Multi‐Sited Governance of Large‐Scale Land Acquisitions: Mapping and Evaluating the Terrain

Recent spikes in commodity prices, the growing appetite for primary commodities among emerging economies, growing interest in biofuels and speculations over future returns to land and its products have led to a renewed interest in farmland in the global South. With highly publicized risks and polarized “win‐lose” narratives, so‐called “land grabbing” has become an important focus of transnational governance activity. In juxtaposition to those seeing large‐scale land acquisitions as inherently risky or undesirable, some argue for the potential opportunities they engender—provided risks can be mitigated through improved governance. This paper explores this argument through a systematic analysis of the formal features of the multi‐sited governance mechanisms in place to guide agricultural investment and govern its social and environmental effects. The intent is not to discount the importance of informal norms and practices or the so‐called “lived experience of governance,” nor the argument that such land acquisitions are inherently flawed irrespective of the “discipline imposed on them.” Rather, the paper aims to explore the merits of the arguments advanced by the pro‐investment camp, and to explore the extent to which the emerging global governance architecture is set up to deliver on the purported benefits of large‐scale agricultural investment. Results suggest that serious weaknesses in the substantive scope, reach and/or implementation mechanisms in all of the reviewed governance mechanisms pose a serious risk to the likely effectiveness of the emerging governance architecture in minimizing risks and leveraging benefits. Addressing these weaknesses is an obvious first step for bolstering the credibility of those advocating that governance is the solution.