December, 04 2012, 02:24pm EDT
Do You Know What Your Pension Fund is Doing in Africa?
New Report Looks at Private Equity Funds Betting Heavily on Agriculture
OAKLAND, Calif.
Following the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the collapse of the housing market, private equity funds have found a new lucrative soft commodity market to invest in--farmland. In a short period of time, obscured from public view, the flow of private capital into farmland and agriculture has grown dramatically worldwide.
In recent years, the private financial sector has already invested between $10 to $25 billion in farmland and agriculture with little to no oversight; given current investment trends, this amount might double or triple in the coming years. Although agricultural funds are portrayed as positive social investment to help alleviate hunger and the effects of climate change, evidence demonstrates that large land deals are often detrimental to food security, local livelihoods, and the environment--yet little is known about the specific firms and funds driving this investment.
Betting on World Agriculture: US Private Equity Managers Eye Agricultural Returns, a new report from the Oakland Institute (OI), focuses on the private investment vehicles that advertise and manage investment opportunities in farmlands and agriculture for investors including pension funds, university and foundation endowments, and high net worth individuals. Based on months of research, involving literature review, interviews with fund managers, and examination of public as well confidential internal documents, the report casts a light on this hidden trend by profiling private investment vehicles that are either based in the US or aggressively promoting farmland and agriculture in the US.
Asking pointed and value-based questions that go beyond the usual terrain of yields and risks, the new report sheds light on the complex world of funds and investment activity and the ethical obligations involved. By doing so, the report highlights how these funds are managed and the type of investments that are being made in various regions of the world in order to inform concerned citizens, investors, and policy makers about the domestic and international impacts of such investments.
"The large buying power of these groups warrants an investigation into the overall impact of this investment activity on economic development, food production, rights of local communities, and the environment," said Caroline Bergdolt, coauthor of the report. "In addition, for those already promoting social and environmental returns to raise funds and garner special incentives from governments, demonstrating a lasting, meaningful impact should be a must. Yet, a lack of information prevails," she continued.
Considered the next big thing and "[farmland] gold with a coupon,"[1] with some funds aiming to become the "Exxon Mobil"[2] equivalent of the agricultural sector, there is much cause for concern. Within this context, it is particularly troubling that information regarding agricultural and land investments is highly inaccessible, densely layered, and hidden from the public.
In fact, of the 23 intermediaries researched and profiled, including Global Environmental Fund, George Soros, Farm Lands of Africa, and the Westchester Group and Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), only five responded to requests for direct contact after the Institute's repeated attempts.
"The fund managers are not forthcoming around details of investments and in general operate under a veil of secrecy. Some companies use reverse mergers with video game-sounding entities like 'Kryptic Entertainment' to create US-based public shells as well as onshore-offshore partnerships," said Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute and coauthor of the report. "At best, fund managers give lip service to the belief that they are contributing to a win-win situation where they can make enormous amounts of money while contributing to food production and poverty alleviation."
One CEO, Mark Keegan of Farm Lands of Africa, went so far as to say to OI researchers:
"I have absolutely no doubt that what we are doing here is 'good' because of the VERY pressing need for food and the poverty. I am unashamed of wanting to make money from it and super confident that the imperative of profit will succeed where aid-driven ventures have failed. Having said that, I am also aware that success will bring social upheaval. I never stop pointing this out to African governments so that they can plan whilst they have time to think about it."[3]
Mittal responded, "Planning for and responding to social upheaval isn't part of the investment strategy or commitment of private equity investing in agriculture. Just like the land deals themselves, it is extremely difficult for concerned citizens, students, teachers, and others to find out about agricultural funds. Public information is limited and fund managers maintain an aura of secrecy. There would be no need to delve into the details of the funds if they weren't having an adverse--and growing--impact on peoples' lives."
The new report looks specifically at intermediaries--venture capital firms, traditional private equity funds, large investment firms with specialized boutique firms or divisions, hedge funds that are evolving into more diverse investment firms, as well as billionaires, large agribusinesses and public pension funds with their own private investment structures--that advertise and manage investment opportunities.
The Oakland Institute has gained a reputation for taking on difficult areas in issues related to land investment after publishing a series of reports and briefs in the last three years. The OI's findings of further political destabilization, impoverishment, and environmental devastation as a result of these investments has led to this new study on private funds and their outsized consequences and lack of accountability.
With a preface by Dan Apfel, executive director of Responsible Endowments Coalition, this report is clearly responding to a call from citizens who want to know more about where their money is, and what it is doing.
According to the Institute, "We believe that more often than not, when given a choice, and armed with better information, people prefer that their funds are invested elsewhere and not in short-sighted endeavors that have long-term and devastating effects."
Download the report
Read the Frequently Asked Questions about this research
___
[1] Chris Erickson, managing director at HighQuest Partners, an agribusiness consulting firm. Reuters, March 13, 2012.
[2] Joseph Carvin, Hedge Fund Manager, Altima.
[3] Mark Keegan, Director, CEO Farm Lands of Guinea, in email correspondence with OI.
The Oakland Institute is a policy think tank whose mission is to increase public participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic and environmental issues in both national and international forums.
LATEST NEWS
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says Bombing of Iran to Continue 'Uninterrupted' After Reported Killing of Supreme Leader
"For Iranians already suffering under repression, sanctions, and economic hardship, this escalation will mean only more pain," said the president of the National Iranian American Council.
Feb 28, 2026
US President Donald Trump and Israeli officials claimed Iran's supreme leader, 86-year-old Ali Khamenei, was killed in an airstrike on Saturday, along with other senior Iranian figures.
The US and Israeli militaries targeted Khamenei and other Iranian leaders with their opening barrage of strikes, part of an operation that was reportedly planned for months—with the launch date decided weeks ago—even as Trump claimed to be open to a diplomatic off-ramp. NPR, citing an anonymous source, reported that an Israeli strike killed Khamenei.
Trump made clear that Khamenei's alleged killing, which the Iranian government has not confirmed, would not stop the deadly military onslaught, which the US president launched in coordination with Israel without authorization from Congress and in clear violation of international law. The US president said explicitly in remarks early Saturday that his goal was to topple the Iranian government—something that analysts stressed is not synonymous with assassinating the supreme leader.
In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote that "heavy and pinpoint bombing... will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!"
Iran has responded to the US and Israeli assault with drone and missile attacks on Israel and American military bases across the Middle East. The US Central Command said in a statement that there have not yet been any reports of American casualties and that "damage to US installations was minimal."
In Iran, more than 200 people have been killed by US-Israeli airstrikes and around 700 others injured, according to the Iranian Red Crescent, a toll that's sure to grow in the coming days as rescue workers search through rubble. More than 80 people—mostly young children—were killed in an Israeli strike on a school in southern Iran.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said in a statement that "for Iranians already suffering under repression, sanctions, and economic hardship, this escalation will mean only more pain."
“Bombing Tehran will not bring security. It will endanger civilians, place US service members at risk, empower the most repressive and violent elements inside Iran, and destabilize the region for years to come," said Abdi. "Congress must act immediately to reassert its constitutional authority and halt further escalation. The pending War Powers resolutions must come to a vote without delay. Lawmakers must make clear that there is no authorization for war with Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular