What Constitutes Resource Grabbing?

There is no single definition of resource grabbing for the various resources (land, water and ocean) within the resource grabbing debates. Definitions of what is resource grabbing depend on the prevailing causal factors, the spatial and socio-economic settings, how the resources are used or exploited, the effects and sometimes the size of the resources acquired.

The Food and Agricultural Organization, for instance, in defining land grabbing reveals that land deals are to be understood as land grabs when three conditions are present, namely: the scale of land deals should be large; there should be the direct involvement of foreign governments and institutions; and the new land investments are seen to have a negative impact on the food security of the recipient country. Other definitions identified earlier in the thesis take into consideration the power to control resources, the scale of land,

98

and capital accumulation as a major influence in contemporary land grabbing. This signifies a lack of a standard definition for the term, land grabbing.

Taking a closer look raises questions including; what might be a standard scale of land to be considered as land grabbing? Can we describe land acquisition within a family, where women are dispossessed of land for example, as land grabbing, even though those whose lands are grabbed experience similar effects? While the land grab literature focuses largely on foreign companies and foreign and domestic states, work on crop booms goes further by showing how not just domestic capital but also smallholders have tried to take or keep control over land on which to grow boom crops (Hall 2011; Hall 2013). While wading into the debate of land grabbing, it is clear that small-scale acquisitions affect small-scale farmers and land users in similar ways as large-scale land acquisitions. These and much more of such related questions cast new light on the problem of defining criteria for what constitutes land grabbing. Apart from these questions, evidence from the literature also reveals there is no agreement and reliable data as to the global scale of actual land acquisition, which makes it difficult to understand the nature of large scale land acquisitions.

The definition of water grabbing has not stemmed much controversy as compared to land grabbing in terms of media debates and research. This has been attributed to the positive relationship between land and water grabbing as many kinds of literature suggest that land may be grabbed not for the land itself but for water resources and the opposite could be true for water grabbing. The definition of water grabbing, however, takes into consideration certain aspects of land grabbing as provided in the literature, including control of resources

99

from prior resource users by a powerful person or actor with its associated effects similar to the effects of land grabbing.

The definition of ocean grabbing also takes into consideration most of the elements of land and water grabbing, including access and control of resources, dispossession and deprivation of livelihood (particularly on the parts of powerless resource owners and users).

The definition of ocean grabbing goes beyond just access and control to include competition for marine resources (mainly fishery resources) between artisanal fishermen (small-scale fishers) and large-scale actors and interests with the former being at a disadvantage in terms of policies, decisions and initiatives and even available resources (technology) to compete in the Global South.

Despite the slight differences and criticisms that exist in the definition of resource grabbing debates, three main factors exist in all the definitions. These factors provide a means of analyzing resource grabbing, irrespective of the usual factors considered, such as size and quantity of resources, and spatial and socio-economic settings. The first factor involves actors. Resource grabbing involves beneficiaries (grabbers) and losers (grabbees) and sometimes decision-makers who more or less also benefit from the outcomes of the resources that have been grabbed. All the definitions of resource grabbing take into consideration individuals or actors (whether within a family, a community, a country or a globally) who benefit (including access and control) from the resources belonging to another individual or actor, often with less power and means of protecting their resources.

The actors also include those who are seen as facilitators of resource grabbing. These include governments and decision-makers (could be politicians, bureaucrats, chiefs,

100

community leaders, and elders within a family) who influence such acquisitions through processes and procedures in favor of those who are grabbing the resources.

Figure 6.1: What Constitutes Resource Grabbing?

Source: Author’s Construct

All types of resource grabbing have causes or causal factors, which are influenced by motives/interests and made possible by institutions and institutional frameworks.

Preceding discussions, for instance, identifies interests in expanding agriculture and food production to meet increasingly demands for food or future needs of food insecure countries as a major cause of land and water grabbing. This factor is similar to a major cause of ocean grabbing: the heavy industrial reliance on large-scale fishing to meet the increasing demand for fish with the result that policies and decisions involving fisheries are skewed towards large-scale fishing at the expense of small-scale fishing.

Resource Grabbing Actors

Grabbers Grabbees

Effects

Motives Push Factors

Pull Factors

101

This implies that all resource grabbing, being land, water and ocean grabbing have both pull and push factors that influence the decision to grab such resources. The pull factors involve what attracts grabbers and include the increase in demand for food, biofuel and fish production; weak and shady regulatory frameworks involving resource management;

weak and powerless resource holders; and corrupt leaders and politicians entrusted with or at the helm of control resources. The push factors, on the other hand, involve the driving force for land investment from the perspective of grabbers. These include the perception of ‘unused’ or ‘vacant’ productive resources in the Global South; the recent need for increases in food and biofuel production; the recent boom in investment interest in natural resources; and direct assistance from foreign institutions for development purposes.

Finally, the evidence presented in the chapters above suggest that resource grabbing for land, water and ocean have both positive and negative effects with the negatives mostly felt by those whose resources are being taken or grabbed (grabbees). On the positive side, many land deals involving resource acquisition contain certain premises of benefits including increases in food production, employment, income, technology and financial transfer associated with large-scale land and water investment as well as some large-scale fishery developments. However, scant evidence exists with regards to whether these benefits have been received or not, particularly in land grabbing.

On the negative side, all forms of resource grabbing have been associated with dispossession and displacement of social, economic, and culture lives of ‘grabbees’.

Resource grabbing has resulted in local food insecurity, loss of employment and major

102

sources of livelihoods. These effects contribute immensely in infringing upon the fundamental human rights of resource user and owners.

Not only are negative effects felt by those whose resources are being taken but the effects also experienced by the resource which is exploited. Evidence in the literature reveals that land grabbing in parts of Global South has had negative effects on water bodies and major environmental resources, including soil erosion, water depletion, increased pesticide use, more emissions of climate change gasses, and the loss of biodiversity. Ocean grabbing also threatens the sustainability of oceans, particularly due to overfishing.

This thesis suggests that resource grabbing as a concept has no single clear definition and key debates associated with the definitions of land, water and ocean will continue. The three analytical factors described above, however, can be used in assessing the concept and practices of resources grabbing. The factors, moreover, provide a basis for comparing resource grabbing in different contexts within and across sectors or resources.