Investing in Land for Water: The converging legal regimes Policy Brief #4 Investment in Agriculture
This policy brief presents the different sources of law that are triggered by the use of water for farmland investments, and makes recommendations to help reconcile different legal regimes while ensuring water issues are adequately addressed.
Investment in farmland is motivated in large part by access to water resources, but water-related impacts tend to be an afterthought in the “land grabbing” debates.
These same water resources are lifelines for local farmers, pastoralists and other communities, which makes sound legal frameworks all the more necessary. This policy brief presents the different sources of law that are triggered by the use of water for farmland investments, and makes recommendations to help reconcile different legal regimes while ensuring water issues are adequately addressed.
The IISD series of policy briefs on investment in agriculture is generously supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).
You might also be interested in
How Can We Work With Nature to Tackle Drought and Desertification?
Drought is one of the most devastating and pervasive challenges exacerbated by climate change. However, we can work to reduce its effects through nature-based solutions for land restoration and climate-smart agriculture.
Sustainable Asset Valuation of Land Restoration and Climate-Smart Agriculture in Burkina Faso
This integrated cost-benefit analysis demonstrates the potential of nature-based infrastructure to restore land and combat desertification, aiding communities with climate change adaptation and producing wide-reaching socio-economic benefits.
Carbon Offset Deals and the Risks of “Green Grabbing”
Governments must ensure land-based investments for carbon removal respect the access and tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Rethinking Investment Treaties
International investment treaties and their investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) system are facing growing scrutiny. But what would an alternative system—one fit for the challenges of the 21st century—look like?