1. Dynamics and implementation patterns of large-scale land acquisitions – Evidence from the Land Matrix Global Observatory Land Matrix Initiative (LMI) Christof Althoff, Ward Anseeuw, Markus Giger, Jann Lay, Kerstin Nolte, Martin Ostermeier

2. Structure of the talk (Textbausteine für Vortrag aus den Newslettern) 1.Introduction of the Land Matrix Initiative? Or Global Observatory – The Land Matrix Initiative (Schrift zu klein?) 5 Founding partners Decentralization process ( RFP – Newsletter 3) – The Land Matrix Global Observatory Database characteristics Sourcing strategy (Networks, Quality improvements: Newsletter 3) 2.Data overview? 3.Dynamics 4.Implementation patterns 5.Conclusions (mit Kerstin, Jann, Martin beraten) 6.Vision (Integration / Merge LM / LO / Rangelands ) General notes on the Land Matrix Global Observatory Land Matrix database characteristics Database content and sources Prior remarks/explanations Some of our results on patterns and dynamics of large-scale land acquisitions

3. The Land Matrix Initiative The LMI is a global and independent land monitoring initiative Aim of the LMI: Promote transparency and open data in decision- making over land and investment Set up to respond to the lack of data on large-scale land acquisitions Recently: Process of decentralization – since July 2014 five Regional Focal Points are supporting the LMI on regional level data collection for the Land Matrix Global Observatory database

4. Database characteristics of the Land Matrix Global Observatory Records intended, concluded or failed land acquisitions (land acquired by purchase, lease or concession) – In low and middle income countries – For agricultural production, forestry, carbon trading, industry, renewable energy production, conservation and tourism Land deals in the database … – Entail a transfer of rights to use, control or ownership of land through sale, lease or concession – Have been initiated since 2000 – Cover an area of 200 hectares or more – Imply the potential conversion of land from smallholder production, local community use or important ecosystem service provision to commercial use

5. Database sources Data collection methods Data sourcing/entry through LM partners / Regional Focal Points based on i) company sources, ii) contracts, iii) official government records, iv) personal information, v) media reports, vi) research papers / policy reports Establishment of extensive networks of key information sources (governments, farmers organizations, academics, civil society, international co-operations etc.) Collaboration with existing land observatories For Africa: Cooperation with the Land Policy Initiative and its Focal Points Crowd sourcing

6. Database content Information on location, investor (origin, type), deal (production intention, size…), target region (former land use) etc. Attempt to capture dynamics, two key variables (year based) – Negotiation status (1) Expression of interest, (2) Under negotiation (3) Oral agreement, (4) Contract signed (5) Negotiations failed, (6) Contract cancelled – Implementation status (1) Project not started (2) Startup phase (no production), (3) In operation (production) (4) Project abandoned Important note: Different area size variables („intended size“ = announced size, „size under contract“, „size under operation”)

7. Data overview  High area sizes under concluded deals  Aggregate global demand for land is very high indicating a large number of pending deals  Intentions/announcements still exceed actual contract size by far  Quite some failure at negotiation and concluded stage (contract cancelled) International large-scale land acquisitions according to negotiation status Number of cases Intended sizeSize under contract (In million ha) Oral agreement 77 4,3 1,8 Contract signed 964 59,9 36,5 Concluded deals 1.041 64,2 38,2 Expression of interest 47 6,2 n.a. Under negotiation 147 9,8 n.a. Intended deals 194 16,0 n.a. Negotiations failed 56 5,5 n.a. Contract cancelled 28 2,1 1,9 Failed deals 84 7,6 1,9 No Information85 Note: Data as of Feb 14, 2015

8. Dynamics of international large-scale land acquisitions according to negotiation status Number of deals Intended sizeSize under contract (in million ha) Jun 2013 Sep 2014 Feb 2015 ∆ Jun13- Feb 15 Jun 2013 Sep 2014 Feb 2015 ∆ Jun13 -Feb 15 Jun 2013 Sep 2014 Feb 2015 ∆ Jun13- Feb 15 Concluded deals 755983104138%54.962.364.217%32.637.338.217% Intended deals 14518619434%10.814.816.048%n.a. Failed deals 50798468%4.97.457.655%1.11.9 68%  Clear trend of ongoing investments in land: Deals are being concluded reflecting a continued high demand on land  Data consolidation: No major changes in data patterns, but more deals added across all negotiation statuses  However, not only new entries, also updates of deals and quality improvements: dynamics of data entry and dynamics on the ground are difficult to detangle Data trends and dynamics: Data consolidation, continuing high demand for land and ongoing investments

9. Number of concluded deals Size under contract (in millon ha) Current size under production (in millon ha) Jun 13Feb 15Δ Jun 13Feb 15ΔJun 13Feb 15Δ Project not started 497247%3,43,1-9%n.a. Startup phase (no production) 6913190%2,42,817%n.a. In operation (production) 323 536 (537) 66%12 17,9 (18,8) 49% (57%) 1,7 3,6 (4,5) 112% (165%) Project abandoned 3533-6%2,11,4-33%n.a. No information279269-4%12,413,16%n.a. Total755104138%32,338,218%1,73,6112% Data trends and dynamics: Continued trend of project implementation  An important and growing number of deals starts operating (contracted area: 17.9 million ha)  Continued trend of project implementation: Deals are moving towards the production phase, it is not (only) land speculation  Little but fast growing area comes actually under production

10. Implementation patterns according to deal size All concluded Deals Concluded Deals (implementation status known) Concluded deals started (in startup phase or in operation) Number of Deals Percentage 200 to 2.00019114412486% 2.001 to 5.00014211510087% 5.001 to 10.00024917415388% 10.001 to 20.0001431038986% 20.000 to 50.0001391119686% 50.000 to 200.000104847589% more than 200.00033211571% no information40201575% Total1.04177266786% Implementation patterns of international land acquisitions according to the contract size of concluded deals  Deals of a contract size of more than 200,000 hectares are the least likely to be implemented (71 per cent).  All other deals have similar chances of being implemented (86 – 89 per cent).

