COAG: Investment Funds Control €100bn in Spanish Farmland

Investment funds accumulate €100 billion in Spanish farmland

How much of Spain's agricultural land is already owned by investment funds rather than farmers? According to the Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos (COAG), approximately 900 investment funds manage the equivalent of more than €100 billion in farmland across the Iberian Peninsula. The sale and purchase of rural properties has grown by 20% annually since 2019, and the organization does not hesitate to label these vehicles as speculative. This complaint is not idle grumbling; it points to a structural shift in who owns the land that produces our food.

What COAG warns about land concentration

The organization's diagnosis rests on three pillars. The first is concentration: 6.6% of sector companies control 42% of the value of Spanish agricultural production. The second is oligopoly: few actors dominate a significant share of the Iberian agricultural market. The third is the direct consequence of the previous two: these few companies are the ones benefiting from the rise in farm income, which was 11% in 2024.

The side effect most concerning to the sector is the barrier to entry for young farmers. If the price per hectare is set by a fund that doesn't need the land to be profitable to buy it, the farmer's child cannot compete. It is the old story of the speculator who wins by holding out, not by producing.

The risk of speculation with food

Here the analysis splits. Some argue that the real danger is not foreign ownership itself, but monopolization: capital that can afford not to produce or to hoard specific products to move their prices. The proposed remedy from this perspective is restrictive legislation preventing large areas of arable land from accumulating in few hands.

Opposing this is the argument that land is unprofitable, which is why it is sold. If farming doesn't make money, small owners eventually sell out cheaply. The counter-argument is uncomfortable: if it weren't profitable, why are funds buying? Land, they argue, is a future business due to carbon credits and what lies ahead.

---

The precedent of Castilla-La Mancha and the Land Bank

The conversation turns to existing regulations. In Castilla-La Mancha, a declaration of non-compliance with social use requirements occurs under the Forced Expropriation Law of 1954 if a plot remains in the inventory of underutilized soil for two consecutive years. This entails the temporary transfer of its use to the Land Bank for a period between 10 and 25 years.

This data is relevant because it dispels the notion that no tools exist. They do. Whether they are applied is another matter. This enters political skepticism: the suspicion that no parliamentary party will repeal the framework that allowed this situation. Agricultural policy, it is recalled, tended toward pogre land distribution until the late 90s and early 2000s because concentration was seen as a problem. The shift, some argue, came when foreign capital started buying.

Why the EU-Mercosur deal is seen as the final blow

COAG and other agricultural organizations reject the trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur countries. They call it the definitive blow to European agriculture and livestock and ask the Spanish government not to ratify it. The reasoning is simple: if borders open to production that doesn't meet the same standards, local producers cannot compete. The debate on food sovereignty ceases to be abstract.

The bitter irony comes from those who recall that Spain is one of the EU countries that complies most with community guidelines, while others ignore what doesn't suit them. "Smart thieves, suckers for everyone else," summarizes this current.

Who is behind the funds and why it matters

The lingering question is who is behind them. Names like Gates and Soros are thrown around without any material confirmation. What is sustained is that the phenomenon has been brewing for decades: first, activity is made unprofitable through regulations and arbitrariness, then land is bought cheaply, and meanwhile solar farms are installed temporarily to collect subsidies before returning the land to cultivation.

The result, according to this narrative, is a new feudalism with nuances: not serfs tied to the land, but owners tied to a lease contract with a fund they will never see. The historical parallel is debatable, but the direction of movement is not.

With €100 billion already at stake and 20% annual growth, the question isn't whether Spanish countryside is changing hands. It's how much is left to change.