171

Japanese Large-Scale Land Deals as Drivers ofSocio-Ecological Change in the Global South
Julio C. POSTIGO
Centro Peruano de Estudios Sociales
Av. Salaverry 818, Lima 11, Perue-mail: jpostigo@cepes.org.pe

Abstract
Large-scale land deals are new drivers of socio-ecological change. This paper explores Japaneseparticipation in land grabbing. Data from the Land Matrix are used to show that Japanese capital has been
involved in land purchases in Asia, Africa and South America. The main goals of these land deals are to produce agro-commodities for energy generation and industrial production, and to develop forestry plantations.
These productive activities, founded on the land rights formally transferred through these deals, generate massive changes in land use and land cover. This paper also discusses the potential transformations in local tenureand economic systems, and the increased dependency of national economies on foreign direct investment
stemming from biomass energy production and forestry. The findings of this study confirm that investment in
non-food agro-commodities and biofuels is one of the drivers of large-scale land deals. Finally, this researchsuggests that a comprehensive approach combining land use and land cover change with social-ecologicalsystems approaches viewed through the lens of political economy/ecology is needed for an understanding of
the complex drivers and effects of the global land rush.
Key words: Global South, Japan, land grabbing, Land Matrix, land use and land cover change

1. Introduction
Farmland has once again become a commodity ofinterest for capitalist investment (Deininger et al., 2011;
Anseeuw et al., 2012a; White et al., 2012). This interest
has led to the proliferation large-scale land deals (LSLD),
which characterize the so-called land grabbing or “landrush.” LSLD is a global process whereby land rights aretransferred from farmers and/or recipient (of the deals)
countries in the Global South to corporations and countries in the North (Zoomers, 2010; Rulli et al., 2013).
Through this renewed North-South link, corporations andforeign governments gain access and control of land andwater in the Global South generating a “foreignisation”
of space (Zoomers, 2010; Rulli et al., 2013). This new
foreign space is used to produce agro-commodities (i.e.,
foodstuffs, bioenergy, industrial crops, trees); develop
extractive industries (e.g., mining and oil), tourism, conservation of nature (i.e., protected areas); and speculate
on cheap land for quick purchase, to be kept out of
production until agro-commodity prices and land values
rise (UNCTAD, 2009; Zoomers, 2010; Cotula, 2012).
This paper aims to evaluate the extent of Japanese
investment in LSLD and its potential effects on therecipient countries. In doing so, it contributes a case to aneeded in-depth analysis of socio-environmental drivers
Global Environmental Research
18/2014: 171-176
printed in Japanand consequences of land deals and the responses to them,
integrating perspectives of “political economy, sociology
and ecology” (Borras et al., 2011).
Since 2000, more than 80 million hectares of land
have been bought or leased to private investors or foreign
governments through hundreds of reported LSLD
(Borras Jr. & Franco, 2012; Cotula, 2012; Rulli et al.,2013; Heinimann & Messerli 2014). Globally, the extent
of land involved in LSLD corresponds to 0.7% to 1.75%
of the planet’s agricultural land (Rulli et al., 2013).
Using the Land Matrix, Heiniman and Messerli(2014) estimated that the main targets of large-scale land
deals are Africa (56.2 million ha), Asia (17.7 million ha)
and Latin America (7 million ha). At the global scale,
11 countries are responsible for approximately 70% of
the surface involved in the deals (Anseeuw et al., 2012b).
In some countries, the growth in land deals is exceptional.
Laos, for example, experienced 2,600 deals in the last
decade that involved 1.1 million ha of land, which isroughly 5% of the country’s land area (Heinimann &Messerli, 2014).
This renewed interest in land as an asset was likely
triggered by the 2008 food-price spike and the global
financial crisis (Zoomers, 2010). However, the interest inland, both local and overseas, can be traced back tocolonial times and the origins of capitalism (Moore,©2014 AIRIES172

