THE IMPACT OF LARGE SCALE FOREIGN LAND ACQUISITIONS ON RURAL HOUSEHOLDS: QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE FROM Tanzania EMMA AISBETT and GIULIA BARBANENTE University of Hamburg, Erasmus University of Rotterdam Mention mixed approach research made possible by increasing, improved access to data and growing body of literature giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

Four pathways of influence on rural households welfare Rural households property rights over land 2. Returns to land controlled by rural households 3. Returns to rural households labour supply 4. Prices of agricultural goods consumed by the household giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

Qualitative evidence – Sources National laws Case studies from literature Reports from human rights organisations and local media Information from investors’ sources Interviews with land experts (Dar es Salaam, 2017) giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

1- property rights Decentralised land acquisition system Village land recognised and protected Negotiations and compensation required for acquisition Delays in implementing some land laws provisions Irregularities in the process of land transfer and compensation Irreversibility of land status change Lack of knowledge of procedures by villagers giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

2- returns to land Access to new technologies and production methods Benefits form improved infrastructure Benefits from high standards of environmental protection of some investors Loss in water access and other resources Evidence of land degradation Challenges with promises made by investor De schutter giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

3- returns to labor Poor working conditions Opportunities created by the arrival of investors in terms of: Outgrowing schemes Wage work Poor working conditions Seasonality/casual labor Low wages Preference for migrant workers giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

4- price of agricultural products Shift towards wage-labor economy Agricultural products bought instead of produced Wages not able to cover the market prices Risks of food insecurity giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

Quantitative evidence - Sources Land Matrix - land acquisitions Year of signature of the contract Location (district level) Size of land acquired (hectares) Nationality of the acquirer LSMS-ISA - rural development LSMS-ISA, World Bank 3280 households in rural Tanzania Three rounds of interview: 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

Variables from LSMS-ISA Rural households property rights over land Certification Area (hectares) 2. Returns to land controlled by rural households Value of field if rented to 3d party(Birr) Returns to rural households labour supply Agricultural work (hrs/w) Other work (hrs/w) Wage work (hrs/w) Goods consumed by the household food expenditure (overall and product-specific) Non-food expenditure (overall and product-specific) giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

Econometric approach Difference in difference with CEM weights Observe change between 2008 and 2012 Treatment group: districts which received land acquisitions between 2008 and 2011 Control group: districts that did not receive land acquisitions prior to 2012 Robustness checks: Control group with only hh in districts that receive LSLA after 2012 Change between 2010 and 2012 for districts that received LSLA in 2008-2010: medium term effect We want to look at the distribution with quantile regression of actual land holdings not their change, so control for initial land holding with dependent variable as final outcome giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

observations Strong robust evidence of loss in area of fields owned or cultivated by households Increase in credit access No evidence of outgrower schemes or raise in wage labor Strong robust increase in non-food expenditure, in particular education and alcohol/tobacco Food consumption: fall in consumption of cooking oils Rise in education expenditure could be linked to the improved access to education that many investors promise…. Decrease in cooking oil for commercial pressure on them for biofuel? giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

conclusion Qualitative evidence mostly critical of LSLAs’ effect on rural populations Quantitative evidence more nuanced Inclusive land laws not enough – need for advocacy More to be done with increased access to data giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu

Thank you giulia.barbanente@edle-phd.eu