Land Grabbing and Development: The Case of Ethiopia

Abstract

Since African decolonization and independence, foreign land acquisitions for agriculture have surged in Sub-Saharan Africa, notably transforming agricultural production. This “land grabbing” phenomenon is particularly pronounced in the Horn of Africa, especially Ethiopia. This study assesses the impact of land grabbing on Ethiopia’s development, targeting economic, environmental, and quality of life dimensions. Development is viewed as multifaceted, spanning beyond merely economic aspects. The research delves into the land-grabbing phenomenon in Sub-Saharan Africa and Ethiopia, focusing on policy and legal frameworks for large-scale commercial agriculture. It then explores the effects of large-scale land acquisition on Ethiopia’s development in terms of economy, environment, and quality of life. The analysis reveals that land grabbing profoundly affects Ethiopia’s development. Although some economic benefits exist, the negatives like environmental degradation and food insecurity greatly outweigh the positives. Consequently, the study advises prioritizing alternatives and strategies favoring Ethiopia’s economic development and people’s well-being.

Keywords

Land grabbing Ethiopia development environmental degradation food insecurity

Introduction

Since the era of decolonization and African independence, foreign land acquisitions for agricultural purposes have intensified considerably in the Sub-Saharan context, raising the question of whether such investments have relevant repercussions on the development of African countries. Indeed, the growing influx of foreign agricultural investments, generally driven by resource-seeking strategies, has generated the need for vast tracts of land, leading to the expansion of large-scale land investment, a phenomenon also known as “land grabbing,” which has greatly altered the way primary agricultural goods are produced in Sub-Saharan Africa. Particularly, the Horn of Africa region and the specific case of Ethiopia present a relevant example of how these practices have been carried out and what impact they may have on the land, population, and economy.

This study focuses on examining the impact of land grabbing in Ethiopia. The analysis covers economic aspects (basic macro-magnitudes, balance of payments, infrastructure, technology, and employment), environmental issues (monocultures, deforestation, environmental problems, and ecosystem changes), and the quality of life of local communities (food security, impact on the local population). A vision of development as a dynamic and multidimensional phenomenon that transcends merely economic aspects is adopted, crucial for understanding the context of developing countries. This approach aligns with the theories of Amartya Sen and Herman Daly, who emphasize the sustainability of development, integrating environmental and quality of life elements into their economic analyses (Daly, 1994; Nussbaum and Sen, 1993).

The research will be conducted through the review of bibliographic references, including international reports and academic works, as well as the collection of relevant data from databases and authoritative sources such as the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, and World Integrated Trade Solutions.

First, the phenomenon of land grabbing in Sub-Saharan Africa will be examined, and the Ethiopian context will be defined, with specific reference to the reality of foreign direct investments and the political and legal framework at the national level regarding large-scale commercial agriculture. Specifically, the state land tenure system will be analyzed, referring to various shortcomings in terms of legal security and transferability within the framework of land rights.

Second, a study of the different impacts of large-scale land acquisition on the development of Ethiopia will be proposed. The analysis will be divided into the following three sections: (1) Economic Analysis and the impact of large-scale land acquisition in Ethiopia on the country’s economy. This includes exploring benefits such as job creation and increased agricultural production, and disadvantages such as the expulsion of small farmers and concentration of land ownership for commercial crops. The challenge of Ethiopia’s trade balance is particularly focused on. (2) Environmental Impact: Assessing the environmental consequences of land grabbing, including deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and its effect on food insecurity. (c) Quality of Life: Examining how these land tenure practices affect the quality of life of local communities, addressing issues such as displacements, access to basic resources, and changes in agricultural practices.

Finally, the study will propose sustainable solutions to address land grabbing in Ethiopia, emphasizing the strategies adopted by seed banks to preserve and distribute local seed varieties, enhance crop diversity, and promote food security. The needs and participation of Indigenous communities in land-use decision-making processes will be crucial in developing these solutions.

Context analysis

Land grabbing in Sub-Saharan Africa

Contemporary “land grabbing,” also called land-grabbing or land rush, can be defined as the purchase of vast tracts of land and other natural resources through a variety of mechanisms and forms involving large-scale extractive and profit-oriented investments (Borras et al., 2013: 10). A “land grab,” then, corresponds to a large-scale land sale and acquisition, also called large-scale land acquisition (LSLA), and is strictly linked to the power to control large amounts of land and land resources for capital accumulation (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018: 574). The term “grabbing” is used to signal a loss of access, mainly as land given away for large-scale investments is often sold at the expense of the local communities that used to live on such land (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018: 574). In this way, the ability of smallholder farmers to use and benefit from the land is often taken away, leading to prominent conditions of vulnerability and insecurity. This is exacerbated by the nature of contemporary large-scale foreign investments in land which are broadly characterized by modes of direct non-equity participation¹ through contract farming or indirect non-equity participation through standards and other information-intensive relationships, with a shift from land internalization to value chain coordination (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 2).

Although land grabbing is a widely recognized global phenomenon, it mainly affects the Global South and is particularly prevalent in Africa, given the continent’s favorable biophysical resources and its lack of large-scale industrialized agriculture and plantations compared to other continents (Anseeuw, 2013: 3–4). Local governments have also played a critical role in shaping the phenomenon of land grabbing and, especially in those African states with weak land tenure regulations, are often responsible for breaching customary and communal land tenure arrangements to reallocate land and forests to corporations, foreign governments, and speculative investors (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018: 573). Typically, in effect, it is usually the poorest and most marginalized communities that lose land, rather than wealthier farmers with greater power and influence, and indeed, waves of foreign direct investment flows for land acquisitions are mainly directed to countries with worse records of formally recognized rural land tenure, where many people have only insecure land rights (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 6). As a result, in the last 20 years, Sub-Saharan Africa has become a “grabbing hotspot,” with an increasing flow of foreign investments that focus on the purchase or acquisition of use rights to produce mainly food and agricultural products (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018: 573).

