Land Grabbing Concept: Global and National Aspects

21
DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2024-68-4-108-120
EDN: QORNLU
Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH), 6, Miusskaya Sq., Moscow, 125047, Russian Federation.
 

Received 01.11.2023. Revised 22.12.2023. Accepted 13.02.2024.

Abstract. The correct understanding of the current world political agenda associated with changes in the global agrifood system is accompanied by the development of new analytical models. The present work is also devoted to the study of the “Land Grabbing” concept as one of innovative tools of the theoretical apparatus of political science. Using the method of historical and logical unity, the author evaluates the role of the “Land Grabbing” strategy, in comparison with “Double Movement” theory and the typology of international food regimes. In particular, the article is devoted to the study of the stages of emergence and evolution of this concept, unfamiliar to the Russian academic community. Based on a comparative analysis, all theories used to describe the expropriation of ecosystem resources are compared. As a result of the procedure, the compilation feature of all related concepts is diagnosed, and the hidden discursive disagreement is eliminated. Using the method of critical analysis, the author develops a “Two-phase model of the occupation of control”, which emphasizes the dominant position of the Conflict paradigm – the semantic module of the idea of “Land Grabbing”. In the experimental part of the article, the effectiveness of the “Land Grabbing” concept is verified on a specific example – the agricultural sector of the Russian Federation. Via the method of statistical observation, the author analyzes the dynamics of property rights and systematizes the register of commercial contracts concluded with agricultural land in the period from 2000 to 2023. It is proved that foreign corporations are the ultimate beneficiaries in more than 90% of cases of all land transactions. Relying on the method of secondary data analysis, the author identifies the largest commercial owners of agricultural land and the leading countries in offshore exploitation of the general domestic ecosystem resource. By the visualization method, a “Tree-factor model of Land Grabbing” is constructed, the indicators of which are the processes of Corporatization, Foreignization and Catastrophization. In the final part of the work, the author simulates a predictive scenario for the transformation of the global food system based on a retrospective analysis of international food regimes. At the same time, a legal examination of the strategy for national security of the Russian Federation is conducted. Drawing on the analysis performed, the author formulates recommendations relevant to the current geopolitical situation.

Keywords: land grabbing, food sovereignty, global food security, food regime, international political economy, neoextractivism, neocolonialism


REFERENCES

1. Sehn Korting M., Assumpção e Lima D., Sobreiro Filho J. Brazilian Agricultural Frontier: Land Grabbing, Land Policy, and Conflicts. IDS Bulletin: Transforming Development Knowledge, 2023, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 73-88. DOI: 10.19088/1968-2023.100

2. Arrighi G., Silver B.J. Chaos and governance in the modern world system. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1999. 320 p.

3. Fama M., Conti M. Food Security and Agricultural Crises in a “Financialized Food Regime”. Cambio. Rivista sulle trasformazioni sociali, 2022, vol. 12, no. 23, pp. 85-97. DOI: 10.36253/cambio-13164

4. Sauer S., Borras S. ‘Land Grabbing’ e ‘Green Grabbing’: uma leitura da ‘corrida na produção acadêmica’ sobre a apropriação global de terras. Revista Campo-Território, 2016, vol. 11, n. 23, pp. 6-42. DOI: 10.14393/RCT112301

5. Iza Pereira L. A acumulação por despossessão na análise do land grabbing. Caderno Prudentino de Geografia, Presidente Prudente, 2019, vol. 3, no. 41, pp. 3-20. Available at: https://revista.fct.unesp.br/index.php/cpg/article/view/6096 (accessed 15.08.2023).

6. Mazo F.A., Garcia J. Deciphering the phenomenon of land grabbing within the framework of the European Union: legal-political responses and impact of biofuels production. Revista Jurídica Piélagus, 2020, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 142-160. Available at: https://investiga.upo.es/documentos/6381692318a84b178feaa613 (accessed 15.08.2023).

7. Kalabamu F., Lyamuya P. Small-scale land grabbing in Greater Gaborone, Botswana. Town and Regional Planning, 2021, no. 78, pp. 34-45. DOI: 10.18820/2415-0495/trp78i1.3

8. Borras S., Kay C., Gomez S., Wilkinson J. Land Grabbing and Global Capitalist Accumulation: Key Features in Latin America. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 2012, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 402-416. DOI: 10.1080/02255189.2012.745394

9. Borras S.M., Franco J.C. Global Land Grabbing and Trajectories of Agrarian Change: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 2012, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 34-59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00339.x

10. Yang B., He J. Global Land Grabbing: A Critical Review of Case Studies across the World. Land, 2021, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1-19. DOI: 10.3390/land10030324

