Although the uptick in land-related investment prompted efforts at systematic data collection (Anseeuw _et al._ 2012), available global databases suffer from considerable weaknesses (Arezki _et al._ 2015) and fail to reflect the complexities of land acquisitions (Hall 2011) or representativeness (Cotula 2014). Still, a large amount of the current knowledge comes from case studies, which can provide qualitatively valuable insights but, without information on the universe from which cases were selected, will still have to be accompanied by ways to test their representativeness and replicability (Schoneveld 2014). Moreover, many of the case studies focus on process rather than robust evidence on outcomes.

From an analytical point of view, systematic data at country level are needed to explore the extent to which these investments target easily accessibly areas or compete with smallholder agriculture (Messerli _et al._ 2014), investors live up to their commitments (Burnod _et al._ 2013), and to identify indirect effects of agricultural investment (Andrade de Sa _et al._ 2013). In terms of policy, lack of good and regular data makes it more difficult to attract capable investors by (i) increasing the transaction costs of identifying good opportunities; and (ii) making it more difficult to access institutional sources of funding which require minimum levels of reporting and are increasingly bound by a trend towards traceability and ‘responsible’ investment. It may also reduce security of tenure for investors as, without a basis to document claims, they may be subject to frequent and disruptive renegotiation.

# **2.2 Ethiopia’s context**

Large farm investment is not new to Ethiopia; in fact in the pre-revolutionary period, the state used large subsidies to attract commercial investment in agriculture. This led to establishment of highly mechanized cash crop production in so-called ‘model farms’ the establishment of which was often associated with tenant evictions.<sup>3</sup> After the 1974 revolution, the Derg converted most of these into state farms for food production. Though their yields were above those by peasants, their efficiency and contribution to national agricultural output (2%) remained low (Abebe 1990).

After 1990, a strategy of market liberalization and agriculture-led industrialization focusing on small-scale producers was adopted.<sup>4</sup> To assess its success, Ethiopia’s Central Statistical Agency (CSA) started collecting of annual data on smallholders’ productive performance using a survey administered by resident enumerators to a representative sample of some 40,000 farmers nationally. It complements information on inputs application with a crop cutting exercise for a minimum number of plots in each enumeration area.

The transition to a free market economy was followed by higher private investment in commercial farms whose share of the country’s gross agricultural output increased to about 7%. In fact, reference to potential

> 3 Main areas included Awassa, Arbaminch, Zeway and Shewarobit. 4 Small producers are defined as those with a size below 10 hectares and all farms above this size fall into the ‘commercial’ category.

5