Large-scale agricultural investments in Eastern Africa: consequences for small-scale farmers and the environment

Figures & data

Table 1. Case study characteristics and overview of methods applied

	Kenya		Mozambique		Madagascar
	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3	Case 4	Case 5	Case 6
Case study characteristics
Number of LAIs per case	2	3	3	3	1	1
County/district/region	Laikipia	Laikipia	Guruè	Monapo	Boeny	Ihorombe
Crops produced	Vegetables	Flowers	Soy, macadamia	Vegetables, banana, soy	Jatropha	Maize
Rainfall (mm)	600–1,200	600–1,200	1,400–2,000	800–1,000	1,000–1,500	600–1,000
Operational status of LAI	Running	Running	Running	1 (banana) abandoned, 2 running	Abandoned	Running
Date of LAI establishment	2000–2005	2003–2013	2009–2012	2007–2013	2009	2010
Methods applied
Remote-sensing data and analysis	Landsat 5 and 8; supervised classification	Landsat 5 and 8; supervised classification	Landsat 5 and 8; supervised classification	Landsat 5 and 8; supervised classification	Sentinel 2 and Google Earth; visual interpretation, digitization	Sentinel 2 and Google Earth; visual interpretation, digitization
Observed time period	2000–2016	2000–2016	2000–2015	2000–2015	2010–2018	2010–2018
Number of interviews	40	60	49	52	25	45
Male/female respondents	22/18	25/35	39/10	46/6	19/6	40/5

Figure 1. Overview of the study area in Kenya, Mozambique, and Madagascar, showing the approximate locations of the cases

Table 2. LULC change to LAI and small-scale cropland (SSC) as a percentage of the LAI and new cropland areas, respectively, aggregated for each case. The same statistics are disaggregated for each LAI in Table S1 in the annex

	Kenya		Mozambique		Madagascar
	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3	Case 4	Case 5	Case 6
LULC converted to LAI	(Total LAI area: 627 ha)	(Total LAI area: 153 ha)	(Total LAI area: 5,460 ha)	(Total LAI area: 1,706 ha)	(LAI area: 770 ha)	(LAI area: 5,507 ha)
Forest to LAI	21%	17%	47%	14%	0%	0%
SSC to LAI	40%	54%	47%	80%	3%	0%
Other^a,b to LAI	39%	29%	6%	6%	97%	100%
LULC converted to small-scale cropland in vicinity of LAI	(New SSC area: 3,203 ha)	(New SSC area: 3,314 ha)	(New SSC area: 16,524 ha)	(New SSC area: 4,560 ha)	(New SSC area: 0 ha)	(New SSC area: 0 ha)
Forest to SSC	22%	38%	96%	73%	0%	0%
Other^b to SSC	78%	62%	4%	27%	0%	0%
Afforestation by LAI					–	11 ha

^a‘Other’ for Cases 1 to 4; grassland for Cases 5 and 6.

^b‘Other’ includes bare soil, grass- and fallow land, bush- and shrubland, and small waterbodies.

Table 3. Reported changes in small-scale farmers’ agricultural land use. Percentage values are presented only for samples larger than five

		Kenya		Mozambique		Madagascar
	Overall	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3	Case 4	Case 5	Case 6	Statistics
Net changes in cropland size	(n = 271)	(n = 40)	(n = 60)	(n = 49)	(n = 52)	(n = 25)	(n = 45)	χ^2 = 38.67 p < 0.001
Change in cropland size	47.6	57.5	45	75.5	48.1	44	13.3
	(n = 129)	(n = 23)	(n = 27)	(n = 37)	(n = 25)	(n = 11)	(n = 6)
Increase in cropland size	41.1	43.5	51.8	27.0	20.0	81.8	83.3	χ^2 = 20.93 p < 0.001
Decrease in cropland size	58.9	56.5	48.2	73.0	80.0	18.2	16.7
Net changes in grazing land size	(n = 140)	(n = 34)	(n = 52)	(n = 5)	(n = 3)	(n = 9)	(n = 37)	χ^2 = 49.82 p < 0.001
Change in grazing land size	35	23.5	11.5			0	94.6
	(n = 49)	(n = 8)	(n = 6)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	(n = 35)
Increase in grazing land size	14.3	75	16.7				0	p < 0.001
Decrease in grazing land size	85.7	25	83.3				100
Reasons for decrease in cropland	(n = 76)	(n = 13)	(n = 13)	(n = 27)	(n = 20)	(n = 2)	(n = 1)	p < 0.001
Land taken by LAI	57.9	0	7.7	88.9	95.0
Environmental factors	9.2	23.1	30.8	0	0
Used by relatives	9.2	15.4	30.8	0	5.0
Left fallow	4.0	7.7	0	0	0
Lack of market	4.0	23.1	0	0	0
Used for settlement	4.0	0	23.1	0	0
Increased livestock production	2.6	15.4	0	0	0
Low yield	1.3	7.7	0	0	0
Pollution from LAI	1.3	0	7.7	0	0
Other	6.5	7.7	0	11.1	0
Land taken by LAI	(n = 271)	(n = 40)	(n = 60)	(n = 49)	(n = 52)	(n = 25)	(n = 45)	χ^2 = 94.43
	28.4	0	1.7	63.3	38.5	0	55.6	p < 0.001
Size of land taken by LAI (ha)	(n = 72)	(n = 0)	(n = 1)	(n = 30)	(n = 20)	(n = 0)	(n = 21)
Minimum	0.5			0.5	0.5		5.0
Maximum	147			25.0	5.0		147.0
Mean (SD)	11.6 (± 24.7)			3.9 (± 5.0)	2.1 (± 1.2)		32.2 (± 38.8)	p < 0.01
Type of land taken by LAI	(n = 77)	(n = 0)	(n = 1)	(n = 31)	(n = 20)	(n = 0)	(n = 25)
Cropland	67.1			100	100		0
Grazing land	32.9			0	0		100
Consequences of LAI taking land	(n = 77)	(n = 0)	(n = 1)	(n = 31)	(n = 20)	(n = 0)	(n = 25)	χ^2 = 31.02 p < 0.001
Received compensation	35.1			71.0	5		12
	(n = 77)	(n = 0)	(n = 1)	(n = 31)	(n = 20)	(n = 0)	(n = 25)	χ^2 = 24.95 p < 0.001
Acquired new land	37.7			64.5	45		0
Previous use of new cropland	(n = 29)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	(n = 20)	(9)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	ns
Forest	65.5			60	77.8
Cropland	27.6			40	0
Bush	6.9			0	22.2

