Land Rights

Versión en Español

[*]

by
Chris Jochnick, Chief Executive Officer
chrisj@landesa.org
Mina Manuchehri, Attorney & Land Tenure Specialist
minam@landesa.org
Beth Roberts, Attorney & Land Tenure Specialist
bethr@landesa.org
Landesa (Rural Development Institute)[1]
Overview

What are Land Rights and How Do They Relate to Business and Human Rights?

Across the globe, access to and use of land is subject to a broad range of legal and customary land tenure arrangements. Because of the complexity and variety of tenure types, an accurate understanding of land rights should go beyond an analysis of formal legal frameworks to account for the quality, legality and effective implementation, participation, and enforceability of land rights for women and men.

  • Quality means that the scope of the land rights is clearly defined and includes all forms of tenure exercised by women and men, including ownership, access and use (e.g., right to use, lease, transfer, inherit, rent, occupy); the rights should be granted for a clear and ideally extended period of time.
  • Legality and effective implementation means equal land rights must be legally recognized. Customary law must be acknowledged by formal laws and administrative structures. Women’s land rights must be guaranteed by law whether or not they are recognized by customary or religious systems, by family members, by a woman’s community and its leaders. Rights to land must be equitable, without regard to sex, age, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, and other markers of diversity.
    • Participation requires the inclusion of rural women and men, minority groups, and civil society in policy making bodies regarding land ownership and use.
  • Enforceability requires that women and men be fully informed of their land rights and that they have access to justice to enforce them without discrimination, including in official bodies, courts, and other relevant dispute resolution bodies, such as customary institutions. Access to dispute resolution or enforcement mechanisms must not be subject to extra permissions that apply based on gender, social condition, or other status. Land rights enforcement and dispute resolution processes must be available, accessible, affordable and gender-responsive.

Land rights are often foundational to or intertwined with other business and human rights (BHR) issues. Multinational companies acquiring land in low income countries have significantly impacted the human rights of rural women and men who depend on land. Internationally recognized human rights tied to land rights include rights to economic livelihood, equality, an adequate standard of living, housing, food security, cultural life, freedom from violence, self-determination, and even the right to life.

According to a 2016 Land Matrix Initiative report, a large majority of the 1,204 concluded land deals recorded in low- and middle-income countries targeted prime agricultural land.[2] Governments have seized land from communities to make it available to investors and business. They have also granted concessions to private sector actors, failed to effectively regulate land speculation that deprived communities and individuals of just compensation, widened inequalities between rural communities and domestic elites[3] and fed corruption by land administration officials. Acquisition of land, and land administration more generally, is marked globally by a high level of corruption. Consequently, companies and individuals seeking to acquire large parcels of land might target countries where land rights are less likely to be formally recognized or enforced.[4]

In addition, an estimated 65% of the world’s land is held under customary or communal tenure but is rarely recognized by formal law. This gap in laws renders the populations who live and depend on such land bereft of protections in the context of business activities affecting such lands.[5] Customary tenure systems can support the power imbalance that frequently favors interests of traditional authorities and domestic elites over land users’ interests in acquisitions for large-scale land based investments; this dynamic also has implications for women’s rights, as men typically hold rights within customary tenure systems.

Protecting land rights is central to protecting human rights—those affected by business activities in developing-country settings often depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Because land sits at this nexus, it can serve as a reference in the context of other BHR topics to help students conceptualize how human rights can be both distinct and interrelated. For instance, indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[6] is recognized apart from the right to an adequate standard of living under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[7] But for many indigenous communities, secure rights to the land on which they depend for a livelihood and from which their cultural identity is derived may be necessary to realize these formally recognized rights. Likewise, women have the right under international law to equal enjoyment and non-discrimination of economic, social and cultural rights.[8] But unequal rights to land under formal and customary systems in many countries hinder women’s equal enjoyment of land as a primary source of livelihood. This inequality is often exacerbated in the context of an investment, as women are often excluded from decisions about land, from employment opportunities resulting from a company’s operations, and from compensation when land is acquired.

