Large-scale agricultural investments (LAIs) transform land use systems worldwide. There is, however, limited understanding about how the common global drivers of land use change induce different forms of agricultural investment and produce different impacts on the ground. This article provides a cross-country comparative analysis of how differences in business models, land use changes, and governance systems explain differences in socio-economic, food security, and environmental impacts of LAIs in Kenya, Madagascar, and Mozambique. It brings together results on these aspects generated in the AFGROLAND project that collected data in a multi-method approach via household surveys, business model surveys, semi-structured household interviews, life-cycle assessments of farm production, analysis of remote-sensing data, key informant interviews, and document analysis. For the present project synthesis, we combined a collaborative expert workshop with a comparative analysis of 16 LAIs. The results show that the LAIs follow four distinctive impact patterns, ranging from widespread adverse impacts to moderate impacts. Results demonstrate how the following conditions influence how the global drivers of land use change translate into different LAIs and different impacts on the ground: labor intensity, prior land use, utilization of land, farm size, type of production, experience in local agriculture, land tenure security, accountability of state and local elites, the mobilization capacity of civil society, expansion of resource frontiers, agricultural intensification, and indirect land use change. The results indicate that commercial agriculture can be a component in sustainable development strategies under certain conditions, but that these strategies will fail without substantial, sustained increases in the economic viability and inclusiveness of smallholder agriculture, land tenure security, agro-ecological land management, and support for broader patterns of endogenous agrarian transformation.

Due to population growth and agricultural intensification, water scarcity is increasing in the Upper Ewaso Ng’iro Basin. Quantitative information is needed to improve the management of this resource, but is a challenge due to lack of hydrometeorological data. Using water footprint thinking, a pragmatic approach applying available information and simple assumptions was used to estimate blue and green water availability and consumption for different land uses and activities. Despite the attention it receives, flower production makes up a small component of the basin’s water footprint (1.4% of blue water consumed, roses used 0.73%), although the drastic impact of horticulture on low flows during dry periods is recognized. Surface water evaporation from irrigation dams containing captured floodwaters or pumped groundwater has a water footprint comparable to greenhouse horticultural production itself. Small-scale irrigation was estimated to use 71.4% of the blue water consumed, while total commercial horticultural production was estimated to use 8.2%. Direct human consumption was estimated at 3% and livestock and wildlife consumption at 4.2% of consumed blue water. Labour opportunities were almost 10 times higher for roses than for maize per hectare and per m3 of water consumed. Water productivity in terms of selling price was 128 times higher for 1 tonne of roses than for 1 tonne of maize. This approach can be used in data-poor regions to advance understanding between multiple stakeholders (such as between farmers, pastoralists and conservationists) for participatory management, and to better understand the basin’s water balance to estimate exploitable water resources.

Available empirical evidence about the impacts of large-scale agricultural investments (LAIs) in low-income countries is skewed towards the assessment of economic benefits. How LAIs affect land use and the environment is less understood. This study assesses how small-scale farmers living close to an LAI perceive the changes LAI's inflict on land use, land management, and tree cover in Kenya, Mozambique, and Madagascar. It also investigates their perceptions regarding LAI's impacts on the general environment and people's health, as well as on employment opportunities, infrastructure, and conflicts. 271 small-scale farmers were interviewed and their perceptions supported by a remote-sensing-based analysis of land use and land cover changes. Results show that LAIs contributed both directly and indirectly to deforestation in Mozambique, triggered changes in small-scale farmers' agricultural land management in Kenya, and caused pastoralists to lose access to grazing land in Madagascar. Despite some benefits from employment opportunities and infrastructure improvement, the majority of respondents perceived the overall impacts of LAIs as negative, highlighting reduced access to land and water, pollution, health issues, and unsatisfactory working conditions. We urgently need to invest in devising concrete transformative options to improve LAIs' contribution to sustainable development in their host countries.