Food Security or Food Sovereignty: the Case of Land Grabs Essay

The last decade has witnessed a serious change in the distri completelyion and approachibility of f ar. In 2010 Ethiopia was station to 2.8 trillion tribe in rent of emergency provender incite yet this uncouth had con legitimately sold more than 600,000 hect bes of awkward kingdom to trans matter companies that exporting the majority of their clear (Reuters, 2011 Economist, 2009 Green, 2011). Ethiopia remains a country facing great diet in credentials, which is a lack of irritate to sufficient, refuge and nutrient diet (WHO, 2011) a paradigm that foc uptakes upon the financial and distributive aspects of providing feed. Although Ethiopia is reasonable one of many countries facing this dilemma, it illustrates how the issue of solid regimen s everywhereeignty is suitable increasingly as important as that of forage protective covering. This paper volition address the design that sovereignty plays in light of mass unknow acquisition of attain in countries w hich face heights levels of sustenance incertificate. The impressiveness of food shelter and food sovereignty go away be exemplified at bottom the context of take down grabbing in a demonstrative content reckon of Ethiopia.Security or Sovereignty?The difference between food security and food sovereignty whitethorn seem like mere semantics, but in the hyper-globalized readyation wherein trans field of study companies may privately own fundamental portions of arable come in countries facing food insecurity, it is non neverthe slight a matter of word play. When these companies choose to export the full(a) make self-aggrandising on much(prenominal) regions and when the farm set ashore has been taken from uncompensated sm all toldholder farmers. discrepancy of wealth and acres possession is non a new phenomenon. However, the tip to which agricultural estates are possess inside areas of food insecurity makes food sovereignty as vital a factor as food security. A n analysis of these concepts and their global implications is pressing, as over 963 one thousand million people do not micturate enough to eat. Most of them live in ontogenesis countries, and sixty-five percent of them live in still seven countries China, India, Bangladesh, the parliamentary Republic of Congo, Inthroughsia, Pakistan and Ethiopia (FAO, 2011). Furthermore, each year more people die collect to hunger and malnutrition than to AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined ( world(prenominal) Food Security, 2011a).The arena Food Summit, held in 1996, say that ideal food security includes the global population, whereby all people have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food, encompassing twain the physical accessibility and the economic access (WHO, 2011). The linked Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the convention on the Rights of the Child both(prenominal) stipulate that it is the intrinsic right of all people to have access to food ( fall in Nations, 1948 United Nations, 1990). However, the responsibility to ordinate these rights rests mostly on the nation-state, not the global companionship. On the other hand, close towhat argue that repeated affirmations of gay rights within the outside(a) realm do imply some global responsibility (Riddell, 2007). The theoretical ideal is, on that pointfore, that food security exists when all people in all transmits have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food. Clearly that theoretical aim has not been met.Furthermore, if current mechanisms are not facilitating the aim it may require consideration of wholly new pretendings of how countries engage with one another (Pogge, 2002). Typical measurement of food security is limited to a specific place, such(prenominal) as a nation, city or ho use of goods and serviceshold. USAID (USAID, 2011) uses the household as a measurement, whereas the Food and body politic Organization (FAO) programs are disciplinely operated, thus limiting the global lasts and gracious rights to the nation-state. Food insecurity also exists in differing levels. One person may be facing a temporary bout of food insecurity, called short-lived, bit another may be consistently facing it, known as inveterate food insecurity. Chronic food insecurity leads to high levels of vulnerability to hunger and famine. The achievement of food security does not make that a country produce sufficient food supplies but sooner that a country is able to provide sufficient safe and nutritious food for its population. consequently, arises the question of food sovereignty in a world of great economic disparity, will the food supplies of one region be given to another, even in the case where the topical anesthetic anesthetic population faces chronic food insecurity? Food security means the availability and access to sufficient safe food, whereas food sovereignty involves both self-will and the rights of local people to define local food sy sources, without first creation accede to supranationalist commercialise concerns. An important distinction moldiness be do between food sovereignty as a theoretical make piss and food sovereignty as a ordure. The food sovereignty movement considers that the practices of multi-national corporations are akin to colonization, as such companies buy up cock-a-hoop tracts of land and turn local agricultural resources into export cash-crops. 