In response to increasing criticism of business practices that affect land rights, the international community – including civil society organizations (CSOs), governments, and companies – has identified a critical need for more responsible investments in land. Companies have been censured for failing to: identify legitimate rights holders and users; perform impact assessments to help avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of land transfers and use changes; carry out consultations with communities and individuals who will be affected by land transfers or use changes; obtain Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) consistent with international law; and ensure access to remedy. Corporate practices that fail to address land rights have the potential to cause or exacerbate social, economic, political, and gender inequalities. Conversely, secure land rights can reduce poverty and conflict, increase economic activity, empower women, strengthen food security, and improve environmental sustainability.

Guidelines and Standards

Key elements of responsible land-based investment are detailed in numerous international, regional, and domestic guidelines and standards. The most notable of these guidelines and standards are the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Systems (VGGT),[9] the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) provision of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),[10] and the multi-stakeholder

Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (RAI).[11] These guidelines call on governments and companies to:

  • Identify and map legitimate land rights, interests, and uses that may be affected by a project, prior to obtaining land or implementing the project.
  • Assess potential direct and indirect impacts, including social, environmental, human rights, and gender impacts.
  • Consult with women and men who assert land rights or interests, or their legitimate representatives.
  • Negotiate and contract with women and men who assert land rights or interests, or their legitimate representatives.
  • Obtain the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of women and men with legitimate land rights or interests.
  • Compensate women and men who assert land rights or interests based on appropriate valuation.
  • Ensure access to remedy for land-related disputes.
  • Monitor and evaluate compliance with contract terms.
  • Although these guidelines and standards address both governments and companies, companies have had difficulty operationalizing them because they are primarily written for a government audience. For example, the guidelines tend to lack clarity regarding what the roles and responsibilities of companies are versus governments, so companies lack clarity about implementation in practical terms.

This gap spawned the development of numerous guidance documents by development partners and civil society actors, seeking to provide companies with practical instruction on complying with the key elements enshrined in guidelines and standards. The most notable are the Analytical Framework for Responsible Investment in African Agriculture (Analytical Framework),[12] Respecting Land and Forest Rights: Guide for Companies,[13] Responsible Governance of Tenure: A Technical Guide,[14] and the Operational Guidelines for Responsible Land-Based Investment.[15] These instruments are written in a manner that is more user friendly to a private sector audience, as they aim to clarify the roles and responsibilities of companies and provide tools to use when obtaining land or implementing a project that affects land interests and uses.

Guidelines and standards relating more broadly to business and human rights (BHR), as opposed to focusing narrowly on land, are also relevant and useful for guiding companies on how to responsibly invest in land.

Notable BHR guidelines and standards include the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)[16] and the United Nations Global Compact.[17] The Analytical Framework for Responsible Investment in African Agriculture, for example, instructs companies to consult Guiding Principle 31 of the UNGPs for guidance on how to ensure access to remedy, as it includes a set of criteria for company-based grievance mechanisms.[18] Furthermore, because irresponsible land-based investments are likely to cause direct and indirect adverse impacts on universally accepted human rights, it is difficult to divorce responsible land-based investment from human rights, regardless of whether or not land rights are classified as human rights.

Respecting Land Rights – Advocacy

A significant catalyst for the proliferation of guidelines, standards, and guidance relating to responsible land-based investment has been the advocacy work of civil society organizations. For example, the Oxfam America campaign “Behind the Brands” applied significant pressure to the world’s ten largest food and beverage companies to better respect land rights throughout their supply chains by scoring each company’s sourcing policies on seven different human rights categories, including land rights.[19] The campaign also led to a consumer petition targeting companies that scored poorly, resulting in hundreds of thousands of signatures.[20] In response, several of the companies adopted a “zero tolerance for land grabs” policy, with some companies explicitly stating that such a commitment entails compliance with guidelines and standards like the VGGT and FPIC. Companies that have made such commitments include The Coca-Cola Company, Illovo Sugar (subsidiary of Associated British Foods), Nestlé, Pepsi Co, and Unilever.[21]

Companies also view respecting land rights as a means of mitigating business risk. Recent studies estimate that land tenure conflict can increase the cost of a project by up to 29 times.[22] Respecting land rights also helps to strengthen a company’s relationships with communities, and thus, their social license to operate. Weak community relations and a lack of social license have led to civil unrest including protests and violence, which can result in project delays, associated costs, brand reputational risk, and loss of financing.[23] Compliance with the key elements of guidance on responsible land-based investments, such as carrying out impact assessments, further helps a company identify environmental and social risks that could lead to increased costs if not avoided or mitigated. Furthermore, as demonstrated by consumer boycotts, there is an increasing consumer demand for sustainably and responsibly sourced products.