The process of land grabbing in sub-Saharan Africa can also be seen as a form of privatization of common resources, such as land and forests, or “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey, 2005: 159), especially concerning phenomena that are strictly interlinked with large-scale land acquisitions, such as the displacement of peasants in favor of large-scale producers (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018: 574). In particular, land grabbing in Africa represents a significant shift from public to private sector control over agricultural investments and from domestic to foreign control over land crucial for food production (Shepard, 2011: 26). Private sector investors tend to be investment or holding companies rather than agri-food specialists, which means that for them to function it is necessary to acquire the expertise to manage complex, large-scale agricultural assets (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 4). Consequently, although the investors are mainly from the private sector, land grabbing projects are sometimes also carried out with the involvement of national governments and sovereign wealth funds, which provide financing and other support to private investors or, in some cases, intervene directly (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 4).

A common feature of sub-Saharan countries subject to large-scale acquisitions is the fact that states own large tracts of land and, consequently, even if traditional or local users occupy them, have the power to transfer them to outsiders, often in a non-transparent manner (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 9). Thus, the central problem of land grabbing is that the law in African states such as Ethiopia considers all land to be state land and thus belonging to a national domain that the central government can dispose of at will, sometimes without regard to the unwritten customary rights of local populations (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 6). Moreover, once the land is ceded, especially through non-equity modalities such as licensing, franchising, or subcontracting arrangements, local governments often have minimal ability to regulate the implementation of foreign direct investment (FDI) agreements, leaving foreign companies in complete or near-total control of the grabbed areas (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018: 573). Even where enforcement of legal protections may be feasible, such processes are generally costly and difficult for national governments, which tend to prefer that foreign firms develop self-imposed restrictions through, for example, the creation of inclusive codes of conduct (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 6–7). Thus, large-scale land acquisitions can have varying outcomes depending on the interests and ethics of the companies in question.

Although there has been an increase in large-scale foreign land acquisitions in Africa in recent years, this is largely not reflected in available databases, and information on current FDI in land is often fragmentary. Moreover, transactions are only officially recorded when they are fully paid for and preferably take place over a considerable time, further complicating the collection of reliable data (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 3–4). However, large land transactions are often not transparent, and contracts are kept secret, which means that precise and reliable information is often unavailable to researchers or official organizations (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018: 574). There is, therefore, great uncertainty about how extensive land grabbing is in sub-Saharan Africa, and even where data are available, the figures differ. For example, Oxfam claims that land under acquisition in Africa is about 34 million hectares,² whereas, according to The Oakland Institute, about 60 million hectares were leased or purchased in Africa in 2009 alone (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018: 574). Aubry et al. (2012: 3) also provide another figure, stating that between 50 and 80 million hectares were acquired in recent years. Perhaps the most reliable source in recent years has been the Land Matrix index, which currently estimates 31,195,849.94 hectares of land grabbed, dividing the number of deals into planned (14%), concluded (40%), and failed (46%; Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Size of land agreements and transactions in Africa (in hectares).

Defining the Ethiopian context

The land ownership system in Ethiopia has significantly evolved due to political and socio-economic shifts. Before 1974, Ethiopia had two primary land systems: communal ownership in the northern highlands and “gult” private tenure in the southern lowlands, with the latter involving land grants from Emperor Haile Selassie I. The Derg Socialist Regime (1974–1991) initiated major land ownership reforms, implementing widespread land and economic reforms from 1975, emphasizing state land control. This led to state ownership of all land and natural resources, granting usufruct rights to farmers and herders but also fragmenting land parcels. After the Derg’s fall in 1991 and the rise of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), Ethiopia shifted to multinational federalism, integrating ethnicity into land tenure. The 1997 Federal Proclamation of Rural Land Administration, aiming to enhance tenure security and end forced land redistribution, recognized regional autonomy in land management. The 1995 Constitution affirms that land belongs to the Ethiopian people with individuals having usage, eviction protection, and compensation rights. Yet, the EPRDF’s 1991 tenure system does not fully assure land ownership, creating uncertainty and hindering farmer investments. Since 2005, farmers have received indefinite agricultural land usage rights, including succession and leasing rights, but prohibitions on land sale, mortgage, or exchange remain. Land registration programs since 2010 have boosted tenure security, soil conservation efforts, and reduced land conflicts. Despite this, governments can evict farmers for development projects, often with minimal compensation, leading to marginalization (Wubneh, 2018: 178). The legal framework, including EPRDF Protocol 455/2005, permits land expropriation for vaguely defined “better development projects,” mainly at administrative discretion and without a clear appeal process (FDRE, 2005; Wubneh, 2018: 179).

With a significant land reform program, Ethiopia has implemented extensive land reforms and economic programs since 1975, aligning with socialist principles of state control over land ownership (Wubneh, 2018: 170). Property rights, as per the 1995 Constitution, state that the Ethiopian people own land, and individuals have land-use rights, eviction protection, and compensation rights in case of expropriation (FDRE, 1995). However, the land tenure system set by the EPRDF in 1991 does not guarantee full land ownership rights, leading to an ambiguous environment discouraging farmers from land investments (Wubneh, 2018: 170).

National and local governments can evict farmers, providing minimal compensation for development investment objectives, causing marginalization and destitution among peri-urban farmers (Wubneh, 2018: 178). The legal framework includes EPRDF Protocol 455/2005, allowing state or local government to expropriate land for “better development projects,” with the determination of such left ambiguous and primarily under administrative discretion, without any clear appeal process (FDRE, 2005; Wubneh, 2018: 179).

