CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 150Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Rights and Reforms

Grey areas in green grabbing: subtle and indirect interconnections between climate change politics and land grabs and their implications for research

Open access
Franco, Jennifer C., Borras, Saturnino M.·2019·Land Use Policy
DOI 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.013

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • So-called sustainable development and climate change mitigation projects are leading to land grabbing, displacement, dispossession, ecological destruction, repression and elite profiteering.

    “So-called sustainable development and climate change mitigation projects are leading to land grabbing, displacement, dispossession, ecological destruction, repression and elite profiteering”

    From The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction (2024) · cites this paper as Franco & Borras, 2019

    The Introduction and section 3 (pages unavailable in our copy) link climate-framed conservation and land projects to land grabbing, villagers’ displacement or dispossession, and environmental damage. Section 3 also describes companies using biofuel claims to gain forest access for profit. The copy does not substantiate repression as an outcome of these projects or specifically establish elite profiteering across sustainable-development projects, so the full list overstates its account. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Adger, W.N., Barnett, J., Chapin III, F.S., Ellemor, H., 2011. This must be the place: underrepresentation of identity and meaning in climate change decision-making. Glob. Environ. Polit. 11 (2), 1-25.
  2. Alonso-Fradejas, A., Liu, J., Salerno, T., Xu, Y., 2016. Inquiring into the political economy of oil palm as a global flex crop. J. Peasant Stud. 43 (1), 141-165.
  3. Anseeuw, W., Lay, J., Messerli, P., Giger, M., Taylor, M., 2013. Creating a public tool to assess and promote transparency in global land deals: the experience of the Land Matrix. J. Peasant Stud. 40 (3), 521-530.
  4. Arsel, M., Büscher, B., 2012. Nature™ Inc.: changes and continuities in neoliberal con- servation and market-based environmental policy. Dev. Change 43 (1), 53-78.
  5. Barbesgaard, M., 2019. Ocean and land control-grabbing: The political economy of landscape transformation in Northern Tanintharyi, Myanmar. J. Rural Stud. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.01.014. · DOI
  6. Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., 2018. The challenge of locating land-based climate change mitigation and adaptation politics within a social justice perspective: towards an idea of agrarian climate justice. Third World Q. 39 (7), 1308-1325.
  7. Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., Gómez, S., Kay, C., Spoor, M., 2012. Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean. J. Peasant Stud. 39 (2-3), 845-872.
  8. Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., Wang, C., 2013. The challenge of global governance of land grabbing: changing international agricultural context and competing political views and strategies. Globalizations 10 (1), 161-179.
  9. Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., Isakson, S.R., Levidow, L., Vervest, P., 2016. The rise of flex crops and commodities: implications for research. J. Peasant Stud. 43 (1), 93-115.
  10. Borras, S.M., Moreda, T., Alonso-Fradejas, A., Brent, Z., 2018. Converging social justice issues and movements: implications for political actions and research. Third World Q. 39 (7), 1227-1246.
  11. Brockington, D., 2002. Fortress Conservation: the Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
  12. Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., 2015. Accumulation by conservation. New Political Econ. 20 (2), 273-298.
  13. Canadell, J.G., Raupach, M.R., 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320 (5882), 1456-1457.
  14. Claeys, P., Delgado Pugley, D., 2017. Peasant and indigenous transnational social movements engaging with climate justice. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 38 (3), 325-340.