1As a movement, food sovereignty lacks direction and involves a great diversity of opinion and idea. As a theoretical account to re-consider and re-evaluate food, it highlights important challenges and offers effectiveness remedies to current challenges.Food sovereignty as a theoretical construct, which is the definition that will be employ through with(predicate)out this paper, relates to the will power and rights of food growers and local communities. Food security and food sovereignty are increasingly of global importance, with co ncerns not limited average to the developing world. In the 2008 price spike, consumers in Great Britain saw a fifteen-percent rise in average food items, while the BBC tracked some items increasing in cost by more than forty-percent (Global Food Security, 2011a). In the twelve month period forwards the price spike, the cost of chaff amplificationd by 130% and rice by 74% (ibid). The discernment of paying more for food in unquestionable countries was expressed other than in many developing countries, such as the mass public violence in Yemen, Somalia, Senegal, Pakistan, Mozambique, Indonesia, India, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Haiti, Burkina Faso, the Philippines and Bangladesh.At the same succession, the universe of discourse Resources Institute records sustainable and consistent attachs in per capita food production over the last some(prenominal) decades (World Resources Institute, 2011). USAID argues that food insecurity is frequently a result of poorness (USAID, 2 011), while ownership, land rights and sovereignty are not mentioned as causal factors. piece it is true that a direct relationship fanny be found between those who face food insecurity and those who are impoverished, that does not turn out other causes such as, a lack of sovereignty or despotic external factors. However, USAID does not take poverty alleviation and/or kind rights as its prime reasons for engagement rather its prime interests are to nourish America and to create opportunities for Americans (Riddell, 2007). The European Union company has sought the benefit of food security for the least-developed countries through a plethora of national and international outgrowth bodies, while also engaging in massive export-based land acquisitions in those same regions (Graham, Aubry, Kunnemann and Suarez, 2011).Ironically, the aim of reaching the Millennium training Goals (MGDs) with reinforcement and domiciliate from the European Union is countered by European Union bus inesses as they engage in activities that displace and dispossess locals of their land and victuals. Increasing commercial-grade production does not mean an increase of local or national food security, in particular when these foreign companies are exporting entire crops. This may in fact, lead to increased food insecurity and higher(prenominal) levels of malnutrition and poverty (Ansoms, 2011). Surprisingly, even Harvard University has used its investments in land-acquisition deals (Vidal and Provost, 2011). refine GrabbingA land grab refers to those land acquisitions that have caused displacement, legal ouster and disenfranchisement or, according to the Institute of Development Studies, it may also more broadly refer to the mass purchase of agricultural lands by international companies (Scoones, 2009). fetch grabbing is occurring on a scale and at a rate faster than ever known before (Food First, 2011). When over one-hundred papers were presented at the internationalistic company on Global Land Grabbing in 2011, not one overbearing outcome could be found for local communities such as, food security, employment and environmental sustainability (ibid). When such acquisitions occur in places of conflict, post-conflict and/or weak governance on that point is less monitor and control and even greater negative impacts (Mabikke, 2011). Furthermore, largish-scale land deals increase local food insecurity, as arable land produce is exported rather than reaching the local market and smallholder farmers must purchase foods as opposed to harvesting it on their lands (Food First, 2011).Lester Brown (2011) argues that land purchasing is a part of the global struggle to ensure food security. Food-importing countries are securing afield supplies by attempting to control the entire supply-chain of food-stuffs, and thus avoid any potential problems that may arise in the process. Furthermore, he notes, that these deals are not only about food security but also w ater security. Countries such as Saudi Arabia used to produce much higher levels of pale yellow internally however, due to declines in available fresh water these land deals have secured required sources of both food and water (Bunting, 2011). Woodhouse and Ganho (2011) argue that the single-valued function played by water access in land grabs cannot be under-estimated, including the competition between local and investor in acquiring access to water resources and to sustainable water usage, as well as coping with the problems of creating taint and chemical run-off. subject field studies in Ethiopia demonstrate that access to, and rights of, water sources disproportionately favor investors over local smallholder farmers (Bues, 2011). The United Nations director of the Food and factory farm Organization (FAO) called these land-lease deals neo-colonialist (Economist, 2011b). This statement was echoed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who warned of a new wheel of coloniali sm (Associated Press, 2011). Madeleine Bunting (2011, p. 1) envisions a dystopian