Agricultural investment is seen as key for economic growth and poverty reduction by the Ethiopian government, which has awarded millions of hectares of fertile land to developed countries since 2000 (Degife, 2017: 2). World Bank reports state that 406 large-scale commercial farm investment projects were approved in Ethiopia from 2004 to 2009 (Vhughen and Gebru, 2019: 2). Incentives are provided to foreign investors producing export commodities, such as import rights for capital goods and construction materials free of excise duties (Wubneh, 2018: 175). This strategy aims to spur economic growth in Ethiopia, where over 36% of the population lives below the poverty line (World Bank, 2015), by transforming subsistence agriculture, promoting technology transfer, increasing employment opportunities and expanding export earnings (Wubneh, 2018: 175).

In the past, both the federal and regional governments controlled land investments. However, recently, the latter has been discouraged mainly from handling large-scale land investments or any other land transactions (Wubneh, 2018: 175). In fact, to specifically promote foreign investment in agriculture, the state has adopted a centralized strategy to transfer land allocation power from the regions to the federal government under the Ministry of Agriculture (FDRE, 2007). Within this framework, Ethiopia has also established the Agricultural Investment Land Administration Agency, which is responsible for monitoring and tracking all land investment activities within the country (Degife, 2017: 13). In 2009, for example, the government took it upon itself to manage land over 5000 hectares and, in 2010, inaugurated the First Growth and Transformation Plan, which set as a priority objective to promote investment in large-scale commercial agriculture (Wubneh, 2018: 175). As a result of these policies, land investments by the Ethiopian federal land bank in 2011 amounted to more than 4 million hectares of land, which were mainly allocated to agricultural investment projects (Table 1).

Table 1.

Land for investment under the federal land bank framework.

Region	Land in hectares
Afar	409.000
Amhara	400,000 (preliminary figure)
Benishangul	1.149.052
Gambella	1.226.893
Oromia	1.079.866
RNNPS^a	180.604
Total	4.445.415

Source: Own elaboration with data from Alemu (2012 [2011]: 20) and Wubneh (2018: 175).

Region of the Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples of the South.

Foreign investors have quickly become major stakeholders in large-scale commercial agricultural development in Ethiopia, pushed both by the failure of the global agricultural commodity market and associated supply shortages around 2007 and 2008 and by the decidedly low prices of rent charged for large tracts of land (Wubneh, 2018: 175). Indeed, the rental fee charged for agricultural land in Ethiopia is considered one of the lowest among African countries and varies from region to region: the highest rate of 135 birr (US$1.00 = 20.5 birr) per hectare was charged in the Oromia region, while the lowest rate of 25 birr per hectare was charged in the Beni Shangul region (Table 2). Prices can also vary within the same region depending on location, accessibility, land fertility, water availability, and proximity to a main road (Wubneh, 2018: 175).

Table 2.

Land rentals in selected regions (in birr per hectare/year).

Region	Maximum rent	Minimum rent
Amhara	79,37	14,21
Benishangul	25,00	15,00
Gambella	30,00	20,00
Oromia	135,00	70,00
RNNPS	117,00	30,00
Tigray	40,00	30,00

Source: Own elaboration with data from Rahmato (2011: 20).

Major investors include farmers from India, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States, with these four countries accounting for more than 53% of the land allocated to agricultural projects (Table 3). Specifically, these investments and their nature are largely seen as part of the land-grabbing issue that has emerged as a major national phenomenon in Ethiopia in recent years.

Table 3.

FDI in agriculture by country, 1995–2011.

Country	Pre-implantation		In operation		FDI approved
Country	No. of projects	Area in 000 hectares	No. of projects	Area in 000 hectares	No. of projects	Area in 000 hectares
India	88	894,1	10	41,3	117	1072,55
Saudi Arabia	95	432,1	9	8,7	109	441,1
The United States	111	177,7	9	1,6	138	38,6
Israel	95	195,7	19	8,4	123	205,8
The United Kingdom	44	90,8	10	2,9	61	144,8

Source: Own elaboration with data from Alemu (2012 [2011]: 17).

Impact analysis

Economics, infrastructure, technology, and employment

Land and primary sector development are a crucial pillar of Ethiopia’s economic development, significantly as agriculture value added has contributed up to 44.3% of the country’s gross domestic profit (GDP) in the last decade (World Bank, 2021).³ Large-scale investments specifically focused on agricultural land are highlighted as potential driver for Ethiopia’s development. This has led the government to formulate a long-term economic development strategy called Agriculture Development Led Industrialization (ADLI), a politico-economic response to Ethiopia’s agricultural productivity challenge, which mainly focuses on expanding commercial farms derived from large-scale investments and improving their productivity (Degife, 2017: 4). The main objectives of the ADLI are indeed to improve agricultural extension services, promote better use of land and water resources, improve access to financial services, expand the reach of domestic and export markets, and provide infrastructure conducive to rural development (Degife, 2017: 10). In addition, Ethiopia also launched an Industrial Development Strategy in 2003, demonstrating a greater sectoral focus on agribusiness development and indicating a clear intention to increase exports (UNCTAD, 2009: 103). The government maintains that Ethiopia is a “developmental state” and has shown a clear intention to implement a policy of transforming the current economic system to catapult itself to middle-income country status by 2030 (Wubneh, 2018: 170). To achieve this, some lofty economic goals have been set, including enhancing the role of agriculture (FDRE, 2010).

Technology and employment

Ethiopia is undergoing unprecedented infrastructure development, constructing roads and ensuring electricity access, with major funding from the World Bank, China, Japan, and OPEC (Chepeus Research and Analytics, 2021: 29; The Oakland Institute, 2011: 34). Within large-scale land investments, infrastructure improvement includes modern agricultural technology and innovative irrigation projects to spur economic growth (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 34). Large investors, such as Saudi Star and Karuturi Global Ltd, concentrate on technology and water system innovations to enhance horticultural productivity, even exploiting previously unsuitable land, while also pledging social infrastructure like schools and clinics (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 34, 35).