Julio C. POSTIGO

1967; Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012; Borras & Franco,2012). Though land has attracted interest for a very longtime, the scale of ongoing LSLD is unprecedented(Zoomers, 2010). It was the scale and speed of thesechanges in land ownership that caught the attention ofmedia outlets. More recently, geographers and othersocial scientists have begun to draw attention to thisfinancialization of nature in general and of land inparticular (Vermeulen & Cotula 2010; Cotula, 2012;
White et al., 2012).
Identifying the drivers of investment has been theoriginal focus of research on LSLD. Zoomers (2010) has
identified seven primary drivers: i) Offshore farming by
countries dependent on food imports to feed their population; ii) Investment in non-food agro-commodities andbiofuels, and expectation of increasing land values; iii)
Nature conservation and ecotourism; iv) Expansion of
space for economic growth and its infrastructure (e.g.,Special Economic Zones); v) Growth of large-scale
tourist complexes; vi) Increase in retirement or residential migration; and vii) Investment of remittances in land.
LSLD accounts for only a small proportion of recipient countries’ arable land. However, the effects are notnegligible because LSLD focuses on the best land forbusiness, which means land with access to water, roads
and markets, potential for irrigation, good quality soil
and available productive infrastructure (Cotula, 2012).
Moreover, available arable land in recipient countries
decreases because of rising demographic pressure andnon-food agriculture (mining, oil, tree plantations, bioenergy and tourism) (Cotula, 2012).
Access to land is an enabler of the land change process, which is then followed by changes in land use andcover, and modification in tenure systems, social relations and agrarian structure. Land use change in recipient
countries starts abroad with land use displaced from theNorth to the South because of the former’s consumption
needs, while the South receives displaced land use(Weinzettel et al., 2013). Land use displacement–
because it increases food and forestry imports by affluent
countries–partially explains the absence of association
between economic development and biomass use(Weinzettel et al., 2013). However, international trade
not only reassociates land use and economic development but also gives rise to the concept of “land footprint”
which is the land use needed to satisfy consumption (andnot necessarily within the nation’s borders) (Weinzettel
et al., 2013). Prior research on land use displacement has
particularly focused on the dynamics of forest conversion(Uriarte et al., 2010; Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2011). Recent
use of the concept of “land footprint” shows that theUnited States (US), China and India together control 33%of the global land footprint. The US and the European
Union’s land footprints are 3.5 global ha/person and2.5 gha/person, respectively, while the global average is
1.2 gha/person (Weinzettel et al., 2013).
Large land footprints that satisfy consumption are
only possible by enhancing land footprints for production,
which requires economic capacity and available land, butdoes not necessarily require these two to be in the same
country. Weinzettel et al. (2013) shows that doubling theincome and availability of bioproductive land (per capita)
increases the land footprint by 35% and 23%, respectively; land use displaced from rich to low-income countries through trade corresponds to 6% of the total global
footprint and increases with income.

2. Methods
Data on land deals were obtained from the Land
Matrix (Land Matrix, 2012). For some deals, the databaseindicated intended size and/or contract size and/or
production size. When intended size and contract or production size were indicated, the latter two were used for
calculations because they are more concrete. When
information on the deal included only contract andproduction size, the larger size was used for calculation.
The links among LSLD, food and climate change
were analyzed using the food score of the vulnerability to
climate change index developed by ND-GAIN (Norte
Dame Global Adaptation Index) (http:// index.gain.org/
ranking/vulnerability/food) This score assesses the contribution of the food sector to the country’s vulnerability
to climate change. The food score takes into consideration a country’s food production, nutrition and rural
population. The indicators of vulnerability consider
climate risk and adaptive capacity. It is expected that
LSLD will increase climate risk since it encompasses the
exposure and sensitivity aspects of vulnerability. Indicators of exposure are projected change in agricultural
yield and variation in cereal crop yields. Sensitivity isaddressed through rural population and food importdependency.
Data from the Land Matrix were used to describe
trends and patterns of Japanese LSLD. The ND-GAIN
index allowed assessing the linkages among LSLD, foodand vulnerability to climate change. Thirteen countries
were selected where deals for agriculture had takenplace; the ND-GAIN index shows their position in thevulnerability ranking.

