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?

Integration through Land Improvment – Internal Colonization in Switzerland During the First Part of the 20th Century

Internal colonization in Switzerland is often seen in connection with the battle for cultivation in the Second World War, but the history of internal colonization in Switzerland is more complex. The food crisis in the First World War formed the horizon of experience for various actors from industry, consumer protection, the urban population and agriculture to start considering practical strategies for managing agricultural production. In this way, traditional spaces, such as rural and urban areas and economic roles, such as food producer, consumer and trader, overlapped and were newly conceived to some extent: people started thinking about utopias and how a modern society could be designed to be harmonious and resistant to crisis. The aim of this article is to trace some of the key points in this process for the interwar years in neutral Switzerland. In the process, the focus must be on the context of people’s mentalities in the past, although the relationships between the actors of internal colonization and the state also need to be considered. Internal colonization in Switzerland in the twentieth century can be understood as an open process. In principle, the project was driven by private actors, but in times of crisis, the project was claimed by the state as a possible tool for social and economic intervention. In addition, as a result of the planned dissolution of urban and rural spaces, it will be shown that modern societies in the interwar period were on an existential search to overcome the problems of the modern age. Internal colonization can therefore be seen as an attempt to find a third way between a world characterized by an agrarian society and a modern industrial nation.

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.