Discussion and conclusions
How then does the theory on sustainable development relate to the issue of LSLAs and the most negative definitions of land and water grabbing? We started this review with this question in mind and have synthesized the core literature, applying the most influential operationalization of the concept of sustainable development. We have related the main threats and challenges associated with LSLAs to the 17 SDGs. This conceptual mapping shows the multidimensionality of the negative impacts of LSLAs and how each of these goals is specifi- cally affected by the problematic aspects of LSLAs. Relating LSLAs to SDGs serves two specular purposes. The first, as stated from the title, is to consider how land and water grabbing could potentially impact the attainment of the different development goals and therefore provide a base for a general diagnosis of the global land rush. The second is that the SDGs also represent a useful framework for considering the different dimensions under which LSLAs should be evaluated.
The expansion of transnational land acquisitions and intensive large-scale agricultural production in an increasingly globalized world — where natural resources are relentlessly commodified and degraded and traditional users marginalized — raises fundamental sustainability concerns. Are these concerns justified? Is it correct then to consider LSLAs as ‘land grabbing’? Or should LSLAs be differentiated by distinguishing between those that could represent forms of grabbing and the ones that instead produce positive development impacts? In this second case, then, on what criteria should LSLAs be evaluated and what are the appropriate institutional instruments to govern these deals? These questions, which are at the center of a policy and scholarly debate, produce very different answers based on diverging normative and political perspectives.
