In the wake of global problems such as growing water scarcity, teeming populations, increasing demand for food and bio-fuels, and climate change impacting arable land and its productivity, governments around the world are purchasing land for agricultural purposes in developing nations. It is a question of food security and it is abundantly clear that food is no longer a soft policy issue. According to a May 2009 Financial Times article �€˜Fix the land deals�€™, food has now come in the league of oil as a basis of power and economic security. Hence, this necessitates an international framework or a code that can protect small local farmers, the economy and the ecology of the host country from the negative impacts that this trend might bring with it. Such a code would seek to resolve the question of food security in a way that the host country and its people are neither exploited nor marginalized. Much global initiative is being taken in this regard. The World Bank and the UN are developing codes of conduct for foreign land acquisition. The African Union�€™s draft �€œFramework and guidelines on land policy in Africa�€ awaits the approval of the AU Assembly of heads of States in July. But the conditions surrounding and the parties involved in this trend of foreign land acquisition make these measures inadequate. 

This practice, also known by critics as �€˜land grab�€™, is resulting in many countries buying up tracts of arable land in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe to meet the food demand back home. And it seems like land grab is here to stay. South Korea has just purchased around 700,000 hectares of land in Sudan. Saudi Arabia has signed a deal for 500,000 hectares in Tanzania. Indian farming companies have bought large tracts of land in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique. China has purchased 10,000 hectares of land in Nigeria and is eyeing 2 million hectares of land in Zambia. Foreign land acquisition is not a new phenomenon; the food crisis of the last couple of years and the growing water scarcity has just pushed it into being a fast emerging trend. 

Economically speaking, foreign land acquisition makes good sense. In a country like Saudi Arabia, with almost no water resources of its own, growing food to feed the population is extremely expensive and hence, uneconomical. It makes sense to grow food, where the production cost is lower and then repatriate the produce home. The host countries are more than welcome to receive the technology, the FDI, the infrastructure, the employment opportunities etc. that come as a result of such deals; hence, these deals become harbingers of opportunity for host nations. The governments in these countries are unable to finance more investment in agriculture due to lack of fiscal resources and that�€™s where rich nations with a need for agro-investment come in. Such deals also give host country farmers a place in the global markets. Therefore, looked at superficially, such deals might appear to be a win-win situation for both countries involved. However, a deeper analysis reveals something totally different. 

Land grab deals are usually are totally lacking in transparency. Hence, they keep important information from the people and provide the civil society with no opportunities to participate in the decision-making. Many times, the host government is willing to sell its land to the highest bidder without taking into consideration that the land is being used by small farmers who have been using the land for generations but don�€™t actually have the deed to its ownership. Therefore, something that belongs to the people of the host country is given away quite easily and with little thought of consequence. A UN-sponsored study "Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa" that came out in June 2009 has said that a lot of foreign land acquisition deals are actually just giveaways by the leaders in the host countries in return for vague promises of jobs and investment. The host nations are diverting high-quality land from production for their own national economies to create large-scale plantations or �€˜mega-farms�€™ focused on feeding other nations. This trend of foreign-owned mega farms has rendered the small farmer in poor host nations alone and alienated. Some even contend that instead of bolstering food security, such deals might be counterproductive. According to the FAO, the acquisition of diminishing arable land in Africa by foreign corporations could worsen the depressed food supply of that continent. 

These deals also have important implications for future foreign policy. In many host countries, the local population is food insecure. As an example, Ethiopia is the biggest recipient of food aid from the World Food Program. Yet, it is a conundrum as Ethiopia is also giving away most of its scarce food production to Saudi Arabia. Other examples of countries that are receiving aid but are also acting as hosts for foreign land acquisition include Cambodia, Niger, Tanzania and Burma. Examples like these make international food aid ineffectual. If a country barely has enough to feed its own population, it seems like a waste to lease out its own land to foreign companies for growing food for consumption elsewhere. 

Second, most countries investing in agriculture in developing countries are not taking into account the kind of governance the country has. Some of these nations have very poor human rights records. Investing in them may bolster their rogue regimes. Also, due to the kind of governance in these states, the profits from such deals might not trickle down to the people of the country; they might just remain in the hands of the people in power.

Third, without a proper code of conduct or environmental impact laws in place, and with hurriedly hashed-out deals, the environment and the ecology of the host nations is being severely jeopardized. Countries buying up their land may show lesser concern for resources and environment compared to what they show at home. 

Fourth, companies may try to take advantage of the political turmoil in the host countries to further their own cause. There could also be new conflicts between foreign interests and Africa�€™s food needs. It is certain that the interests of the foreign countries would inevitably end up interfering with the sovereignty of the host country. This might lead to tensions and conflict between stakeholders to the deal. This is the reason why some people have also termed this trend as �€˜neocolonialism�€™.

Fifth, even if the code of conduct takes into consideration all salient features that would make any foreign land acquisition deal a win-win situation for the countries in question, the bottom-line is that most of the host countries lack a legal system to enforce these deals. In the absence of such a system, the code of conduct just becomes a voluntary set of principles, to be followed at the discretion of the foreign companies concerned.

Sixth, investment in land/agriculture is aimed at stable, long-term profits. But in countries that have shaky governments or are in the midst of civil wars, foreign corporate investment may not be that stable or even profitable.

Even though the foreign land acquisition trend is a reality of our present as well as our future, much needs to be done before it can become an area of cooperation; otherwise, it can result in political and social conflict and instability in the future. In order to avoid these ramifications, it is essential that governments and international agencies act now. The code of conduct guiding the foreign land acquisitions is a vital requirement. However, it is also imperative to put into motion an enforcement mechanism, which does not let such a code turn into mere guidelines, jeopardizing the interests of poor nations.