Table 1

Comparison of LSLADEs and transnational LSLAs

DimensionLSLADEsTransnational LSLAs
Ownership and financingInitiated by medium-scale farmers, local entrepreneurs, traditional authorities and domestic programsDriven by multinational corporations, foreign governments, or international investors
Land accessAcquired mainly through customary authorities and local negotiations; parcels often fragmentedNegotiated at national or intergovernmental levels; typically large, contiguous concessions
Technology and inputsRelies on tractors, disc plows, bulldozers and herbicides, with heavy dependence on rental/service marketsEquipped with advanced mechanization, irrigation, and vertically integrated supply chains; machinery usually owned outright
Regulatory oversightGoverned by domestic institutions; enforcement of safeguards often weak or inconsistentSubject to both host-country laws and international scrutiny (e.g., donor safeguards), though implementation is uneven
Environmental practicesLand clearing and agrochemical use often lack monitoring, increasing risks of soil degradation and biodiversity lossEnvironmental management plans more likely to be required, but ecological impacts remain significant in practice
Spillover channelsStimulates rural markets for mechanization and agro-inputs; potential benefits for smallholders, but with ecological costsMay create jobs and infrastructure but often operate as enclaves with weak local linkages
Scale and scopeModerate in scale; embedded in domestic agricultural systems and local marketsLarge in scale; integrated into global value chains and export markets

Note(s): LSLADEs differ significantly from transnational land acquisitions in terms of ownership structures, institutional embeddedness and operational models. Domestic investors (medium-scale farmers, traditional leaders and government-backed schemes) often use locally embedded negotiation channels and intermediate-scale mechanization, creating both opportunities for technology spillovers and risks of biodiversity degradation (Jayne et al., 2016, 2019, 2022). In contrast, transnational acquisitions are typically large-scale, export-oriented and highly mechanized, producing enclave economies with more pronounced ecological consequences, including deforestation, monocropping and biodiversity loss (Pretty et al., 2018)

Source(s): Author's design based on literature (e.g., Abdallah, 2021; Abdallah et al., 2023a, b; Abdallah and Jayne, 2023; Ali et al., 2019; Ayamga et al., 2023; Ayamga and Laube, 2020; Borras and Franco, 2012; Deininger and Xia, 2016; Jayne et al., 2019, 2014, 2016; Land Matrix, 2021; Land Matrix Africa Regional Focal Point, 2020; Liverpool-Tasie et al., 2023)

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal