Affiliation:
1. 1Centre for Sustainable Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2. 2Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Abstract
Agroecological transitions aim to redesign the structure of contemporary global food systems to improve food security, ecosystem health, community development, worker livelihoods, and social and ecological justice. A fundamental principle of agroecology is the responsible governance of land. Yet land—as a concept, resource, and territory—is heavily contested through processes of colonization, enclosure, commodification, and financialization. The governance of land and natural resources is also intimately tied to questions of power and privilege—Who governs land? Who benefits, and who is excluded? These questions presuppose an ontological understanding of land that can also be contested: What is land, what purpose(s) does it serve, and for whom? In this article, we review key concepts at the intersection of land governance and agroecology. We take a case study approach to highlight how tensions around ontologies of land mediate agroecological futures in 2 settler-colonial contexts: Brazil and Canada. We then explore how land governance for agroecology might be experienced and understood across different land governance institutions—including relational and community commons, private property regimes, and new forms of hybrid land relations that challenge land privatization. We discuss how these land regimes influence people, landscapes, and agroecological outcomes and conclude with a consideration of the access, equity, and justice implications of different land governance approaches for sustainable food systems.
Publisher
University of California Press
Subject
Atmospheric Science,Geology,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology,Ecology,Environmental Engineering,Oceanography
Reference159 articles.
1. Agrawal, A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development29(10), 1649–1672. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8.
2. Agência
Pública
, Anjos, AB, Fonseca, B, Barros, C, da Silva, JC, Oliveira, R, Domenici, T. 2020. The Mining map: Who’s eyeing the gold on Brazil’s indigenous lands?Menlo Park, CA: Mongabay. Available athttps://news.mongabay.com/2020/05/the-mining-map-whos-eyeing-the-gold-on-brazils-indigenous-lands/. Accessed 26 October 2021.
3. Alkire, S, Meinzen-Dick, R, Peterman, A, Quisumbing, A, Seymour, G, Vaz, A. 2013. The Women’s empowerment in agriculture index. World Development52: 71–91. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06.007.
4. Alves, V. n.d.Funai tem corte orçamentário e passa por dificuldade. Available athttps://www.camara.leg.br/tv/519964-funai-tem-corte-orcamentario-e-passa-por-dificuldade/. Accessed 29 August 2020.
5. ANA. 2018. Povos Indígenas demarcam território no IV ENA. Available athttps://agroecologia.org.br/2018/06/03/povos-indigenas-demarcam-territorio-no-iv-ena/. Accessed 18 September 2020.