  15. Clapp, J., Newell, P., Brent, Z.W., 2018. The global political economy of climate change, agriculture and food systems. J. Peasant Stud. 45 (1), 80-88.
  16. Corbera, E., 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4 (6), 612-619.
  17. Corbera, E., Hunsberger, C., Vaddhanaphuti, C., 2017. Climate change policies, land grabbing and conflict: perspectives from Southeast Asia. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 38 (3), 297-304.
  18. Cousins, B., Borras, S.M., Sauer, S., Ye, J., 2018. BRICS, middle-income countries (MICs), and global agrarian transformations: internal dynamics, regional trends, and inter- national implications. Globalizations 15 (1), 1-11.
  19. Dressler, W.H., Wilson, D., Clendenning, J., Cramb, R., Keenan, R., Mahanty, S., Bruun, T.B., Mertz, O., Lasco, R.D., 2017. The impact of swidden decline on livelihoods and ecosystem services in Southeast Asia: A review of the evidence from 1990 to 2015. Ambio 46 (3), 291-310.
  20. Fairhead, J., Leach, M., Scoones, I., 2012. Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? J. Peasant Stud. 39 (2-3), 237-261.
  21. Fox, J., Castella, J.C., Ziegler, A.D., 2014. Swidden, rubber and carbon: Can REDD+ work for people and the environment in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia? Glob. Environ. Change 29 (1), 318-326.
  22. Franco, J., Levidow, L., Fig, D., Goldfarb, L., Hönicke, M., Luisa Mendonça, M., 2010. Assumptions in the European Union biofuels policy: frictions with experiences in Germany, Brazil and Mozambique. J. Peasant Stud. 37 (4), 661-698.
  23. Franco, J., Mehta, L., Veldwisch, G.J., 2013. The global politics of water grabbing. Third World Q. 34 (9), 1651-1675.
  24. Franco, J., Park, C.M.Y., Herre, R., 2017. Just standards: international regulatory in- struments and social justice in complex resource conflicts. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 38 (3), 341-351.
  25. Gill, B., 2016. Can the river speak? Epistemological confrontation in the rise and fall of the land grab in Gambella, Ethiopia. Environ. Plann. A 48 (4), 699-717.
  26. Gillon, S., 2016. Flexible for whom? Flex crops, crises, fixes and the politics of exchanging use values in US corn production. J. Peasant Stud. 43 (1), 117-139.
  27. Hall, R., Edelman, M., Borras, S.M., Scoones, I., White, B., Wolford, W., 2015. Resistance, acquiescence or incorporation? An introduction to land grabbing and political reac- tions 'from below'. J. Peasant Stud. 42 (3-4), 467-488.
  28. Harris, P.G., 2009. World Ethics and Climate Change: From International to Global Justice: From International to Global Justice. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
  29. Hunsberger, C., Corbera, E., Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., Woods, K., Work, C., de la Rosa, R., Eang, V., Herre, R., Kham, S.S., Park, C., 2017. Climate change mitigation, land grabbing and conflict: towards a landscape-based and collaborative action research agenda. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 38 (3), 305-324.
  30. Lamb, V., Dao, N., 2017. Perceptions and practices of investment: china's hydropower investments in Vietnam and Myanmar. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 38 (3), 395-413.
  31. Lapola, David, Schaldach, Ruediger, Alcamo, Joseph, Bondeau, Alberte, Koch, Jennifer, Koelking, Christina, Priess, Joerg A., 2010. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. PNAS 107 (8), 3388-3393.
  32. Lawlor, K.E., Weinthal, Olander, L., 2010. Institutions and policies to protect rural live- lihoods in REDD+ regimes. Glob. Environ. Polit. 10 (4), 1-11.
  33. McKay, B., Sauer, S., Richardson, B., Herre, R., 2016. The political economy of sugarcane flexing: initial insights from Brazil, Southern Africa and Cambodia. J. Peasant Stud. 43 (91), 195-223.
  34. Mertz, O., Grogan, K., Pflugmacher, D., Lestrelin, G., Castella, J.C., Vongvisouk, T., Hett, C., Fensholt, R., Sun, Z., Berry, N., Müller, D., 2017. Uncertainty in establishing forest reference levels and predicting future forest-based carbon stocks for REDD+. J. Land Use Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2017.1410242. · DOI
  35. Mills, E., 2018. Implicating 'fisheries justice' movements in food and climate politics. Third World Q. 39 (7), 1270-1289.
