Land Grab Agreement

LC: There are theoretical and practical implications. On the more theoretical side, we must recognize the important, but often overlooked, links between local contexts, for example when ordinary bosses reinterpret their conservation of common resources by having the right to allocate land to outside investors for personal gain; national legislative reforms that facilitate large-scale agricultural concessions for commercial operators; international investment agreement for the protection of real estate acquired by foreign investors. LC: The contexts are different, but in many low- and middle-income countries, the state owns or controls a large part of the country. The people of the countryside claim the country as their country, but they often have weak rights under national law. The land allocation process is often opaque – there is little accountability or transparency, and few opportunities for citizens to participate in this process. Agricultural investments have been criticized for their implicit approval of large-scale industrial agriculture, which relies heavily on machinery, fertilizers, pesticides and other expensive inputs compared to small-scale agriculture. [38] When foreign investors begin to develop the country, they will largely begin to move to large-scale agriculture to improve existing ”unproductive” agricultural practices. The threat of a large part of the African country being transformed into large-scale agriculture has given a boost to many civil society organizations such as GRAIN, La Via Campesina and other small-scale agriculture lobby groups. [39] The Overseas Development Institute reported in January 2013 that, given the limited data in general and existing NGO data that want to attract media attention in particular, the scale of global land trade may be exaggerated. They found that the figures below provide a multitude of estimates, all located in tens of millions of hectares.

[9] The Ladakh crisis of 2020 revealed the vacuum of Indian politics. The 1993 agreement did not win peace. She bought temporary peace at a high price. And the price was high: on the one hand, military availability and the construction of infrastructure on the LAC, too dependent on diplomacy, were neglected.