Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

The geography of large-scale land acquisitions: Analysing socio-ecological patterns of target contexts in the global South

This paper analyses local geographical contexts targeted by transnational large-scale land acquisitions (>200 ha per deal) in order to understand how emerging patterns of socio-ecological characteristics can be related to processes of large-scale foreign investment in land. Using a sample of 139 land deals georeferenced with high spatial accuracy, we first analyse their target contexts in terms of land cover, population density, accessibility, and indicators for agricultural potential. Three distinct patterns emerge from the analysis: densely populated and easily accessible croplands (35% of land deals); remote forestlands with lower population densities (34% of land deals); and moderately populated and moderately accessible shrub- or grasslands (26% of land deals). These patterns are consistent with processes described in the relevant case study literature, and they each involve distinct types of stakeholders and associated competition over land. We then repeat the often-cited analysis that postulates a link between land investments and target countries with abundant so-called “idle” or “marginal” lands as measured by yield gap and available suitable but uncultivated land; our methods differ from the earlier approach, however, in that we examine local context (10-km radius) rather than countries as a whole. The results show that earlier findings are disputable in terms of concepts, methods, and contents. Further, we reflect on methodologies for exploring linkages between socioecological patterns and land investment processes. Improving and enhancing large datasets of georeferenced land deals is an important next step; at the same time, careful choice of the spatial scale of analysis is crucial for ensuring compatibility between the spatial accuracy of land deal locations and the resolution of available geospatial data layers. Finally, we argue that new approaches and methods must be developed to empirically link socio-ecological patterns in target contexts to key determinants of land investment processes. This would help to improve the validity and the reach of our findings as an input for evidence-informed policy debates.

El Capítulo de Inversiones en el Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico:¿Una Posibilidad de Cambio y Convergencia?

Spanish Abstract: El presente trabajo analiza los posibles efectos que generaría en la regulación internacional de la inversión extranjera, el acuerdo de un capítulo de inversiones en el Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico (TPP), actualmente en negociaciones, sobre la base de la información disponible a la fecha. El artículo aborda cuatro aspectos que presentan especial importancia dada la divergencia de intereses entre algunos de los Estados negociadores: el ámbito de protección de la inversión extranjera; las normas sobre transparencia de los regímenes de inversión y sus disputas; la irrupción de entidades estatales como inversionistas extranjeros; y la solución de controversias a través del arbitraje inversionista-Estado. El autor concluye que en comparación a la actual fragmentación regulatoria de la que dan cuenta los acuerdos internacionales de inversión suscritos por los países negociadores del TPP, la incorporación de un capítulo de inversiones en ese Acuerdo es una oportunidad para avanzar en la convergencia de la regulación sobre inversión extranjera, tanto en materia de estándares sustantivos de protección de la inversión como en la mejora del arbitraje inversionista-Estado como mecanismo de solución de controversias.

TTIP and Climate Change – How real are Race to the Bottom Concerns?

This paper examines concerns about the impact that TTIP could have on existing and future climate policies and laws from the inclusion of provisions on investment protection including investor-to-State dispute settlement (ISDS), the reduction of non-tariff barriers and the introduction of rules for trade in energy and raw materials. It argues that from an environmental perspective, ISDS should not necessarily be seen as a regime that goes against the defence of the environment or prevention of climate change. Although it might be used to challenge policies of an EU home State that increase levels of environmental protection, it can also be used to contest changes in an EU home State’s environmental policies that would reduce the protection of the environment, if foreign investment is affected. To a large extent, this also holds true for other areas of TTIP negotiations. While the achievement of a balance between rules that promote trade and those that maintain policy space for governments to respond to environmental concerns has to be closely monitored, benefits for climate could be seized from harmonisation of carbon laws at the level of the strictest regulations of two parties, provisions that promote trade in low carbon technologies and renewable energy and bilateral cooperation on climate change.

Food Security and Agri-Foreign Direct Investment in Weak States: Finding the Governance Gap to Avoid ‘Land Grab’

Food security is important. A rising world population coupled with climate change creates growing pressure on global world food supplies. States alleviate this pressure domestically by attracting agri-foreign direct investment (agri-FDI). This is a high-risk strategy for weak states: the state may gain valuable foreign currency, technology and debt-free growth; but equally, investors may fail to deliver on their commitments and exploit weak domestic legal infrastructure to ‘grab’ large areas of prime agricultural land, leaving only marginal land for domestic production. A net loss to local food security and to the national economy results. This is problematic because the state must continue to guarantee its citizens’ right to food and property. Agri-FDI needs close regulation to maximise its benefit. This article maps the multilevel system of governance covering agri-FDI. We show how this system creates asymmetric rights in favour of the investor to the detriment of the host state’s food security and how these problems might be alleviated.

Sustainable investment in land in the Global South: What would it require from a coherence perspective? The case of Sierra Leone

Large scale acquisitions of land in the Global South have signifi-cantly increased since the millennium. It is often the case that foreign investors are involved in such acquisitions, which are commonly aimed at facilitating the export of commodities. These investments in land tend to transform conventional, rather small scale agricultural systems into large scale, industrial agricultural systems. While investment in ag-riculture in the Global South is much needed, large-scale investments in land often goes hand-in-hand with environmental and human rights re-lated challenges. As a consequence, lawyers need to address questions of sovereignty over natural resources (this paper focuses in particular on land resources), to peoples’ right to self-determination, to the responsi-bilities of the home and host states of the investors, including public-private relationships, and the role of international institutions who are involved, as well as relevant jurisprudence. This paper approaches these questions from the perspective of a theory on policy coherence for sus-tainable development.

Trade Policy, Investment and Migration: The Liberalisation Paradigm

Presentation by Thomas Cottier & Charlotte Sieber-Gasser prepared for the Markets for Migration and Development (M4MD) Conference, Bern, 13-15 September 2011. This presentation is part of Session 1 "Why Trade, Development and Migration?" of the M4MD conference, which was one of the thematic meetings held in the context of the 2011 Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) chaired by Switzerland. Session 1 seeked to understand to what extent international trade and foreign direct investment drives migration and why states find it more difficult to liberalise the trans‐boundary movement of persons than to liberalise cross‐border trade in goods and services. One discussed aspect was why globalisation, trade liberalisation and FDI can lead not only to more, but also to less migration and what the corresponding effects on development would be. This Session provided a timely opportunity to broaden the perspective on international migration and explore the interaction between migration, development and trade policymaking.