Infrastructure development also works as a domestic strategy to attract more foreign investors, forming a cycle of investment, improvement, and growth. This is actively encouraged by the Ethiopian government seeking to increase foreign direct investment, production capacity, skill improvement, and national income (Wubneh, 2018: 71). Ethiopia’s direct investments in irrigation dams and power grids have attracted foreign investment into sectors like the sugar industry (Rakotoarisoa, 2011: 3).

Such infrastructure and technology development is critical for Ethiopia’s development, particularly in boosting agricultural productivity and production. Infrastructure improvements also have a multiplier effect on the economy, generating technology transfers and wage employment, even though low wages for low-skilled agricultural workers (ILO, 2021; The Oakland Institute, 2011: 34). Large-scale land investments have generated new employment opportunities, especially for those living near the exploited areas (Baumgartner et al., 2015: 187–188). Despite low wages, these opportunities can provide a valuable source of income for workers and their families (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 35).

Trade balance

The Ethiopian government’s Agricultural Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) program, initiated in 1991, prioritized strategic investments in high-value crops like coffee, cotton, tobacco, sugarcane, tea, spices, and oilseeds such as groundnut and sesame (Degife, 2017: 10). More recently, the flower sector has emerged as a major contributor to the Ethiopian economy, with exports increasing from US$0.3 million in 2001 to US$150 million in 2008, representing about 10% of total exports in that year (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 8).

While Ethiopia continues to produce essential subsistence crops like pulses, cereals, and a wide range of fruits and vegetables, cash crops, often termed as tropical commodities, have become a significant part of agricultural production, exploited largely by foreign investors for export (Fikadu Asfaw and Associate Law Office (FALO), 2013). The surge in commercial agricultural land investment over the past decade and the corresponding rise in foreign direct investments have led Ethiopia to rely heavily on exporting these tropical commodities for economic growth (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 8).

However, Ethiopia’s underdeveloped secondary and tertiary sectors leave the country reliant on large-scale imports for goods and services it cannot domestically produce. This situation threatens local food security and exacerbates the country’s public deficit and debt issues.

An analysis of Ethiopia’s trade balance from 1997 to 2020 reveals a common trend. Products from the plant kingdom, which largely correspond to large-scale investment activities and mostly comprise tropical products like coffee, tea, and oilseeds, tend to have a positive trade balance, as they are export-intensive. In contrast, all other selected product groups exhibit a negative trade balance, underscoring the country’s significant import dependence. This imbalance reflects Ethiopia’s challenges in pursuing a sustainable and inclusive development path (Table 4). In addition, the fact that tropical crops are exported mainly, but the country still has to import large quantities of food products raises food security concerns, which will be discussed in more detail in the next Chapter.

Table 4.

Ethiopia’s trade balance 1997–2020 (in thousands of current US$).

Product groups	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Capital assets	−425781,18	−357211,6	−479065,88	−363222,17	−115843,71	−434644,46	−700024,58	−790970,23
Consumer goods	−387046,75	−673729,6	−521186,39	−56658833	−765556,09	−621287,75	−641301,35	−1090035,9
Intermediate goods	−193295,44	−271269	−234342,16	−19232632	−357865,82	−274110,17	494386,09	−540488,88
Food products	−11830,37	−18857,04	−16497,4	−14426,52	46861,92	−11978,67	−51350,08	−43767,92
Plant Kingdom	458268,44	425982,55	282644,51	317192,79	76379,95	165222,71	−94916,29	123579,61
Product Groups	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Capital holdings	−1290247,6	−1573070	−1892617	−2247018,77	−2300259,28	−2722624,6	−2451049,6	−3529023,4
Consumer goods	−1563848,4	−1939412	−2069683,7	−3544243,75	−3071461,46	−3453538,2	−35421 S5.6 S	−5013997,2
Intermediate goods	−904111,81	−939326	−1288132.S4	1713581,7	−1750352,15	−1392925,1	−1930864,5	−2633485,2
Food products	−38265,9	−87453,15	−90757,32	−155790,36	−117359,97	−189499,3	284153,07	−325644,42
Plant Kingdom	351028,29	330417,45	89444,95	−48027832	−133430,13	109270,56	171568,75	371098,7
Product Groups	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Capital assets	−3703577	−5131221	−6562231,8	−5700440,66	−534029,19	−4685575,6	−4018722,5	−1001892,3
Consumer goods	−4673140,6	−6862419	−5905431	−6231694,94	−5578376,56	−5609268,6	−6106920,4	−5546008,9
Intermediate goods	−2206618	−3085729	−3441415,3	−3737781,38	−3188980,37	−3280366	−3575229,1	−3599387,9
Food products	−362823,59	−380466,7	−407069,58	−532878,2	−45757533	−621990,21	−416330,1	−541393,55
Vegetable Rowing	104335,56	516611,99	37900,44	−343596,08	80918,07	−582584,5	578148,59	39020,84

Source: Own elaboration with data from WITS (2020).

Environment

The primary focus on cash crops and tropical commodities that characterizes large-scale investments can lead to a vast implantation of monocultures which, as an agricultural system, has been shown to cause degradation at the ecosystem level and disrupt both natural habitat and ecological balance (Legesse et al., 2018: 294). This often leads to severe phenomena such as soil degradation, water and air pollution, biodiversity loss, and environmental vulnerability. In Ethiopia, land-use changes following land grabbing projects have resulted in several environmental disadvantages such as deforestation, abnormal flooding, decreased soil quality, and soil compaction (Gill, 2016: 711). This also affects fertility and an estimated 30,000 hectares of productive land are lost each year due to soil degradation and deforestation, which is a serious problem considering that forests provide Indigenous peoples with critical food supplies against food shortages (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 44–46). These environmental damages pose a threat to stability everywhere. However, in Ethiopia, the impacts are even more felt, as economies that rely heavily on agriculture are more likely to experience economic shocks due to environmental damages, especially as a public intervention in land management in recent decades has led the country to be unable to arrest the problem, primarily due to institutional factors.