Respecting Land Rights – Challenges for Companies

Although companies’ commitments to zero tolerance for land grabs and to respecting land rights throughout their supply chains is an unprecedented positive step, implementation and fulfillment of such commitments is a complex and long-term journey. The following prominent complexities make implementation of land rights commitments difficult:

  • The concept of “respecting land rights” is relatively new compared to other areas of corporate social responsibility, such as environmental, labor, and privacy rights. Consequently, companies and other relevant stakeholders (e.g., auditors) may be unaware of the time, effort, and complexities involved with meeting such commitments. For example, a failure to comply with the key elements could result in harm to parties removed from or uninvolved in business operations (e.g., former owners or users of land who have since moved and are not employed by the company). Consequently, it could be difficult for companies to identify which stakeholders need to be consulted to determine the extent of land rights violations. This is dissimilar to areas like labor where relevant stakeholders (e.g., full-time, part-time, and short-term or seasonal laborers, as well as contractors) are more easily identifiable.
  • Companies are typically less familiar with standards and guidelines for land rights than human rights. Companies also typically lack familiarity with distinctions and interrelationships between land rights and human rights instruments. This includes disagreement regarding whether land rights are human rights. Regardless of whether land rights are human rights, however, there is consensus that land rights directly and indirectly impact the realization of more universally accepted human rights.
  • How a company implements its commitments will vary depending on where it is located in the supply chain. For example, a supplier company that owns or leases large scale land and directly contracts with smallholder farmers (typically called “outgrowers” in this type of business arrangement) is better capable of identifying what the salient land rights issues are and how to practically resolve them than a buyer company that may not own or lease large scale land and may not directly contract with outgrower farmers. Consequently, buyer efforts to implement land rights commitments will largely entail incentivizing and influencing their suppliers to also adopt and implement land rights policies, as they tend to be less connected to land rights issues “on the ground.”
  • Land rights issues may stem from land transfers or projects that predate the company, commonly referred to as “legacy land issues.” Legacy land issues date back to the actions of a company that previously owned, leased, or used the land, as well as from a government expropriation. There is currently a lack of guidance regarding to what extent a company should be held responsible for remedying the actions of a predecessor, especially when the predecessor is the government. Civil society and international organizations are developing guidance to fill this gap.
  • Land rights guidelines, standards, and guidance tend to inadequately account for the methods by which companies often obtain land or implement projects in countries with weak or unenforced land governance systems (e.g., laws, policies, regulations, administrative structures, judicial systems). For example, it is possible that the key elements will not be enshrined in domestic land governance frameworks, and if they are, that countries do not have the capacity to enforce them because of personnel capacity constraints (e.g., lack of land planners and surveyors, jurist, clerks, administrators) and equipment capacity constraints (e.g. computers, vehicles, offices), or a lack of political will. The presence of such governance gaps means companies inevitably need to serve some sort of gap-filling role, although there is a lack of clarity regarding what that role of companies should be versus governments.
Teaching Approaches

The approaches below could be used for an introductory lesson or module on land rights in the context of a business and human rights course, or as elements of a course focused on land rights and business activities. Comparing land rights to other rights that have been derived from international covenants (e.g., the right to water or reproductive rights) can be instructive in a business and human rights survey course.

Case studies, such as the Malawi Illovo Sugar Ltd. case study or the Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project Model Lease Agreement (see Teaching Resources), can help students identify how to approach the challenges presented in the case study, or particularly for law students, what terms should be included in a model lease agreement to create an equitable contract. How should a company, a government agency, or a civil society organization approach BHR in the context of land rights? For an interactive approach, students can be divided into three groups (business, government, and civil society) and identify interests and challenges from the perspective of their group, comparing results. This approach will allow students to grasp some of the complexities and competing interests that arise in a land rights and business context.

Topical Approaches

Numerous topics fall under the purview of BHR and land rights, which allows teachers to provide concrete examples of the intersection between human rights, business activities, and land. Students may gain most from a series of lessons on discrete topics, or a brief introduction to select topics within a lecture. The following list is by no means exhaustive. Resources related to each topic are included in Teaching Resources.

