Continuous engagement

During our webinar on 10 December, we

• Reflected on how TLI’s approaches and tools have evolved through country application. 
• Shared evidence and stories of impact from different countries and stakeholders  
• Discussed how these methods can inform ongoing policy, partnership and ways to sustain responsible, inclusive land investment practices. 

What you missed – at a glance

If you were unable to attend the webinar live, here is what participants heard directly from governments, companies and civil society:

• Why responsible land investment is a leverage point for transforming food systems – and why it must go beyond safeguards and compliance
• How multi-stakeholder platforms are improving policy coherence, trust and coordination in five countries
• How communities of practice are building real negotiation power and legal literacy at community level
• Why governments see the Risk Reward Model as a way to reduce investor risk while strengthening social and environmental protection
• How Business Transformation Labs are helping companies redesign land access, livelihoods and traceability models

Listen to the recording now or read the full webinar overview below for detailed country examples, quotes and reflections.

https://youtu.be/3JN6RqhGprg

Setting the scene – why transformative land investment?

Opening the webinar, Dominique le Roux framed the discussion around a central challenge: how to align investor business models with sustainable food systems principles in a context of climate stress, food insecurity and growing pressure on land. The session brought together perspectives from companies, communities and governments, reflecting TLI’s core belief that “real change happens between actors, when people sit down together, when incentives start to shift, and when shared priorities take shape.”

This framing was reinforced in the opening remarks from Selina Bezzola, Policy Advisor for Health and Food at the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), speaking from the Swiss Embassy in Ethiopia. She emphasised that TLI was deliberately not designed as a checklist or blueprint, but as a facilitative process:

“Not by offering a strict blueprint or just another checklist of safeguards, but by focusing on facilitation, ongoing engagement, and co‑creating solutions with everyone involved.”

For SDC, she noted, the programme’s value lay in its ability to build trust, strengthen governance and enable locally driven solutions in a space where trade-offs and unintended impacts are almost inevitable. Importantly, she highlighted that TLI’s results were not only technical, but relational – shifting how companies, governments and communities engage with one another.

The TLI approach – from fragmented efforts to coherent action

George Schoneveld, TLI Project Coordinator, provided a concise overview of the programme’s rationale and architecture. He described how climate change, insecure tenure, biodiversity loss and market failures reinforce each other, trapping food systems in cycles of low productivity and high risk. Against this backdrop, TLI identified agribusiness investment as a critical leverage point – but only if investment practices themselves are transformed.

A key dilemma, he argued, is that while an estimated USD 350 billion per year is needed to transform food systems, private capital often generates hidden social and environmental costs that outweigh the value of the investment itself. TLI’s response has been to work simultaneously at multiple levels, through four interconnected pillars:

• A Risk Reward Model (RRM) to assess the social and environmental desirability of proposed investments before they are approved.
• Multi‑stakeholder platforms (MSPs) to align policy, regulatory frameworks and incentives across ministries and sectors.
• Communities of practice (CoPs) to strengthen the voice, skills and coordination of civil society actors working with affected communities.
• Business Transformation Labs (BTLs) to support companies directly in redesigning their business models through evidence, dialogue and co‑creation.

“There are no isolated interventions that can break this cycle alone,” Schoneveld noted. “We need to change entire systems from multiple angles at once.”

Panel 1: Multi‑stakeholder platforms and communities of practice

The first panel focused on how TLI has strengthened collaboration, dialogue and policy influence through national multi‑stakeholder platforms and communities of practice.

What are MSPs and CoPs?

Emily Gallagher, TLI lead for country‑level initiatives, explained that MSPs were conceived as national consultative bodies bringing together government agencies, civil society organisations and private sector actors involved in land and agricultural investment. Their work has included:

• Assessing the enabling environment for responsible and transformative investment.
• Identifying gaps in laws, policies and incentives.
• Developing action plans and thematic working groups.
• Tracking progress over time through baselining and annual check‑ins.

Communities of practice, by contrast, focus on civil society organisations rooted in local realities. Through needs assessments, joint learning plans and collective resource mobilisation, CoPs have built practical capacity around issues such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), community engagement and constructive engagement with investors.

Country experiences – trust, evidence and coordination

Laos provided a strong example of how an existing national dialogue framework can be leveraged. Kate Rickersey (Land Equity International) and Thipavong Boupha (TLI Laos) described how the MSP built on familiar concepts of Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI), enabling government legitimacy while progressively bringing in civil society, farmer representatives, cooperatives and investors.

A recurring theme was the importance of evidence‑based discussion. Participatory diagnostics, literature reviews and enabling environment assessments created a shared factual foundation, allowing stakeholders to agree on priorities such as green finance, access to sustainable finance and capacity development around contract farming.

