The Global Land Rush: Markets, Rights, and the Politics of Food
The Global Land Rush: Markets, Rights, and the Politics of Food
复制标题
全球土地热潮：市场、权利和食品政治
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Smita Narula
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Smita Narula
在过去五年中，购买和租赁发展中国家农地的兴趣急剧上升。2008年的粮食危机助长了这一趋势，其主导者是国内外的国家和私人投资者。投资者正在对各种全球力量做出反应：一些人正在确保自己的粮食供应，而另一些人则将土地作为越来越有前途的经济回报来源。支持者认为，这些投资可以支持东道国的经济发展，同时促进全球粮食生产。但批评者指责说，这些“土地掠夺”无视土地使用者的权利，进一步使本已脆弱的群体边缘化：小农、牧民和土著人民，他们正被迫离开自己的土地和生存所必需的资源。在全球抗议活动不断增加的情况下，出现了两个主要框架来评估和质疑全球对农业用地的争夺。本文对这两种方法进行了批判性的探讨。第一部分概述了大规模土地转让的驱动因素和影响，以及所涉及的问题土地交易。第二部分列出了我所说的市场加方法和基于权利的方法的轮廓--这些交易的支持者和反对者分别假设的框架。第三部分分析了每个框架在权利和风险以及土地分配方面的主要概念差异。我认为，市场加的方法容忍和促进权利侵犯，而基于权利的方法设置了一个规范的基线，否定这些影响，并解决关键的分配问题。第三部分评估了每种方法在实践中有效监管土地交易的潜力。我发现，这两种方法强调程序保障措施，以保护土地使用者的权利，并认为这些保障措施是无效的，在争夺权力的动态在发挥土地交易。第四部分提出了具体的改革建议，以帮助增强受土地交易影响最严重的社区的权能，并认为国际行为体必须更多地参与确保权利保护。
In the past five years, interest in purchasing and leasing agricultural land in developing countries has skyrocketed. This trend, which was facilitated by the 2008 food crisis, is led by state and private investors, both domestic and foreign. Investors are responding to a variety of global forces: Some are securing their own food supply, while others are capitalizing on land as an increasingly promising source of financial returns. Proponents argue that these investments can support economic development in host states while boosting global food production. But critics charge that these "land grabs" disregard land users’ rights and further marginalize already vulnerable groups: small-scale farmers, pastoralists, and indigenous peoples who are being displaced from their land and from resources essential to their survival. Amid mounting global protests, two dominant frameworks have emerged to assess and contest the global rush for agricultural land. This Article critically examines both approaches.Part I provides an overview of the drivers and impacts of large-scale land transfers and the problematic land transactions involved. Part II sets out the contours of what I term the market-plus approach and the rights-based approach — the frameworks assumed respectively by proponents and opponents of these deals. Part III analyzes key conceptual differences in each framework’s approach to rights and risks and to land distribution. I argue that the market-plus approach tolerates and facilitates rights violations, whereas the rights-based approach sets a normative baseline that repudiates these impacts and addresses key distributive concerns. Part III assesses the potential of each approach to effectively regulate land deals in practice. I find that both approaches emphasize procedural safeguards to protect land users’ rights and argue that these safeguards are ineffective at contesting the power dynamics at play in land transactions. Part IV proposes concrete reforms to help empower communities most affected by land deals and argues that international actors must be more involved in securing rights protections.