and national energy security if promoted carefully (see also Chap. 1 Vol. 1, Chap. 5
Vol. 2). For example, many scholars have identified how large-scale agricultural
investments can boost rural employment and have wider economic and poverty
alleviation benefits (Arndt 2010; Hall et al. 2017). Similarly, in some landlocked
countries such as Malawi, LSLAs that produce biofuels can contribute to national
energy security (e.g. Gasparatos et al. 2015) (see also Chaps. 1–3 Vol. 1; Chap. 5
Vol. 2).
However, LSLAs have also been associated with various negative impacts on
ecosystems and local communities (see also Chaps. 1 and 3 Vol. 1). This includes
many negative environmental impacts related to land use change, biodiversity loss
and water depletion and pollution (Gasparatos et al. 2015; Hess et al. 2016).
Similarly, LSLAs can have significant socioeconomic impacts mainly related to
(a) food security and the loss of capacity to secure food supplies for locals (Matondi
et al. 2011) (Chap. 3, Vol. 1); (b) the exclusion of local communities with customary
access to land from the new agricultural development projects (Deininger and
Byerlee 2011; Ahmed et al. 2018) and (c) increasing competition for land and
water resources between local communities’ needs and commercial uses (Jägerskog
et al. 2012; Hess et al. 2016). In several cases, the positive effects of LSLAs on
employment creation and infrastructure development may be offset by the negative
impacts such as land degradation, conflicts and inadequate compensation (Hufe and
Heuermann 2017).
There are multiple factors that affect the type and magnitude of these sustainability impacts, including the institutional setting of LSLAs. An expanding body of
literature has approached this aspect through social and political lens (see among
others, De Schutter 2011b, Messerli et al. 2013, Borras et al. 2012). For example, the
scope of LSLAs, as well as the type of ownership, can vary considerably across
countries and commodities. In Nigeria, for instance, land is held by the state
government, which is therefore the only actor involved in land transactions and
allocation (Onoja and Achike 2015). In countries such as Ethiopia, the national
government played a very strong role in the promotion and operation of LSLAs
(Keeley et al. 2014). In many other countries such as Ghana and Mozambique,
LSLAs were driven largely by the private sector, with the government simply
enacting (often with delay) rules about the promotion and operations of LSLAs
(Ahmed et al. 2017; Schut et al. 2014). Lease terms and annual rental fees have also
been very diverse across countries and regions. Furthermore, in most SSA countries,
there is a strong traditional element in land governance, and it has been argued that it
is imperative to take into account chiefs’ involvement in LSLAs to avoid negative
impacts (Ahmed et al. 2018; German et al. 2013).
Some of these negative impacts associated with LSLAs have emerged through the
phenomenon of land grabbing. In a nutshell LSLAs can be defined as land grabs
when they result in human rights violations, or are characterised by a lack of consent
by host communities and an overal lack of transparency (ILC 2011). Several scholars
have discussed the main mechanisms through which land-grabbing occurs in SSA
(Hall 2011; White et al. 2012), as well as its main sustainability impacts especially
related to food security (Matondi et al. 2011) (see also Chap. 3, Vol. 1).
4 Large-Scale Land Acquisitions in Sub-Saharan Africa and Corporate Social. . .
139
Vol. 2). For example, many scholars have identified how large-scale agricultural
investments can boost rural employment and have wider economic and poverty
alleviation benefits (Arndt 2010; Hall et al. 2017). Similarly, in some landlocked
countries such as Malawi, LSLAs that produce biofuels can contribute to national
energy security (e.g. Gasparatos et al. 2015) (see also Chaps. 1–3 Vol. 1; Chap. 5
Vol. 2).
However, LSLAs have also been associated with various negative impacts on
ecosystems and local communities (see also Chaps. 1 and 3 Vol. 1). This includes
many negative environmental impacts related to land use change, biodiversity loss
and water depletion and pollution (Gasparatos et al. 2015; Hess et al. 2016).
Similarly, LSLAs can have significant socioeconomic impacts mainly related to
(a) food security and the loss of capacity to secure food supplies for locals (Matondi
et al. 2011) (Chap. 3, Vol. 1); (b) the exclusion of local communities with customary
access to land from the new agricultural development projects (Deininger and
Byerlee 2011; Ahmed et al. 2018) and (c) increasing competition for land and
water resources between local communities’ needs and commercial uses (Jägerskog
et al. 2012; Hess et al. 2016). In several cases, the positive effects of LSLAs on
employment creation and infrastructure development may be offset by the negative
impacts such as land degradation, conflicts and inadequate compensation (Hufe and
Heuermann 2017).
There are multiple factors that affect the type and magnitude of these sustainability impacts, including the institutional setting of LSLAs. An expanding body of
literature has approached this aspect through social and political lens (see among
others, De Schutter 2011b, Messerli et al. 2013, Borras et al. 2012). For example, the
scope of LSLAs, as well as the type of ownership, can vary considerably across
countries and commodities. In Nigeria, for instance, land is held by the state
government, which is therefore the only actor involved in land transactions and
allocation (Onoja and Achike 2015). In countries such as Ethiopia, the national
government played a very strong role in the promotion and operation of LSLAs
(Keeley et al. 2014). In many other countries such as Ghana and Mozambique,
LSLAs were driven largely by the private sector, with the government simply
enacting (often with delay) rules about the promotion and operations of LSLAs
(Ahmed et al. 2017; Schut et al. 2014). Lease terms and annual rental fees have also
been very diverse across countries and regions. Furthermore, in most SSA countries,
there is a strong traditional element in land governance, and it has been argued that it
is imperative to take into account chiefs’ involvement in LSLAs to avoid negative
impacts (Ahmed et al. 2018; German et al. 2013).
Some of these negative impacts associated with LSLAs have emerged through the
phenomenon of land grabbing. In a nutshell LSLAs can be defined as land grabs
when they result in human rights violations, or are characterised by a lack of consent
by host communities and an overal lack of transparency (ILC 2011). Several scholars
have discussed the main mechanisms through which land-grabbing occurs in SSA
(Hall 2011; White et al. 2012), as well as its main sustainability impacts especially
related to food security (Matondi et al. 2011) (see also Chap. 3, Vol. 1).
4 Large-Scale Land Acquisitions in Sub-Saharan Africa and Corporate Social. . .
139