  • The Global Land Rush. While the acquisition of land from communities by government or the private sector for private use or development is not a recent phenomenon, the food and fuel crisis in 2007-2008 led to international media coverage of the adverse consequences of large-scale land acquisitions. This period included global shocks related to food prices and a series of high profile acquisitions for biofuel production.[24] A brief study of this period of acquisitions should highlight the links between business activities, international law and trade, and land rights, and how the phenomenon of land-based investments can lead to human rights impacts on food security and livelihoods.
  • Supply chain issues. Multinational companies often find themselves embroiled in land tenure issues that are a complex mixture of customary law, weak land governance in host countries, and other factors affecting agricultural productivity. This means that companies must account for all these factors when estimating their operation costs and developing strategies for growth and sustainability. Land tenure issues related to supply chains can include agricultural productivity (which can increase with greater tenure security), labor availability (as people age out of agriculture or migrate to cities in search of more lucrative work), lack of clarity of land ownership (as users of land—especially women—may not have formal rights, and formal owners may not reside on or near the land they own), and other issues that can impact business operations.
  • Elite capture. Transactions for land-based investments often take place between government officials and multinational corporations, or between expatriates who own land and investors. Examining this phenomenon can illustrate challenges in human rights advocacy, policy and legislative development, and business compliance with human rights norms in contexts with endemic corruption and significant governance gaps.
  • Gender and land-based investment. Women are likely to be disproportionately harmed in the context of land investments. Relative to men, they are less likely to be included in negotiation processes by both company and community representatives, and their rights and uses of land are less likely to be recognized. They are less likely to receive compensation or employment as a result of an investment, are disadvantaged in livelihood replacement and resettlement, and are less likely to be able to access justice in both informal and formal settings. These dynamics and others contribute to severe human rights infringements and violations for women.
  • Community engagement. Guidelines and standards for responsible land-based investment address the process of community engagement in order to assist companies in respecting human rights. Outlining the process of community engagement can assist students in understanding land-rights related challenges in the context of business activities from the perspective of communities affected by these investments and the civil society actors that often serve as representatives for communities with companies and government entities.
  • Commodity-based effects. Extractives, plantation crops, food crops, and commodity crops that are smallholder grown (e.g., cocoa) all create different conditions and challenges for protecting human rights. Legal frameworks particular to extractives can limit communities’ ability to negotiate directly with investors. Supply chains with smallholders present complex and unique land tenure-related challenges; multinational corporations may only or predominantly have contact with government officials and lack awareness of how customary rules or ground-level conditions affect productivity or the livelihoods of women and men in communities. Examining land-based investment by commodity can provide comparative geographical perspective as well, helping students understand BHR challenges for one commodity across different regional and national human rights, land governance, and corporate legal frameworks.

Approaches by Discipline

Law students should understand international, regional, and domestic guidelines, standards, and guidance on responsible land-based investment. Students should also understand major human rights instruments related to land and business activities, including international covenants and treaty monitoring body work (the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recently issued a draft General Comment on business activities[25] that references land and investment issues related to land), guidance documents like the UN Guiding Principles, and how domestic and international law can interact in the context of investments. Additionally, law courses can provide an introduction to comparative law with a focus on investment treaties, domestic corporate law frameworks, and the potential impacts on human rights that result from inadequate legal protections in these bodies of law.

Policy students will benefit from a discussion of the challenges associated with creating an enabling environment so that companies profit, land governance is strengthened (or at least not weakened through corruption or bypassed), and communities benefit. Policy courses can address how land rights fit into a larger administrative picture for the host state of an investment. Efficient and equitable land administration requires long term and strategic investment and implementation; this creates significant challenges for companies who want to comply with human rights requirements in countries where land governance is weak, and challenges for governments in developing country contexts as they try to put these long-term solutions in place in the context of pressure to welcome investments.

Business students should be introduced to concepts of social license, responsible investment, theories like the triple bottom line framework and the business case for human rights, and international human rights norms and guidance related to business. Issues like corruption, host state versus home state obligations for businesses, and supply chain management issues related to land rights are also key topics for business courses.