3. Results
Japanese investors have conducted 31 major land
deals in 19 countries in all continents but Europe (Table
1). Data on the deals show, in many cases, the intended,
contracted and production size. The intended size wasindicated for 20 of the 31 deals; the total size of the intended deals was 744,598 ha. Contract sizes were declared for 14 deals, which totaled 246,052 ha. The total
production size, stated for fifteen deals, was 197,012 ha.
The means of right transfer were declared for 12 deals:
six were lease/concession, five outright purchase, andone exploitation license. None of the purchases were in
Africa, where land was only transferred temporarily
through leases. The purchases were in South America(Brazil and Chile) and Asia (Vietnam).
An overall picture of Japanese investors’ presence isJapanese Large-Scale Land Deals as Drivers of Socio-Ecological Change in the Global South

173

Table 1 Japanese land deals per country, continent and land use intention.
ofNo. Continent
investment

Investor
Country

Intention

Intendedsize

Contracted
production

Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan, Lao People’s
Democratic RepublicSouth Africa Japan
China
Japan

Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Forestry

75000
2732
10000048153
15000------2732------48153------------------------------------------

Sugar cane
Potatoes
Jatropha
Rubber
Acacia, Eucalyptus

Forestry
Agriculture,
Industry
Forestry
Forestry, Other
Agriculture
Forestry

11000
300

11000
100

-------100

Eucalyptus
Fruit, vegetables

6000
60000
200000---------------------------------50000

6299
20997
22434

Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
Sugar cane
Acacia, Eucalyptus

100000-----------------

Jatropha, Oil palm------11000---------6000

400-----------------Sugar cane

15

China
Japan
China
Japan, China
Indonesia
Japan, Brazil
Lao People’s Japan, Lao People’s
Democratic Democratic Republic
Republic
Malaysia
Japan, Malaysia
Agriculture,
Industry
Malaysia
Japan
Other
Philippines Japan, Philippines,
Agriculture
China
Philippines Japan
Agriculture

25000--------

14000

16
17
18
19
20

Philippines
ThailandThailand
Viet Nam
Viet Nam

Japan
Japan
Japan, Thailand
Japan, Viet Nam
Japan, Viet Nam

10000
40000
22500
-----365-----------------------------365---------------------46000-------

Viet Nam
MexicoJapan
Japan, Australia,
Netherlands
Japan

Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Forestry
Conservation, Forestry
Forestry
Renewable
EnergyAgriculture

Papaya, Banana,
Pineapple
Jatropha
Oil palm
Sunflower-------Acacia---------------------1643

1550
1643

Acacia---------------

1476--------

Argentina

Japan

Agriculture

11000------------------

BrazilBrazilBrazil

Japan
Japan
Japan

Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture-------------------

9864
75075
9700

7000
40000
10000

BrazilChile
Chile
Colombia

Japan, Brazil
Japan
Japan
Japan

Agriculture
Forestry
Forestry
Agriculture-------3052
3496-------

22000--------------8000

22000
2187
2402
-------

Maize, Sugar cane,
Cassava, Oil palm,
Cacao
Maize, Wheat,
Soy beans
Maize, Soy beans
Cotton, Soy beans
Cotton, Maize,
Soy beans
Cotton, Soy beans
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus, Pine
Oil palm

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Africa

Asia

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

North
America
OceaniaSouth
AmericaTargetCountry
AngolaEgypt
Kenya
Liberia
Madagascar

Papua New
GuineaProduction Crop
size

Source: Land Matrix (2012)

generated when the three sizes are added (Table 2).
Moreover, the importance of Japanese investment in landat the national level is reflected by the percentage of eachcountry’s arable land taken by the deals (Table 2). In fivecountries the total land transferred in the deals was morethan 1% of the arable land (Angola, Kenya, Lao Peoples’
Democratic Republic, Liberia and Malaysia). In the caseof Liberia, more than 10% of arable land is in hands ofJapanese investors. In the remaining 14 countries, Japanese investment in land represents less than 1% of eachcountry’s arable land.
Though seven drivers of LSLD clearly refer to the
expansion of capitalism through profitable businesses,
this study shows that only non-food agri-commodities
and biofuels are present in Japanese LSLD.
Agriculture is the dominant intention of these deals.
Fifty-five percent of these land deals report agriculture as
the intended land use (Fig. 1), and in most countries there
is only one intention. However, there are some areas withdiverse deal intentions. For instance, the deals in China
are intended for agriculture, industry, forestry and otheruses. There are also areas where agriculture is not thedominant intention, like Chile, Madagascar and South
Africa wherein land deals are intended for forestry(Table 1).
Crops in these agriculture deals include food (maize,
wheat, potatoes, cassava, papaya, bananas, pineapples
and other fruits and vegetables) and non-food crops(sugar cane, soy beans, cotton, oil palm, jatropha, rubber,cacao and sun flowers). Interestingly, of the 19 deals for
agriculture, only one (for fruits and vegetables) has a sizeamounting to merely hundreds of hectares (intended size:
300 but 100 in production). The other remaining 18 deals
involve land transfers larger than one thousand hectares.
LSLD for agriculture took place in 13 countries. In
the food indicator of the vulnerability index, five of these13 countries are ranked below 130th (Angola 178th,
Kenya 134th, Liberia 166th; Malaysia 131st, and Papua
New Guinea 154th). In all of these countries it was indicated in the deals that non-food crops were going to be
cultivated.
Forestry was the second most commonly declared

