SANTOS, Immah Concepcion R.

Economics 141 International Trade

BA Political Science Professor Allan Mesina
2009-28061 Take-home Exam

Third-World Naivet: The Current Trend of Global Land-Grabbing

Food is the most vital resource for our survival, and probably for the survival of states; as
an empty stomach usually translates to zero productivity. As such, states have been finding ways
on how to sustain food availability and how to overcome food insecurity. However, as the world
is diverse and resources are scarce, some states (who are usually lacking the resources) saw that
a stronger interdependence among nations is needed in order to overcome world food problems.
This endeavor is usually done by purchasing foreign lands.
Looking at a large scale, the main reason for this phenomenon is primarily, globalization.
Since the amount of land is fixed, it is logically practical for states which lack resources to look
elsewhere for resources. This phenomenon is also coupled with the evolution or radical shifts in
economic, social, cultural and environmental conditions of the world (Friis and Reenberg, 2010).
Given the circumstances, it is only sound to assume that extreme competition for possession of
lands can be foreseen in the future, as it is already starting now.
The venture of acquiring foreign lands, however, does not merely apply to overcoming
food insecurity. According to Stephens (2011), the phenomenon of the current boom of global
land acquisitions is linked to the three major crises of this decade: the global financial crisis, the
food crisis and the energy crisis. Thus, trends driving the land acquisition movement also include
the billowing demand for alternative energy sources (agrofuels and biofuels) and the fast rise in
investment in the land market (Daniel, 2011).
States who propose foreign land deals, which usually belong to the first-world core, often
argue that these land investments are advantageous to both sides as food-insecure nations
increase their access to food resources while host nations benefit from investments in the form of
improved agricultural infrastructure and increased employment opportunities (Daniel, 2011, p.
26). Additionally, they also have the technology to operate large-scale, while the host nations,
which are usually developing nations, often leave some lands stagnant due to lack of farming
technology and knowledge. As such, the assumption is their large-scale operations will be more
productive, and thus will produce a better yield.
Although their proposals and their intentions sound noble, dissenting voices see them as a
great cause for concern. NGOs, researchers, environmentalists, indigenous peoples and activists
call for the re-examination of the rules for food security, and for answering this question: Whose
food security is being achieved? (Debuque, Liamzon and Toledo, 2009). This concern is formed
by the seemingly sound speculation that these foreign land deals do not operate without
achieving the underlying self-interests of rich nations, which often ignore the interests of others.
As a result, foreign land acquisitions are now more commonly labeled as the global land-grab
movement or agri-colonialism.
The dominant discourse of these voices often circulate from the characterization that
these foreign land deals are often non-transparent and are prone to corruption; and thus are being
characterized as shady deals (Borras, Jr. and Franco, 2012). Daniel and Mittal (2009), in
addition, classified the implications and potential consequences of land grabbing into three: (1)
displacement of small farmers, (2) removing land reform from the policy agenda and (3)
diminishing access to local food sources.
No matter how convincing the claim that the global land grab will bring much-needed
agricultural investment to poor countries, evidence shows there is simply no place for the small
farmer in the vast majority of these land acquisitions (Daniel and Mittal, 2009). Although these
foreign land deals bring about employment to local farmers, they are still disadvantaged as they
are being forced to adapt to modern farming techniques and technology that they lack knowledge
thereof. Moreover, local farmers also usually do not have tenure to their land as they lack formal,
legal and clear property rights over the contested lands (Borras Jr. and Franco, 2012). As a result,
they are often displaced from their land possessions. Thus, foreign land problems provide more
problems than help to local communities. These kinds of situations usually exacerbate rural
poverty and domestic food insecurity. Furthermore, civil conflict may arise as for rural poor
communities: land is an extremely sensitive thing (Wiggins as cited by Rogers, 2008).
On a related note, development of agrarian reform in some countries is frequently halted
as they are often in conflict with foreign land deals. Agrarian reform are supposed to be pro-
farmers, however, the global land grab movement often led to revisions which are very far from
being pro-farmers. A case in point is the Philippines. Filipino farmers are already pushing for
agrarian reform since decades ago, however, their demand is often cut short as this worried
potential foreign investors. Apparently, the country is much more concerned with the countrys
GDP, which does not usually reflect real measures of development.
What is more alarming is the diminishing access to local food sources of ironically, the
host nations. With the current trend of global land-grabbing, it is possible that in the future, a
shift in the spectrum of food security among nations will happen. It is also significant to note that
nowadays, land and resource-rich countries are net food importers or even emergency food aid
recipients (Daniel and Mittal, 2009). Also, the current trend of finding alternative energy sources
contributes to the worsening situation. Countries who already set ambitious biofuels and
agrofuels targets realize that they will not meet them solely by local production. This is one of
the many reasons why they continue to purchase foreign lands. The surging demand for
alternative energy sources warns for more food insecurity as fewer lands are used for food
production.
According to Aubert (1983), a food policy for the world can only be efficient if it is
applied on a global scale (p. 41). This means that a fair global food policy will only be attained
if self-interests will be set aside and the interests of all will be considered. However, this kind of
policy is very unlikely to be attained, as states are often leaned to be more realists even though
they often act like liberalists. States are rational actors, which often incorporate and use the
capabilities and intentions of others for their own benefits and gains.
Global land-grabbing is probably one of the many reasons why on the average, resource-
rich countries have done even more poorly than countries without resources. This may be the
opposite of what we expected, but this is the reality. Selling or leasing arable lands is a short-
term solution to land, food and financial problems. This action is a staunch move to being
underdeveloped, as first-world states who purchase lands are always self-interested and often do
not care whether lands will be put into responsible use or not as long as their objectives are
attained. Thus, lands may be further degraded and unusable in the future, leading to much even
worse problems. It is also worthy to note that sustainable development is a step-by-step process,
and cannot be attained by creating easy-way-out formulas.
Resources should be a blessing, not a curse (Stiglitz, 2009). Poor nations with rich
resources need not to be always naive by signing bad contracts which seem to look good at the
surface. Poor states should think of solutions they themselves can do, so that they can be sure of
the possible outcomes. Surely, dependency can also come with benefits, or can be a stepping-
stone to development. However, anyone in the world does not want to be always dependent, as it
symbolizes a lower place in the global hierarchy.


























