Global population impacts of land grabbing for large-scale agriculture
This paper estimates that large-scale land acquisitions for agriculture have affected a minimum of 177 to 250 million people globally since 2000, often encroaching on Indigenous and local communities' lands in densely populated areas, thereby challenging the notion that such deals target underutilized land.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Across the globe, vast stretches of land are increasingly being bought, leased, or claimed by large companies to grow crops for export, produce biofuels, or make fiber. This phenomenon, often called a "land rush," involves the transfer of rights to use or own land, frequently shifting control away from the people who have lived there for generations. While these deals are often justified by the idea that they are taking over empty, unused, or barren fields, a growing body of evidence suggests a different reality. The question of who actually lives on these lands, and how many people are displaced or lose access to their livelihoods when these large-scale agricultural projects begin, has remained difficult to answer on a global scale. Understanding the human footprint of these transactions is essential, not just for counting the affected, but for recognizing that these landscapes are often bustling with communities rather than being the vacant spaces they are sometimes portrayed to be.
A team of researchers set out to fill this gap by mapping the human cost of these agricultural land deals. They combined a global database of documented large-scale land acquisitions with detailed maps of where people live and where indigenous and local communities hold their customary lands. By overlaying these datasets, they were able to estimate the number of people living on the land before these deals took place. Their findings reveal a stark picture: since the year 2000, at least 177 million people have been living on the 63 million hectares of land that have been subject to concluded agricultural land deals. This number is a conservative minimum. When the researchers included deals that were intended but never fully completed, as well as those that failed, the number of affected people rose to at least 217 million. If they also counted people living near these deal areas who likely lose access to shared resources like water or grazing land, the total number of people impacted climbs to approximately 250 million.
These numbers challenge the persistent narrative that large agricultural investments target only underutilized or empty lands. The researchers found that these deals frequently occur in areas with average to high population densities. Globally, the typical density of people living on land where a deal was initiated was 55 people per square kilometer, a figure comparable to the average population density of the entire world today. In Africa, the situation is even more pronounced, with half of all land deals occurring in areas where more than 128 people live per square kilometer, far exceeding the continental average. This indicates that the land rush is not happening in the margins of the map, but rather in the heart of populated rural landscapes where communities are deeply rooted.
The impact is not limited to the specific boundaries of a single deal. The researchers developed a way to measure the intensity of land acquisition activity across entire regions, looking for places where many deals have clustered together. They found that in Southeast Asia and Eastern Africa, more than three-quarters of the land exposed to these deals falls into the highest categories of intensity. In these high-exposure zones, the pressure on local land access is likely severe. The study also examined the overlap between these intense land acquisition zones and the territories of indigenous peoples and local communities. The results show a significant collision of interests: in Southeast Asia, more than 80 percent of indigenous lands are located in areas with high exposure to land deals, and in Eastern Africa, nearly 70 percent of these lands face the same pressure. For local community lands, the overlap is even more extensive in several regions, reaching nearly all mapped areas in parts of Southeast Asia and West Africa.
The timing of these events also tells a specific story. The period between 2005 and 2009 saw the highest number of people affected by recorded land deals, a peak that aligns with the global financial crisis of 2008, which triggered a surge in land grabbing. However, the trend has not stopped; different countries have experienced peaks at different times, with some seeing significant increases in affected populations well after 2015. This suggests that the drivers of land acquisition are shifting and evolving, continuing to reshape rural landscapes long after the initial global surge.
While the study provides a massive global estimate, the authors acknowledge that these figures are likely conservative. The data relies on deals that have been documented and reported, meaning unreported transactions or those pursued for purposes other than agriculture are not included. Furthermore, the analysis focuses on the physical presence of people on the land but does not fully capture the complex social differences in how these impacts are felt by various groups within a community. Despite these limitations, the core finding remains clear: the lands being acquired for large-scale agriculture are not empty. They are home to hundreds of millions of people, many of whom belong to indigenous groups and local communities whose rights and livelihoods are deeply intertwined with the soil. As global demands for food, energy, and carbon offsets continue to grow, recognizing that these landscapes are inhabited is a fundamental step toward ensuring that land rights are respected and that the people living there are not simply pushed aside.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.