174

Julio C. POSTIGO

Table 2 Extent of LSLD and percent of arable land representedby LSLD per country in 2012.
Target Country
AngolaArgentina
BrazilChile
China
Colombia
Egypt
Indonesia
Kenya
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Liberia
Madagascar
Malaysia
MexicoPapua New Guinea
Philippines
South Africa
Thailand
Viet Nam

Total (ha)
75000
11000
116939
4589
27396
8000
2732
200000100000
50000
48153
15000
100400
3286
1476
30000
11000
62500
47859

Percent ofarable land
1.83
0.03
0.16
0.35
0.02
0.38
0.10
0.85
1.82
3.57
10.70
0.43
5.58
0.01
0.49
0.56
0.09
0.40
0.74

Source: Land Matrix (2012)

intention, accounting for 26% of the deals (Fig.1). A
more detailed analysis shows that eucalyptus was thedominant species for intended forestry projects. It was
the stated species in seven of ten forestry deals in SouthAmerica, Asia and Africa, whereas acacia was present in
Asia and Africa in four deals.

4. Discussion
The worldwide pattern of the North buying land in the
Global South is confirmed by Japanese investment inland in Asia, Africa and South America. The declaredintentions of the deals are diverse, though dominated byagriculture and forestry. Moreover, agricultural land
deals have been made with the intention of producing
food and non-food crops. The latter includes crops forenergy generation, such as sugar cane and jatropha;
industrial use, such as soy beans, cotton, oil palm andrubber; and consumption, such as sunflowers.
It would be easy to imagine that land use is displacedabroad because high-income countries often lackproductive land. This is not the case, however. Rich
countries, on average, have higher availability ofbioproductive land per capita (3 gha/person) than lowincome ones (1.6 gha/person) (Weinzettel et al., 2013).
Availability of domestic bioproductive land increases
exports and land displacement by imports, while smallrich countries import relatively more; thus displaced land
footprints seem to increase with income (Weinzettel et al.,2013). Since the case addressed in this paper is Japaneseland investment, it is particularly relevant that highpopulation-density countries, industrialized European
countries, South Korea and Japan exhibit the largest
demand for foreign land (Weinzettel et al., 2013).
LSLD may enhance countries’ vulnerability to climate change. It is already established that food production is among the most sensitive sectors to climate

