Editing Test:SRCCL/Chapter-1 (section)

== 1.2.1.5 Challenges arising from land governance ==

<div id="section-1-2-1-5-challenges-arising-from-land-governance-block-1"></div>

Land-use change has both positive and negative effects: it can lead to economic growth, but it can become a source of tension and social unrest leading to elite capture, and competition (Haberl 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r363|363]]</sup> ). Competition for land plays out continuously among different use types (cropland, pastureland, forests, urban spaces, and conservation and protected lands) and between different users within the same land-use category (subsistence vs commercial farmers) (Dell’Angelo et al. 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r364|364]]</sup> ). Competition is mediated through economic and market forces (expressed through land rental and purchases, as well as trade and investments). In the context of such transactions, power relations often disfavour disadvantaged groups such as small-scale farmers, indigenous communities or women (Doss et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r365|365]]</sup> ; Ravnborg et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r366|366]]</sup> ). These drivers are influenced to a large degree by policies, institutions and governance structures. Land governance determines not only who can access the land, but also the role of land ownership (legal, formal, customary or collective) which influences land use, land-use change and the resulting land competition (Moroni 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r367|367]]</sup> ).

Globally, there is competition for land because it is a finite resource and because most of the highly productive land is already exploited by humans (Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r368|368]]</sup> ; Lambin 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r369|369]]</sup> ; Venter et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r370|370]]</sup> ). Driven by growing population, urbanisation, demand for food and energy, as well as land degradation, competition for land is expected to accentuate land scarcity in the future (Tilman et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r371|371]]</sup> ; Foley et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r372|372]]</sup> ; Lambin 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r373|373]]</sup> ; Popp et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r374|374]]</sup> ) ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ). Climate change influences land use both directly and indirectly, as climate policies can also a play a role in increasing land competition via forest conservation policies, afforestation, or energy crop production (Section 1.3.1), with the potential for implications for food security (Hussein et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r375|375]]</sup> ) and local land-ownership.

An example of large-scale change in land ownership is the much-debated large-scale land acquisition (LSLA) by investors which peaked in 2008 during the food price crisis, the financial crisis, and has also been linked to the search for biofuel investments (Dell’Angelo et al. 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r376|376]]</sup> ). Since 2000, almost 50 million hectares of land have been acquired, and there are no signs of stagnation in the foreseeable future (Land Matrix 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r377|377]]</sup> ).The LSLA phenomenon, which largely targets agriculture, is widespread, including Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America (Rulli et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r378|378]]</sup> ; Nolte et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r379|379]]</sup> ; Constantin et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r380|380]]</sup> ). LSLAs are promoted by investors and host governments on economic grounds (infrastructure, employment, market development) (Deininger et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r381|381]]</sup> ), but their social and environmental impacts can be negative and significant (Dell’Angelo et al. 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r382|382]]</sup> ).

Much of the criticism of LSLA focuses on its social impacts, especially the threat to local communities’ land rights (especially indigenous people and women) (Anseeuw et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r383|383]]</sup> ) and displaced communities creating secondary land expansion (Messerli et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r384|384]]</sup> ; Davis et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r385|385]]</sup> ). The promises that LSLAs would develop efficient agriculture on non-forested, unused land (Deininger et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r386|386]]</sup> ) has so far not been fulfilled. However, LSLA is not the only outcome of weak land governance structures (Wang et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r387|387]]</sup> ): other forms of inequitable or irregular land acquisition can also be home-grown, pitting one community against a more vulnerable group (Xu 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r388|388]]</sup> ) or land capture by urban elites (McDonnell 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r389|389]]</sup> ). As demands on land are increasing, building governance capacity and securing land tenure becomes essential to attain sustainable land use, which has the potential to mitigate climate change, promote food security, and potentially reduce risks of climate-induced migration and associated risks of conflicts (Section 7.6).

<span id="progress-in-dealing-with-uncertainties-in-assessing-land-processes-in-the-climate-system"></span>