In addition, the acquisition of large tracts of land has caused tremendous environmental devastation in terms of deforestation, with the clearing and burning of vast areas of trees, which may further aggravate already existing phenomena such as alteration of the water cycle, soil erosion, habitat loss, and ultimately climate change (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 45). A significant example in this regard was how part of the National Park and forest lands in the Gambela region which are the livelihood of the Indigenous Nuer and Anuak peoples, for example, were awarded to foreign investors so that they could exploit that territory: after grabbing a portion of the land totaling 10,000 hectares, the Saudi Star rice farm largely cleared all the forest and savannah that was commonly understood to be part of the reserve (Degife, 2017: 11). With most of the forest gone, protection against windstorms, flooding and erosion diminished, leading to a drop in groundwater levels and a series of anomalous floods that endangered the stability of the ecosystem (Stenberg and Rafiee, 2018: 36). This entailed environmental consequences not indifferent to Ethiopians, as these lands and forests represented a means of livelihood for local populations and ensured a fundamental ecological balance. Indeed, clearing the forest and the consequent environmental effects also forced local people to travel different distances to collect timber and medicinal plants efficiently and hunt, which has significantly affected their lives and livelihood (Gill, 2016: 712).

More specifically, a 2014 Applied Geography comparative study shows that deforestation rates in large-scale and small-scale land investment areas differ significantly. The article analyzes deforestation patterns in two regions of southwestern Ethiopia, Yeki and Decha, finding that the rate of deforestation was higher in Yeki than in Decha and forest cover in Yeki declined more drastically, with only 48.7% of forest remaining in 2010 compared to 71.7% in Decha during the same period (Tadesse et al., 2014: 153–154). Deforestation patterns also differed between the two districts, with Yeki showing large-scale forest loss due to the expansion of coffee plantations, while deforestation in Decha was more irregular and attributed to small-scale cultivation (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Forest cover change detection maps 1973 to 2010 of the Yeki district (left column) and Decha region (right column).

The study revealed that population pressure, investment and competition for land and forest resources associated with land-grabbing were the main drivers of deforestation in Yeki, noting that changes in national land tenure and agricultural development policies were correlated with variation in local deforestation rates over time in southwestern Ethiopia (Tadesse et al., 2014: 158). These events give rise to different ecosystem concerns and challenge finding corrective measures and monitoring mechanisms to mitigate the direct and indirect environmental impact of large-scale operations in Ethiopia (Speller et al., 2017 [2016]: 48).

Finally, the widespread replacement of traditional crops with high value-added crops and the use of industrial-type agriculture have been shown to generate the growth of new weeds, encourage the spread of virus strains and increase the level of toxicity, specifically affecting soil fertility and then spread up the food chain (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 45). These affects determine an evident loss of both crop diversity and overall environmental health. An apparent exacerbation of these effects is also caused by the extensive use of non-organic agrochemicals and pesticides, very frequent in land-grabbing practices that lead to the overexploitation of idle land and uncultivated areas by foreign investors (Cuffaro and Hallam, 2011: 7). In particular, the use of chemical substances on crops contributes to the reduction of pollinators, reduces the population of wild animals and has a negative impact on flora by compromising the quality of available water and by favoring the degradation of wetlands and the proliferation of invasive species (Speller et al., 2017 [2016]: 47).

Quality of life

Food safety

Ethiopia’s food security situation, as indicated by the 2022 Global Food Security Index (GFSI), raises significant concerns. Ranking 100th with a score of 44.5, Ethiopia faces serious challenges in terms of affordability, availability, quality and safety, and sustainability and adaptation of food resources (Economist Impact, 2022). The malnutrition prevalence of 24.9%, with 35.3% of children being stunted and 21.1% underweight, underscores these difficulties (Economist Impact, 2022).

As highlighted in the GFSI 2022 country report for Ethiopia, factors like high poverty levels, frequent natural disasters, and limited access to agricultural inputs—partly caused by land grabbing practices—contribute to the country’s food security issues (Economist Impact, 2022). While the government has aimed to improve local development and food security by attracting foreign investment in large-scale land, there is a concerning disconnect. The contractual provisions for agricultural land leases often lack agreements concerning food security, and investors have no obligations to ensure local food security (Wenedem, 2021: 131).

Modern large-scale agriculture in Ethiopia largely relies on monocropping and extensive tillage of few, more profitable crops, dismissing Indigenous practices, and reducing crop diversity (Degife, 2017: 3). Traditional crops such as millet and sorghum are often abandoned in favor of maize, wheat, rice, and soybeans (Vital, 2018). The increased cultivation of cash crops like sugarcane, palm oil, and coffee further exacerbates food insecurity, as these crops have little to no nutritional value and cannot fulfill the population’s essential health and livelihood needs (Müller et al., 2021: 2).

Overall, the food security situation in Ethiopia underlines the broader challenges the country faces in its development trajectory. The country must confront the shortcomings of its current agricultural practices and foreign investment strategies to ensure a sustainable and nourishing food system for its people. Land-grabbing, moreover, not only negatively affects the diversity of people’s diets, thus worsening food stability, but also has the potential to profoundly change the course of food production and destroy existing functional market systems. For example, local communities in Ethiopia have relied on seed saving and exchange for millennia to maintain crop diversity and, in turn, improve product quality and reduce monetary and social costs (Samberg et al., 2013: 477). These practices are difficult to maintain, especially when the local population is confronted with a large-scale external activity that monopolizes land resources, imposing an agricultural model that does not consider Ethiopians’ needs. Indeed, although non-monetary exchanges of seeds between smallholder farmers, whether within or between communities, are often mediated by social institutions, the growing influence of foreign agribusinesses and non-equity modes of internationalization have led to a general prohibition of such small-scale practices, mainly because seeds are now subject to foreign purchase and thus to patents (Lightbourne, 2007: 303–304). In particular, with the entry into force of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO, 1995: Art. 28) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the “manufacture, use [or] offering for sale” of patented products becomes illegal. This type of intellectual property protection also affects crops and, as a result, the harvest of patented seeds cannot be replanted or exchanged, which inevitably interferes with traditional agricultural practices. For small farmers and many Indigenous communities in Ethiopia, the right to use their crops is essential to secure their livelihoods and thus ensure equal access to food resources (Mechlem and Raney, 2008: 131).