future in which millions of the hungry are excluded from the land of their forefathers by barbed wire fences and security guards as food is exported to feed the rich world.The wider view must, however, include the role of local/national regime in facilitating, and in some cases supporting(a), the change of arable land and displacement of peoples. Other analysts have more guardedly labeled the spacious selling of agricultural lands to investors as the third thrill of outsourcing. The first wave consisted of investors looking for locations with cheaper labour. The second wave was the out-sourcing of middle-class jobs to places such as India because of its advances in information technology. This may be the third wave the out-sourcing of growing and harvesting of food supplies to locations where thither is cheap fertile land.Case Study EthiopiaEthiopia is an important case study as it has been claim ed to be the epicenter of land deals (Vidal, 2011), and it has also been well known since 1984 as a place where extreme food insecurity exists. The nation is largely agricultural-based. Agricultural products count on for 46% of its Gross Domestic Product (gross domestic product), 90% of its exports and 83% of its employment (USAID, 2010). Eight of every ten Ethiopians live in rural areas, a majority of its nearly eighty-million citizens. Average local land holdings are 0.93 hectare (USAID, 2010), which respectively contribute to household food security. Smallholder culture provides the most common aliment for the vast majority of Ethiopians. In 2010 ten percent of Ethiopias citizens relied on food aid (Reuters, 2011). In the 2011 appeal for emergency food aid, the United Nations explained that emergency was caused by a shortage of rain in the Somali and Oromiya regions. In response, the Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said that within five-years the country will no longer subscribe to food aid, intercommunicate above 10-percent annual economic produce rates.The Economist confirms impressive product rates, although not as high as the government-published results. Between 2001 and 2010 the annual GDP growth rate was an impressive 8.4%, making it the worlds fifth part fastest growing economy during that period (Economist, 2011a). Projections for 2011-2015 suggest average growth at 8.1%, the third fastest in the world (ibid). In differentiate to these rosy predictions, USAID, which is one of Ethiopias largest donors ($600 million of food aid in 2009-10), outlines that successful agricultural development and food security requires 100% ownership and buy-in by the Ethiopian people (USAID, 2010, p. 5). And yet, the Ethiopian government and transnational corporations are doing exactly the opposite, in displacing and dispossessing Ethiopians and handing over control and ownership to non-local corporations and governments.The Economist (2009) highlighted an arouse parallel in the $100-million Saudi investment to grow and export rice, husk and barley on a 99-year land-lease in Ethiopia, while the United Nations World Food Program plans to spend $116-million, over a five-year period, providing emergency food aid to Ethiopia. In 2008 the Ethiopian famine was compounded as food continued to be exported and did not reach the local market (Dominguez, 2010). yet fertile Ethiopian agricultural land continues to be leased for as myopic as $1 per acre (Bunting, 2011). According to Ethiopian government sources, over thirty-six countries have leased land within its b evidences (Vidal, 2011). Although estimates vary, it is thought that 6080% of food production in Ethiopia is completed by women.Thus the role of sex activity is revealed by analysis of those affected by land sales and dispossessions (USAID, 2010). Of those who face the brunt of food shortages and insecurity in Ethiopia, most are women and children (USAID, 2010). Furthermore, areas of large-scale plantations are more presumable to be poverty-affected than prosperous in respect to the local populations (Da Via, E. 2011). As a parallel example, case studies from Cambodia luff that land grabs do not benefit local residents, and over time resulted in incorporated achieve by the local population against political and commercial interests (Schneider, 2011). The massive land-lease deals are not without their supporters, however. The technology transfer, increase in number of jobs and foreign investment are usually cited as having arbitrary effects for the overall benefit of Ethiopia and its citizens.Ethiopian Ambassador to the UK, Berhanu Kabede (2011), published a response arguing that land-leases assist Ethiopia to move towards mechanized agriculture to increase production capability, and as such the government has set aside 7.4 million acres of agricultural land for land-lease deals. The Ambassador further notes that this is only a portion of Ethiopias arable land (ibid). The Ambassador highlights some of the positive environmental changes the Ethiopian government has made in recent years, including the set of 1-billion trees, re-foresting 15-million hectares of land and a national plan to vex carbon torpid by 2025 (ibid). Ambassador Kabede did not mention some of the negative impacts the vast land sales will have such as, displacement of local farmers, uncompensated dispossession of their land, continued food scarcity as investors export what is grown, unsustainable resource use, and environmental damage to lands, atmosphere and water.Furthermore, the majority of