Abstract
Commercial interest in land (large-scale land acquisition, LaSLA) in developing countries is a hot topic for debate and its potential consequences are contentious: proponents conceive of it as much needed investment into the formerly neglected agricultural sector while opponents point to severe social and environmental effects. This contribution discusses, if and how sustainability standards and codes of conduct can contribute towards governing LaSLA. Based on the WCED-definition we develop a conception of sustainability that allows framing potential negative effects as issues of intra- and intergenerational justice. In a second step we specify these claims of justice, drawing on a human rights approach as well as three guidelines for sustainable development, namely, efficiency, consistency and resilience, to arrive at six guidelines for social and environmental sustainability criteria of LaSLA. We compare our suggestions with existing proposals for sustainability standards of LaSLA and with the certification schemes for sustainable production of bioenergy. From this we draw lessons for development and implementation of sustainability standards for LaSLA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The observable debate regarding SD can be differentiated into two main threads: While proponents of sustainability primarily emphasize the need to sustain (parts of) nature, proponents of (sustainable) development emphasizes the necessity for contemporary development in enhancing the lot of contemporary poor (Burger and Christen 2010, p. 791). By contrast we take the Brundtland-definition to overcome this artificial dichotomy by emphasizing that SD encompasses both direct and indirect claims for justice as equally important and mutually constraining each other. Accordingly, in this contribution we will use the terms SD and sustainability interchangeably.
In the subsequent section we will specify pattern and currency in terms of a human rights perspective. In so far as human rights primarily (if not exclusively) cover political/procedural issues, our interpretation of pattern and currency of justice thus transcends the realm of distributive justice.
Sen (2004) points out that “[t]he invoking of human rights tends to come mostly from those who are concerned with changing the world rather than interpreting it” while concurrently “the central idea of human rights […] is seen by many as foundationally dubious and lacking in cogency” (ibid.: 316) We share Sen’s perception that there is need for a theory of human rights. However, even sketching an outline of such a theory would vastly exceed the scope of this paper. Besides the work of Sen cited above, corresponding endeavors are inter alia undertaken by Shue (1996), Beitz (2011), Griffin (2009) and Forst (2005).
This also entails that we confine our analysis to human rights and do not discuss other legal remedies that could be taken into account in reference to LaLSA. For a discussion of such other legal remedies, cf. the contributions in Heri et al. (2011).
For a comprehensive overview of human rights possibly affected by businesses cf. Ruggie (2008).
Article 17 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights, cf. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml.
Access to land for indigenous peoples has been given specific forms of protection under international law: articles 13–19 of ILO Convention No. 169 (1989) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries relate to land rights. However, these rights refer to indigenous communities only. In contrast, our paper takes a universal scope. That is, we focus on claims of justice that refer to all (contemporary and future) human beings. We therefore do not take land rights for indigenous people into account in our discussion.
Cotula (2008) provides a list of the legal sources of the right to food. They inter alia point to article 25 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which recognizes “the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food […]” (Art. 11(1)); and “the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger” (Art. 11(2)). In regard to the latter, they point out that “[t]he meaning of these provisions has been clarified by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in its General Comment No. 12 of 1999. Other general comments are also relevant to the right to food […] While not binding per se, General Comments constitute the authoritative interpretation of legally binding treaty provisions, issued by the UN body responsible for monitoring the application of the treaty.”Cotula (2008).
We do not want to be understood as claiming that eviction of people who have no legal claim to a certain piece of land is morally acceptable. However, in this paper we confine ourselves to an analysis of the issue from the perspective of human rights. In so far as to date there is no human right to land, this analysis yields that from a human rights perspective, eviction might be acceptable under certain circumstances.
The following section partially draws on Voget-Kleschin in this issue.
Cf. Voget-Kleschin in this issue. In this paper, Voget-Kleschin argues in favor of two further guidelines, namely questioning population growth and limiting consumption. However, these guidelines do refer to consumption rather than production. They are therefore not taken into account in developing sustainability criteria for LaSLA-projects understood as projects that aim at the production of agricultural products.
In this context we use the term resilience solely as a heading for a guideline for sustainable development. However, in the scientific literature the term is usually used with a much broader meaning.