“Our MSP is not just a place to meet and talk,” Boupha stressed. “We come with in‑depth analysis, agree on actions, and feed these back into national development planning.”

In Ethiopia, Mahlet Yohannes highlighted how open and transparent dialogue helped move stakeholders away from mutual blame towards shared responsibility. MSP discussions fed directly into national guidelines on responsible agricultural investment, clarifying issues such as FPIC, community safeguarding, financing incentives and the distinction between corporate social responsibility and genuine responsible investment.

“Each party could see that they had roles in the problems – and that they could be part of the solutions.”

From Mozambique, Silvana Nhaca of the Civil Society Alliance against Land Grabbing (ASCUT) illustrated how the community of practice strengthened civil society’s ability to engage both companies and government. Training and collective learning enabled organisations to better support communities in understanding their rights, documenting impacts and engaging more confidently in dialogue.

In Ethiopia, Taye Minale of the Ethiopian Land Administration Professionals Association underscored the practical skills gained through CoPs: legal literacy, awareness of grievance mechanisms, negotiation skills and strategies to counter unfair practices. These capacities, he argued, are essential if communities are to protect their interests when approached by investors or officials.

Panel 2: Risk Reward Models (RRM) and Business Transformation Labs (BTL)

The second panel turned to the tools and processes working directly with investors and governments to reshape investment practices.

Government perspective – Laos

Madame Thavichanh Thiengthepvongsa, Deputy Director General of the Investment Promotion and Management Office under the Prime Minister’s Office in Laos, described how her office has collaborated with TLI since 2022. She highlighted the Risk Reward Model as a particularly promising innovation:

“It is easy to use, provides quick results, is cost‑effective, and helps assess whether proposed investments bring more risk or more reward for society, the environment and the economy.”

She noted that the model has potential to reduce land‑related obstacles, duplication in approval processes, investor risk and government workload, while strengthening social and environmental safeguards. She also reflected on the value of Business Transformation Labs as a form of ‘aftercare’, supporting investors throughout the project lifecycle with evidence, co‑creation and locally grounded action plans.

Investor perspectives – Ghana and Myanmar

Mark Achel, Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs at Golden Exotics in Ghana, described the Business Transformation Labs and MSPs as transformative for large‑scale agribusiness. He emphasised how structured dialogue with chiefs, government agencies, NGOs and communities changed how land acquisition, livelihoods and inclusion are handled in practice.

Examples included:

• Engaging not only land title holders, but also women, migrant workers and other marginalised users of land.
• Integrating alternative livelihood strategies, such as grazing arrangements, into land acquisition plans.
• Reserving 10–20% of acquired land for biodiversity conservation.

“There is peace, because everybody feels recognised and part of the process,” he noted.

From Myanmar, Dr Yu Sein, CEO of Dawei Golden Land Natural Rubber Company and Chair of the Myanmar Sustainable Natural Rubber Association, reflected on the pressures facing exporters supplying EU and Japanese markets. Compliance with EUDR, ESG and due‑diligence requirements has made traceability, geolocation and farmer engagement unavoidable – but also challenging in a context dominated by low‑income smallholders.

Through the Business Transformation Labs, his company has been able to:

• Engage directly with smallholder farmers to explain why data, standards and traceability matter.
• Build trust around how information is used.
• Share price premiums gained through responsible practices back to farmers.

“Without responsible investment, we cannot access these markets. But with the right process, we can improve livelihoods at the same time.”

Questions and reflections from participants

Participants raised questions about how TLI supports difficult negotiations, ensures credible verification and responds to investor demands for evidence and transparency. Speakers emphasised that:

• Robust social and environmental baselines provide a foundation for accountability and learning.
• Co‑creation workshops work because they are grounded in prior research, village‑level engagement and skilled facilitation.
• TLI’s value lies in making constraints and trade‑offs explicit, enabling realistic action plans rather than abstract commitments.

Closing reflections – what stands out

In his closing remarks, George Schoneveld reflected on the striking similarities across very different country contexts:

“The shared needs for coordination, better understanding and inclusive dialogue come through again and again.”

He emphasised that no single actor can drive transformation alone, and that TLI’s approach only works because it is designed with – and continually adapted by – governments, companies, civil society and communities themselves.

As the initial phase of TLI draws to a close, the message from the webinar was clear: the tools, partnerships and roadmaps now in place provide a foundation for scaling and adaptation elsewhere. Interest from participants across regions suggests strong demand for approaches that combine evidence, facilitation and genuine co‑creation.