the worlds poor are rural dwellers who engage in some minuscule farming. As a result of the dispossession of land and displacement of people, poverty levels will increase and more people will be forced to migrate away from agricultural areas to city-centers. World situate studies (Riddell, 2007) confirm that the thrust for macro-economic development via liberali zation of markets has detrimental effects on particular groups of society, especially the poor. Guillozet and Bliss (2011) found that, although investment in the forestry sector is low in Ethiopia, the agricultural investments affect natural forests by mass elucidation and burning. As a result, there are long-term negative impacts. Biodiversity is currently being reduced by the cutting and burning of hundreds of hectares of forest, as well as by the draining of swamps and marshlands (Vidal, 2011). Pesticides have also been shown, in Ethiopian cases, to shoot down bees and other unintended flora and fauna.Beyond the investment land itself the clearing of natural forests is affecting livelihoods on a much larger scale, by negatively affecting the wider ecosystems (Guillozet and Bliss, 2011). Such deals are neither agricultural development nor rural development, but simply agribusiness development, according to GRAIN (2008). An unpublished report that interviewed 150 local farm house holds in Ethiopia found that there is weak monitoring of investor activities from regional and national government. It also found that speed up forest degradation resulted in outlet of livelihood security for community members. Furthermore, in Cameroon, cases of land grabs demonstrate that the transnational investment in agriculture is a major obstacle to local livelihoods, traditional resource ownership and land rights, as well as to sustainable development (Simo, 2011).In yet another example, Rwandan land grabs have shown the move from traditionally owned and operated farms into large-scale corporate mono-crop cultivation has negatively affected livelihoods through loss of land as well as means of financial security, resulting in increased poverty levels and food insecurity despite overall macro-economic gains (Ansoms, 2011). An clause in the Indian national newspaper, The Hindu, quotes the Ethiopian Prime Minister encouraging Indian investment who assured the Indian Prime Minis ter (then seek to encourage Indian investment in Ethiopia) that no land grabbing was occurring in his country (Varadarajan, 2011). However, highly productive agricultural lands are rarely left completely unused, which begs the question how vacant much of this land is. Darryl Vhugen (2011) and John Vidal (2011) both found that most land deals required involuntary displacement of little farmers.Thus, these small-scale farmers in Ethiopia are left with neither land to mold nor an alternative source of income following their displacement. The Ethiopian government views international investment and land-lease deals as means to achieve economic development. In Madagascar, when 1.3 million hectares of agricultural lands were going to be sold to Daewod, the international community and local residents reacted in opposition, resulting in the government being overthrown (Perrine, Mathidle, Rivo and Raphael. 2011). The Ethiopian economic development model is one which seeks export-driven ma croeconomic development at the expense of micro-level communities and residents, particularly those in remote regions. Ethiopian officials seem to use interchangeably the terms clear and unused with the word uncultivated, with little or no summons at all to the people who currently live on and use those lands. Thus, not only do levels of poverty and food insecurity increase but so too may political instability.The World Bank concludes that the risks involved with such land-lease investments are immense, and that land sales often divest local people, in particular the vulnerable, of their rights Consultations, if conducted at all, were superficialand environmental and tender safeguards were widely neglected (Economist, 2011b, p.1). Such landlease deals are become more commonplace, with large sales in Sudan, Egypt, Congo, Zambia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Kenya, Madagascar, Liberia, Ghana, and Mozambique (Economist, 2009 Economist, 2011b Vhugen, 2011). Although there are land deals taking place outside of Africa, over 50% of the estimated 60-80 million hectares of such deals in the last three years took place there (Economist, 2011b), approximately an area the size of France (Vidal and Provost, 2011). The largest land buyers include China, India, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia yet some of the largest deals are done with Western reinforcement (Vidal and Provost, 2011).Cases from Sierra Leone show that a lack of knowledge-sharing with locals, along with a plethora of false promises, has led to social, environmental and economic loss. Addax Bioenergy received the use of 40,000 hectares to grow ethanol for export to the European Union (EU). Local villagers were in turn promised two-thousand jobs and environmental protection of the swamps. However, three years into the project only fifty jobs materialized, while some of the swamps have been drained and others damaged by irrigation (Economist, 2011b). Those jobs that did exist paid US D $2.50 per twenty-four hour period on a casual foundation garment (Da Via, E. 2011). Clearly these are not isolated cases and action is required to stem the