We have limited our overview to international guidelines, not including CoCs proposed by national institutions.
UK-RTFO requires a report, the socio-economic standards are not obligatory, but the NTA 8080 socio-economic standards must be met.
RSB measures food security on the basis of food availability, food access (for example hindered by unemployment), utilization and stability (van Dam et al. 2010).
References
African Union (2009). Declaration on land issues and challenges in africa. http://www.gltn.net/images/stories/assembly_decision_-_land.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2010.
Anseeuw, W., Boche, M., Breu, T., Giger, M., Lay, J., & Messerli, P., et al. (2012). Transnational land deals for agriculture in the global South: Analytical report based on the land matrix database—April 2012. Number 1: April 2012. http://www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/publication/1254/Analytical%20Report%20Web.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2012.
Beitz, C. R. (2011). The idea of human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Braun, J. von, & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2009). “Land grabbing” by foreign investors in developing countries: risks and opportunities. http://www.landcoalition.org/pdf/ifpri_land_grabbing_apr_09.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2010.
Blumenthal, G. R. (2009). Investor’s perspectives on farmland. In M. Kugelman & S. L. Levenstein (Eds.), Land grab? The race for the worlds farmland (pp. 55–68).
Borras, S., & Franco, J. (2010). From threat to opportunity? Problems with the Idea of a “Code of Conduct” for Land- Grabbing. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 13, 507–523.
Burger, P., & Christen, M. (2010). Towards a capability appraoch of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production (in press), 1–9.
CESCR (Committee on Economic, S. a. C. r. (Ed.)) (1999). Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights: general comment 12: The right to adequate food (art. 11).
Cotula, L. (Ed.) (2007). Changes in “customary” land tenure systems in Africa.
Cotula, L. (2008). The right to food and resource access: Conceptual links. In L. Cotula, M. Djiré, & R. W. Tenga (Eds.), The right to food and access to natural resources: Using human rights arguments and mechanisms to improve resource access for the rural poor. Rome.
Cotula, L., Djiré, M., & Tenga, R. W. (Eds.) (2008). The right to food and access to natural resources: Using human rights arguments and mechanisms to improve resource access for the rural poor. Rome.
Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R., & Keeley, J. (2009). Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa.
de Schutter, O. (2009). Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: A set of minimum principles and measures to address the human rights challenge. http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20100305_a-hrc-13-33-add2_land-principles_en.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2010.
Deininger, K. (2011). Challenges posed by the new wave of farmland investment. Journal of Peasant Studies (Vol. 38, No. 2), 217–247.
Deininger, K., & Byerlee, D. (2011). Rising global interest in farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits?. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/ESW_Sept7_final_final.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2012.
Dufey, A., Vermeulen, S., & Vorley, B. (2007). Biofuels: Strategic Choices for Commodity Dependent Developing Countries. http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/G02587.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2010.
FAO (11 May 2012). Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of National Food Security. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/nr/land_tenure/pdf/VG_Final_May_2012.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2012.
FAO (2009). Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security. Rom. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/Summit/Docs/Final_Declaration/WSFS09_Declaration.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2012.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation) (2010). Bioenergy and Food security: The BEFS analysis for Tanzania. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1544e/i1544e.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010.
Forst, R. (2005). Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung: Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit (1st edn). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (May 09th 2005).
Grain (2010). The World Bank Report on Land Grabbing: Beyond the Smoke and Mirrors. http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=70. Accessed 1 August 2012.
Griffin, J. (2009). On human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, R. (2011). The many faces of the investor rush in Southern Africa: Towards a typology of commercial land deals (ICAS Review Paper Series 2). University of Groningen, Netherlands. http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/Hall%20ICAS%20WP%202.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2011.
Heri, S. (2011). Human rights mechanisms to Safeguard the food/land rights of people facing land use shifts. In S. Heri, A. ten Kate, & S. van der Wal (Eds.), International instruments influencing the rights of people facing investments in agricultural land: Simone Heri, World Trade Institute Albert ten Kate and Sanne van der Wal, SOMO Elisabeth Bürgi Bonanomi, World Trade Institute Katja Gehne, World Trade Institute (pp. 1–30, Commercial Pressures on Land).