Learning objectives for courses covering land rights may include:

  • Becoming familiar with international, regional, and domestic guidelines, standards, and guidance on responsible land-based investment.
  • Understanding how secure land tenure relates to human rights enshrined in international treaties (e.g., UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, UNDRIP).
  • Understanding the types and scope of international human rights and sector-based guidance related to land rights and business activities.
  • Identifying human rights issues associated with different land tenure types and different modes of accessing land: formal vs. customary, urban vs. rural, market-based vs. family or community-based, and how these tenure types can interact with investments in land.
  • Recognizing gendered aspects of land rights in all settings and implications for BHR.
  • Understanding challenges for companies navigating legal frameworks in developing countries, community engagement, supply chain sustainability and traceability.
  • Understand the tensions between land rights as a governance challenge that requires a lengthy time horizon, and land rights as a challenge for businesses’ need for efficiency and return on investment.
Key Questions

General

  • What are land rights?
  • How are land rights related to human rights?
  • What standards, guidelines, guidance, and tools are available to help companies make responsible land-based investments?
  • How are the standards, guidelines, guidance, and tools useful in implementing land rights commitments? How are they limiting?
  • What are the key elements of responsible land-based investments?
  • What factors have incentivized companies to commit to respecting land rights throughout their supply chains, including “zero tolerance for land grabs?”
  • What major issues are companies facing in implementing their commitments to respecting land rights?
  • Should companies be held accountable for ensuring responsible investments in land? If so, to what extent? What should the role of governments be?
  • What gap-filling role should companies serve when obtaining land or implementing projects in countries with weak land governance systems?

For business students

  • Is there a business case for respecting land rights?
  • How do standards, guidelines, and guidance define a corporate responsibility for ensuring responsible land-based investments?
  • How can a company practically implement its land rights-related commitments? Should implementation strategies vary depending on the role a company plays in the supply chain (e.g., buyers, suppliers, investors, etc.)?
  • How can companies be sensitized to the key elements of responsible land-based investment to ensure they develop realistic strategies for implementing their land right-related commitments?
  • How can companies practically monitor whether they are complying with the key elements?
  • What corporate department(s) should be responsible for implementing and monitoring compliance with land right-related commitments?
  • What third parties will companies potentially need to consult to ensure compliance with their land-related commitments?
  • How are companies in different industries addressing responsible land-based investment?

For law students

  • Are land rights human rights? Why or why not?
  • What are the international human rights standards most relevant to ensuring responsible investment in land?
  • How can international human rights law be used in conjunction with land rights standards and guidance to achieve responsible investments in land (regardless of whether land rights are considered human rights)?
  • What responsibilities do non-state actors have under international law? How do these relate to the responsibilities of governments?
  • Should non-state actors assume greater roles under international legal frameworks when domestic legal frameworks are weak or unenforced?
  • How should recent developments in human rights discourse related to land (e.g., CESCR General Comment on Business Activities, Kilimanjaro Charter) inform national level efforts for legislative reform and improved implementation and enforcement of existing laws?
  • What legal or regulatory mechanisms can governments put in place to ensure companies comply with human rights norms in the context of investments in land?
  • What gaps in international human rights and national legal frameworks contribute to adverse human rights impacts related to investments in land?
  • What do landmark cases from human rights bodies and international courts indicate about business activities and land-related human rights? African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya, for example, is a recent landmark court case that helps to define human rights norms in the context of business activities related to land (indigenous land in this case was allocated by the government for private investment).[26]

For policy students

  • What legal or regulatory frameworks have the greatest impact on land rights and use?
  • How can human rights norms related to land (adequate standard of living, housing, self-determination) be leveraged at junctures where companies interact with host government agencies?
  • How can government actors collaborate with civil society to promote and ensure responsible investments in land?
  • How could home states promote responsible land-related investment requirements with host state representatives?
  • What incentives can civil society in home states create for companies to conduct responsible land-related investments? Host states?
  • How can host state government agencies coordinate to ensure responsible investments in land?
  • What data (types and methods) should host state government entities collect to ensure accurate information that promotes human rights is available for investors?
Teaching Resources
Notes

[*] This Teaching Note may be cited as:

Chris Jochnick, Mina Manuchehri, and Beth Roberts, “Teaching Note: Land Rights,” in Teaching Business and Human Rights Handbook (Teaching Business and Human Rights Forum, 2017), https://teachbhr.org/resources/teaching-bhr-handbook/teaching-notes/land-rights/.