11. Implementation status of top 12 target countries according to contract size of concluded deals Different patterns of implementation in top 12 target countries

12. Closer look at successful implementation of top target countries Rank Concluded Projects Project started (start-up phase + in operation)Project in operation Country hectare size under contract (in 1000 ha)# of deals hectare size under contract (in 1000 ha)# of deals hectare size in production (in 1000 ha)# of deals 1 PNG3,799391,1761911816 2 IDN3,6361202,4106962565 3 SSD3,4919305523 4 COD2,765112,4146224 5 MOZ2,204711,702405531 6 COG2,1327672534 7 RUS1,732181,585172415 8 UKR1,600111,3501074510 9 LBR1,341144639267 10 SDN1,269193951048 11 SLE1,241203581138 12 BRA1,057481,0144270841  Some countries tend to be more succesful in moving towards the production stage

13. Determinants of success: Different patterns for type of investor Private company Stockex- change listed company Indivi- dual entre- preneur Invest- ment fund Semi state- owned company State-/ govern- ment(- owned)Other No informati on Total (deals or hectares) Concluded deals # of deals33323610572134477772 hectare size in 1000 ha12,1008,4792192,006332793931,10825,130 All started deals # of deals27821310532025464667 ∆83%90%100%93%95%74%100%83%86% hectare size in 1000 ha8,8657,7942191,9563235019397520,726 ∆73%92%100%98%97%63%100%88%82% Investor type of started projects (start-up phase and in operation)  The majority of successful projects are operated by private companies and stock- exchange listed companies, followed by investment funds  However most successful in terms of the share of projects that move towards production are those projects operated by individual entrepreneurs (100 per cent), investment funds (93 per cent), and semi-state-owned companies (95 per cent).

14. Some concluding remarks and the future of the Land Matrix Initiative Results demonstrate the importance and the challenges of analyzing/understanding the dynamics of land deals – High demand and high rates of failure – Slow but ongoing implementation on the ground – Dynamics on the ground are sometimes hard to detangle from dynamics of data entry > Focus on collection of data on time dimension LM database (and development) illustrates the complexity/practical difficulties of gathering data on land deals (Despite our effort) Still a lot of gaps, errors, inconsistencies and biases in the database (source errors, input and design errors) – Data to be interpreted with caution – Need for your feedback Vision: Establishment of Land Observatories (LM as Global Observatory (www.landmatrix.org), National, Thematic and Regional Observatorieswww.landmatrix.org

15. http://www.landmatrix.org

16. Some things that we know about (foreign/transnational) large- scale land acquisitions (LSLA) – Global patterns and drivers: Evidence from Land Matrix data – Impacts … specifically in the African context (1) Immediate/Land grabs (2) Land use change (3) Development impacts – And yes … research does account for context! The private sector is in the lead, but states are important investors as well – Role of states and state-related actors over-estimated – State/government actors often engage in very large-scale deals, a larger share of these deals does not materialize

17. Immediate impact: The process of acquiring land – Are land (use) rights respected? Are people evicted from land that they use (or own)? – Are affected local populations adequately consulted/compensated in case of a land acquisition? Land use/land cover changes – How is/was targeted land used before? – How do (recent) large-scale land acquisitions compare to other drivers of LUC? Development impacts – Productive and social infrastructure? Employment effects? Productivity spillovers? Role of contract farming schemes? – Overall productivity of agriculture? Food security? Welfare?

18. Some prior remarks/explanations (zu conlusions?) Data are snapshot of dynamic database Despite our efforts, still important biases due to – Open data policies of some countries (e.g. Peru) – Interest of media and researchers in certain regions (e.g. Africa), on certain investors (e.g. emerging investor countries) and in certain sectors (e.g. biofuels) – Density of LM partner networks (for example, lower in Eastern Europe and Central Asia) Important note: Different size variables („intended size“ = announced size, „size under contract“, „size under operation”)

19. Determinants of success: Type of investor for started projects Private company Stock- exchange listed company Individual entrepren eur Investme nt fund Semi state- owned company State-/ governme nt(- owned)Other No informati on Total (deals or hectares) started deals# of deals27821310532025464667 hectare size in 1000 ha8,8657,7942191,9563235019397520,726 Papua New Guinea# of deals17100000119 hectare size in 1000 ha9306000002401,176 Indonesia# of deals85600500069 hectare size in 1000 ha1742,022002140002,410 Democrat ic Republic of Congo# of deals300101016 in1000 ha2,25800100108037,80040,176 Cambodia# of deals11170111001454 hectare size in 1000 ha90123097400136433 Brazil# of deals818014100041 hectare size in 1000 ha2281,327020490001,768 Ukraine# of deals1800010010 hectare size in 1000 ha501,26700033001,350 Mozambi que# of deals235.7.1.339 hectare size in 1000 ha751370.503.277102,398

20. Determinants of success: Type of investor for started projects Private company Stock- exchange listed company Individual entrepren eur Investme nt fund Semi state- owned company State-/ governme nt(- owned)Other No informati on Total (deals or hectares) started deals# of deals27821310532025464667 hectare size in 1000 ha8,8657,7942191,9563235019397520,726