Large-scale land acquisitions for agricultural purposes by both foreign and national investors have increased in the last decades. These investments are generally implemented through a privatisation of previously communally held land and resources. Despite their many uses and functions for local people, the commons are often described as “idle land” and thus prove to be an ideal target for foreign and local investments.

Due to increasing national and international pressure, a growing number of investors are however designing measures to compensate local people for the loss of farmland and communally held resources. These “new commons”, which take on different forms in different contexts (ranging from infrastructure development, community funds, Fairtrade Premiums to outgrower schemes) are generally supposed to benefit the community as a whole and lead to poverty reduction and development.

Looking at two large-scale land acquisitions in Malawi and Ghana, we will highlight what is lost as the “old” commons are enclosed and point out some shortcomings of the new commons that are created. We will highlight that not only do these new commons often benefit mainly privileged local elite, but they also create a number of new dependencies, which tie the local communities’ fortunes to the fortune of the investors and decrease their resiliency in the face of shocks. The cases highlights the strategic use of compensation resources as a cover-up for exploitation of local land and its related resources in the name of rural development through contract farming.

Tanzania has been prospecting for foreign investments since the mid-1980s when it changed to a neoliberal political and economic system after nearly 20 years of Socialism. Many investors focused on biofuel projects between 2005 and 2008, many of which seem to have failed. The more recent investment undertakings' focus is on food and forestry production and impact the use of former common pool resources on the land, especially common pool resources such as water, pasture and forests for subsistence and cash. This is done in the context of village land that is legally held in common, based on the Village Land Act of 1999.

I have conducted research on LSLA for forest plantations by a British-based investor called the New Forests Company (NFC) in Kilolo district, Iringa region in 2015 and 2016. In this presentation I will focus on the impacts of the commons enclosure created by this land deal that impacts women differently than men; and especially the formers' ability to fulfill their care work as they lose access to land and related common pool resources (e.g, fruit trees) for which mostly only men are compensated. Further, I contrast these impacts to the compensation received as a new commons - which largely is perceived as insufficient because of lacking in transparency in pay-out schemes and power relations within families and villages, scarce jobs available for local people generally and extremely low for women, and development and infrastructure projects are badly adapted to local needs.

The competition for land between the ethnic communities has been observed in Kenya even before the coming of the British settlers. Whereas before the abundance of land and relatively low population maintained an amicable relations between the ethnic groups, currently, the rise in population and scarcity of land and landlessness has sparked ethnic tensions.

Using narratives and excerpts from my PhD fieldwork study, I carry out an analysis of how the concept and experience of being an Ogiek person in these settlement schemes has shaped day to day negotiations of rights to property and land around the Mau Forest area. Men have to assert their masculinities within the new found geographical spaces whilst women have to pool into their own resources in order to maintain their agency

However, funds from the sale of the land and a fund from MASEN, labelled as, "fruits of the growth", through which all local people can access funds through local economic initiatives for their livelihood. These compensation initiatives serve as new forms of commons to the local communities in place of the loss of land (old commons). Therefore, the investment acts as a catalyst, through which the natural resources (land, water, and plants) is now transformed into new monetary resources that local actors can tap, under specific conditions, to sustain their livelihood. Pertinent, however, is the question of access (i.e., inclusion and exclusion) regulations, and equality of opportunities for meeting the different livelihood conditions previously supported by the old commons.

In this context, the paper explores the emic perspective on gains and losses to the local population because of the investment with a focus on gender relations at the household level. Specific questions to assess the case study include: How does the invested the livelihood activities of the local people and how do local people benefit from the project and its related new forms of commons? What conditions inhibit local people's from benefiting from the resultant new commons, who benefits and who loses from it? Finally, how are these new commons regulated and which regulatory institutions govern these new commons?

It also hints at how commons disappear and new commons emerge and the processes of accessing the resulting new commons as well as the unequal level of access to these new resources compared to losses in a gender relation perspective.

Gold mining occurs in the same geographic areas as agriculture. They compete for similar productive inputs, like land, water and labour. Though gold mining and agriculture co-exist and interact as vital livelihood strategies rural communities in Ghana, their interaction creates troubling imbalances. Gold mining and agriculture complement each other in terms of income and labour flows. But they also compete significantly for land and water resources. This has brought in its wake contested claims over land and water resources.

The increasing extraction of gold has encouraged the privatization of existing public property rights and use over land and created new commons in the form of compensation for rural farmers affected by large-scale mining investments. As a result, multinational mining companies have undertaken projects in the form of corporate social responsibility. But do these 'new commons' deliver as they promise? How do existing institutional structures contribute to mitigating the cost associated with contested commons?

This study provides greater understanding into the mining-agriculture nexus from the standpoint of contested commons. This is important to to ensure that the two economic activities interact in a positive and balanced manner, producing social and economic development without disrupting the livelihoods of rural people whose lives are tied to farming in Ghana.