Indeed, as Ethiopia is heavily dependent on agriculture and the primary sector, the drastic changes brought about by foreign intellectual oligopolies profoundly affect the realization of the right to food and hinder local people’s access to physical and economic resources, already hampered by the environmental challenges of land grabbing. In addition, the potential for toxic substances used as part of agricultural practices following large-scale investments in Ethiopia has also been shown to have adverse impacts on surface and groundwater, which in turn affects nutrient cycling, thus posing a significant threat to food quality and availability (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 46). In this sense, investors should have a responsibility to minimize, if not avoid, food security risks, which, in most cases, are far from being a priority (Speller et al., 2017 [2016]: 11). Fluctuations in the supply and price of staple crops further aggravate food security problems, especially considering that a significant portion of the population already lives below the poverty line (23.5% in 2015), which makes them more sensitive to even minimal price increases, even if these are essential commodities (World Bank, 2015).

Effects on the local population

Large-scale foreign investments centered on land and agriculture often lead to the establishment of extensive farms, diminishing the land available to local farmers, and affecting their quality of life (Abbink, 2011: 516). The Ethiopian federal government’s drive to make land available for commercial agriculture and foreign investors results in “villagization” programs, causing temporary displacement of local populations (Stenberg and Rafiee, 2018: 35). These programs took place from 2010 to 2013 in four Ethiopian regions, leading to the resettlement of nearly 1.5 million people (Human Rights Watch, 2012: 19). Such measures primarily cater to the growth of transnational agribusiness, creating disparities for Indigenous communities who lose autonomous access to resources like food and water (Degife, 2017: 5). “Villagization” also displaces small farmers and pastoralists, affecting their livelihoods and income stability (Vhughen and Gebru, 2019: 7).

In Ethiopia, the land holds significant social and cultural value, and its loss has profound effects on the well-being, dignity, and socio-economic status of locals (The Oakland Institute, 2011: 38). As a result, Indigenous communities often resist resettlement and land acquisitions. The Indigenous Gumuz community, for example, has experienced repeated disputes with foreign companies settling on their land for large-scale investment projects (Stenberg and Rafiee, 2018: 39). The production systems implemented by large investors are seen as harmful and unsustainable for local livelihoods and the environment, leading to a shift away from traditional land-use practices (Moreda, 2017: 705). Table 5 provides an overview of the impact on local populations by examining large-scale land investment projects in Ethiopia’s Benishangul, Gambella, and Oromia regional states.

Table 5.

Impacts of land-grabbing projects on the local population in Ethiopia.

Region	Investor	Size	Production	Impacts
BeniShangul Gumuz	S&P Energy Solution (India)	50,000 ha	Pongamia cultivation and food production	Loss of land and access to resources, reduction of fallow periods, worsening of soil quality, and so on.
Gambella	Baren (India)	3567 ha	Cotton cultivation	Loss of access to essential resources, increase in food security
	Karuturi Agro Products PLC (India)	100.00 ha	Large-scale rice production	Decreased access to land, significant logging, deforestation, abnormal flooding, and so on.
	SaudiStar Agriculture Development PLC (Saudi Arabia)	10,000 ha	Rice production	Forced relocation of rural populations, loss of land, water shortages, and so on.
Oromia	Karuturi Agro Products PLC (India)	11,000 ha	Corn monoculture	Displacement of farmers, felling of fruit and culturally essential trees, lack of compensation, isolation, reduced income, and so on.

Source: Own elaboration with data from Stenberg and Rafiee (2018: 41–42).

Sustainable solutions

The analysis highlights that the negative impacts of land grabbing in Ethiopia outweigh the benefits, resulting in an unsustainable developmental model. Despite a few positive outcomes such as increased raw material exports, employment opportunities, and technological implementation, this approach creates numerous environmental and quality of life issues. Thus, the Ethiopian government’s belief that large-scale land investment is a significant development driver is questionable. This raises the question of whether a viable alternative to this land-grabbing-centric development plan exists.

A sustainable development strategy incorporates economic, social, and environmental considerations to achieve long-term development goals, focusing on inclusiveness, equity, participation, long-term organization, and adaptability (Jabareen, 2008: 179). In Ethiopia, where natural resources are scarce and economic development is crucial, a sustainable development strategy needs to balance economic growth with social and environmental sustainability.

First, establishing local seed banks provides a sustainable alternative to land grabbing in Ethiopia, helping combat biodiversity loss and the ensuing increased risk of food insecurity, which is associated with large-scale, foreign investment-driven monoculture. The country’s first national seed bank was established in 1976 and now hosts two significant seed bank institutions: the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute (EBI) and the Ethiopian Organic Seed Action (EOSA; Birhanu, 2021). These organizations coordinate numerous local initiatives across the country, supporting the creation of community seed banks, which help conserve smallholder agricultural varieties and contribute to seed security (EOSA, 2017: 2).

The Ethiopian community seed bank system encompasses four primary elements: seed stock, germplasm stock, grain stock, and market access creation (EOSA, 2017: 4–5). The latter is particularly crucial, as it empowers smallholder farmers to negotiate with large industries collectively, facilitating more equitable market access and pricing (EOSA, 2017: 5).

