Large-scale investments in land since 2007 have been scrutinized by civil society organizations, researchers, and other organizations because of issues such as
land insecurity, local consultation and compensation for land,
displacement of local peoples, employment of local people, the process of negotiations between investors and governments, and the environmental consequences of
large-scale agriculture. These issues have contributed to critics' characterization of much large-scale investment since 2007 as "land grabbing", irrespective of differences in the types of investments and the ultimate impact that investments have on local populations. Consultations have been found extremely problematic due to the fact that they often reach just village chiefs but neglect common villagers and disenfranchised groups. World Bank researchers noted that "a key finding from case studies is that communities were rarely aware of their
rights and, even in cases where they were, lacked the ability to interact with investors or to explore ways to use their land more productively." This holds true when women are the primary workers on the land that is to be leased out to companies. Meanwhile, pastoralists and internally displaced people were oftentimes intentionally excluded from negotiations, as investors tried to delegitimize their claims on land. resulting in loss of livelihoods especially in the case of
pastoralists, gender-specific erosion of social networks. Villagers were most often compensated as according to national guidelines for loss of land, loss of improvements over time on the land, and sometimes future
harvests. A specific instance of how land grabbing has displaced people is what happened to the Garifuna people of the Caribbean. Author K.V. Brondo has published a book on the relation between land grab and the Garifuna resistance. A specific excerpt from the book
Land Grab starts by mentioning how indigenous rights are so important to the Garifuna and their dispute over territory. One of the main points Brondo makes in this excerpt is the relationship between being indigenous and the right to territory. Traditionally, indigenous peoples are usually those who have been on the land since the beginning, before colonization. Brondo, quoting an article written by José Martínez Cobo, states that indigenous peoples are those who have been on territories before the invasion and are considered different from other societies that have existed there. This was then taken up by numerous international organizations looking to advocate rights for indigenous peoples. They concluded that indigenous people need the land they came from and use of the resources found there in order to survive. The United Nations then drafted a declaration of rights for indigenous peoples, and many organizations for the rights of indigenous peoples were subsequently formed. In addition, it was declared that the taking away of one's territory and control of resources was considered to be cultural ethnocide and a violation of human rights. Cultural ethnocide was likened to genocide, as wiping out the culture of an area is the same as killing people of a certain type. A turning point in the way of thinking of the indigenous was the revision of ILO 107, which was considered quite racist, according to Brondo. In 1989, it was made into ILO 169, which acknowledged the fact that indigenous societies were permanent parts of society and deserved to have the same rights as every other part of society. By 2007, the United Nations had evolved to create universal standards for indigenous people and they decided to leave the term indigenous up for interpretation. There was no longer a concrete definition for what is an indigenous group, and it could be any group with ties to pre-colonial land.
Employment When not displaced, the conversion of local farmers into
laborers holds numerous negative consequences for local populations. Most deals are based on the eventual formation of plantation-style farming, whereupon the investing company will own the land and employ locals as laborers in large-scale agricultural plots. The number of jobs created varies greatly dependent on commodity type and style of farming planned.
Government negotiations In addition to the lack of coordination between ministries, there is a wide knowledge gap between government-level offices and investors, leading to a rushed and superficial investment review. Many government agencies initially overwhelmed by the deluge of investment proposals failed to properly screen out non-viable proposals. As foreign investors begin to develop the land, they will, for the most part, start a shift towards
large-scale agriculture to improve upon existing "unproductive" agricultural methods. The threat of the conversion of much of Africa's land to such large-scale agriculture has provoked a severe pushback from many civil society organizations such as
GRAIN,
La Via Campesina, and other lobbyists for small-scale agriculture. Foreign investors, through large-scale agriculture, increase the effectiveness of underused resources of land, labor, and water, while further providing additional market connections, large-scale infrastructure development, and provision of seeds, fertilizers, and technology. Proposed increases in production quantity, as touted by investors and hosts, are exemplified by Ethiopia's Abera Deressa, who claims that "foreign investors should help boost agricultural output by as much as 40%" throughout Ethiopia. Over time, such intensive farming threatens to degrade the quality of topsoil and damage local waterways and ecosystems. As such, civil society actors have widely accused land investors for promoting "not agricultural development, much less rural development, but simply agribusiness development." It is argued that land grabbing has a
geomorphological impact as well. Farmland in general generates a global average
sediment flux of c. 75 Gt/y. For comparison, the world's rivers, for example, produce c. 54 Gt/y. Proportionally, by area, agriculture-related land grabbing could account for c. 0.6 Gt/y.
Intertwined Human and Environmental Dimension The effects of land grabbing on the environment also involve extensive implications for the communities inhabiting those environments. When land grabs are intertwined with the flow of capital to transnational corporations that often benefit Western countries and powerful individuals without displacing local communities, the local communities are often impacted by the environmental implications of these land grab projects. In instances where land is taken up by powerful multinational corporations with industrial influences vulnerable groups of people are often subject to instances of environmental racism, such as the Maquilapolis near the US-Mexico borders. The Maquilapolis demonstrates of multinational corporations can obtain land where they create harmful environments, in this case factories, which impact the health of the environment and take advantage of young Mexican women for their own economic gain. The factories within Maquilapolis are major pollutants for their surrounding environment in which the employees and their families reside causing workers and their families to live with health complications around skin rashes, breathing problems, and more. Furthermore, the location of creation of this environment in itself is strategic as by placing itself at the border it pries on vulnerable migrants in need of work who are susceptible to accepting low wages and inhumane working conditions (such as extensive hours, harmful environment, work with danger chemicals without proper protections, and more) Implications of land grabs on the environment also intersect with the human dimension when it comes to Indigenous communities as the exploitation of the environment (whether it be through logging, farming, factory emissions, etc.) often takes place on Indigenous lands severing Indigenous communities abilities to care for the land, as is embedded in their cultural practices, and leaving spaces of biodiversity to the detriment of harmful multinational corporations
Neocolonialism Foreign investment in land has been criticized by many civil society actors and individuals as a new realization of
neocolonialism, signifying a renewed
economic imperialism of developed over developing nations. Critics have pointed to the acquisitions of large tracts of land for economic profit, with little perceived benefit for local populations or target nations as a whole, as a renewal of the economically exploitative practices of the colonial period. ==Laws and regulations concerning reporting of foreign investment in land==