tsunami of sales of land in food-insecure areas.Recommendations* Re-evaluate the system Up to twenty-five percent of crops are lost due to pests and diseases and the developing world loses up to an superfluous thirty-seven percent of harvested foods due to problems in storage and commitation. Every day 4.4 million apples, 5.1 million potatoes, 2.8 million tomatoes and 1.6 million bananas are thrown in the garbage (Global Food Security, 2011b). Systematic shifts that address this loss may focussing upon local sustainability and buy local movements, rather than relying upon export commodities and global transport for the sale and supply of food stuffs. This requires participation that includes local ownership and collective decision making. * Provide Sustainable Solutions Much of modern agriculture is mechanized, apply oil- based chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. This system of agriculture is not sustainable. It needs to be remedied with a more sustainable approach to agriculture which can be equitable as agriculturally productive (Barker, 2007). On example of how sustainable initiatives can be promoted and supported is the Equator Initiative, which provides financial prizes and knowledge sharing for community-driven efforts that reduce poverty through sustainable use of biodiversity.As many smallholder farmers are engaging in de facto sustainable agriculture encouragement and support, such as the Equator Initiative need to be scaled-up. * Regulate Land Grabbing The World Bank has proposed guidelines, but does not have the means or authority to enforce them (Bunting, 2011). In order guidelines to be enforced, such as those developed by the World Bank, national governments must be involved, for this to take place greater coordination on the international level and advocacy from the NGO and public sectors is required. Madagascar demonstrates the power of collective action, as does Sudan and Cambodia, yet long-term and effective change will require governmental enforced regulation. * Establish Good Governance The purchasing of land and forced displacement of peoples occurs not solely due to transnational pressure, but with government approval. Citizens and the international community must encourage, and fix towards, better governance decisions. An international textile for responsible investing could be created.However, such a role model would remain weak and ineffective unless adopted and enforced by national governments. In order to ensure that investments are beneficial for both the investor and the community, this framework must ensure that food security and livelihood protection for the local communities (Shete, 2011). Further encouragement can levied on governance in tying good governance to official development assistance, such systems have been developed and enacted by the World Bank and others. * Monitor and Penalize Environmental injure Companies must be more strictly monitored with regard to environmental damage, both by the public and private sectors (Nunow, 2011). Monitoring and evaluation of investments ought to be modify with regulation and policy by the relevant national government and by international bodies. NGOs and communities can take inspiration from others who have taken transnational companies to court, and won.National government need to recognize the short-term benefits do not out-weight the long-term environmental damage, and seek compensation to rectify violations. The scale of land acquisitions demonstrate that such regulations will in all probability not significantly monish investments and investors, as efforts to do so in Tanzania demonstrate (Pallangyo, 2007). * Develop agrarian Agriculture Currently less than one percent of smallholder farmers use irrigation techniques in Ethiopia (CSA, 2009). An improv ement in this regard will resign for increased productivity as well as year-round water availability. Facilitation of loans for the purchase of pumps (as smallholder farmers often lack financial resources to make such investments), as well as access to internal markets with infrastructural developments can improve community-driven and locally-owned productivity.* Undertake Land refine Changes on the national level will require land reforms, ownership reforms and recognition of traditional land rights. Such land reforms and rights have been evolving in Madagascar, following the rejection of the Daewod land-grab deal and the installation of a new government. Tanzania has also enacted continuous tense rights for recognizing traditional land title (Locher, 2011). This can also be done in conjunction with FAO, FIDA, UNCTAD and World Bank recommendations to guarantee and respect local land rights (Perrine, Mathidle, Rivo and Raphael, 2011). Wily (2011) identifies consistent and persis ting failures of land rights and ownership caused by the leasing of lands without consent of customary owners.Concluding RemarksAs highlighted by the Ethiopian case study, it becomes readily apparent that the forced relocation of rural farmers will likely increase the numbers of people living in poverty. Consequently, there will be an increase in the numbers of people in need of emergency food aid. Aggregate info on food security will not measure the importance of food sovereignty, nor do the data take into account unjust practices and environmental damage. The majority of Ethiopians are subsistence farmers, and depriving them of their land, rights and livelihood neglects the importance of