What is happening and what can we do?

World Bank team (ARD, DEC, LEG, SDV)

Presentation by

Klaus Deininger, Land Tenure Adviser

Daewoo to cultivate Madagascar land for free

By Song Jung a and Christian Oliver in Seoul and Tom Burgis in Johannesburg 11/2008 Jung-a Seoul, Johannesburg.

A major opportunity?
Much needed investment in rural areas Export & market development

Or a huge risk?
Asset stripping; short-term speculation Spatial and inter temporal externalities inter-temporal

Technology transfer Improved living standards Employment generation New products (biofuels, horticulture)

Resource extraction & degradation Neglect of existing land users Displacement of labor with capital Corruption & rent seeking

 Identify

key drivers and aggregate trends

Global demand, agro-ecological potential, land values Aggregate investment determinants

Assess

country level evidence in 2 ways

Benin, DRC , Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Pakistan, Ukraine Argentina, Brazil, Mexico Paraguay Argentina Brazil Mexico, Paraguay, Peru

I Q I: Quantification & C t t tifi ti Context

Inventory based on official data Policy, legal, institutional framework

II (subset): Actual implementation

Social, environmental impact assessments

Help

address the phenomenon

Country level: Link to Bank analytical & operational work Global community: Standards & principles

closer look at the fundamentals Whats happening: Extent and determinants What can governments do? Help address the p p phenomenon

Favor Investment in Africa, Latin America and RUK

70 60 P e rc e n t (% ) 50 40 30 20 10 Sub South East Asia Middle Europe & Latin East Central America Saharan Asia Africa Asia

% available water utilized

Growing share of global markets G i h f l b l k t

Brazil half of world sugar mkt, top soybean exporter, Uruguay/Brazil

major exporters of pulp, Uruguay growing share of rice market pulp market
Expansion of the frontierCerrado from 0 to 20 M ha of soy in 25 yrs Intensification of productionpastures to crops, double cropping in p p p , pp g

Pampa

Emergence of very large farming companies mostly national (El Tejar, Tejar Los Grobos Adecoagro Cosan Fibria) Grobos, Adecoagro, Cosan,
Many lease land, contract machinery, tech services, finance But they are large
Arg: Top 30 companies total 2.4 m ha. 75% farms in MGrosso > 1000ha

Invest across countries of the region to diversify risks Access international capital markets (e.g., Altima)

Importer t a major grain and oilseed exporter (60 M t) I t to j i d il d t

30 M ha taken out of production H Huge potential to i i l improve productivity d i i

Farm size a legacy of Soviet era

E Even where land reform, small f h l d f ll farms soon l leased or sold t l d ld to large

operational units (machinery, logistics etc set up for large farms)

Russia allows land sales, Ukraine leases up to 50 y p years

Emergence of superfarms (> 100,000 ha; 5000 empl)

Ukraine: Top 40 companies with 4.5 mn ha; Russia: Top 30 w. 6.7 mn

ha Vertically integrated to processing and markets

Foreign investment in Ukraine agric > $1 billion/yr

High potential; little use

700 mn ha (>3 times Cerrado) Medium to high potential But only 0.5 mn ha cropped

Growth of regional markets

Still imports of 25 mn t cereals

Past attempts at large-scale food farms failed

Public and then private Hi h cost and unsustainable High t d t i bl

Commodity y Soybean Plantation forests Maize Oil palm Rice Ri Sugarcane Rubber Jatropha Beef cattle

Rationale Huge area expansion Huge area expansion, deforestation Food security and feed Rapid expansion in areas of tropical forests Major food M j f d security crop it Rapid area expansion for sugar and ethanol Deforestation, small scale High hopes in Africa Deforestation

mn. ha, Operational Scale , p 1990-2007 25.3 Most LS 22.1 11.6 11 6 5.1 5.1 51 4.5 2 1 LS SS and LS LS + outgrower SS (+ LS) LS + contract LS SS LS and SS LS and SS

Outlook for stronger markets

Demandbiofuels: Supplywater,, energy prices, yield growth, CC

Production shifts to land-abundant regions (USA, RUK, LAC, SSA?)

Latin A L ti America & RUK gaining global market share i i i l b l k t h

SoybeansBrazil, Argentina WheatRUK, Argentina RiceAsia (smallholders), Uruguay (large mechanized)

Major opportunities for expansion

LACdouble cropping and conversion of pastures (and forests?) RUK mostly productivity improvement RUKmostly

20.0 Projected Crop Area Change without Climate Change, 2005-2025 15.0 10.0 M ha 5.0 0.0 00 -5.0 -10.0 -15 0 15.0 Rice-wheat Other cereals Oilseeds
Developed p Land-scarce developing Land-abundant developing

Figure 6: Comparative Production Costs, Soybean, 2007-08

400 350 300 Cost (US$ $/t) Cost (US$/ /t) 250 200 150 100 50 0 Other Inputs Land

Figure 7 : Comparative Production Costs, Maize, 2007-09

160 140 120 100 80 Inputs 60 40 20 0 Other Land

Thailand, 2005 Farm size (ha) Irrigation Yield Farm price (US$/t) Cost (US$/ha) Cost (US$/t) % costs of inputs % costs of labor % cost of machinery % costs of land and water 4 Rainfed 2.2 161 252 127 26 62 2 3

Uruguay, 2010 340 Irrigated 8.3 230 1,238 150 26 12 35 26

Competitiveness in Maize (< 1 competitive) 2

1 Import Comp Export Comp 0

-> Not competitive in export markets

Technology

Size (ha) Company Large farm Smallholder 8000 400 20

Crop

Variable Fixed cost cost ($/ha) ($/ha) 67 58 74 70 137 27

Yield (t/ha) 0.5 0.4 0.5

Cost ($/t) 277 495 204

Existing g
Sorghum Sorghum Sorghum

Potential
Zero till Z tillage, & fertilizer Large f L farm Medium 400 20 Sorghum S h Soybean 353 280 142 142 4.0 40 3.0 125 143

Source: Min of Agriculture, 2009

 Little

appr. technology

Low productivity High costs Soil mining Lack of human capital

Private

Mechanized rainfed system, Sudan (4.5 M ha, some farms > 100K ha)

0.80 0.70
Y Yield (tons per Ha a)

0.60 0 60
-1.25% pa

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0 20 0.10 0.00

0.76% pa

sector interest Infrastr. investment Strong global markets

Sorghum

Sesame

With best management sorghum yields should be > 4 t/ha)

 Efficient

markets Risk management Financial services Potential for IT to improve performance

 Projected

expansion 3.4 M ha/year

Timber and pulp p p p products ( (China), shift to tropics, ), p ,

pressure on natural forests, Carbon services?

Competitive p

advantage in ( g (sub) tropics ) p

m3 /ha/yr40+ in Brazil, 15 in USA, 5 in Finland

Pulp plantations v large > 250 000 ha for one v. 250,000 mill, $2 billion investment
T Transport costs favor l t t f large-scale plantations l l t ti

Issues:

Deforestation, subsidies, contract farming

Figure 5: Ownership by region and planted forest category

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005

Other Smallholder Corporate C Public

E and S Africa

E and S Africa

E and S Africa

E Asia

E Asia

E Asia

S and SE Asia

S and SE Asia

S and SE S America S America S America Asia

Country Brazil Indonesia Australia Argentina Chile Chil Spain United States Canada Sweden Finland

Years to 1st harvest 7 7 7 7 12 10 12 12 15 25 45 35 40 35 40

Productivity (m3/ha/yr) 45 50 20 25 20 25 25 20 10-12 10 7 5.5 4

US COS PINUS TAEDA PRDN COST ($/M3)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

LAND COSTS Actual costs

USA -- $3000/ha Brazil--$2500/ha Mozambique--$1/ha Indonesia negative (timber)

Land L d expectation values t ti l

Brazil--$5-8,000/ha Uruguay--$2500 Uruguay $2500 South Africa-$2900 USA--$170/ha

One of fastest growing crops

Driven by veg. oils for food Most efficient feedstock for

16

Expansion of Oil Palm

14

biodiesel All veg oils substitutes

Millions ha

12

Shifts in SE Asia (e g Idn) (e.g.

NPV of $3,900-$9,600 per ha

10

Latin America
8

Up to 3 mn. Jobs Social & environmental impact highly disputed Governance issues

SE Asia
6

Africa

Large comps (>500,000 ha)

Moving back to Africa SS: 200 k ha & $1 bn in Liberia Different production models

1961 1 1966 1 1971 1 1976 1 1981 1 1986 1 1991 1 1996 1 2001 2 2006 2

Source: IIASA, 2009

Uryu, et al. 2008

Uryu, et al. 2008

Source: Butler and Laurance, 2009

Indonesia--Area sown to oil palm by type of producer (ha)

7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

Private
3,000,000

State Owned

Small Holders
2,000,000

1,000,000

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Ensuring smallholder competitiveness E i llh ld titi

Technology (extension, planting material): Yields much lower than estates Credit for estab s C ed t o establishment (or ab ty to get loans) e t (o ability oa s) Sorting out of land tenure (only use rights on forest lands; weak bargaining)

Ensuring environmental sustainability

Peatland development attractive economically but high emissions of CO2 .. but also costly & need for management expertise danger of degradation GHG emissions from LUC (1.7 mn Gt/a); use of degraded land feasible ( ( ) g (WWF) ) There are alternatives but permits have already been allocated

Can REDD help?

10 20 mn h of d 10-20 ha f degraded l d suitable f oil palm; 7-9 mn h needed b 2020 d d land it bl for il l 7 9 ha d d by Economics of directing oil palm development to degraded lands look feasible But requires sorting out land tenure issues & who will get funds Essentially a governance issue: RSPO & other mechanisms to support

Driversgrowth in sugar demand (3.5% in SSA)

Bio-ethanol now major driverBrazil to add 7 M ha by 2018 by
converting pastures

Sources of competitivenes
Brazilrainfed, cogeneration, milling %

Africa-trade preferences (AGOA, EBA)

Large-scale--20,000 ha per mill

BR-Cosan, Copersucar 600-800 K ha Sudan-Kenana40 k ha

Issuessmallholder competitiveness, mechanization, water use h i ti t

Mozambique Irrigated US cents/l Yield sugarcane (t/ha) Labor Mechanization Material inputs Land* Water supply Maint./mgmt Maint /mgmt Cost of capital Depreciation Cost of prdn 128 (projected) 17.4 17 4 17.4 0 0.9 16.3 2.4 54.4

Brazil Rainfed US cents/l 85 6.5 65 7.8 8.3 6.7 0 8.1 81 1.6 4.3 44.1 One bi th O bio-ethanol l facility just closed. Second needs capital. capital

 Rubber

FDI from China et al to Laos, Cambodia, Liberia, DRC Started as large estates now 80%+ small scale in Asia large-estates, small-scale Asia.

Why large-scale in Africa?

Jatropha

High risk venturedepends on R&D and fuel prices Ideal for small-scalelarge-scale schemes folding small scale large scale
Cattle

(Amazon)

Major cause of deforestation, both small/large farms Indirect effects from soy, sugarcane? Land speculation?

Commodity Sugar-ethanol manual-, Brz Sugar-ethanol mech, Brz Jatropha, Tanzania Oil palm, Indonesia Plantation forestry Uruguay Sorghum Sudan semi-mech Wheat/soybean irr, Zambia Soyfully mechanized, Brz Grains fully mech., Ukraine

Jobs/1000 ha 700 150 600 350 20 53 16 18 10

Invest $/ha $14,000 $14,400 $600 $4,000 $7,000 $900 $6,000 $3,600 $450

Invest $ per job $20,000 $96,000 $1,000 $11,400 $360,000 $17,000 $375,000 $200,000 $45,000

Implications for technology etc etc.

Factors in large production Innovations

Z Zero till tillage ICT/satellite based Risk diversification New areas & crops

Models with smallholders Outgrower schemes

I iti l subsidies f smallholders Initial b idi for llh ld May not involve contracts

Contract farming
Sugarcane, soybean Contract prices and inputs

Adoption curve
Sugarcane, soybean Contract prices and inputs

Cooperatives, share in C estates

Malaysia Zambia Malaysia,

Often exacerbated by
Policy distortions (capital) Land mkt., labor regulations Subsidized land Standards & tracubg

Independent growers
Rubber in SE Asia, Jatropha p

For F each Pixel (10 km2) h Pi l k Identify yield gap

Biophysical potential-

actual use

Attribute to sources
Infrastr., technology , etc.