[1] Landesa (https://www.landesa.org/) is a U.S.-based nonprofit that works to advance durable land rights to bring transformational changes on a large scale. Landesa works side by side with governments and other organizations to strengthen land rights for women and men who lack either access to land or a secure stake in the land they farm.

Mr. Jochnick has taught business and human rights at Harvard Law School, published scholarly articles widely, and edited two books. Before joining Landesa, Mr. Jochnick served as Director of the Private Sector Department at Oxfam America. Ms. Roberts has guest lectured as a representative of Landesa’s Center for Women’s Land Rights at the University of Washington, Columbia University, and Northwest University.

[2] Kerstin Nolte, Wytske Chamberlain, and Markus Giger, International Land Deals for Agriculture. Fresh insights from the Land Matrix: Analytical Report II, (Land Matrix Initiative, 2016), vi, available at: http://landmatrix.org/media/filer_public/ab/c8/abc8b563-9d74-4a47-9548-cb59e4809b4e/land_matrix_2016_analytical_report_draft_ii.pdf.

[3] Transparency International/FAO, Working Paper 04/2011: Corruption in the Land Sector(November 8, 2011), 5, available at: http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/working_paper_04_2011_corruption_in_the_land_sector.

[4] Transparency International, Global Corruption Report: Climate Change (June 2, 2011), available at: http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/global_corruption_report_climate_change.

[5] Rights and Resources Initiative, Who Owns the World’s Land: A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and community land rights (September 2015), vii, available at: http://www.rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/GlobalBaseline_web.pdf. This lack of alignment between formal and customary land rights makes it imperative that States Parties consider customary tenure rights when they are drafting legislation or creating other formal requirements for investors, including due diligence requirements or guidelines. Behrman, J; Meinzen-Dick, R; and Quisumbing, A., The Gender Implications of Large-Scale Land Deals, (IFPRI, 2011), 6, available at: https://www.iss.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/iss/Documents/Conference_papers/LDPI/56_Behrman_Meinzen-Dick_Quisumbing.pdf.

[6] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 1; see also International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 1.

[7] ICESCR, ibid., Article 11.

[8] ICESCR, ibid., Articles 2, 3.

[9] Committee on Food Security (CFS) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) (2012), available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf.

[10] United Nations, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (2008), Articles 10, 11, 19, 28, 29, available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.

[11] CFS and FAO, Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (2014), available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1314/rai/CFS_Principles_Oct_2014_EN.pdf.

[12] New Alliance for Food Security & Nutrition and Grow Africa, Analytical Framework for Land-Based Investments in African Agriculture, available at: https://www.growafrica.com/sites/default/files/Analytical-framework-for-land-based-investments-in-African-agriculture_0.pdf.

[13] Interlaken Group and Rights and Resources Institute, Respecting Land and Forest Rights: A Guide for Companies, available at: http://solutions-network.org/site-fpic/files/2012/09/InterlakenGroupGuide_web_final1.pdf.

[14] FAO, Responsible Governance of Tenure: A Technical Guide for Investors (2016), available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5147e.pdf.

[15] USAID, Operational Guidelines for Responsible Land-Based Investment (2015), available at: https://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/USAID_Operational_Guidelines_updated.pdf.

[16] United Nations, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.

[17] United Nations, Global Compact, available at https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/environment/food-agriculture.

[18] UN Guiding Principles, supra note 16, at Guiding Principle 31.

[19] See generally, Oxfam America, Behind the Brands, available at https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/behind-the-brands/.

[20] See generally, Oxfam America, Behind the Brands, available at https://www.behindthebrands.org/.

[21] See generally, Interlaken Group, Company Commitments, available at http://www.interlakengroup.org/annex/company-commitments.

[22] TMP Systems, IAN: Managing Tenure Risk, available at 9.https://teachbhr.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/d9880-ian_managingtenurerisk_final_.pdf.

[23] See generally, TMP Systems, ibid.

[24] Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S. Leonard, R. and Keeley, J., Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa, (IIED, FAO, IFAD, London & Rome: 2009), 3, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-ak241e.pdf.

[25] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Day of General Discussion on Draft General Comment on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CESCR/Pages/Discussion2017.aspx.

[26] See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya, 10, para. D, available at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/news/2017/05/Application%20006-2012%20-%20African%20Commission%20on%20Human%20and%20Peoples’%20Rights%20v.%20the%20Republic%20of%20Kenya..pdf.