The Twenty-first Century Agricultural Land Rush - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 833

or sustainability, for example. The liberal perspective is common within many govern-
ments,inmajordevelopmentorganizationssuchastheWorldBank,andamongaca-
demics(e.g.,Timmer2010;RobertsonandPinstrup-Andersen2010;WorldBank2010).
Analternativeperspectiveemphasizes,interalia,historicalcontingencyinthecon-
struction of the political economy and the cyclical nature of capitalist growth and
transformation. This perspective holds that alternatives to large-scale agro-industrial
expansion are real and viable. The land grab is seen as deepening the contradictions
of the agro-industrial food system, and thus is ultimately self-defeating. The practical
issue for this perspective is how to discourage land grabbing and encourage alternative
models of agricultural production. Actors adopting this alternative perspective include
anumberofscholarsandactivistorganizations(Araghi2009;DeSchutter2011;Borras
andFranco2010a;McCarthyet al.2011;LaVíaCampesina2011b;McMichael2012).
These two perspectives inform distinct political responses to the land grab phenom-
enon. The main political response from the liberal position, which views large-scale
agro-industrial expansion as inevitable, has been to propose a “Code of Conduct” for
land deals to ensure that land transactions conform to general principles of justice and
sustainability (von Braun and Meinzen-Dick 2009; Deininger 2011).24 International
organizations—FAO,IFAD,UNCTAD,andtheWorldBank—havedevelopedasetof
“PrinciplesforResponsibleAgriculturalInvestment”(RAI)asacontributiontowarda
code of conduct. These principles, and the advocacy for a code of conduct generally,
are premised on engaging “multiple stakeholders” to manage the perceived “risks” of
large-scale land transactions in order to achieve “win-win” solutions for development
(Borras and Franco 2010a, 510). hey have been presented in various international
fora, and are a part of the ongoing debate in the UN system regarding a global political
responsetothenewwaveoflandinvestment(DeSchutter2011,254-255).
Actors taking an alternative perspective tend to oppose large-scale agro-industrial
expansionattheexpenseofsmallholders,andtheyhavearguedthattheRAIprinciples,
by reframing the risks of land grabbing (violence, dispossession, ecological degradation,
foodinsecurity)asmanageablesideefectsofan“essentiallybeneicialcure”(Borrasand
Franco2010a,512),servetolegitimizelanddealsthatshouldbeunacceptableinprinciple
(DeSchutter2011,254).heyarguetothecontrarythatthecurrentpatternoflarge-scale
agricultural investment is supportive neither of food security nor of social justice.25
One alternative to the code-of-conduct approach comes from advocates of a “rights-
based” response to land grabbing that centers on the “right to food” (see Kotwal and
Ramaswami, this volume), enshrined as an international legal human right in the
UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(Article25.1)andtheInternationalCovenant
onEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(Article11).Someactorsalsoextrapolatefrom
therighttofoodabasic“righttoland”(Borras2008,265).herights-basedapproach
has institutional backing in land-grabbing debates through the office of the UN Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter. De Schutter has put forward a set
of“MinimumHumanRightsPrinciplesApplicabletoLarge-ScaleLandAcquisitionsor
Leases”thatmandatestheprioritizationofthelong-termneedsandhumanrightsoflocal
communities in the context of any land deal. According to De Schutter,