Paper short abstract:

Can international codes of conduct work in practice to make investment projects more responsible? Comparing 3 cases of land investments in Uganda, this paper shows that variations in land tenure regimes determine the effectiveness of international guidelines around investment projects.

Paper long abstract:

The rise of large-scale land investments in the developing world has received global attention throughout the last decade, not least because of much reported local land conflict and dispossession of smallholder farmers. Efforts by the international development community to mitigate such negative effects have so far concentrated on the creation and proliferation of (voluntary) codes of conduct that host governments and investment companies should use to discipline and guide these land deals. The question remains if and how such guidelines are actually invoked or used in practice, by whom, and whether their use can shape the trajectory of investment projects towards "win-win" outcomes, as promoted. Uncovering how international codes of conduct work in practice first necessitates a closer understanding of the underlying land tenure regimes and local land politics in which investment projects are embedded. In Uganda, this varies from region to region and investments take place on different forms of land tenure such as neo-customary, private ("Mailo"), and state-owned land. These regimes can shape and determine the trajectory of investments, the involvement of local actors and the occurrence of conflict in distinct ways. This paper is based on 8 months of fieldwork in Uganda in 2018 and 2020. Comparing three cases of large-scale land investments on customary, private and state-owned land, I will argue that variation in the underlying land tenure regimes go far in explaining uneven use, applicability and effectiveness of international codes of conduct in producing agreements with local land-users and avoiding conflict.