Heri, S., Kate, A. ten, & van der Wal, S. (Eds.) (2011). International instruments influencing the rights of people facing investments in agricultural land: Simone Heri, World Trade Institute Albert ten Kate and Sanne van der Wal, SOMO Elisabeth Bürgi Bonanomi, World Trade Institute Katja Gehne, World Trade Institute (Commercial Pressures on Land).
La Tran-Nguyen, A. (2010). Global land grabbing: Issues and solutions. Lausanne.
Lin, J. (2012). Governing Biofuels: A principal-agent analysis of the european union biofuels certification regime and the clean development mechanism. Journal of Environmental Law,. doi:10.1093/jel/eqr025.
Meinzen-Dick, R., & Markelova, H. (2009). Necessary Nuance: Toward a Code of Conduct in Foreign Land Deals. In M. Kugelman & S. L. Levenstein (Eds.), Land grab? The race for the worlds farmland (pp. 69–81).
Merlet, M., & Jamart, C. (2009). Commercial Pressures on land wordwide: Issues and conceptual framework. http://www.landcoalition.org/pdf/09_05_Conceptual_framework_ENG.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2010.
Montemayor, R. Q. (2009). Overseas farmland investments: boon or bane for farmers in Asia? In M. Kugelman & S. L. Levenstein (Eds.), Land grab? The race for the worlds farmland (pp. 95–107).
Nolte, K. (2012). Large-scale agricultural investments under poor land governance systems: actors and institutions in the case of Zambia, Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, Washington, DC, April, 23.
OECD (2006). Policy framework for Investment. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/36671400.pdf.
OECD (2011). OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: recommendations for responsible business conduct in a global context. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/29/48004323.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2012.
Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2008). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit (2nd edn, Beiträge zur Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit, Vol. 1). Marburg: Metropolis-Verl.
Page, E. A. (2007a). Intergenerational justice of what: Welfare, resources or capabilities? Environmental Politics, 16(3), 453–469.
Page, E. A. (2007b). Justice between generations: Investigating a sufficientarian approach. Journal of Global Ethics, 3(1), 3–20.
Partzsch, L. (2011). The legitimacy of biofuel certification. Agriculture and Human Values,. doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9235-4.
Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 363, 447–465.
Pretty, J., Noble, A. D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R., de Vries, F. W. T., et al. (2006). Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(4), 1114–1119.
Ruggie, J. (2008). Protect, respect and remedy: a framework for business and human rights. http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2010.
Sawyer, S., & Gomez, E. (2008). United National Resarch Institute Society Development of Transnational Governmentality and Resource Extraction: Indigenous Peoples, Multinational Corporations, Multilateral Institutions and the State 3.
Scarlat, N. D. J., & Dallemand, J. F. (2011). Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview. Energy Policy, 39, 1630–1646.
Sen, A. K. (1981). Poverty and famines. Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. K. (2004). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(4), 315–356.
Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice (1st ed.). London: Allen Lane.
Shue, H. (1996). Basic rights: Subsistence, affluence, and U.S. foreign policy (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Spieldoch, A., & Murphy, S. (2009). Agricultural land acquisitions: Implications for food security and poverty alleviation. In M. Kugelman & S. L. Levenstein (Eds.), Land grab? The race for the worlds farmland (pp. 39–53).
van Dam, J., Junginger, M., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2010). From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 2445–2472.
Vermeulen, S., & Cotula, L. (2010). Making the most of agricultural investment: A survey of business models that provide opportunities for smallholders. http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/12566IIED.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2010.
World Bank. (2010). Rising global interest in farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits? http://www.donorplatform.org/content/view/455/209/. Accessed 13 September 2010.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Kerstin Nolte, Konrad Ott and Tanja von Egan-Krieger and an anonymous reviewer for discussion and advice. Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge financial support of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Voget-Kleschin, L., Stephan, S. The Potential of Standards and Codes of Conduct in Governing Large-Scale Land Acquisition in Developing Countries Towards Sustainability. J Agric Environ Ethics 26, 1157–1179 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9454-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9454-y