-> Economic land rent

Run global scenarios

Climate change Carbon pricing Road construction

-> Land rent implications

Detailed analysis in pilot countries

Source: Vera-Diaz et al, 2008

B Background k d 1997 law recognizes community rights good legal basis g g g Huge potential: 34 mn. ha arable land; only 3.7 mn. ha cropped Want to attract investors New applications for 13 mn. ha in 18 months Land audit: > 50% of existing awards of land use rights (DUATs) un- or underutilized then backtracking Moratorium in 2008 Identify available land first f f

Overlaps: 1.4 m ha; 418 cases

Private awards of user rights (DUATs) 8,900 8 900 cases, 2 900 overlaps 2,900 l

Some hype has evaporated (or never been justified)

Some investors lost big with negative social consequences Governments realized the dangers, tightened requirements T Tanzania: 4.4 mn. h requested, < 1 5 % approved; big debates i 44 ha t d 1.5 d bi d b t Some (e.g. Pakistan) is wishful thinking

.. .but there is still a lot going on g g

Need for regional data (Ethiopia: > 1 mn ha since 2005; 363 projects ) Amh (7%) Gb (7%) Or (14%) S (15%) Bshg (56%) avg 2,800 ha Often by-passing official channels yp g

Official figures are highly unreliable

Quality issues in Mozambique minor Undocumented expansion in Sudan (ests 60%) (est s Even countries with weak governance now asking for help

Region

Projs

Ctries #

Biofuels

Food crops

Livestock

Forestry/ Cons.

NA

Africa Af i LAC SAS ECA MENA EAP World (n=389)

46.3 46 3 11.8 4.4 44 12.3 4.6 46 20.6 100

32 12 4 10 9 13 80

19.0 19 0 5.4 0.5 05 3.3 0.5 05 6.4 35.2 35 2

13.1 13 1 1.3 1.5 15 5.7 2.6 26 8.2 32.4 32 4

0.5 05 0.8 0.5 05 2.1 0.3 03 0.8 4.9 49

6.7 67 2.6 1.5 15 0.8 0.3 03 3.4 15.1 15 1

6.9 69 1.8 0.3 03 0.5 1.0 10 1.8 12.3 12 3

Region Africa Af i LAC SAS ECA MENA EAP World W ld

Agbiz 8.0 80 2.3 0.0 00 2.6 0.5 05 3.1 16.5 16 5

Industry 16.2 16 2 2.3 0.8 08 2.6 1.0 10 5.4 28.2 28 2

Fund 9.5 95 4.9 1.5 15 5.1 1.8 18 6.9 29.8 29 8

NA 12.6 12 6 2.3 2.1 21 2.1 1.3 13 5.1 25.4 25 4

Region Africa LAC SAS ECA MENA EAP World

Proposal 13.9 2.6 26 1.8 4.6 46 1.5 5.4 29.8

Full Initiation production p 27.3 2.8 6.4 64 2.8 28 2.1 0.5 6.2 62 1.5 15 2.3 0.8 12.6 1.3 56.9 9.8

Top 3 Destination countries by region Africa Af i Country Sudan Ghana Madagascar Total 6.4 4.1 4.1 Latin America L ti A i Country Brazil Argentina Paraguay Total 3.6 2.6 0.8 EAP Country Indonesia Philippines Australia Total 3.6 3.1 2.8

Origin

Country China UK S. Arabia

Total 10.5 10.5 9.8

PROBABILITY OF BEING A DESTINATION COUNTRY

Variable
Land available for agriculture GDP per capita Tractors/1000 ha Agricultural exports as % total exports Countrys exports as % global exports Recognition of rural property rights1 Number of observations R2 of rural land rights.>0. ***Significant at 1%, ** at 5%, * at 10%
1 Protection

CONDUCIVE FACTORS

Coeff.
0.358*** 0.163 0 163 -0.013* -0.008 0.092 -0 375* 0.375

Robust Std. Std Error

0.118 0.214 0 214 0.006 0.008 0.132 0.203 0 203 88 0.347

Land availability potential Less mechanization L h i ti

Contradicts Lucas paradox

No role of GDP per capita No export dynamics Good governance not a factor
Contrary to standard literature

Weak land governance

Less protection of rural rights Disappears for production Need for monitoring through civil

society & origin ctries

1: Respecting land and resource rights 2: Improving food security p g y 3: Ensuring transparency, good governance, and enabling environment 4: Consultation and participation 5: Economic viability & responsible agro-enterprise investing 6: Social sustainability 7: Environmental sustainability

I. I

Individual/collective land rights recognized & demarcated

a) Recognition & demarcation: e.g. Mexico, Peru (mostly) b) Recognition but little demarcation: e.g. Mozambique, Ethiopia c) Limited recognition: e.g. Sudan, Liberia, Indonesia, Cambodia

II.