Fig. 1 Percentage of Japanese land deals per declared intention.
Source: Land Matrix (2012)change effects (IPCC, 2014). This may be exacerbated by
LSLD because LSLD virtually always excludes local
populations from the best, most fertile lands, which aretransferred to foreign investors as part of the LSLD.
Further, when these lands are used for cultivating food, it
is for export, thus increasing local dependency on foodimports, which in turn enlarges countries’ vulnerability.
However, often the lands are used for non-food crops,
even in countries vulnerable to food insecurity. The useof land in food insecure countries for production of
non-food crops is among the main reasons for resisting
LSLD (De Schutter, 2011; Borras & Franco, 2012).
Furthermore, the press has frequently pointed out theirony of producing crops to feed livestock or generateenergy in countries where hunger is prevalent (UPI,
2012; Levitt, 2014).
The dominance of eucalyptus within forestry projects
reinforces the wide propagation of this tree, which isnative to Australia. Considering the documented debate
about the impacts of introducing eucalyptus on farmland,
including both its potential benefits for improving
wasteland and degraded land and the potential negative
effects of the massive introduction of an exotic species on
the local biodiversity (Jagger & Pender, 2003), there is aneed for regulation by countries that includes mandatory
impact assessments and land zoning for forestry plantations. Further, it is unlikely that investment in forestry
plantations will have soil quality recovery as a goal.
Instead, generating profits is likely to be a primary goal;
therefore, existing good soil and favorable productive
conditions will be required in the lands that are purchased.
This scenario illustrates potential tensions with local
livelihoods and threats to food security.
Changing the use and cover of thousands of hectaresof land has social and ecological consequences. For
instance, land and water that previously was accessed andcontrolled by many people is transformed into land andJapanese Large-Scale Land Deals as Drivers of Socio-Ecological Change in the Global Southwater that is controlled by a few powerful stakeholders(usually faceless corporations behind walls). This process also converts farmers into landless or agrarian
workers. Furthermore, at the national level, revenues
from the corporations reinforce the dependency ofnational economies on foreign investment, which also
increases the power of foreigners and their lobbies overauthorities in comparison to local populations.
The challenging transformations triggered by LSLD
may require frameworks that include human-environment interactions across multiple temporal and spatial
scales. Integration of the social and natural realms may
be achieved using the social-ecological systems (SES)
framework (Berkes & Folke, 2000; Ostrom, 2009). The
SES framework emphasizes the interdependency of
sub-social and sub-natural systems through flows ofenergy, services and labor (Liu et al., 2007; Chapin III
et al., 2009). The SES framework also allows for aninvestigation of how social and natural systems areintegrated at the site. Further, the SES framework is
particularly relevant because LSLDs trigger changes in
the interactions between humans/social groups and theecosystems locally, though LSLD are driven by nonlocal processes.
Social and ecological relations at the site level are
influenced by dynamics at higher spatial levels. For instance, commodity prices may increase the need for land,
while climatic changes may render certain areas lessproductive, therefore less suitable for investment. These
dynamics necessitate analyzing how socio-environmental processes operate and have impacts at multiple
levels. Using a perspective that includes cross-level
analysis and combines land change science with political
ecology (Turner & Robbins, 2008), is essential because,as this paper shows, Japanese LSLD triggers cascading
multi-level socio-ecological transformations in the
countries where land rights are transferred.
Of the seven drivers of LSLD presented by Zoomers(2010), non-food agri-commodities and biofuels are twoof the important drivers of investment by Japanese
LSLDs. It is also possible that offshore farming drives
LSLD involving the production of maize, potatoes andwheat. Thus, the capital of Japanese investors has
re-discovered land overseas to support profitable production of agro-commodities. These agro-commodities,
though, are used for other industries or are incorporated
into the global agro-food system. In doing so, the local
populations of the recipient countries are disenfranchised
and alienated from their means of production.

5. Concluding Remarks
Japanese land investments are causing social andecological transformations where the deals take place.
Changes in land tenure and use increase the vulnerability
to climate change and worsen prior social, economic andpolitical problems. LSLD will bring new crops andproductive systems (more intense use of inputs) witheffects on soils and water, which are still severely under-

175

studied. Moreover, countries increasing their dependency
on the global economy enhance their vulnerability tofluctuations of food prices and international markets,
while decreasing control over and access to their resources (e.g., land) raises the probability of conflicts overresources. The complexity involved in LSLD reinforces
the need to better understand this global process throughan integrative perspective, a need that has been recognized for other global environmental challenges (Ostrom,
2007; Turner & Robbins, 2008). In this context, it is
crucial to develop an approach that combines land use
and land cover change with the social-ecological systems
framework and is complemented with a political economical/ecological analysis of multi-level power relations streaming from LSLD.