11. Fairhead J., Leach M., Scoones I. Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2012, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 237-261. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2012.671770

12. Corson C., MacDonald K.I., Neimark B. Grabbing “Green”: Markets, Environmental Governance and the Materialization of Natural Capital. Human Geography, 2013, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/194277861300600101

13. Bae Y.J. Analyzing the Changes of the Meaning of Customary Land in the Context of Land Grabbing in Malawi. Land, 2021, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 3-21. DOI: 10.3390/land10080836

14. Schneider M. Developing the meat grab. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2014, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 613-633. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2014.918959

15. Foster J.B., Holleman H. The Theory of Unequal Ecological Exchange: A Marx-Odum Dialectic. Journal of Peasant Studies, 2014, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 199-233. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2014.889687

16. Dunlap A. Wind, coal, and copper: the politics of land grabbing, counterinsurgency, and the social engineering of extraction. Globalizations, 2019, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2019.1682789

17. Parola G., Toffoletto L. Land-grabbing in and by Brazil: victim and buyer. Revista de Direito Econômico e Socioambiental, 2019, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 3-29. DOI: 10.7213/rev.dir.econ.soc.v10i2

18. Borras S.M., Franco J.C., Isakson S.R., Levidow L., Vervest P. The rise of flex crops and commodities: Implications for research. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2015, vol. 43, no. 93-115. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2015.1036417

19. Malov A.V. The food sovereignty policy of Latin American States in the 21st century (the case study of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia). Diss. Cand. Sci. (Politics). Lomonosov Moscow State University. Moscow, 2020. (In Russ.)

20. Van Der Ploeg J.D., Franco J.C., Borras S.M. Land concentration and land grabbing in Europe: a preliminary analysis. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 2015, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 147-162. DOI: 10.1080/02255189.2015.1027673

21. Franco J., Mehta L., Veldwisch G.J. The Global Politics of Water Grabbing. Third World Quarterly, 2013, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1651-1675. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2013.843852

22. Stabler M., Letschert J., Fujitani M., Partelow S. Fish grabbing: Weak governance and productive waters are targets for distant water fishing. PLoS ONE, 2022, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278481

23. Foley P., Mather C. Ocean grabbing, terraqueous territoriality and social development. Territory, Politics, Governance, 2019, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 297-315. DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2018.1442245

24. Islam K.K., Hyakumura K. The potential perils of Sal forests land grabbing in Bangladesh: an analysis of economic, social and ecological perspectives. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2021, vol. 23, pp. 15368-15390. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01301-7

25. Boechat C.A., Toledo C.A., Leite A.C.G. Arqueologia da questão agrária no Brasil: do labor grabbing ao land grabbing. Revista Campo Território, 2019, vol. 13, no. 31, pp. 57-82. DOI: 10.14393/RCT133103

26. Marx K. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 1978. 788 p.

27. Ribot J.C., Peluso N.L. A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology, 2003, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 153-181. DOI: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x 

28. Hall D., Hirsch P., Li T. Powers of Exclusion. Land Dilemmas in Southeast Asia. Singapore, National University of Singapore Press, 2011. 257 p.

29. Keucheyan R. Insuring climate change: new risks and the financialization of nature. Development and Change, 2018, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 484-501. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12367 

30. McMichael P. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2009, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 139-169. DOI: 10.1080/03066150902820354

31. Gill S. Market civilization, new constitutionalism and world order. Gill S., Cutler A., eds. New Constitutionalism and World Order. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 29-44.

32. Kotzé L.J., Kim R.E. Towards planetary nexus governance in the Anthropocene: An earth system law perspective. Global Policy, 2022, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 86-97. DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13149

33. Northcott T. et al. Ecological regulation for healthy and sustainable food systems: responding to the global rise of ultra-processed foods. Agriculture and Human Values, 2023, pp. 1-27. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-022-10412-4

34. Trebbin A. Land Grabbing and Jatropha in India: An Analysis of ‘Hyped’ Discourse on The Subject. Land, 2021, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1-21. DOI: 10.3390/land10101063

35. Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 1968, vol. 162, no. 3859, pp. 1243-1248. Available at: https://archive.org/details/Hardin19681/page/n3/mode/2up (accessed 15.08.2023).

36. Davis M. Planet of Slums. New York, Verso, 2007. 228 p.

37. De Soto H. The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York, Basic Books, 2000. 275 p.

38. Benda-Beckmann von F. Mysteries of capital or mystification of legal property? Focaal – European Journal of Anthropology, 2003, vol. 41, pp. 187-191. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40128857_Mysteries_of_capital_or_mystification_of_legal_property (accessed 15.08.2023).

