Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:49:55.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Threats of, and Responses to, Agribusiness Land Acquisitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2019

Karol BOUDREAUX  and
Scott SCHANG
Karol BOUDREAUX
Affiliation:
Chief Program Officer, Landesa.
Scott SCHANG*
Affiliation:
Senior Director, Corporate Engagement, Landesa.
*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

corporate social responsibilityhuman rightsindigenous peoplesland grabbing
Type
Developments in the Field – Special Issue on Agribusiness and Accountability
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , July 2019 , pp. 365 - 371
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Land Matrix’, https://landmatrix.org/en/ (accessed 1 October 2018).

2 Elizabeth Wickeri and Anil Kalhan, ‘Land Rights Issues in International Human Rights Law’, https://www.ihrb.org/pdf/Land_Rights_Issues_in_International_HRL.pdf (accessed 29 October 2018).

3 Global Witness, ‘At What Cost?: Irresponsible Business and the Murder of Land and Environmental Defenders in 2017’ (2018), https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/at-what-cost/ (accessed 26 October 2018).

4 International Finance Corporation, ‘IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability’ (2012), https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/Topics_Ext_Content/IFC_External_Corporate_Site/Sustainability-At-IFC/Policies-Standards/Performance-Standards (accessed 5 October 2018).

5 For a list of pertinent guidelines and standards in the agribusiness sector, see ‘Agribusiness: Risks and Impacts in Conflict-Affected Areas’, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Economy_AgribusinessRisksImpacts_EN_2015.pdf (accessed 5 October 2018).

6 Global Reporting Initiative, ‘Land Tenure Rights: The Need for Greater Transparency Among Companies Worldwide’ (2016), https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-G4-Land-Tenure-Rights.pdf (accessed 4 October 2018).

7 United Nations Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Land and Human Rights: Standards and Applications’ (2015), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Land_HR-StandardsApplications.pdf (accessed 6 November 2018).

8 The Evidence Project, ‘Oxfam’s Behind the Brands Campaign’ (2017), http://evidenceproject.popcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Case-Study-2-Oxfam.pdf (accessed 30 September 2018).

9 Rights and Resources Initiative, ‘Strategic Initiatives: Land Rights Now Alliance’, https://rightsandresources.org/en/work-impact/strategic-initiatives/land-rights-now-alliance/#.W8zJkWhKg2w (accessed 4 October 2018).

10 ‘The Kilimanjaro Initiative: Mobilizing Rural Women’, http://www.actionaid.org/2016/09/kilimanjaro-initiative-mobilising-rural-women (accessed 4 October 2018).

11 ‘Charter of Demands: Actualizing Women’s Land Rights in Africa’, https://tgnp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-Kilimanjaro-Rural-Womens-Final-charter-of-demands-.pdf (accessed 6 October 2018).

12 Wangu Mwangi, ‘African Union Summit Reviews Progress on Gender Equality, Women’s Land Rights’, IISD (20 July 2016), http://sdg.iisd.org/news/african-union-summit-reviews-progress-on-gender-equality-womens-land-rights/ (accessed 6 October 2018).

13 These rights are articulated in Articles 14.2 and 16.1(h) of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as well as the CEDAW General Recommendation No. 34, para 56.

14 SFI 2015-2019 Forest Management Standard, Objectives 7 and 9 (2015).

15 Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, People and The Community, Criteria 2 and 6 (applicable laws are complied with, and land and property rights are acknowledged and respected), https://grsbeef.org/page-1861846 (accessed 5 October 2018).

16 Bonsucro, Production Standard 1.2 and accompanying text (2016); Roundtable on Responsible Soy Standard for Responsible Soy Production, Principles 1.1, 1.2, 3.2 (2017).

17 Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil: Principles and Criteria 2018, 4.8.

18 Ibid, 4.4 and 4.5.

19 Kimberly Carlson et al, ‘Effect of Palm Oil Sustainability Certification on Deforestation and Fire in Indonesia’, 115 PNAS 121–126 (2 January 2018); and Nick Kilvert, ‘“Sustainable Palm Oil” May not Be so Sustainable After All’ (5 July 2018), https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-06-16/orangutan-video-comes-as-sustainable-palm-oil-questioned/9811642 (accessed 9 November 2018).

20 Unilever’s sourcing policy states that ‘land rights of communities, including indigenous peoples, will be protected and promoted’. Unilever Responsible Sourcing Policy (2017), https://www.unilever.com/Images/responsible-sourcing-policy-interactive-final_tcm244-504736_en.pdf (accessed 9 November 2018).

21 ‘The Coca-Cola Company Commitment: Land Rights and Sugar’, https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2013/11/proposal-to-oxfam-on-land-tenure-and-sugar.pdf (accessed 9 November 2018). Coca-Cola’s Human Rights Policy calls for protecting the land rights of local farmers and communities: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/human-rights-policy (accessed 9 November 2018).

22 ‘PepsiCo is committed to doing business the right way and has a zero tolerance for illegal activities in our supply chain and land displacements of any legitimate land tenure holders which are contrary to the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards.’ ‘PepsiCo Land Policy’ (18 March 2014), http://www.pepsico.com/docs/album/policies-doc/pepsico_land_policy.pdf (accessed 9 November 2018).

23 See Illovo Sugar, Group Cane Supply Initiatives, http://www.illovosugarafrica.com/Strategic-initiatives/Group-Cane-Supply-Initiatives (accessed 19 December 2018).

24 See, e.g., Interlaken Group, ‘Land Legacy Issues: Guidance on Corporate Responsibility’ (September 2017), https://www.interlakengroup.org/downloads/Interlaken_Group_Land_Legacy_Guidance-67109ad801cc7478fb8be798115b72d1.pdf?vsn=d (accessed 12 November 2018); New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, ‘Analytical Framework for Land-Based Investments in African Agriculture’, https://www.growafrica.com/sites/default/files/Analytical-framework-for-land-based-investments-in-African-agriculture_0.pdf (accessed 12 November 2018); and Landesa, ‘Responsible Investment in Property and Land’, https://ripl.landesa.org (accessed 12 November 2018).

25 See, e.g., Sylvia Kay, ‘Positive Investment Alternatives to Large Scale Land Acquisitions or Leases’ (June 2010), https://www.tni.org/files/download/positive_investment_alternatives32ppwithoutbleed.pdf (accessed 12 November 2018); Lorenzo Cotula and Rebeca Leonard, ‘Alternatives to Land Acquisitions: Agricultural Investment and Collaborative Business Models’ (November 2010), http://pubs.iied.org/12567IIED/ (accessed 12 November 2018).