human rights and environmental protection. One means to achieve the goal of national food security, as well as a reducing of required emergency food aid, is to increase effectiveness of rural farms. Communities themselves must engage and be active in resisting forced relocation and dispossession of their land and rights. Examples of such resistance include that of Madagascar and the Confederate Sudanese movement, which advocates land belongs to the community and requires its involvement (Deng, 2011), as well as active community resistance to land grabs in Cambodia (Schneider, 2011).Communities must seek to be participants in the discussion, to be involved in the process and to voice their concerns. Food security of the wealthy at the expense of the impoverished will not work and requires new approaches. The prospect of attaining sovereignty over land and the food grown on it encourages smallholder farmers to continue their livelihood while seeking to increase overall food security. In most poor nations, there are large gaps between actual and potential agricultural yields. But the best send off to closing this gap usually is not super-sized farms. In most effortful agricultural settings, small farms are more productive than large farms. They could become even more produc tive and as a result likely minimise unrest if developing country governments provide these family farms with secure land rights that allow farmers to invest in their own land and improve their harvests. (Vhugen, 2011, p.1).The World Banks 2010 report found that land grabs ignored worthy legal procedures, displaced local peoples without compensation, encroached on areas beyond the agreement, had negative impacts on gender disparity, were environmentally destructive, provided far fewer jobs than promised, leased land below market value and routinely excluded pastoralists and displaced peoples from consultations (Da Via, 2011). Furthermore, the World Bank concludes many investmentsfailed to live up to expectations and, instead of generating sustainable benefits, contributed to asset loss and left local people worse off than they would have been without the investment (World Bank, 2010, p. 51). Adopting food sovereignty as a concept and approach will not solve these problems. Howeve r, it does allow for an expanded analysis of the complex issues at hand. No easy firmness of purpose exists as neoliberal economics and structurally-adjusted trade liberalization conflict with human rights as global food security is confronted by local food and land sovereignty and, as the Washington Consensus is challenged by the Peasants Way.It would be no exaggeration to suggest that the outcome of these convulsive transformations and contestations constitutes one of the greatest clean and political challenges of our times (Makki and Geisler, 2011, p. 17). Challenges, however, are no reason to accept darkness and abuse of human rights. Actors with roles to play on every level can be a part of the solutions proposed above. Re-evaluating the food system and developing sustainable solutions begin on individual levels and are supported on the international marketplace. Regulation of land grabbing, improving governance, undertaking land reform and the monitoring of environmental da mage rest more heavily upon national and international actors yet these process can be driven locally with support from the international community, as demonstrated by the cases of Sudan and Madagascar. This is a call for action lest we find ourselves academic Cassandras who prophesy the coming plagues, but do little to avert them (Farmer, 2001, p. xxviii).ReferencesAnsoms, A. 2011. The bitter fruit of a new agrarian model Large-scale land deals and local livelihoods in Rwanda. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing 6-8 April 2011 University of Sussex, UK. Associated Press. 2011. Clinton warns Africa of new colonialism. online available at Accessed 12 June 2011. Barker, D. 2007. The leap and Predictable Fall of Globalized Industrialized Agriculture. The International Forum on globalization San Francisco. Brown, Lester. 2011. World on the Edge. Earth Policy Institute London. Bues, A. 2011. Agricultural irrelevant Direct Investment and Water Rights An Institutional Analy sis from Ethiopia. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing 6-8 April 2011 University of Sussex, UK. Bunting, M. 2011. How Land Grabs in Africa could herald a new dystopian age of hunger. online Available at Accessed 24 whitethorn 2011. CSA. 2009. Large and medium scale commercial farms sample survey 2008/09 (2001 E.C.). primaeval Statistical Agency Statistical Bulletin 446. Da Via, E. 2011. The Politics of Win-Win Narratives Land Grabs as Development Opportunity. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing 6-8 April 2011 University of Sussex, UK. Deng, D. 2011. Land Belongs to the Community Demystifying the global land grab in Southern Sudan. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing 6-8 April 2011 University of Sussex, UK. Dominguez, A. 2010. Why was there still malnutrition in Ethiopia in 2008? Causes and Humanitarian Accountability. Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 21 February 2010. Dwyer. 2011. Building the Politics Machine Tools for Resolving the Global L and Grab. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing 6-8 April 2011 University of Sussex, UK. Economist 2011b. When others are grabbing their land. online Available at Accessed 24 May 2011.