Indiana, other states increasingly restricting foreign land buys

Foreign Ownership of American Agricultural Land Raises Concerns

Foreign entities own a significant portion of American agricultural land, with approximately 40 million acres under their ownership. Countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Germany hold the majority of this acreage, as revealed by data from the U.S. Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act.

Concerns about Foreign Ownership and National Security

Recent incidents involving technology scares, such as the case of a Chinese spy balloon that traveled across the U.S. in February, have raised concerns about foreign ownership by “adversarial” nations. These concerns revolve around the potential impact on food and energy supply chains, as well as the possibility of foreign governments having control or access to sensitive information.

Zoe Liu, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, expressed these concerns during a panel discussion at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Legislation Addressing Foreign Ownership

In response to these concerns, several dozen bills have been introduced from 2021 to the present day, according to the National Agricultural Law Center’s website. While Indiana was the only state to enact a law restricting certain foreign investments in agricultural land in 2022, more states are now taking action.

The existing laws are often broadly written, including Indiana’s initial legislation. In 2022, Indiana passed a law that prohibits “foreign business entities” from acquiring agricultural land in the state for crop farming or timber production. The law also prevents foreigners who were already grandfathered into ownership from transferring the land to other foreigners.

However, enforcement of these laws has been relatively lax across states. In 2023, more specific restrictions targeting certain countries, particularly China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, have been implemented.

Specific Restrictions and Enforcement

States have tailored their laws by specifically blocking governments or political parties and using federal definitions. For instance, Indiana’s recent legislative session approved language that prohibits the state and local governments from contracting with “prohibited” entities, including citizens and companies from the aforementioned countries and any others deemed a threat by the governor. This restriction applies to “critical infrastructure” projects, which encompass various sectors such as manufacturing, utilities, and hazardous waste storage.

Furthermore, Senate Enrolled Act 477 in Indiana prohibits these entities from purchasing or leasing land adjacent to military facilities and Indiana National Guard assets.

With the implementation of these new laws, which came into effect on July 1, there is an expectation of increased enforcement due to the heightened attention on this issue.

Federal Restrictions and Future Legislation

Although more states are enacting legislation on foreign ownership, attention is now shifting towards the federal government. Currently, there are no federal restrictions in place. However, work on the next five-year farm bill, a significant piece of legislation, is underway. It is anticipated that this bill will serve as a vehicle for implementing foreign ownership laws.

Micah Brown, an attorney at the National Agricultural Law Center, believes that states will continue to push for stricter regulations in 2024.

Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger
• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The article discusses concerns about foreign ownership of American agricultural land and its potential impact on food supply chains, energy supply chains, and national security. These issues are directly connected to SDG 2, which aims to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The article also mentions specific countries that own agricultural land, highlighting the international aspect of the issue and its connection to SDG 16, which focuses on peace, justice, and strong institutions. Additionally, the article touches on the potential environmental impact of foreign ownership of land, aligning with SDG 15, which aims to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production.
• Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
• Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.

The article highlights concerns about the impact of foreign ownership on food supply chains and energy supply chains. To address these concerns, it is important to ensure sustainable food production systems and resilient agricultural practices, as stated in Target 2.4 of SDG 2. The article also mentions the potential environmental impact of land ownership, emphasizing the need for the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, as stated in Target 15.1 of SDG 15. Additionally, the article raises concerns about potential control or access to sensitive information, which relates to the need to reduce corruption and bribery, as stated in Target 16.5 of SDG 16.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 2.4.1: Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture.
• Indicator 15.1.1: Forest area as a proportion of total land area.
• Indicator 16.5.1: Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months.

The article does not explicitly mention indicators, but based on the identified targets, the following indicators can be used to measure progress:

– Indicator 2.4.1: This indicator measures the proportion of agricultural area that adopts sustainable and productive agricultural practices. It can be used to assess the extent to which sustainable food production systems are being implemented.

– Indicator 15.1.1: This indicator measures the forest area as a proportion of total land area. It can be used to assess the conservation and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems.

– Indicator 16.5.1: This indicator measures the proportion of individuals who have had contact with public officials and have experienced bribery or requests for bribes. It can be used to assess progress in reducing corruption and bribery in relation to land ownership and sensitive information.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: route-fifty.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.