Figure 2. LULC change maps of the analysed Cases and LAIs. The maps follow the sequence given in Table 3. Kenya: Case 1 and 2, Mozambique: Case 3 and 4, Madagascar: Case 5 and 6. The maps indicate only the most important class changes

Table 4. Reported changes in agricultural land management. Only responses with a total percentage value five or more are presented, and percentage values are given only for samples larger than five

		Kenya		Mozambique		Madagascar
	Overall	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3	Case 4	Case 5	Case 6	Statistics
Change in cropland management	(n = 266)	(n = 39)	(n = 60)	(n = 45)	(n = 52)	(n = 25)	(n = 45)	χ^2 = 68.58 p < 0.001
Yes	38.4	71.8	65	37.8	19.2	24	4.4
LAI responsible for change	(n = 97)	(n = 26)	(n = 38)	(n = 16)	(n = 10)	(n = 5)	(n = 2)	p < 0.001
Yes	41.2	15.4	36.8	87.5	30
Reasons (several responses possible)	(n = 96)	(n = 27)	(n = 36)	(n = 15)	(n = 10)	(n = 6)	(n = 2)
Lack of water	28.1	44.4	36.1	6.7	0	16.7
Desire to increase yield	18.8	14.8	25	0	20	16.7
Land taken by LAI	14.6	0	0	73.3	30	0
Desire to increase income	8.3	3.7	5.6	0	20	50
Other	30.2	37.1	33.3	20	30	16.7
Type of change (several responses possible)	(n = 88)	(n = 28)	(n = 38)	(n = 10)	(n = 4)	(n = 6)	(n = 2)
Change/abandonment of crop	43.2	39.3	31.6	80		66.7
Change of seed variety	30.7	46.4	36.8	0		0
Less irrigation	13.6	21.4	15.8	0		0
Use of tractor for tillage	12.5	25.0	10.5	0		0
Change of agricultural inputs	11.4	3.6	18.4	0		16.7
More irrigation	10.2	10.7	13.2	0		16.7
Adoption of SLM^1 practices	8	0	18.4	0		0
Change in grazing land management	(n = 140)	(n = 34)	(n = 52)	(n = 5)	(n = 3)	(n = 9)	(n = 37)	p < 0.001
Yes	10.7	23.5	13.5			0	0
Reasons	(n = 15)	(n = 8)	(n = 7)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	ns
Overgrazing	33.3	25	42.9
Drought	26.7	25	28.6
Desire to increase milk production	20.0	25	14.3
Personal reasons	6.7	12.5	0
NA	13.3	12.5	14.3
Type of change	(n = 15)	(n = 8)	(n = 7)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	ns
Increased stall feeding	46.7	62.5	28.6
Rotational grazing	20.0	12.5	28.6
Abandonment of livestock keeping	13.3	25	0
Change in cattle breed	6.7	0	14.3
NA	13.3	0	28.6

¹Sustainable land management.

Table 5. Perceived changes in tree cover in the landscapes surrounding the LAIs. Percentage values are given only for samples larger than five

		Kenya		Mozambique		Madagascar
	Overall	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3	Case 4	Case 5	Case 6	Statistics
Perceived changes in tree cover	(n = 271)	(n = 40)	(n = 60)	(n = 49)	(n = 52)	(n = 25)	(n = 45)	Σ^2 = 185.89 p < 0.001
Yes	64.9	100	96.7	71.4	82.7	0	0
Specific change	(n = 176)	(n = 40)	(n = 58)	(n = 35)	(n = 43)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)	p < 0.001
Increase in planted tree cover	22.7	17.5	55.2	0	2.3
Decrease in natural or planted tree cover	75	75	43.1	100	97.7
Other	2.3	7.5	1.7	0	0
Reasons for tree cover change (several responses possible)	(n = 176)	(n = 40)	(n = 58)	(n = 35)	(n = 43)	(n = 0)	(n = 0)
Decrease: Expansion of agriculture and settlements	39.8	22.9	5.2	74.3	74.4
Decrease: Exploitation of wood resources	35.8	52.5	46.6	20	18.6
Increase: People planting trees on their land	22.7	22.5	48.3	8.6	0
Other	1.7	2.1	0	0	7

Figure 3. Perceived impacts of LAIs on (a) households, (b) the environment, (c) people’s health, (d) infrastructure, and (e) conflicts, as well as (f) overall preference of households for LAI companies to stay or leave; all expressed as percentages of households reporting impacts or no impacts (a–e) or a certain preference (f)