  36. Moore, J.W., 2017. The Capitalocene, Part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. J. Peasant Stud. 44 (3), 594-630.
  37. Moreda, T., 2017. Large-scale land acquisitions, state authority and indigenous local communities: insights from Ethiopia. Third World Q. 38 (3), 698-716.
  38. Newell, P., Bumpus, A., 2012. The global political ecology of the Clean Development Mechanism. Glob. Environ. Polit. 12 (4), 49-67.
  39. Newell, P., Taylor, O., 2018. Contested landscapes: the global political economy of cli- mate-smart agriculture. J. Peasant Stud. 45 (1), 108-129.
  40. Oliveira, G.D.L., Schneider, M., 2016. The politics of flexing soybeans: China, Brazil and global agroindustrial restructuring. J. Peasant Stud. 43 (1), 167-194.
  41. Prescott, G.W., et al., 2017. Political transition and emergent forest-conservation issues in Myanmar. Conserv. Biol. 31 (6), 1257-1270. Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2015. Myanmar's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution -INDC. Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Nay Pyi Taw.
  42. Ribot, J., 2014. Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene. J. Peasant Stud. 41 (5), 667-705.
  43. Scheidel, A., 2018. Carbon stock indicators: reductionist assessments and contentious policies on land use. J. Peasant Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018. 1428952. · DOI
  44. Schoenberger, L., Hall, D., Vandergeest, P., 2017. What happened when the land grab came to Southeast Asia? J. Peasant Stud. 44 (4), 697-725.
  45. Scoones, I., Hall, R., Borras Jr, S.M., White, B., Wolford, W., 2013. The politics of evi- dence: methodologies for understanding the global land rush. J. Peasant Stud. 40 (3), 469-483.
  46. Soeters, S., Zoomers, A., 2017. Consolidating contestation and conflict through commu- nity-based adaptation (CBA). J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 5, 174-193. https://doi.org/ 10.4236/gep.2017.511013. · DOI
  47. Taylor, M., 2018. Climate-smart agriculture: what is it good for? J. Peasant Stud. 45 (1), 89-107.
  48. Tramel, S., 2016. The road through Paris: climate change, carbon, and the political dy- namics of convergence. Globalizations 13 (6), 960-969.
  49. Tramel, S., 2018. Convergence as political strategy: social justice movements, natural resources and climate change. Third World Q. 39 (7), 1290-1307.
  50. Uson, M.A., 2017. Natural disasters and land grabs: the politics of their intersection in the Philippines following super typhoon Haiyan. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 38 (3), 414-430.
  51. Wolford, W., Borras, S.M., Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B., 2013. Governing global land deals: the role of the state in the rush for land. Dev. Change 44 (2), 189-210.
  52. Work, C., Thuon, R., 2017. Inside and outside the maps: mutual accommodation and forest destruction in Cambodia. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 38 (3), 360-377.
  53. Zagema, B., 2011. Land and Power: The Growing Scandal Surrounding the New Wave of Investments in Land, Oxfam Policy and Practice, Agriculture, Food and Land 11. pp. 114-164.
  54. Zoomers, A., Kaag, M. (Eds.), 2014. The Global Land Grab: Beyond the Hype. Zed Books, London and New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Franco, J. C., & Borras, S. M.
Affiliations
  • China Agricultural University (CN)
  • International Institute of Social Studies (NL)
Corresponding author
Borras, Saturnino M.
ORCID
Borras, Saturnino M.
Venue
Land Use Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
84
Pages
192-199
ISSN
0264-8377 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.013
OpenAlex
W2923618520
Cited by
150
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3
FWCI
28.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Land Use Policy (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
“Mosaic: Climate change mitigation policies, land grabbing and conflict in Cambodia and Myanmar”
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
Keywords
green grabbing, land grabbing, climate politics, land use change, governance, political activism, climate justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review