Modalities to transfer rights clear with proper representation

a) Regulations for representation clear: Mexico, Tnz (limits) Mexico Tnz. b) Clear transfer mech., not representation: Moz., Zmb., Indn., Nig.

III.

Affordable options to record, delimit & upgrade group tenure

a) Accessible, clear & affordable: Mexico b) Exist but difficult to access: e.g. Moz., Zmb., Tzn.

IV. IV

Expropriation is a last resort limited to strict public goods resort,

a) Extremely circumscribed: Peru b) Acquisition needs to go through Government with expropriation: Zmb., Eth., Tzn, Lib M Z b Eth T Lib., Moz.,

V.

Loss of property, use & secondary rights, whether registered or not, is compensated p p promptly to maintain livelihoods p y
a) Only registered rights compensated: Ukr., Mex. b) Some secondary compensated: e.g. Peru, Moz., Zmb., Nig., (Tzn.) c) No/inadequate compensation: e g Sudan Tnz (practice) e.g. Sudan, Tnz.

I.

Inventory on state land availability and potential is available

a) State land availability: e.g. Mex., Peru, (Uganda) b) Limited/no info. avail.: Moz., Brz., Eth.

II. II

Subsidies for investors justified & implemented transparently

a) Extremely well defined & implemented for ag. Land in Peru b) Well defined, but not implemented transply: Zmb., Nig., Liberia c) Little/no transparency: e.g. Indn., Sdn., Ukr., Brz., Pak.

III.

Info. on key aspects of contractual arrangements is public

a) Some contractual data & lease payments collected: Peru Liberia Peru, b) Some information collected, not public: Moz., Eth., Sdn., Cmb. c) Not public: Ukr., Brz., Indn., Nig., Pak., Mex.

IV.

Contracts are enforced

a) Government monitoring: e.g. Peru, Mex., Brz. b) Contracts renegotiated/revoked: e g DRC Lib Cmb (intl press) e.g. DRC, Lib., Cmb. (int l c) Limited/no monitoring: e.g. Sdn., Indn., Nig., Moz

I. I

Investments guided by national ag development strategy ag.

a) Importance recognized but not explicit: e.g. Moz., Tnz., Eth., Sdn

II.

Mechanisms to ensure projects financial & economic viability

a) Viability assessed, though haphazard in Moz.,, Lib. b) Little/no assessment: e.g. Sudan, Eth., Zmb., Nig.

III. III

Risk is taken into account

a) Contracts conditional on undertaking investment b) Application procedure tiered by aggregate area

IV.

Vulnerability & distributional impacts assessed, taken into account in selectn

a) Land use changes consider food security: e g China e.g.

I.

Investments co s ste t with local visions & pote t a y a ected est e ts consistent t oca s o s potentially affected are aware of their rights and ways to exercise them
a) Local govts involved in negotiation: Ukr., Moz. (parts) b) Campaigns based on need with NGO support c) Limited awareness: e.g. Tnz., Lib., Moz.

II.

Agreements are based on consultation with all those affected

a) Promote partnerships with primary users: e.g. Ukr., Tnz., Mex. b) Limited/no consultation: e.g. Moz., Indn., Nig., Sdn., Eth.

III. III

Mechanisms for legal representation of contracting parties are available & clear to everyone
a) Clear legal representation of individuals/groups: e.g. Mex., Ukr. b) Limited/no represent. of rights holders: e.g. Moz., Lib., Zmb., Nig.

IV.

Those indirectly affected are compensated for losses

a) None

I. I

EIA is in place to ensure key elements of environmental sustainability taken into account
a) EIAs mandated: e.g. Mex., Brz., Ukr., Eth., Lib. (forestry) b) EIA mandated, not enforced: e.g. M EIAs d t d t f d Moz., Ni T Nig., Tnz., Z b I d Zmb., Indn. c) No EIA required: e.g. DRC, Sdn.

II.