In preserving and effectively utilizing local and Indigenous knowledge for enhanced crop yields, diversity, and environmental stability, the seed banks have also contributed to food security and improved quality of life. By prioritizing the needs of farmers and Indigenous peoples over external investors, these seed banks foster more resilient and sustainable food systems, offering a potentially more stable pathway to development in Ethiopia (Wallace, 2018).

Second, an alternative to land grabbing also comes from the academic world, which has worked to find a more sustainable model than the current one. Degife (2017), in particular, proposes a list of recommendations to achieve sustainable agricultural development without harming the local population or the environment. Indeed, the article acknowledges that there is a lack of good governance and transparency in the competition for large-scale land investments in Ethiopia when it comes to local people, which in turn, calls for the creation of integrated guidelines to promote agricultural investments that benefit investors, governments, and local communities, ensuring that large-scale investments do not come at the expense of smallholder farmers or Indigenous peoples (Degife, 2017: 14). For agricultural investment projects to benefit local economic and social development, indeed, local communities must play an active role from the outset, and ultimately, the involvement of local people in agricultural investment is crucial for success. In addition, government offices should conduct an environmental impact assessment and consult civil society before allocating large tracts of land to investors to ensure that the use of natural resources such as water, land, and forests is done sustainably, without overexploitation of resources leading to environmental and quality of life problems (Degife, 2017: 15).

Conclusion

This paper concluded that land grabbing has significantly affected Ethiopia’s development, influencing various aspects such as the economy, environment, and quality of life. The study analyzed the economic implications of land grabbing, which demonstrated positive aspects regarding employment and technology transfer, despite the hindered economic development due to job discontinuity in agriculture and a negative trade balance.

The research also revealed problems arising from systematic land grabbing, notably environmental degradation and reduced access to land for local communities, causing their quality of life to deteriorate. Issues like soil erosion, deforestation, displacement, and villagization have negatively affected Ethiopia’s overall development, undermining efficient resource use and affecting people’s livelihoods. Food security has also worsened due to practices favoring monocultures and cash crops, which fail to ensure a diversified and stable diet.

The study underscored the need to consider the multifaceted impact of land grabbing, acknowledging that negative effects outweigh the positive ones, and revealing unsustainable trends. The necessity to prioritize alternatives beneficial to the country’s economic development and people’s quality of life is crucial. This can be achieved by utilizing existing strategies like seed banks, fostering engagement with local and Indigenous communities, and ensuring they are included in development plans.

For Ethiopia’s long-term development, the focus solely on attracting foreign investment must be re-evaluated. Land deals should prioritize the welfare of smallholders and local populations, recognizing their rights to a clean environment and a stable livelihood. By working with local and Indigenous communities, the Ethiopian government can establish a sustainable development model, ensuring a better future for its people, leaving no one behind.

Footnotes

Authors contributions

All authors contributed to collecting, synthesizing, and extracting data from the texts studied. All authors have written and revised the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Javier Arribas Cámara

Notes

Author biographies

Giulia Marzocchi holds a degree in Linguistic Mediation and a postgraduate degree in Human Rights and Multilevel Governance. Her research focuses on land ownership and the effects of agriculture in Africa.

Javier Arribas Cámara Cámara holds a law degree from the Complutense University of Madrid and advanced studies in Public Administration and Political Sciences from UNED, culminating in a PhD in Economics. His research focuses on power dynamics in public services and labor market segmentation, with notable involvement in various national and European research projects.

References

Abbink

(2011) ‘Land to the foreigners’: economic, legal, and socio-cultural aspects of new land acquisition schemes in Ethiopia. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 29(4): 513–535.

Alemu

(2012 [2011]) Rural land policy, rural transformation and recent trends in large-scale rural land acquisitions in Ethiopia. European Report on Development. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI), p.28.

Anseeuw

(2013) The rush for land in Africa: resource grabbing or green revolution? South African Journal of International Affairs 20(1): 159–177.

Aubry

Seufert

Suarez

(2012) (Bio) Fuelling Injustice? Europe’s Responsibility to Counter Climate Change Without Provoking Land Grabbing and Compounding Food Insecurity in Africa. Rome: EuropAfrica.

Batterbury

Ndi

(2018) Land-grabbing in Africa. In: Binns

Lynch

Nel

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of African Development. New York: Routledge, pp.573–582.

Baumgartner

Von Braun

Abebaw

, et al. (2015) Impacts of large-scale land investments on income, prices, and employment: empirical analyses in Ethiopia. World Development 72: 175–190.

Birhanu

(2021) A new project focusing on community seed bank has been launched. FDRE. Available at: https://ebi.gov.et/2021/04/19/a-new-project-focusing-on-community-seed-bank-has-been-launched/ (accessed 2 May 2023).

Borras

Franco

Wang

. (2013) The Challenge of global governance of land grabbing: changing international agricultural context and competing political views and strategies. Globalizations. 10(1)

Chepeus Research and Analytics (2021) Ethiopia Macroeconomic Handbook 2021. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Macro Research Ethiopia.

10.

Cuffaro

Hallam

(2011) Land grabbing in developing countries: foreign investors, regulation and codes of conduct. Available at: https://econpapers.repec.org/article/rarjournl/0216.htm

11.

Daly

(1994) Fostering environmentally sustainable development: four parting suggestions for the World Bank. Ecological Economics 10(3): 183–187.

12.

Degife

(2017) The Intricacies of Large Scale Agricultural Investment in Gambella Region, Ethiopia. Washington, DC: World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty.

13.

Economist Impact (2022) Global food security index 2022: Ethiopia. The Economist. Available at: https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-security-index/explore-countries/ethiopia (accessed 1 May 2023).

14.

Ethiopian Organic Seed Action (EOSA) (2017) Establishment of a Community Seed Bank and the Services Provided. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopia Organic Seed Action.

