) versus 1,799 (2015) 2015 Total: 1,799 Deals Total: 1,664 Deals Transnational: 1,228 Domestic: 436 Transnational: 1,318 Domestic: 481 Data source: Land Matrix 2014a. last accessed 26 June 2014

11 Land Matrix 2014 versus 2015: hectares Get the Idea: Football Field: 0.72 ha Total of land deals (Transnational + Domestic): 69.1 milj. ha., equals 96 million football fields 2014 Total: milj. ha Transnational: 61.8 milj. ha. Domestic: 76.6 milj. ha. Transnational: 58.1 milj. ha. Total: 69.1 milj. ha. Domestic: 11.0 milj. ha. Data source: Land Matrix 2014, last accessed 09 July 2015

12 Some final thoughts Importance of land grabbing through domestic deals by powerful elites. Legacy of colonialism: state owns the land (consequently facilitates & initiates land deals) & state elites use their position to acquire land to their benefit. Address power & inequalities at the local level. Deploying voluntary code of conduct style of governance can be off the mark in terms of advocating for a poor people-biased democratic land governance (June Borras) Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) 18