Implementation of environmental plans is monitored

a) Monitored by Govt & civil society: e.g. Brz., Mex. (class action) b) Limited/no monitoring: e.g. Zmb., Lib., Sdn., Nig.

III.

Standards to St d d t prevent negative spillovers b t ti ill beyond project site d j t it

a) None (e.g. Brz. deforestation)

Legally established procedure L ll t bli h d d

Sun Biofuel t l S Bi f l actual experience i

Investor shall approach TIC and sublease Investor approached villagers directly land from Land Bank Compensation shall be: based on loss from land alienation included in project agreement Land users shall be recognized as shareholders Their contribution to the company shall be the land they give up Land to be allocated to investor shall be published in the Government Gazette before the Presidents assent to allow for contestation EIA required p q prior to land acquisition by q y investor Villagers shall be informed of the value of their land and of the consequences of giving it up Villagers compensated for crops onely Market price of land not factored

Two Tanzanian shareholders hold 1% of shares each Neither of them are affected villagers Neither villagers. Allocated land was published in the Gazette after the President s assent Presidents Contestation is against an already taken presidential decision. No evidence that an EIA was conducted. Informed consent seems to have been the case

Source: Land Rights Research and Resources Institute (LARRRI) & Joint Oxfam Livelihood Initiative for Tanzania (JOLIT), March 2008 . The Agrofuel Industry in Tanzania: A Critical Enquiry into Challenges and Opportunities.

Country D.R.Congo

Key issues Post-conflict (displacement, elite capture) High agro-ecological potential Hi h l i l t ti l Ecosystem vulnerable to land use change Re-negotiating concessions post-conflict Legislated concession process including process, community-negotiated social contracts Ejido reform community land rights Communities negotiate w/investor directly Govt services (attorney, register of projects) Govt solicited private investment Unanticipated rush of applications (biofuels) New land law (97); community consultation Agricultural encroachment on pastoral areas Loss of biodiversity, water catchment services biodiversity Unfinished land reform; no agric. land sales Local govt supports comm.-investor negotns Govt f G t farm bloc model: mixed l / bl d l i d lg/small-scale ll l Biofuels rush; also large Zimbabwean farmers 2 % of land rental proceeds to community

Commodities Oil palm V t bl / i Vegetables/maize Carbon Rubber Timber Rice Rubber Vegetables/maize Rice Sugar for ethanol Sugar for ethanol Plantation forest Eco-charcoal Teak Mixed grains & oilseeds Food/cash crops F d/ h Wheat/soya Sugar

Liberia

Mexico

Mozambique

Tanzania Ukraine Zambia Z bi

Clear land rights seem to be a precondition for positive results

Displacement is more likely without clear rights. Compensation is also

lacking especially compensation for loss of livelihoods livelihoods.

Governments lack capacity to enforce agreements/implement policies.

There are few mechanisms in place to ensure that companies

keep their promises. Mandatory consultation mechanisms are also inadequate

If where companies are profitable, communities benefit more: more j jobs are created and there is more technology transfer gy
Best results seen where communities keep a stake in the

investments.

Given the sizeable areas concerned, direct impacts could include

Land conversion and biodiversity loss Unsustainable use of scarce water Impacts on air, soil, and water quality

Need to N d t manage i di t effects on existing nat. resource use(r)s indirect ff t i ti t ()

Dislocation of resource users (e.g. pastoralists, forest users) E h Enhanced employment may reduce d d l t d demand f marginal l d d for i l land

REDD may provide a sustainable rural income source

Still need to ensure consultation and benefit sharing with locals

Few countries enforce existing EIA requirements

None have adopted nationwide SEAs to consider strategic issues

I. I

Fundamentals are critical and often underemphasized

a) b) c) d)

If projects make no money, everybody loses Defining demand & market critical; govt contribution Wide range of arrangements (LS/SS) feasible even within a crop Secular trends imply higher land values & pressure for LS acquisition

II. II Countries targeted need assistance in many respects

a) b) c) d) e)

Transparency & monitoring where government is weak (incl. civil society) Knowing whats going on & link between responsible ministries/bodies Institutional arrangements to apply rules transparently on an ad h b i I i i l l l l d hoc basis Providing supporting public goods to support investment strategically Clarifying property rights & protecting them in long term

III. The international community can help

a) Agreement on a common set of principles b) Help to implement these c) Monitoring & enforcement by source countries