15.

FDRE (1995) Constitution of the federal democratic republic of Ethiopia. Proclamation no. 1/1995. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Federal Negarit Gazeta.

16.

FDRE (2005) Expropriation of land holdings for public purpose and payment of compensation. Proclamation no.455/2005. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Federal Negarit Gazeta.

17.

FDRE (2007) Payment of compensation for property expropriated for a public purpose. Council of Ministers Regulation no. 135/2007. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Federal Negarit Gazeta.

18.

FDRE (2010) Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP). 2010–2015. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.

19.

Fikadu Asfaw and Associate Law Office (FALO) (2013) Investment Opportunities Open for Foreign Direct Investment in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Fikadu Asfaw and Associate Law Office. Available at: https://ethiopianlaw.com/investment-opportunities-open-for-foreign-direct-investment-in-ethiopia/ (accessed 27 April 2023).

20.

Gill

(2016). Can the river speak? Epistemological confrontation in the rise and fall of the land grab in Gambella, Ethiopia. Environment and Planning A, 48(4), 699–717.

21.

Harvey

(2005). Spaces of neoliberalization: towards a theory of uneven geographical development (Vol. 8). Franz Steiner Verlag.

22.

Human Rights Watch (2012) “Waiting Here for Death” Displacement and “Villagization” in Ethiopia’s Gambella Region. New York: Human Rights Watch.

23.

ILO (2021) Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (models ILO estimate): Ethiopia. World Bank. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?locations=ET (accessed 1 May 2023).

24.

Jabareen

(2008) A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability 10: 179–192.

25.

Land Matrix (2023) Africa. The Land Matrix. Available at: https://landmatrix.org/observatory/africa/ (accessed 4 May 2023).

26.

Legesse

Jefferson-Moore

Thomas

(2018) Impacts of land tenure and property rights on reforestation intervention in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 70: 494–499.

27.

Lightbourne

(2007) Organization and legal regimes governing seed markets and farmers’ rights in Ethiopia. Journal of African Law 51(2): 285–315.

28.

Mechlem

Raney

(2008) Agricultural biotechnology and the right to food. In: Francioni

(ed.) Biotechnologies and International Human Rights. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.131–160.

29.

Moreda

(2017) Large-scale land acquisitions, state authority and indigenous local communities: insights from Ethiopia. Third World Quarterly 38(3): 698–716.

30.

Müller

Penny

Niles

, et al. (2021) Impact of transnational land acquisitions on local food security and dietary diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(4): 1–9.

31.

Nussbaum

Sen

(eds) (1993) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

32.

Rahmato

(2011) Land to Investors: Large-Scale Land Transfers in Ethiopia. Oxford: African Books Collective.

33.

Rakotoarisoa

MAA

(2011) Contribution to the analyses of the effects of foreign agricultural investment on the food sector and trade in Sub-Saharan Africa. FAO Commodity and Trade Policy Research Working paper no. 33. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

34.

Samberg

Shennan

Zavaleta

(2013) Farmer seed exchange and crop diversity in a changing agricultural landscape in the southern highlands of Ethiopia. Human Ecology 41: 477–485.

35.

Shepard

(2011) Land grabbing and potential implications for world food security, sustainable agricultural development. In: Behnassi

Shahid

D’Silva

(eds) Sustainable Agricultural Development: Recent Approaches in Resources Management and Environmentally-Balanced Production Enhancement. London: Springer, pp.25–42.

36.

Speller

Mirza

Giroud

, et al. (2017 [2016]) The Impact of Larger-Scale Agricultural Investments on Local Communities: Updated Voices From the Field. Washington, DC: World Bank.

37.

Stenberg

Rafiee

(2018) Land Grabbing and Its Implications on Rural Livelihoods in Ghana and Ethiopia: A Comparative Study. Huddinge: Södertörns Högskola.

38.

Tadesse

Zavaleta

Shennan

, et al. (2014) Policy and demographic factors shape deforestation patterns and socio-ecological processes in southwest Ethiopian coffee agroecosystems. Applied Geography 54: 149–159.

39.

The Oakland Institute (2011) Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa, Country Report: Ethiopia. Oakland, CA: The Oakland Institute.

40.

UNCTAD (2009) World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations, Agricultural Production and Development. Geneva: UNCTAD.

41.

Vhughen

Gebru

(2019) Large-scale acquisitions of land in Ethiopia. Gates Open Research 3: 939.

42.

Vital

(2018) Millets and sorghum: forgotten foods for the future. Food Tank. Available at: https://foodtank.com/news/2018/04/icrisat-millets-sorghum-forgotten-foods-future/ (accessed 1 May 2023).

43.

Wallace

(2018) This seed bank preserves biodiversity by opening its doors to farmers. GRAIN. Available at: https://grain.org/entries/6037-this-seed-bank-preserves-biodiversity-by-opening-its-doors-to-farmers (accessed 2 May 2023).

44.

Wenedem

(2021) Local Land Rights and Large-Scale Farm Investments in Ethiopia: The Need for Inclusive and Responsible Governance. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Bahir Dar University.

45.

WITS (2020) Exports of products by Ethiopia (excluding Eritrea) to all countries 2020. World Bank. Available at: https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/es/Country/ETH/Year/2020/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/WLD/Product/All-Groups (accessed 1 May 2023).

46.

World Bank (2015) Poverty incidence rate, based on national poverty line (% of population): Ethiopia. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.NAHC?locations=ET (accessed 2 May 2023).

47.

World Bank (2021) Agriculture, value added (% of GDP): Ethiopia. Available at: https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS?locations=ET (accessed 2 May 2023).

48.

World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Geneva: World Trade Organization.

49.

Wubneh

(2018) Policies and praxis of land acquisition, use, and development in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 73: 170–183.