39. Cochrane L. Land Grabbing. Kaplan D. M. eds. Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht, 2019, pp. 1737-1741. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-024-1179-9_590

40. Deininger K., Byerlee D., Lindsay J., Norton A., Selod H., Stickler M. Rising global interest in farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits? Washington, The World Bank, 2011. 214 p.

41. Chiurciu I.A., Prisacariu M., Certan I., Chereji A.I. Land-grabbing phenomena in the context of rural development. Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, 2023, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 131-138. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370063313_LAND-GRABBING_PHENOMENA_IN_THE_CONTEXT_OF_RURAL_DEVELOPMENT (accessed 15.08.2023).

42. Li T. Land’s End: Capitalist relations on an indigenous frontier. Durham, Duke University Press, 2014. 240 p.

43. Hossain N., Green D. Living on a spike: How is the 2011 food price crisis affecting poor people? Cowley, Oxfam International, 2011. 47 p.

44. Ashukem J.-N., Ngang C.C. Land grabbing and the implications for the right to development in Africa. African Human Rights Law Journal, 2022, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 403-425. DOI: 10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a4

45. Busscher N., Parra C., Vanclay F. Environmental justice implications of land grabbing for industrial agriculture and forestry in Argentina. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2020, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 500-522. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1595546


SOURCES

1. World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Yearbook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, FAO, 2022. 382 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2211en

2. The Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL/visualize (accessed 15.08.2023).

3. Soils, where food begins: how can soils continue to sustain the growing need for food production in the current fertilizer crisis? Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils: Soil letters No. 6, February. Rome, FAO, 2023. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/cc4199en/cc4199en.pdf (accessed 15.08.2023).

4. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Releasing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Union. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF (accessed 15.08.2023).

5. Tirana Declaration “Securing land access for the poor in times of intensified natural resources competition”. The International Land Coalition, Albania, 24–26.05.2011. Available at: https://www.landcoalition.org/en/about-ilc/governance/assemblydeclarations/2011-tirana/ (accessed 15.08.2023).

6. Calabar Declaration. World Rainforest Movement, 18.11.2013. Available at: https://www.wrm.org.uy/declarations/calabar-declaration (accessed 15.08.2023).

7. Resolution on Tanzania, notably the issue of land grabbing. European Parliament, 2015/2604 (RSP), 12.03.2015. Available at: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1381655&t=d&l=en (accessed 15.08.2023).

8. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. Human Rights Council. Adopted on 28 September 2018. Available at: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1197482/ (accessed 15.08.2023).

9. Report on the state and use of agricultural lands of the Russian Federation in 2020. Moscow, “Rosinformagrotech”, 2022. 384 p. (In Russ.) Available at: https://rosinformagrotech.ru/data/elektronnye-kopii-izdanij/normativnye-dokumenty-spravochniki-katalogi-i-dr/send/66-normativnye-dokumenty-spravochniki-katalogi/1586-doklad-o-sostoyanii-selskokhozyajstvennykh-zemel-selskokhozyajstvennogo-naznacheniya-rossijskoj-federatsii-v-2020-godu (accessed 15.08.2023).

10. Land Code of the Russian Federation No. 136 of October 25, 2001. (In Russ.) Available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/17478/page/1 (accessed 15.08.2023).


For citation:
Malov A. Land Grabbing Concept: Global and National Aspects. World Eonomy and International Relations, 2024, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 108-120. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2024-68-4-108-120 EDN: QORNLU



Comments (0)

No comments

Add comment







Indexed

 

 

 

 

Dear authors! Please note that in the VAK List of peer-reviewed scientific journals, in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of candidate and doctor of sciences should be published for the “MEMO Journal” the following specialties are recorded:
economic sciences:
5.2.5. World Economy.
5.2.1. Economic Theory
5.2.3. Regional and Branch Economics
political sciences:
5.5.4. International Relations
5.5.1. History and Theory of Politics
5.5.2. Political Institutions, Processes, Technologies

 

Current Issue
2024, vol. 68, No. 5
Topical Themes of the Issue:
  • Are There Any Ways to Break Through the Korean Nuclear Impasse?
  • Contemporary U.S. Taiwan Policy: Balancing on the Edge
  • The Gulf Monarchies’ Vision of the Global Order Transformations and the Russian Place in It
  • At Post-Soviet Space
Submit an Article
INVITATION FOR PUBLICATION
The Editorial Board invites authors to write analytical articles on the following topics:
  • changes in the processes of globalization in modern conditions
  • formation of the new world order
  • shifts in civilization at the stage of transition to a digital society

The editors are also interested in publishing synthesis articles / scientific reviews revealing the main trends in the development of certain regions of the world - Latin America, Africa, South Asia, etc.