This article examines why peasant communities in South West Cameroon have contested a U.S.-based company's intentions to establish an agro-industrial palm oil plantation in their region. Land investments in the form of agro plantations, if not properly conceived, negotiated, and implemented, pose a series of threats to the ecological, cultural, and economic stability among peasant farming communities, who depend on land and forest resources for their livelihood. Using Nguti as a case study, this article argues that local communities do not oppose investment in land but they contest projects that attempt to alienate them from their sources of livelihood without providing alternatives. The study also demonstrates how local communities, despite being critical of the project, struggle with the company through their relations with government, to demand new social contracts and/or memoranda that could offer them greater opportunities as economic partners. The article concludes that for palm oil plantations to be economically equitable, local communities' incorporation is necessary to safeguard rural livelihoods and to ensure that provisions are made for adequate compensation and alternative sources of livelihood.Keywords large land acquisition, local contestation, incorporation, rural livelihoods, SW Cameroon 2 SAGE Open land-related rights and resources by corporate (business, non-profit, or public) entities for various uses (White, Borras, Hall, Scoones, & Wolford, 2012). These acquisitions are not necessarily about enormous tracts of land, or mega-projects, but can emerge from an amalgamation of smaller acquisitions that add up to a significant "grab" and that may displace existing land users and land uses.This study uses LSLA interchangeably with "land grabbing" not only in recognition of the fact that the debates on terminology are ongoing and contentious (see also Doss, Summerfield, & Tsikata, 2014) but also because of the processes involved and their impact on local communities. Even though both terminologies are used, land grabbing is a more accurate term for this study because of the shady nature of the land deals, and the company's inability to respect certain criteria for responsible land investment and good governance, for example, lack of proper social and environmental impact assessment (SEIA).Foreign land acquisition occurs through many different ways, and for different purposes, producing a variety of outcomes (Hall et al., 2015;Wolford, 2010). However, Lorenzo Cotula and others have argued that unequal power relations between foreign investors and national African governments lead to land deals that favor the investors (Cotula et al., 2014). Most of the time, the local gains do not materialize (Anseeuw, 2013;O'Brien, 2011). Critical literature identifies cases where the greatest impacts are felt by the poorest of the poor-those forest-dependent and pastoralist populations who are dispossessed and left without other options to farm or graze livestock (Cotula et al., 2014;De Schutter, 2012;Mope ...

Large-scale land acquisition (LSLA) by foreign interests is a major driver of agrarian change in the productive regions of Africa. Rural communities across Southwest Cameroon are experiencing a range of political conflicts resulting from LSLA, in which commercial interests are threatening local land-use practices and access to land. This paper shows that the struggle to maintain or redefine livelihoods generates tension between inward competition for and outward contestation of claims to land. In Nguti Subdivision, the scene of protests against a particular agribusiness company, there is continued debate over ideas about, interests in, and perceptions of land and tenure. The authors show how top-down land acquisition marginalises land users, leading to conflicts within communities and with the companies involved, and conclude that for an agro-project to succeed and avoid major conflicts, dominance by elite interests must give way to a more inclusive process.

No abstract

This article examines the political economic processes and gendered consequences involved in large‐scale land acquisition (LSLA) in rural South West Cameroon. The study adopts a gender‐disaggregated approach to data collection to understand local perceptions and reactions to LSLA in the region. It shows how traditional cultural prescriptions have combined with contemporary land laws to masculinize power over land to the detriment of women. It argues that although men and women are both affected by LSLA projects, the impacts are much greater for women because what the state considers “empty land” is used by them to secure household food security. Second, it argues that amid societal discrimination over land‐ownership rights, perceived gender differences between men and women appear “rational” in the event of LSLA—men follow their ascribed roles in overt reactions, women being more covert and much less vocal in land‐related contests. New policies that promote rural women's land rights will not only empower them during land struggles, they will also provide communities with greater security to sustain ecologically viable livelihoods.

Motivation In Cameroon, most land earmarked for allocation to foreign investors is communally owned. The state, however, considers such land as “empty” or “underutilized”—a faulty designation that confers upon the Cameroonian state and state representatives sweeping authority to allocate lands to potential investors without full consultation with communities whose livelihoods depend on them. Purpose The article addresses the following questions: who are traditional authorities in the context of Cameroon? What is their place in the complex dynamics of neopatrimonial governance, and how does this influence their allegiance to state versus the people they ought to represent? How do they collaborate to enable state actions during land grabbing against their people? Methods and approach The study is based on interviews, group discussions, and field observations conducted as part of a larger project on land grabbing in Cameroon; and supplemented with secondary sources through critical reading of published and unpublished scholarly and technical sources, including reports from national non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Nature Cameroon as well as Green Peace, the World Bank, and other bodies. Findings It argues that land grabbing in Cameroon should be understood as an outcome of the state’s strategic and/or opportunistic choice, within a neopatrimonial dispensation, to enforce its political power over land and related resources. Local traditional authorities paradoxically play the role of state facilitators in the process, rather than serving as custodians of the populations they represent. Policy implications The article concludes that such pernicious land acquisition would not have been successful without the active collaboration of traditional authorities (so‐called state enablers) who act as “brokers” and facilitators of land deals—sometimes using threats, intimidation, and force on villagers. There is a need for policies to tackle the accountability problems arising from the ambivalent role that local traditional authorities play in Cameroon’s neopatrimonial order—doubly serving as de facto representatives of local peoples, and at the same time as proxy enablers of large‐scale land acquisition.