Acknowledgements
This work was benefitted by support from the University of Maryland and a NSF Award #DBI-1052875 to
the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center.
References
Acemoglu, D. and J.A. Robinson (2012) Why Nations Fail: The
Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business,
New York.
Anseeuw, W., L. Alden, L. Cotula and M. Taylor (2012a) Landrights and the rush for land: Findings of the Global Commercial
Pressures on Land Research Project. IIED, CIRAD 151: 1-24.
Anseeuw, W., M. Boche, T. Breu, M. Giger, J. Lay, P. Messerli
and K. Nolte (2012b) Large-scale land acquisitions in the‘Global South’: creating evidence on a global level. GLP News,
November: 9-11.
Berkes, F. and C. Folke (2000) Linking social and ecologicalsystems for resilience and sustainability. In: F. Berkes, C. Folke
and J. Colding, eds., Linking Social and Ecological, Systems.
Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building
Resilience, Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 1-25.
Borras, S.M., Jr. and J.C. Franco (2012) Global Land Grabbing andTrajectories of Agrarian Change: A Preliminary Analysis.
Journal of Agrarian Change, 12: 34-59.
Borras, S.M. R. Hall, I. Scoones, B. White and W. Wolford (2011)
Towards a better understanding of global land grabbing: an
editorial introduction. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38:
209-216.
Chapin, F.S., III, C. Folke and G.P. Kofinas (2009) A framework
for understanding change. In: F.S. Chapin III, G.P. Kofinas andC. Folke, eds., Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-based Natural Resource Management in a Changing
World, Springer Verlag, New York, 3-28.
Cotula, L. (2012) The international political economy of the global
land rush: A critical appraisal of trends, scale, geography anddrivers. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39:649-680.
De Schutter, O. (2011) How not to think of land-grabbing: three
critiques of large-scale investments in farmland. The Journal of
Peasant Studies, 38:249-279.
Deininger, K. D. Byerlee, J. Lindsay, A. Norton, H. Selod and M.
Stickler (2011) Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can It Yield
Sustainable and Equitable Benefits? World Bank Publications,
Washington D.C.
Heinimann, A. and P. Messerli (2014) Coping with a land-grabworld: lessons from Laos. GLP News, June: 13-16.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014)

176

Julio C. POSTIGO

Summary for policymakers. In: C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J.
Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel,
A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea and L.L. White,eds., Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK; New York, USA. 34.
Jagger, P. and J. Pender (2003) The role of trees for sustainable
management of less-favored lands: the case of eucalyptus in
Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics, 5: 83-95.
Lambin, E.F. and P. Meyfroidt (2011) Global land use change,
economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108: 3465-3472.
Land Matrix (2012) The Land Matrix Database. Review of Global.
Levitt, T. (2014) Who will feed China’s pigs?... And why it matters
to us and the planet. <http://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/
entries/4983-who-will-feed-china-s-pigs-and-why-it-matters-to-us-and-the-planet>
Liu , J., T. Dietz, S.R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran,
A.N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z.
Ouyang, W. Provencher, C.L. Redman, S.H. Schneider and
W.W. Taylor (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural
systems. Science, 317: 1513-1516.
Moore, B., Jr. (1967) Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy. Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern
World, Beacon Press, Boston.
Ostrom, E. (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104:
15181-15187.
Ostrom, E. (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325: 419-422.
Rulli, M.C., A. Saviori and P. D’Odorico (2013) Global land andwater grabbing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110: 892-897.
Turner, B.L. and P. Robbins (2008) Land-Change science andpolitical ecology: similarities, differences, and implications forsustainability science. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33: 295-316.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)(2009) World Investment Report 2009: Transnational Corporations, Agricultural Production and Development. United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva:

United Press International (UPI) ed. (2012) Ethiopia: Thousands
driven out in land grab.
Uriarte, M., L. Schneider and T.K. Rudel (2010) Synthesis: landtransitions in the tropics. Biotropica, 42: 59-62.
Vermeulen, S. and L. Cotula (2010) Over the heads of local people: consultation, consent, and recompense in large-scale land
deals for biofuels projects in Africa. The Journal of PeasantStudies, 37: 899-916.
Weinzettel, J., E.G. Hertwich, G.P. Peters, K. Steen-Olsen and A.
Galli (2013) Affluence drives the global displacement of landuse. Global Environmental Change, 23: 433-438.
White, B., S.M. Borras, Jr., R. Hall, I. Scoones and W. Wolford(2012) The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate
land deals. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39: 619-647.
Zoomers, A. (2010) Globalisation and the foreignisation of space:seven processes driving the current global land grab. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37: 429-447.

Julio C. POSTIGO
Julio C. POSTIGO works at the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) where he is the director of the project“Assessments of Climate Change Impacts and
Mapping of Vulnerability to Food Insecurity
under Climate Change to Strengthen Household
Food Security with Livelihoods’ Adaptation
Approaches”. He has a PhD in geography from the University of Texas atAustin and was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center at the University of Maryland, College Park. He
is a lecturer in the program of Public Management of Water Resources at
the Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru. Postigo’s research focuses on
the synergic effects of globalization and climate change on socialecological systems. He has particular interests in water governance andagrarian issues. Currently he is editing a book on social-ecologicalperspectives that address global environmental changes in Latin America.

(Received 28 August 2014, Accepted 19 November 2014)