References:

Aubert, C. (1983). A food policy for the third world. Nutrition and Health: Sage Publications,
2:41. Retrieved September 7, 2012 from
http://nah.sagepub.com/content/2/1/41.full.pdf+html
Borras, Jr., S. and Franco, J. (2012). Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change: A
preliminary analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12:1. Retrieved September 7, 2012
from http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/borras_franco_joac_2012.pdf
Daniel, S. (2011). Land grabbing and potential implications for world food security. Sustainable
Agricultural Development: Springer, Chapter 2. Retrieved September 7, 2012 from
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Land+grabbing+and+potential+implicatio
ns+for+world+food+security&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=htt
p%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_download
document%2F9789400705180-c2.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1069838-
p174074471&ei=lEhMUInFK-
XXmAWi7ICQAg&usg=AFQjCNEySrVFBH7D0kPJuT_ssCPgpR_Eaw
Daniel S. & Mittal A. (2009). The great land grab: Rush for world farmland threatens food
security for the poor. The Oakland Institute. Retrieved September 7, 2012 from
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/LandGrab_final_web.pdf
Debuque, T., Liamzon, C. & Toledo, S. (2009). Mindanao lands for agri-investments of agri-
colonialism? Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
(ANGOC). Retrieved September 7, 2012 from http://www.angoc.org/portal/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/10/mindanao-lands-for-agri-investments-or-agri-colonialism-
proceedings/Mindanao-Lands-for-Agri-Investments-or-Agri-Colonialism-
Proceedings.pdf
Friis, C. & Reenberg, A. (2010. Land grab in Africa: Emerging land system drivers in a
teleconnected world. The Global Land Project, Report Number 1. Retrieved September 7,
2012 from http://www.globallandproject.org/Documents/GLP_report_01.pdf
Rogers, W. (2008, December 8). Food production goes global, sparking land grabs in developing
world. NewSecurityBeat. Retrieved September 7, 2012 from
http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2008/12/food-production-goes-global-sparking-land-
grabs-in-developing-world/
Stephens, P. (2011). The global land grab: An analysis of extant government institutions.
International Affairs Review, 20:1. Retrieved September 7, 2012 from http://www.iar-
gwu.org/sites/default/files/articlepdfs/Pheobe_Stephens_-_The_Global_Land_Grab.pdf