Angelim is a small rural community in Piauí, northeastern Brazil, where small-scale farmers and artisans have lived for generations. Their way of life dramatically changed a few years ago when a company arrived and claimed it had purchased the land.
Residents report being threatened by armed men. They faced forest clearances and the destruction of native vegetation that is essential for their livelihoods and way of life.
New monoculture plantations began to dry up the wetlands. The plantations also used pesticides, polluting the ecosystem and threatening residents’ health and livelihoods.
Deforestation
Angelim is located in the municipality of Santa Filomena and is just one of many communities affected by land acquisitions by Radar Propriedades Agrícolas, a company formed in 2008 as a joint venture between US pension fund TIAA and Brazilian agribusiness giant Cosan.
In recent years, Radar has acquired more than 3,000 hectares in Santa Filomena, adding to the land it already owns throughout the Matopiba region, which includes the Brazilian states of Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí, and Bahia – the latest frontier of industrial agriculture in Brazil.
This region sits in the Cerrado, one of the world’s most biodiverse areas, home to 12,000 plant species (35 per cent endemic) and 25 million people, including Indigenous Peoples and small-scale food providers.
But as much as 55 per cent of the Cerrado has already been converted to commercial tree plantations, large agro-industrial monocultures and pastures for cattle production.
Land grabs, speculation, and deforestation are displacing communities and damaging the environment. One of the major players in this expansion is TIAA and its asset management company, Nuveen.
Devastating
TIAA is one of the world’s largest landowners and has almost quadrupled its landholdings since 2012. Managing 1.2 million hectares across ten countries, it ranks seventh among the world’s top ten transnational landowners, who together control 404, 457 km² – an area the size of Japan, according a new report from FIAN International and Focus on the Global South.
This accumulation of resources and power by corporate and financial entities fuels human rights abuse, inequalities, and environmental destruction, and underlines the need for redistributive policies.
Others in this elite group include financial investors like Blue Carbon from the UAE, Australia-based Macquarie and Canada’s Manulife, agribusiness giants Olam and Wilmar from Singapore, Chilean timber company Arauco and UK-based Shell via Raízen, a Brazilian subsidiary.
This accumulation of land in the hands of a few transnational companies is part of a global trend of land grabbing that surged after the 2008 financial crisis. Since 2000, transnational investors have acquired an estimated 65 million hectaresof land—twice the size of Germany.
This has accelerated a dynamic of land concentration, which has resulted in one per cent of farms controlling 70 per cent of global farmland, a trend that jeopardizes the livelihoods of 2.5 billion smallholder farmers and 1.4 billion of the world’s poorest, most of whom depend on agriculture.
As the case of the Angelim community shows, land grabbing and land concentration have devastating consequences for communities and ecosystems. Like US-based TIAA, virtually all the top global landowners have reportedly been implicated in forced displacements, environmental destruction, and violence against local people.
Biodiversity
Land concentration exacerbates inequality, erodes social cohesion and fuels conflict. But there are deeper consequences as well.
The fact that vast tracts of land, located across different state jurisdictions, are brought under the control of distant corporate entities for the sake of global supply chains or global financial capital flows, runs diametrically counter to the principles of state sovereignty and people’s self-determination.
In particular, it undermines states’ ability to ensure that land tenure serves the public good and enables the transition to more sustainable economic models.
The question of who should own and manage land becomes even more pressing in light of climate change and biodiversity loss. Transnational landowners are associated with industrial monoculture plantations, deforestation, and other extractive practices.
In contrast, up to 80 per cent of intact forests are found on lands managed by Indigenous Peoples and other rural communities. Moreover, small-scale food providers practicing agroecology support higher biodiversity, better water management, and produce over half the world’s food using just 35 per cent of global cropland.
Dispossessed
Ironically, the environmental value of community-managed land has sparked a new wave of land grabs. So-called “green grabs” (land grabs for alleged environmental purposes) now account for about 20 per cent of large-scale land deals. Since 2016, more than 5.2 million hectares in Africa have been acquired for carbon offset projects.
The global carbon market is expected to quadruple in the next seven years, and over half of the top ten global landowners now claim participation in carbon and biodiversity markets. “Net zero” has become a pretext for expelling communities from their lands.
While global land policy debates in the past ten years have focused on limiting the harm of land grabs on people and nature, the scale and severity of these trends demand a shift from regulation to redistribution.
Neoliberal deregulation, as well as trade and other economic policies have fueled the massive transfer of land and wealth to the corporate sector and the ultra-rich. Redistributive policies are needed to reverse this trend.
Tackling land inequality is crucial for a more just and sustainable future. However, only very few countries implement land policies and agrarian reform programs that actively attempt to redistribute and return land to dispossessed peoples and communities.
Grabbing
The international human rights framework requires states to structure their land tenure systems in ways that ensure broad and equitable distribution of natural resources and their sustainable use.
The tools at the disposal of governments include redistribution, restitution, and the protection of collective and customary tenure systems, as well as measures such as ceilings on land ownership (including by corporate entities), protection and facilitation of use rights over publicly owned land, and participatory and inclusive land use planning.
These efforts must also be matched by redistributive fiscal policies, such as progressive land and property taxes, which remain regressive or ineffective in most countries today, thus perpetuating inequality and enabling wealth concentration.
Because land grabbing is driven by global capital and the accumulation of land across jurisdictions by transnational corporations and financial entities, international cooperation is essential.
Sustainable
The upcoming International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) in Colombia in February 2026 offers a critical moment for governments to agree on measures that end land grabbing, reverse land concentration, and ensure broad and sustainable distribution of natural resources.
To be effective, these discussions should connect with initiatives on a global tax convention and an international mechanism to address sovereign debt, empowering states to have the fiscal space to implement human rights-based, redistributive policies and just transitions.
Also important are binding legal provisions that prevent transnational corporations from using the power of their money to bend national rules in their pursuit of profits.
In a world facing intersecting crises – climate breakdown, food insecurity, persisting poverty and social inequality – and a reconfiguration of the global balance of power, there is an opportunity to move away from neoliberal policies that have benefited very few, and to create a more just and sustainable global future for all.
These Authors
Shalmali Guttal is senior analyst with focus on the Global South and a member of IPES-Food. Philip Seufert is coordinator of FIAN International's land programme.
The authors contacted the companies named in the report and offered a right of reply. Where the companies responded the information provided was incorporated into the research findings.